PART C – Decision under Appeal
Under appeal is the Ministry of Children and Family Development’s (“the Ministry”) Reconsideration
Decision dated June 3, 2016 determining that the Appellant is eligible for a reduced amount of Child
Care Subsidy beginning September 1, 2016 in accordance with sections 1(2), 7, 8 and 10 of the Child
Care Subsidy Regulation. The reduction is because the Appellant’s child is deemed to be of school
age as of that date, and therefore the base threshold income level used to calculate the Subsidy is
reduced, resulting in a reduction in the amount the Appellant is eligible to receive.
PART D – Relevant Legislation
Child Care Subsidy Act, section 4 and Child Care Subsidy Regulation, sections 1(1), 1(2)(a), 7, 8
and 10.
PART E – Summary of Facts
The information before the Ministry at the time of the Reconsideration Decision consisted of the
following:
Appellant’s Request for Reconsideration dated 19/MAY/2016
In the Request for Reconsideration, the Appellant submitted:
That the existing child care subsidy should continue to be paid until September 2017 when the
child will be enrolled in kindergarten
The child was born weeks early through an emergency C-section
That if the child had not been born four hours before midnight, the Appellant would not be in
this predicament, meaning that the child would have been born in the next year and would not
have been “of school age” until September 1 of the year following
The child is a bright happy child but emotionally aged four, who still naps and is prone to
meltdowns
The child requires a little more one on one time; the Appellant is sure the child will not get this
attention in kindergarten
The Appellant fears that the child needing extra attention in kindergarten would be disruptive
to the child’s growth and success and also disruptive to the child’s peers
The Appellant is a single parent
The subsidy currently received has allowed the Appellant to return to work and provide the
learning opportunities to the Appellant’s child that the Appellant might not have otherwise
been able to provide
The present day care placement has been a stable, safe place for the child to grow socially,
emotionally, intellectually
That the child commencing kindergarten in September is not in the child’s best interest
The Appellant does not want the child struggling to catch up with the child’s peers
The Appellant sees what a profound effect being the youngest and smallest child on a team is
like because the Appellant’s child is that youngest and smallest child on two different teams
The Appellant does not want the child’s experience with teams to also be the child’s school
experience
A Letter From a Registered Speech Language Pathologist
The Appellant submitted a letter from a registered speech language pathologist dated May 5,
2016 concerning the Appellant’s child, opining that while the child is very verbal, the child is
young and in the speech pathologist’s opinion would be much better served by a further year
in pre-kindergarten to allow the child’s social skills to develop
The speech pathologist establishes her knowledge of children and development given many
years in the profession primarily at elementary schools, and says that children born in the last
quarter of the school year often encounter difficulty socially and/or academically, especially if
the child is the gender that this child is
If the child is to remain in pre-school for a further year the child would enter kindergarten as a
five year rather than a four year old and will possibly turn 6 the day before the eldest child in
the class; this would be a child with a January 1 birthday turning 6 and this clearly would be a
much stronger position for the child’s over-all school success
The child presents as very bright but socially immature compared to most children born in the
first half of the year
The speech pathologist strongly recommends that the child continue to be funded for a pre-
kindergarten program
A letter from a Child Care Coordinator at the Child’s Care Centre dated 16/MAY/2016
The author says that the child has been enrolled at the care centre since a particular date, and
while eligible to enroll in kindergarten for September 2016, the author has concerns with the
child’s development and social behaviors. The author feels an extra year in the author’s child
care centre would be beneficial for the child as the child would be better prepared for entering
kindergarten
The child first enrolled in the author’s care centre when the child was three years old and had
never had previous experience being away from home and family
The child started two days per week, was shy and inexperienced being around other children
The child currently attends three days per week and displays behaviours that are consistent
with children younger than the child
The child has difficulty with social interactions with peers and especially knowing how to
interplay with them
When the child does play with others it is mostly parallel play consistent with the younger
children at this care centre
The child naps very
consistently during the day and has difficulty
when the care centre
personnel try to limit the child’s naps
The child can be very dependent on the Appellant for many things and asks for the Appellant
many times throughout the day
The child accepts reassurance from educators and is a happy child throughout the day but
does worry when the Appellant will be returning
The child has an amazing vocabulary and great cognitive abilities but socially and emotionally
the author feels the child would be better prepared to enter the school system in 2017 where
the child will not be as overwhelmed with transitions at a new situation, will be better prepared
to work with peers and will know how to act appropriately with them.
Ministry’s Submissions at Hearing
The panel confirmed that the Ministry was notified of the time, date and place of the hearing. No
Ministry representative appeared at the hearing. The hearing proceeded in accordance with section
86(b) of the EAR.
Appellant’s Submissions at Hearing
The Appellant submitted argued that her subsidy should not be reduced because:
As of September 1, technically the child will be of school age
It is only because the child was born by emergency C-section late December 31 that the child
is technically of school age
Her household consists of herself and the child
The child is prone to meltdowns and emotional disturbances
If the child had been born just four hours later this issue would not be present at or before the
tribunal
How someone appears on paper and face-to-face can be very different
She works two jobs, is 35 years old, and is a cancer survivor for which she underwent surgery
some years ago.
She returned to work when the child was six months old
She had no maternity benefits
She is not on welfare or any form of disability and is not dependent on food banks
Regardless of the outcome of the appeal the child will continue to attend the current, very
structured, day care because it is in the child’s best interest
She left employment in a professional capacity to work in retail as a result of the cancer-
related surgery; the shoulder gets better every year but is still difficult
She is not in receipt of child support and there is no contact with the father and has not been
since the pregnancy; she said the relationship ended the day she found she was pregnant and
there is no contact with the father or his side of the family, but only with her side of the family
Her parents provide day care assistance a couple days a week, are in their 60s and are not
capable of caring for a rambunctious child of this child’s age
The child needs the level of structure provided at the present daycare
She is not milking the system and has forgone self-care such as obtaining a pedicure for over
6 years
She has no evidence from a psychiatrist, psychologist, or social worker or other professional to
say that the child is developmentally or physically challenged
She has evidence from the current Early Childhood Educators at the current daycare, which
was in the appeal record, that the child is not as developed as other children who will be
entering school in the fall of 2016 and would benefit from being kept out of the formal school
system for another year
Her current day care cost is $492.00 a month of which she receives a $385.00 subsidy plus
$16.00 a day for the days the Appellant’s mother provides child care and that that subsidy will
be reduced to a total of $155.74 in September 2016, leaving the Appellant to cover the
difference between the present $385.00 per month subsidy and the new subsidy of $155.74,
which means that she will have to pay another $229.26 per month
She will also lose the $16 per day subsidy for the two days per week when the child is with the
Appellant’s mother
She works two jobs now and without the present level of subsidy she may have to give up a
job in favor of more child care, or change jobs, but that is difficult
She is legally entitled to defer the child’s entry into the formal school system for a year under
other legislation but the Ministry has told her that she cannot keep the full subsidy even though
she is entitled to defer the child’s entry into the formal system
Regardless of the outcome of the appeal the child will remain in the structured day care
because it is best for the child
PART F – Reasons for Panel Decision
Issue
The
issue
in
this
Appeal
is
whether
the
Ministry
of
Children
and
Family
Development’s
Reconsideration Decision determining that the Appellant is eligible for a reduced amount of Child
Care Subsidy beginning September 1, 2016, in accordance with sections 1(2), 7, 8 and 10 of the
Child Care Subsidy Regulation, was reasonably supported by the evidence or was a reasonable
application of the legislation in the circumstances of the Appellant. The reduction is because the
Appellant’s child is deemed to be of school age as of that date, and therefore the base threshold
income level used to calculate the Subsidy is reduced, resulting in a reduction in the amount the
Appellant is eligible to receive,
Relevant Legislation
Child Care Subsidy Act, Section 4
4 Subject to the regulations, the minister may pay child care subsidies.
Child Care Subsidy Regulation, Sections 1(1), 1(2)(a), 7, 8 and 10
Section 1 -Excerpts
"school age", except in the definition of "licensed child care setting", means school age as
determined under subsection (2);
"child with special needs" means a child
(a) who has a physical, intellectual, emotional, communicative or behavioral impairment, and
(b) who, in the minister's opinion, requires additional support services because of that
impairment;
"person with disabilities" means a person who is 18 years of age or older and is approved for
receipt of, or is receiving, benefits or services under a program of a provincial or the federal
government to assist the person to perform daily living activities because that person's capacity to
perform those activities is restricted by his or her physical or mental impairment;
Section 1(2)(a)
1(2) A person is deemed
(a) to be of school age beginning on September 1 in a school year if the person will have
reached age 5 on or before December 31 of that school year, and
Section 7
Income test
7 (1) An applicant is not eligible for a child care subsidy for a child receiving a type of child care if
(a) the family's monthly net income exceeds the child's threshold, and
(b) the result of the calculation under section 8 (2) for the child is not more than zero.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to an applicant if the child care is for a child
(a) in relation to whom the applicant has entered into an agreement with a director under
section 8 of the Child, Family and Community Service Act,
(b) in relation to whom the applicant, by agreement under section 94 of the Child, Family and
Community Service Act, exercises a director's rights or carries out a director's responsibilities,
(c) of whom the applicant has interim or temporary custody under an order of the court under
section 35 (2) (d), 41 (1) (b), 42.2 (4) (c), 49 (7) (b) or 54.01 (9) (b) of the Child, Family and
Community Service Act,
(c.1) of whom the applicant has been permanently transferred custody under an order of the
court under section 54.01 (5) or 54.1 (3) of the Child, Family and Community Service Act,
(d) of whom the applicant has custody under an order of the court under section 42.2 (4) (a) of
the Child, Family and Community Service Act, if the applicant is the other person referred to in
section 42.2 (4) (a) (i),
(e) who is receiving assistance under the authority of the Child in the Home of a Relative
Program Transition Regulation, B.C. Reg. 48/2010, and the applicant is the relative with whom
that child resides, or
(f) who is receiving assistance under a program, similar in nature to the program referred to in
paragraph (e), provided
(i) on a reserve, within the meaning of the Indian Act (Canada), by the government of
Canada, or
(ii) by the Nisga'a Nation or a treaty first nation.
Section 8
Amount of Subsidy
8 (1) If a family's monthly net income does not exceed a child's threshold, the amount of child care
subsidy for the child in respect of a type of child care is the amount set out in Schedule A or the
parent fee, whichever is less, for the type of child care.
(1.1) If a parent is eligible for a subsidy for more than one type of child care set out in Schedule A, the
minister may determine which subsidy rate applies.
(2) If a family's monthly net income exceeds a child's threshold, the amount of child care subsidy for
the child in respect of a type of child care is
A - B
where
A =
the amount set out in Schedule A or the parent fee, whichever is less, for the type of child care;
B =the amount of A for the child, divided by the sum of the amounts of A for all children in the
family receiving child care described in section 2, multiplied by 50% of the amount by which
the family's monthly net income exceeds the child's threshold.
(2.1) Repealed. [B.C. Reg. 388/2004.]
(2.2) The child care subsidy for a child described in section 7 (2) is the amount set out in Schedule A
or the parent fee, whichever is less, for the type of child care the child is receiving.
(3) If child care is required for less than 20 days per month, the child care subsidy will be prorated
based on the daily rate set out in Schedule A or the daily parent fee, whichever is less.
(4) If the child care is
(a) arranged or recommended by staff delegated under the Child, Family and Community
Service Act, after staff have
(i) offered support services or agreements to the child and family under section 16 (2)
(a) of that Act,
(i.1) commenced an assessment under section 16 (2) (b.1) of that Act, or
(ii) commenced an investigation under section 16 (2) (c) of that Act, or
(b) provided through a Young Parent Program, and the child care provider operating the
Young Parent Program confirms, in the form and manner specified by the minister, that the
parent is participating in the Young Parent Program, the minister may pay any increase in the
amount of the child care subsidy that the minister considers necessary to ensure that the child
care is provided.
(5) In this section, "parent fee" means the payment made by the parent for a child care space.
Section 10
How child's threshold is calculated
10 (1) The threshold income level for a child receiving a type of child care is calculated by adding
(a) the base threshold income level applicable under subsection (2) for the child's family, and
(b) the amounts applicable to the child under subsection (3).
(2) The base threshold income level for a child's family is the amount set out in Column 2 opposite
the family's size in Column 1:
Column 1
Column 2
Family Size
Base Threshold
Income Level
2 persons
$1 082
3 persons
$1 275
4 persons
$1 418
5 persons
$1 571
6 persons
$1 704
7 persons
$1 837
8 persons
$1 960
9 persons
$2 083
10 persons
$2 206
more than 10 persons
$2 206 for the first 10 plus $123 for each additional person
(3) The base threshold income level for a child is increased as follows:
(a) by $125 per month for each person in the child's family who
(i) is a child with special needs,
(ii) is a person with disabilities, or
(iii) has reached 65 years of age;
(b) by $515 per month for a child who
(i) has not reached school age and is receiving child care
(A) in a licence-not-required child care setting, or
(B) in the child's own home as described in section 2 (c), or
(ii) is of school age and is receiving child care in any child care setting;
(c) by $1 500 per month if the child has not reached school age and is receiving child care
(i) in a licensed child care setting, or
(ii) in a registered licence-not-required child care setting;
(c.1) Repealed. [B.C. Reg. 145/2011, s. 3 (d).]
(d) by $100 per month if the child
(i) is a child with special needs, and
(ii) receives a type of child care described in section 2.
Analysis
Jurisdiction
The panel’s jurisdiction to hear the Appeal is pursuant to section 19(1)(c) of the Employment and
Assistance Act.
Child Care Subsidy Regulation and Schedule A
The Child Care Subsidy Regulation (CCSR) and Schedule A provide that there are differing levels of
child care subsidy depending on a number of factors, including the age of the child, whether the child
has special needs or not, and the type of child care that a child receives.
The Appellant’s evidence established and the Ministry found that her household is a “1 parent two
person” household. The Appellant’s evidence was that her present subsidy is $385.00 per month
plus $16.00 a day for the days that the Appellant’s mother provides child care.
The CCSR section 1(2)(a) deems that a child will be of school age on September 1, in any particular
school year if that person will turn age 5 on or before December 31 of that same year.
The Appellant did not dispute that if her child is deemed to be of “school age” on September 1, 2016,
then her child care subsidy will decrease to a total of $155.74 per month. The Appellant’s evidence
established that her child will turn age 5 a few hours before midnight on December 31, 2016.
The panel observes that there is a difference between the CCSR which deems a child of “school
age” on September 1 of the year in which the child turns age 5, and other provincial legislation which
gives a parent the right to choose whether or not the child shall begin school in the year in which the
child turns 5 or to withhold the child for a year and have the child’s education commence when the
child attains the age of 6.
What the Appellant disputed was the reduction of the child care subsidy if the child is not to attend
school commencing September 1, 2016 and she exercises her right under other legislation to enroll
the child in school commencing September 1, 2017, thus delaying school registration until the child is
a year older.
At Reconsideration, the Ministry reasoned that although the child requires an additional year before
commencing school, under section 1(2) of the Child Care Subsidy Regulation the child is considered
as of school age beginning September 1, 2016. Because the child is of school age, the Appellant’s
base income threshold level is lessened. That base income threshold level is used to calculate the
subsidy under the CCSR. The Ministry stated that it does not have discretion to grant a subsidy
greater than the Regulations permit. The Ministry found that applying the CCSR and Appendix A
resulted in the Appellant being eligible to receive a maximum of $155.74 per month.
Because the Appellant did not appeal the finding as to her base threshold income level and the
amount of Child Care Subsidy based on it, but only appealed the issue of whether she may withhold
her child from attending school in September, 2016, and keep the present level of subsidy, the Panel
finds it unnecessary to consider the calculation of amount of the reduced subsidy.
There is no discretion in the legislation; so long as a child attains the age of 5 by December 31, 2016,
then the child is of “school age” on September 1, 2016, and no longer entitled to a subsidy based on
full-time child care.
The panel finds that the Reconsideration Officer’s determination that the child will be of “school age”
as at September 1, 2016, and that the Appellant’s base threshold income level will therefore be
reduced,
resulting
in
a
reduction
of
the
amount
of
the
Child
Care
Subsidy,
was
a
reasonable
application of the legislation.
CONCLUSION
Having reviewed and considered all of the evidence and relevant legislation, the panel finds that the
Ministry’s reconsideration decision dated June 3, 2016 determining that the Appellant is eligible for a
reduced amount of child care subsidy beginning September 1, 2016, because the Appellant’s child is
deemed to be of school age as of that date and therefore the base threshold income level used to
calculate the subsidy is reduced, resulting in a reduction in the amount the Appellant is eligible to
receive,
was a reasonable application of the applicable enactment in the circumstances of the
Appellant, and therefore confirms the decision.
The Appellant was not successful in her appeal.
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.