PART C-DECISION UNDER APPEAL The decision under appeal is the reconsideration decision dated March 21, 2018, made by the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction (the ministry), which determined that the appellant was not eligible to receive the Child Care Subsidy (CCS) for the months of September to December 2017 because her application was dated January 21, 2018 and according to section 13 of the Child Care Subsidy Regulations (CCSR) the CCS may only be provided from the first day of the month in which the parent completes an application unless there is an administrative error. PART D-RELEVANT LEGISLATION The relevant legislation is sections 4 and 13 of the CCSR.
PART E -SUMMARY OF FACTS The appellant had been receiving the CCS for her child until May 31, 2017. On June 1, 2017, she informed the Ministry of Children and Family Development (MCFD) that she was changing child care providers. MCFD instructed her to submit a new Child Care Arrangement form in order to qualify to receive the CCS for the new child care provider. On January 30, 2018, the ministry received the completed Child Care Arrangement form and the appellant advised MCFD that her child had been attending a new daycare since September 1, 2017. MCFD advised her to submit her application for the CCS as soon as possible. It appears that during the period May 2017 to January 2018 the appellant was seeking a medical report in order to qualify for the CCS as a disabled person. She received that medical report in late January, 2018 and duly submitted her application on February 6, dated January 27. On February 8, MCFD found that the appellant was eligible for the CCS from January 1, 2018. The appellant did not attend the hearing. The panel being satisfied that the appellant received sufficient notice of the hearing proceeded with the hearing without the appellant in accordance with section 86(b) of the Employment and Assistance Regulation.
PART F -REASONS FOR PANEL DECISION The issue under appeal is the reasonableness of the ministry's decision finding the appellant is not eligible to receive the CCS f o r the months of September to December 2017 because her application was dated January 21, 2018 and according to section 13 of the CCSR the CCS may only be provided from the first day of the month in which the parent completes an application unless there is an administrative error. The relevant legislation is sections 4 and 13 of 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 f o rm 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)Repealed. [B.C. Reg. 84/2016, s. 2.] 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. In her request for reconsideration, the appellant wrote: I am requesting that my childcare subsidy be approved for the monthof September to December. I realize I am at fault, I was completely unaware of the rules for the timing or that my file had been closed. The reason I did not send my documents in September is because I wasn't able to get a doctors appointment until the end of January ... if I had known the rules for the timing and that my file was closed I would have sent in a new application in September to open my file and the rest of the documents as I received them. In her notice of appeal, the appellant wrote: I disagree with the ministries decision because I was never informed of these rules. Subsidy exist for people like me, it's not fair because I had to wait for my doctors appointment, I did not think they would close my file while I looked for a good day care ... I did everything I was supposed to do to the best of my ability yet I am being punished.
At the hearing, the ministry re-iterated its position that, as the appellant's application was dated January 27, 2018, section 13 of the CCSR means that it cannot approve the appellant for the CCS before January 1, 2018, unless there has been an administrative error, which there was not in this case. There is no question that the appellant submitted her application on February 6 and that the application is dated January 27. Section 13 of the CCSR clearly states that the CCS can only be provided from the first day of the month in which the application is completed (in this case January 1), unless there is an administrative error, in which case the CCS may be provided in the 30 days before the parent completed the application (in this case December 1, 2017). It may be that the appellant received incorrect advice from MCFD regarding the need for a medical report leading to her not submitting an application until she had that medical report. If this were the case, such incorrect advice might well constitute an administrative error. However, there was nยทo evidence before the panel that such advice was given so that there is no evidence of an administrative error in this case As under section 13 of the CCSR the ministry has no discretion to backdate eligibility for the CCS beyond January 1, 2018, it was reasonable for the ministry to find that the appellant is not eligible to receive the CCS for the months September to December 2017. Accordingly, the panel finds that the Ministry's decision to deny the appellant the CCS for the months September 2017 to December 2017 was a reasonable application of the relevant legislation and confirms the Ministry's reconsideration decision.
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.