I APPEAL# I PART C Decision under Appeal The decision under appeal is t~e Mini~try of Children and Family Development (Ministry) Reconsideration Decision dated November 27, 12014, which held that the Appellant is not eligible for a Child Care Subsidy under section 3 of the Child C, ,re Subsidy Regulation because the minister is not satisfied that he has a need for child care. The Ministry fo1~hd that the Appellant's work schedule does not correspond with the period of time in which he requested da : care and that he is available during the time in which he requested day care. I PART D Relevant Legislation Child Care Subsidy Act (CCtA) section 4 Child Care Subsidy Regulati >n (CCSR) section 3 I I EAAT 003(10/06/01)
I APPEAL# I PART E Summary of F.~cts The evidence before the Mini~ try at reconsideration included: Copies of payment no1 fications from the Appellant's employer for the periods August 14 to 30, 2014 and August 31 to Sept~mber 13, 2014, showing that the Appellant worked 80 hours and 72 hours respectively. I A copy of a Child Care Subsidy Medical Condition report signed by a physician September 9, 2014. A copy of a Child Care Subsidy Child Care Arrangement form dated September 25, 2014. A copy of a Child Care Subsidy Application dated September 25, 2014. A copy of a letter from ohe Ministry to the Appellant dated November 6, 2014 advising him of their decision. The Appellant's Reque$t for Reconsideration dated November 11, 2014. The Appellant submitted a sta1ement and 7 pages of work schedule sign in and out records for the period of September 1 to November 30, 2014 with his Notice of Appeal. The Panel admitted the documents under section 22(4) of the Employme pt and Assistance Act as written testimony in support of the information and records that were before the rr inister when the decision being appealed was made. In his written submission to thE Tribunal, the Appellant stated that his working hours are Monday to Friday 4:00PM to midnight, that he le wes home at 2:00PM to avoid heavy traffic and returns home at approximately 1 :00AM, getting to bed at apprpximately 3:00AM. He also stated that the daycare centre provides service until 6:00PM, and his daughter's schedule should be listed as 9:00AM until 5:30PM, not 8:00AM to 4:00PM. The Appellant stated that he has only a few hours a day to sleep. The Appellant's spouse's physician confirmed that she has a medical conditic ht hat interferes with her ability to care for the child. The Ministry, in the Reconside ation Decision, stated that the Appellant's application was denied because his reason for care is not one of the eligibl~ circumstances in which subsidy may be provided per section 3 of the Regulation. The Ministry notec [ that the period of time in which the Appellant requested care does not correspond with his work sche<~ule, whjch is 7:00PM to midnight, Monday to Friday, therefore he is available during the time in which he req~ested care for his daughter. The Panel makes the following findings of fact: The Appellant's payme, t notifications establish that he worked 72 to 80 hours per week during the period of August 17 to! eptember 13, 2014. The Child Care Subsid, Medical Condition report and the Child Care Subsidy Child Care Arrangement forms show the hours o day care to be provided as 8:00AM to 5:30PM and 7:00AM to 6:00PM respectively. The Child Care Subsidy Application shows the hours of day care to be provided as 8:00AM to 4:00PM, and the Appellant's hou ~ of work as 7:00PM to midnight. I EAAT 003(10/06/01)
I APPEAL# PART F Reasons for P, nel Decision The issue in this appeal is th reasonableness of the Ministry of Children and Family Development (Ministry) Reconsideration Decision dat d November 27, 2014, which held that the Appellant is not eligible for a Child Care Subsidy under section 3 of the Child Care Subsidy Regulation because the minister is not satisfied that he has a need for child care. he Ministry found that the Appellant's work schedule does not correspond with the period of time in which he 1 equested day care and that he is available during the time in which he requested day care. Legislation: CCSA Child care subsidies 4 Subject to the regulations, t e minister may pay child care subsidies. CCSR Circumstances in which su sidy may be provided 3 (1) The minister may pay a hild care subsidy only if (a) the minister is satis led that the child care is needed for one of the reasons set out in subsection (2), (b) the child care is arr nged or recommended under the Child, Family and Community Service Act, or (c) the child care is rec 1 mmended under the Community Living Authority Act in respect of a child who has a parent approved ior or receiving community living support under the Community Living Authority Act and the minister is atisfied that the child care is needed. (2) For the purpose of sub ection (1) (a), the child care must be needed for one of the following reasons: (a) in a single parent amily, because the parent (i) is employ Id or self-employed, (ii) attends a educational institution, (iii) is seekin employment or participating in an employment-related program, or (iv) has a m aical condition that interferes with the parent's ability to care for his or her child; (b) in a two parent fa ily, because (i) each pare t is employed or self-employed, attends an educational institution or participates in an employment-related program, I (ii) one pare t is engaged in an activity listed in subparagraph (i) and the other is seeking employment, (iii) one pare t is engaged in an activity listed in subparagraph (i) and the other parent has a medical condit lo n that interferes with that parent's ability to care for his or her child, or (iv) Repeale . [B.C. Reg. 57/2002, s. 2 (b).] (v) each pare t has a medical condition that interferes with their ability to care for their child. (3) Repealed. [B.C. Reg. 5 /2002, s. 2 (b).] (4) The restriction in subse tion (1) (a) does not apply in respect of child care provided in a licensed I reschool unless the t,ild care is rovided to a child of school a e. EAAT 003(10/06/01)
I APPEAL# I I The Appellant's position is the t he is not available during the hours the day care is provided because he works from 4:00PM to midnight Mon~ay to Friday, leaving the house at 2:30PM and returning at 1: 00AM. He argues that the actual hours of day c,Je are 9:00AM to 5:30PM, not 8:00AM to 4:00PM as stated by the Ministry. The Ministry's position is that he Appellant's work schedule is 7:00PM to midnight, which indicates that he is available during the hours the child would be in day care, 8:00AM to 4:00PM; therefore he does not have a need for day care. The Panel is unable to determine what hours of work are shown on the timesheets submitted by the Appellant, however the payment notificat 1 ons submitted show that he worked 72 to 80 hours in two week periods, which is approximately 8 hours per da) , 1 5 days per week. The Panel also notes that the Child Care Subsidy Child Care Arrangement form, which was signed by the child care provider, indicates that day care is provided from 7:00AM to 6:00PM daily, and t~e Child Care Subsidy Medical Condition form shows that day care is provided from 8:00AM to 5:30PM daily, although the Appellant indicated on his Child Care Subsidy Application that day care is required from 8:00AM lo 4:00PM daily. The Panel accepts the Appellant's statement that the child is in I day care from 9:00AM to 5:30ltM daily. Similarly, although the Appellant stated that his working hours are 7:00PM to midnight daily on the Child Care Subsidy Application, his payment notifications for the period clearly show that he worked 8 hours c day on most days. In addition, the Panel notes that it appears that the Ministry did not consider time for sleep or the .Appellant's time in preparation of the children's lunches for the next day. The Panel notes that the Appe lant meets the legislative criteria for provision of a Child Care Subsidy, but the Ministry determined that he do :!S not have a need for child care. The Panel finds that the Ministry did not I reasonably determine that the t ppellant does not have a need for day care. The Appellant's payment notifications establish that he 1J1 11 orks an 8 hour shift most days and is therefore unavailable during much of the time his child would be receivir g care, which was confirmed by the child care provider as between 7:00AM and 6:00PM. The Ministry does no appear to take into consideration an 8 hour period for sleep, his time in preparation for the next day or he fact that he leaves for work 3 hours before the child leaves day care. The Panel therefore rescinds the M histry's decision as not reasonably supported by the evidence. I EAAT 003( 10/06/01)
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.