I APPEAL# PART C -Decision under Appeal The decision under appeal is the reconsideration decision of the Ministry for Children and Family Development (the "ministry") dated September 18, 2014 which held that the appellant was not eligible for a Child Care Subsidy for March 1, 2014 to March 31, 2014 because the ministry determined that the appellant did not meet the eligibility requirements set out in section 13 of the Child Care Subsidy Regulation. Specifically, the ministry held that the appellant's eligibility for the Child Care Subsidy began on April 1, 2014 because her application was signed and dated on April 14, 2014, and there was no evidence to establish that the ministry made an administrative error. PART D -Relevant Legislation Child Care Subsidy Act (CCSA) section 4 Child Care Subsidy Regulation (CCSR) sections 4 and 13 EAAT 003(10/06/01)
APPEAL# I PART E -Summary of Facts With the consent of both parties, the hearing was conducted as a written hearing, pursuant to section 22(3)(b) of the Employment and Assistance Act. The documentary evidence before the minister at reconsideration was the following: 1. The appellant's payslips for March 10, 2014 to March 23, 2014 and for March 24, 2014 to April 6, 2014. 2. The appellant's Child Care Subsidy Application dated April 14, 2014. 3. The appellant's Request for Reconsideration which included the following reason for requesting reconsideration: "I got wrong information and direction from representative at Child Care Subsidy Service Centre regarding pay slip. Please see attached letter for your reference." Attached was a letter from the appellant dated August 27, 2014 which read as follows: "I'm writing to request your reconsideration. I've sent my son to chile (sic) care since March 2014 and I am eligible for Child Care Subsidy for the period between April 1, 2014. I called to Child Care Subsidy Centre and the representative said because I applied Child Care Subsidy in April 2014 not in March. The reason why I sent application in April 2014 because of my pay slip. I started working on 1 o fh of March 2014 and I receive my pay slip bi weekly. So, in March I had only one pay slip on me. So, I asked HR at our company to get 2 nd pay slip earlier but in company system they can't give you the slip before pay day HR manager said. Therefore, I called to Child Care Subsidy Service Centre and explained my situation regarding bi weekly pay slip and started working on 1o fh of March and only have one pay slip on hand. The representative said I must provide at least two pay slips no matter what I can reimburse my money after I send application to the centre late. That's why I felt free to send application in April 2014 after I received my 2 nd pay slip. Recently I realized that there is no subsidy for March 2014 and I called the Child Care Subsidy Service Centre again. But another representative said I should have applied in March with 1 pay slip because every company is different. Some company pay bi weekly and some company pay every week. I totally got wrong information from the 1 st representative. My husband started going to school from March 2014 and we had financial difficulty from that point and there is no way I delayed the application to April 2014 if I had known I could send one pay slip to apply. I tried to find the person who spoke with me and gave me wrong information but I couldn't find her. I truly need your reconsideration of your decision and $600 is hugh (sic) amount for our family. Thank you for your time. I'm looking forward to hearing from you." EAAT 003( 10/06/01)
A _ PPEAL # � The appellant submitted a letter dated October 18 m , 2013 (which should have read "2014") together with her Notice of Appeal. In her Notice of Appeal she stated that she disagreed with the Ministry's reconsideration decision because: "The representative told me I must provide 2 pay slips and Child Care Subsidy Service Centre doesn't accep (sic) only 1 pay slip. Thurs, I waited for my 2 nd pay slip and it caused that I sent application in April. I attach my Jetter for your reference." The attached letter of October 18, 2014 read as follows: "I'm writing to advise I received letter from Employment and Assistance Appeal Tribunal (see attached 1). I am ready to go to next steps for a written hearing. As I've been insisting I got wrong information and direction form (sic) representative in Child Care Subsidy Centre and I cannot accept that I'm not eligible for Child Care Subsidy for the period between March 1, 2014 and March 31 2014. Because representative asked me to wait until I get 2 pay slips as supporting documents I submitted it after the submission deadline. She also told me even though I applied Child Care Subsidy late I can get reimburse later on. For the detail explanation I attach the letter I sent to Child Care Subsidy Service Centre. I tried to find the person who gave me wrong information and direction but Subsidy Service Centre said there is no recode (sic) for that. And, I really need the information. I believe someone may still get wrong information and wrong direction for the payslip and submission deadline as me. Your reconsideration of my subsidy would be appreciated." The panel finds that the appellant's statement in her Notice of Appeal and her attached letter go to argument (see Part F below). The ministry provided a response dated November 4, 2014 that advised that the ministry would not provide a written submission as it is relying upon the reconsideration decision. EMT 003(10/06/01)
APPEAL# I PART F -Reasons for Panel Decision The issue in this appeal is whether the ministry reasonably denied the appellant's request for a Child Care Subsidy for March 1, 2014 to March 31, 2014 based upon section 13 of the Child Care Subsidy Regulation because it determined that the appellant's eligibility for the Child Care Subsidy began on April 1, 2014 because her application was signed and dated on April 14, 2014, and there was no evidence to establish that the ministry made an administrative error. Specifically, the issue is whether the ministry's decision is reasonably supported by the evidence, or is a reasonable application of the legislation in the circumstances of the appellant. The relevant legislation is the following: From the CCSA: Child care subsidies 4 Subject to the regulations, the minister may pay child care subsidies. From the CCSR: How to apply for a subsidy 4 (1) To be eligible for a child care subsidy, a parent must (a) complete an application in the form required by the minister, (b) supply the minister with the social insurance number of the parent and each adult dependant, and (c) supply the minister with proof of the identity of each member of the family and proof of eligibility for a child care subsidy. (2) Only one parent in the family may apply for a child care subsidy. (3) Repealed. [B.C. Reg. 187/2007, s. (b).] (4) A parent ceases to be eligible for a child care subsidy on the date that is 12 months after the date of application under subsection (1) or this subsection, as applicable, unless, before that date, the parent completes an application referred to in subsection (1) and otherwise complies with that subsection. Will a subsidy be paid for child care provided before completion of the application? 13 (1) A child care subsidy may be paid from the first day of the month in which the parent completes an application under section 4. (2) If an administrative error has been made, a child care subsidy may be paid for child care provided in the 30 days before the parent completes an application under section 4. The appellant's submission claims that she was given incorrect information in a phone call to the ministry regarding the process for applying for the child care subsidy. No date for the phone call was given. She states that she delayed submitting her application for the child care subsidy because a ministry representative had told her that the application had to be accompanied by two pay slips. Since she had started work on March 10 she did not receive her second (biweekly) payslip until some time in early April. Consequently, she submitted the Child Care Subsidy application signed and dated EAAT 003( 10/06/01)
on A pr i l 14, 201 4 and b e came elig ible t o r eceive a ppellant claims i n her letter o f Aug ust 27, 2 014 tha w a s advi se d by a not h er mi nist r y worker th at s he should a ccompanied by th e on e pay slip sh e had recei ved find th e minis try representati ve who had gi ven he her. While the appell ant does not spec ifi cal ly say s o , the infe a p plica tion in March w ith the o n e p a y sl ip b e cause of informatio th e m inistry and sh e o therwis e wo uld have submitt t h at this w ould have resulted i n he r rece iv i ng th e chi M oreover, th e appell an t s eems to be im pl y ing t h at the a ppell ant the wr on g i nformation. Sec tion 13(2) be pai d f or c h i ld ca re provided in th e 30 days be f ore appl i ca t io n if an administrati ve error ha s bee n m a In the Reconsider a tion D ecis io n, the ministry noted on April 3 0 , 2 014 wit h a mini stry repres entative in requir ed to s u bmit i n formation rega rdin g her spouse's c addi tion, ministr y records s howed t hat the ap pellan 2 014 to inqui re why th e appella nt ha d not received m inist ry d id not sp ecify a ny o the r recorde d con tacts c o n clud ed t hat t h e re was n o evidence to establ is h that an d t hat t he app e llant's el igibility f or th e chi ld care subsidy applicati o n w as sig ned and dat ed on Apr il 14, 2014 T h e panel's decision The pan el not e s th a t th e a pp ellant sta tes in her let r e al i zed t hat t here is no s ub s idy fo r M ar ch 2 014 . realized th is e arli e r si nce she a lso n otes t hat t he c (sic) amo unt f or ou r famil y." M o r e over , the panel not to subs tantiat e he r claim that she sp ok e wit h a ministry repr t h e p a y slip documenta t ion t ha t was r e qu i red with th of the ministry representative, the date of the call, ministry records do detail two telephone conversatio spo u se. But no othe r conversations between the appellant (or her spouse) and the min noted by the ministry. Accordin gly, the panel con c t hat there was no e vidence t o esta bli sh that the ministry made an administrative error. Further, the panel co ncluded that the ministry r ea s on ably determined that care s ubsi dy beg an o n A pri l 1, 2014 since th e a p pella and date d on Apr i l 14, 2014 and CC SR section 13(1) specifies that the subsidy may be paid from the first d a y of the month in which the parent completes an Having reviewed and considered all of the evidence and the r th e m inis t ry' s d ecision t hat the appellant was not eligible fo was a reasonable application of the legislation in the circumstances of the appellant. EAAT003(10/06/01) I APPEAi # the chil d ca r e s u b sid y as of Apr il 1, 2 014 . But the t sh e had "r e cently" co n tac t ed the ministry and ha v e submi t ted he r applic ation in March by t h at time. T he appell an t clai m s t h at sh e t r ied t o r the wr o ng infor m a tion but sh e w as unabl e t o f i nd rence is th at she di d not submit t he n provi d e d du ri n g her ph one call w ith e d an a ppl ication in M arch wi th one pay sli p a nd ld care subsidy for the mon t h of M arch 2 014 . the m inist r y m ade an admini stra tiv e error in giving o f the CCS R s t at e s tha t a chil d c a re subsi d y m a y the p aren t c om ple tes t he ( Child C ar e S ubsidy) de. t ha t t he appel lant had a telephone c on v ersati on whi ch the a p pell a n t w a s advi sed t ha t s he was o urse c o nfirmation and school sc h edule. I n t 's spou se ha d phoned the ministry on J uly 31, the child c a re su b si dy for Mar c h 2 014. The with t he a p pellant or h er s pous e . Th e minis t ry the min istry h ad mad e an admi ni strative error, began on A pr il 1, 2 014 be c au s e her a n d sub mitt ed on April 22 , 2 014 . te r of Aug ust 27 , 201 4 th a t she "Recently ( I ) . . " Th e p a ne l is unclear how t he appell ant ha d n o t h i ld c a r e subsid y pa ym e n t f or Mar ch is a "hugh e s t ha t t he app e llant h as pr o v ided no inform ati on esent a t ive prior to A p r i l 1, 2014 r e g a rdin g e Child Care Subsidy applicatio n -not the name or the phone number she called. As no ted above, ns -on e with th e a ppel lant and one w ith her istry were l u d ed that th e ministr y h a d reasonably d etermined the appellan t's elig ibility for the child nt's Chi l d Car e Subsidy application wa s signed app lic ation. elevant le gislation, the panel finds t h a t r the child care subsidy for March 201 4
The panel therefore confirms the ministry decision. EAAT 003(10/06/01) I APPFAI #
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.