APPEAL NUMBER
PART C – DECISION UNDER APPEAL
The decision under appeal is the reconsideration decision of the Ministry of Children and Family
Development (“the ministry”) dated 03 October 2019 that found the appellant not eligible for the
Affordable Child Care Benefit (also known as a child care subsidy or “CCS”) beginning on 01
July 2019. The ministry determined that the appellant’s reason for the need for chid care is not
one of the eligible circumstances set out in section 3 of the Child Care Regulation for which a
CCS may be provided.
P
ART D – RELEVANT LEGISLATION
Child Care Subsidy Act (CCSA), section 4 and 5.
Child Care Subsidy Regulation (CCSR), section 3 and 16.
APPEAL NUMBER
PART E – SUMMARY OF FACTS
Information before the ministry at reconsideration
1.
The appellant is a single parent of 2 children age under 5 years and shares custody of
the children with the appellant’s ex-spouse on a 50/50 basis.
2.
The appellant is a teacher employed with a public School Board.
3.
On 27 September 2018 the appellant submitted an Affordable Child Care Benefit
Application. On 04 October 2018 the ministry approved the appellant eligible for an
Affordable Child Care Benefit for the two children beginning 01 September and ending 30
June 2019 for 10 full days/month in a licensed family child care setting (J3) (“the benefit
plan”).
4.
As noted in the reconsideration decision, on 09 August 2019, the appellant telephoned
the Child Care Service Centre to inquire why the benefit plan ended on 30 June 2019.
The appellant reported not having a reason for needing care when the ministry asked
what the reason for care was for July and August. The ministry advised that to be issued
a benefit plan, there must be a reason for needing care. The appellant replied that the
children needed to continue attending the daycare during July and August to maintain
their spot. The ministry explained that reserving a spot in the daycare is a matter for
agreement between the parent and the care provider.
5.
As also reported in the reconsideration decision, on 16 August 2019, in a subsequent
conversation with the Child Care Service Centre, the appellant advised not having a
reason for needing care because, being employed as a teacher, teachers do not work
during the summer months. The appellant also stated that the children need to continue
attending the daycare during the summer to maintain their spot in the daycare for the fall.
The adjudicator at the Child Care Service Centre advised that because there is no
reason for needing care, despite the appellant returning to work in the fall, the ministry
cannot issue a benefit plan. The adjudicator further noted that it was up to the care
provider to determine the terms of registration for enrollment in the daycare.
6.
On 26 August 2019, the Child Care Service Centre determined that the appellant was not
eligible for the Affordable Child Care Benefit beginning July 1,2019 because the appellant
does not have an eligible reason for care under Section 3 of the Regulation.
7.
In the subsequent Request for Reconsideration, the appellant writes:
“As a continuing teacher who does not receive a R.O.E., I take allocated vacation
time during the summer months. This benefit is consistent with every other
profession but is singled out because of it being highlighted during summer months.
Receiving vacation time is not an indication of unemployment. Furthermore, during
said vacation time, being a salary worker, I continue to do things inclusive of being a
full time employee, including but not limited to: cleaning and setting up classrooms,
meetings with parents, staff related sessions, emails, and curriculum preparation.
To have only time at Christmas and Spring Break recognized as “vacation time” and
therefore the only eligible benefit period is just not appropriate and inconsistent
when compared to every other profession.”
Notice of Appeal
In the Notice of Appeal dated 17 October 2019, under Reasons for Appeal, the appellant writes:
APPEAL NUMBER
“The teaching profession is a group who is denied benefits during vacation time as a
result of having a publicly highlighted vacation time. Nurses, firefighters, coast guard
workers all have rolling schedules and similar downtime and are not denied benefits.
Continuing teachers are employed over the summer and are not EI eligible.”
The hearing
At the hearing, the appellant provided argument much along the lines set out in the Request for
Reconsideration and Notice of Appeal, emphasizing the unfairness and inconsistency of singling
out teachers by not providing the CCS during their summer “downtime,” compared with how
other professions such as nurses, coast guard workers and firefighters are provided the subsidy
during their extended days-off (see also Part F, Reasons for Panel Decision, below).
The appellant explained that, in early July 2019, child care was needed while recovering from
surgery, and that for the rest of the summer child care was also needed while attending to
professional responsibilities consistent with preparing for the up-coming school year. The
appellant stated that, despite being denied the CCS, the children continued to attend the
daycare most Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays when in the appellant’s custody.
The appellant acknowledged not noticing that the letter from the ministry dated 04 October 2018
regarding “Affordable Child Care Benefit - Summary” stated, “Your Affordable Child Care Benefit
expires June 30, 2019.” The appellant stated that a similar letter to the ex-spouse, who is also a
teacher, gave an expiration date of August 31, 2019, and the appellant assumed the former
would have read the same.
In ans
wer to a question, the appellant acknowledged not having completed, along with the child
care provider, an Affordable Child Care Benefit - Child Care Arrangement form for the July -
August 2019 period.
In answer to a question, the appellant stated that the children have been attending kindergarten
since school stated in September, so reserving a spot for the full-time care during the school
year turned out not to be an issue (though after-school care is still required).
The ministry stood by its position at reconsideration. The ministry representative, in commenting
on the difference between the expiration date for the appellant and for the ex-spouse, and
differences with those in other professions, stated that each Affordable Child Care Benefit plan
depends on the unique circumstance of each individual, and that in any event, the benefit plan
is usually reviewed each July when the most recent income information becomes available.
Admissibility of new information
The panel accepts the new information provided by the appellant in his Notice of Appeal and at
the hearing as argument.
APPEAL NUMBER
PART F – REASONS FOR PANEL DECISION
The issue in this appeal is whether the ministry was reasonable in finding that the appellant is
not eligible for the Affordable Child Care Benefit beginning on 01 July 2019. More specifically,
the issue is whether the ministry’s determination, which held that the appellant’s reason for the
need for child care is not one of the eligible circumstances set out in section 3 of the CCSR for
which a CCS may be provided, is reasonably supported by the evidence or is a reasonable
application of the legislation in the circumstances of the appellant.
The relevant legislation is from the CCSA:
Child care subsidies
4 Subject to the regulations, the minister may pay child care subsidies.
Information and verification
5 (1) For the purpose of determining or auditing eligibility for child care subsidies, the minister may do one or
more of the following:
(a)direct a person who has applied for a child care subsidy, or to or for whom a child care subsidy is paid, to
supply the minister with information within the time and in the manner specified by the minister;
(b)seek verification of any information supplied by a person referred to in paragraph (a);
(c)direct a person referred to in paragraph (a) to supply verification of any information supplied by that person
or another person;
(d)collect from a person information about another person if
(i)the information relates to the application for or payment of a child care subsidy, and
(ii)the minister has not solicited the information from the person who provides it.
(2)A person to or for whom a child care subsidy is paid must notify the minister, within the time and in the manner
specified by regulation, of any change in circumstances affecting their eligibility under this Act.
(3)If a person fails to comply with a direction under subsection (1) (a) or (c) or with subsection (2), the minister
may
(a)declare the person ineligible for a child care subsidy until the person complies, or
(b)reduce the person's child care subsidy.
(4)For the purpose of auditing child care subsidies, the minister may direct child care providers to supply the
minister with information about any child care they provide that is subsidized under this Act.
And from the CCSR:
Circumstances in which subsidy may be provided
3 (1) The minister may pay a child care subsidy only if
(a)the minister is satisfied that the child care is needed for one of the reasons set out in subsection (2),
(b)the child care is arranged or recommended under the Child, Family and Community Service Act
, or
(c)the child care is recommended under the Community Living Authority Act in respect of a child who has a
parent approved for or receiving community living support under the Community Living Authority Act and the
minister is satisfied that the child care is needed.
(2)For the purpose of subsection (1) (a), the child care must be needed for one of the following reasons:
(a)in a single parent family, because the parent
(i)is employed or self-employed,
(ii)attends an educational institution,
(iii)is seeking employment or participating in an employment-related program, or
(iv)has a medical condition that interferes with the parent's ability to care for his or her child;
(4)The restriction in subsection (1) (a) does not apply in respect of child care provided in a licensed preschool
unless the child care is provided to a child of school age.
APPEAL NUMBER
And
If a child is absent or is withdrawn
16 (1) The minister may continue to pay a child care subsidy for child care provided in a licensed child care
setting, a registered licence-not-required child care setting or a licence-not-required child care setting as follows:
(a)for a period of up to 2 weeks in one month but not for more than 4 weeks in total in one calendar year if a
child is absent because the child is on vacation;
(b)for a period of up to 2 weeks in one month if the child is absent because the child or parent is ill.
(2)Unless the child care is provided through a Young Parent Program, the child care provider must record the
reason for the absence in an attendance register.
(3)I
f a child for whom a child care subsidy is paid is withdrawn from a child care setting, other than the child's own
home, at any time before the end of a month and the vacancy
(a)is filled before the end of the month, the minister may pay to the child care provider operating the child care
setting the monthly child care subsidy prorated based on the number of days the child received child care, or
(b)is not filled before the end of the month, the minister may pay the following to the child care provider
operating the child care setting:
(i)the monthly child care subsidy, if the child is withdrawn after the 15th of the month;
(ii)1/2 of the monthly child care subsidy, if the child is withdrawn on or before the 15th of the month.
Analysis
The ministry’s position
In t
he reconsideration decision, the ministry noted that in Section 3 of the CCSR, to be eligible
for the Affordable Child Care Benefit in a single parent family, the parent must be either
employed or self-employed, attend an educational institution or participate in an employment-
related program or have a medical condition that interferes with the parent’s ability to care for
his or her child. The ministry found that the appellant does not meet any of the criteria in Section
3 of the Regulation during the period July and August. The ministry acknowledged that to
maintain the children’s registration in the daycare the appellant requires them to resume care
during the months of July and August. However, the ministry noted that the terms of registration
in the daycare is determined by the care provider and the Affordable Child Care Benefit is not
intended for the purpose of holding a position in the daycare for future needs. Accordingly, the
ministry found that the appellant is not eligible for the Affordable Child Care Benefit beginning
July 1, 2019 because there is not an eligible reason for care as outlined in Section 3 of the
Regulation.
In its decision, the ministry also noted that in the Request for Reconsideration the appellant
stated that teachers have teaching related obligations throughout July and August. If so, the
Child Care Service Centre should be advised of such circumstances, such as the hours of work,
to have a benefit reassessed. The ministry noted that without a definitive reason for needing
care as outlined in Section 3 of the Regulation, the ministry is unable to issue a benefit plan.
Further, the ministry noted that as per Section 16 (1) of the CCSR, the minister may continue to
pay a child care subsidy for child care provided in a licensed child care setting, a registered
licence-not-required child care setting or a licence-not-required child care setting as follows: (a)
for a period of up to 2 weeks in one month but not for more than 4 weeks in total in one calendar
year if a child is absent because the child is on vacation. Accordingly, the ministry is unable to
APPEAL NUMBER
pay the child care benefit for the period July and August, in addition to the time at Christmas
and Spring Break, because the time exceeds the amount of allocated vacation time that is
allowed under Section 16 of the Regulation. Further, the ministry may only issue vacation time if
a benefit plan has been issued for this period.
The appellant’s position
The appellant’s position, as discussed at the hearing, is that as a permanent teacher under
contract with a School Board, the requirement in the legislation of being “employed” as a
condition for CCS eligibility has been met. Further, the appellant argues that the ministry was
unfair and inconsistent in viewing teachers, and their assumed lack of need for child care during
the summer months, different from those in other professions who also have regularly
scheduled downtime/time-off and who can readily access the CCS. The appellant submits that
for these reasons the ministry’s decision to not provide a CCS under these circumstances was
unreasonable and asks the panel to rescind this decision. The appellant emphasized that this
appeal was also on behalf of all teachers in similar situations needing child care during the
summer months.
Panel finding
Section 3 of the CCSR sets out the basic eligibility criteria for a CCS. First, under subsection
1(a), the minister must be satisfied that a CCR is needed. Secondly, under subsection 2(a) for a
single parent, the minister must also be satisfied that the CCR must be needed under one of the
prescribed circumstances, including the parent being employed. The panel accepts that the
appellant, as a permanent teacher with a public School Board, is “employed,” in the generally
understood sense that the appellant “has a job” and is “not unemployed,” thus meeting the
second half of the eligibility requirement.
This
still leaves open the first issue, whether the minister is satisfied that the child care is
needed during the summer months.
The appellant’s Affordable Child Care Benefit for the 2018/19 school year expired on 30 June
2019. In July 2019 the appellant asked about the CCS for the summer months (the appellant
never actually submitted a formal application for the CCS). Given the appellant’s employment as
a teacher and, as the appellant refers to it, their “publicly known” downtime during the summer
months, the panel considers it reasonable that, as it stated in the reconsideration decision, the
ministry would expect the appellant to provide the ministry with sufficiently detailed information
regarding the planned or estimated time spent preparing for the up-coming school year in order
to establish the need for child care in the appellant’s circumstances. Requiring such information
is consistent with the information and verification provisions of section 5 of the CCSA and the
general principle of administrative law that it is the responsibility of a person applying for a
public benefit to provide the information necessary to establish eligibility for the benefit. Without
such information, the panel finds that the ministry was reasonable in determining that the need
for child care has not been established.
APPEAL NUMBER
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the panel finds that the ministry’s decision, which found the appellant
not eligible for the Affordable Child Care Benefit beginning in July 2019, is a reasonable
application of the legislation in the circumstances of the appellant. The panel therefore confirms
the ministry’s decision. The appellant’s appeal is thus not successful.
APPEAL NUMBER
PART G – ORDER
THE PANEL DECISION IS: (Check one)
UNANIMOUS
BY MAJORITY
THE PANEL
CONFIRMS THE MINISTRY DECISION
RESCINDS THE MINISTRY DECISION
If the ministry decision is rescinded, is the panel decision referred back to the Minister
for a decision as to amount?
Yes
No
LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY FOR THE DECISION:
Employment and Assistance Act
Section 24(1)(a)
or Section 24(1)(b)
and
Section 24(2)(a)
or Section 24(2)(b)
PAR
T H – SIGNATURES
PRINT NAME
Richard Roberts
SIGNATURE OF CHAIR
DATE (YEAR/MONTH/DAY)
2019 November 08
PRINT NAME
Rick Bizarro
SIGNATURE OF MEMBER
DATE (YEAR/MONTH/DAY)
2019 November 08
PRINT NAME
Rosalie Turcotte
SIGNATURE OF MEMBER
DATE (YEAR/MONTH/DAY)
2019 November 08
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.