I APPEAL# PART C Decision under Appeal The decision under appeal is the Ministry of Social Development (ministry) Reconsideration Decision dated April 5, 2013 which determined that for January of 2013 the appellant was issued a shelter allowance in the amount of $375 for which the appellant was not eligible under the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act (EAPWDA) Section 5 and under the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Regulation (EAPWDR) Section 24, as the ministry issued the appellant two shelter allowances in the amount of $375 for January 2013, and that as a consequence the appellant is liable to repay to the ministry the ineligible $375 shelter allowance under the EAPWDA section 18 (1). PART D Relevant Legislation Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act (EAPWDA) Sections 1, 5, 18 and 19. Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Regulation (EAPWDR) Section 24 and Schedule A Sections 1, 2 and 4 EAAT 003 (10/06/01)
I APPEAL# PART E -Summarv 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. Evidence Before the Minister at Reconsideration 1. Ministry Telephone Log dated April 4, 2013 with respect to telephone communication between the reconsideration officer and the appellant's community services representative. 2. Ministry Telephone Log dated April 4, 2013 with respect to telephone communication between the reconsideration officer and the appellant's previous temporary residence provider. 3. Appellant's Request for Reconsideration. 4. Appellant's Request for Reconsideration Submissions dated March 19, 2013. 5. Undated correspondence from the ministry to the Appellant with respect to overpayment. 6. Ministry Overpayment Chart. • Written Submissions Prior to the convening of the hearing both the appellant and the ministry provided written submissions to the Tribunal. The panel has reviewed the submissions of the appellant and the ministry and finds that the respective submissions are argument in support of the relative positions of the parties and the panel acknowledges receipt of the submissions as such. Summary of Facts -Appellant In the appellant's written submissions, as provided by the appellant's advocate, the appellant indicates that he adopts the summary of facts as set out in the ministry's Request for Reconsideration. The appellant summarizes these facts as follows: On December 19, 2012, the day on which disability assistance and shelter allowance cheques are issued, the appellant contacted the ministry and inquired as to why no shelter allowance cheque was deposited into his account for January 2013. The appellant states that the shelter allowance cheque for January 2013 was payable to his new temporary place of residence. However he was informed by the ministry that his shelter allowance cheque was instead sent to his previous temporary residence. The appellant states that he was not living at his previous temporary residence and had not lived there for approximately six months. The appellant states that the shelter allowance cheque for January 2013 should have been deposited in his bank account as had previously been the case during the months of September, October, November and December of 2012. The appellant states that he was informed by a ministry worker that his file had been reviewed and it had been discovered that his January 2013 shelter allowance cheque had been directed to the wrong landlord at the appellant's previous temporary residence. The ministry worker stated that the shelter allowance cheque had been sent to the previous temporary residence due to a ministry administrative error. The appellant was informed by the ministry that a ministry worker had contacted the appellant's previous temporary residence which advised the ministry that it would return the January 2013 shelter allowance cheoue that had been sent to it in error. The apoellant states that the ministry then issued EAAT003 (10/06/01)
I APPEAL# a January 2013 shelter allowance cheque to the appellant which was paid to the correct residence. The appellant states that he was advised by the ministry that his previous temporary residence subsequently claimed that the appellant owed the previous residence money for days spent there in residence in August of 2012 and that, therefore, the cheque would not be returned to the ministry. In the appellant's submissions with respect to his Request for Reconsideration he sets out the following additional facts: The appellant stayed at his previous temporary residence for a short but unspecified period of time in August of 2012. The appellant left his previous temporary residence on an unspecified day in August of 2012. The appellant does not remember on which day he left the residence. Immediately subsequent to leaving his previous temporary residence the appellant was admitted to hospital for approximately four weeks. Upon release from hospital the appellant did not return to the previous residence in question but returned to his former permanent place of residence. The appellant states that subsequent to his release from hospital he received his disability assistance and shelter allowance cheques by way of direct bank deposit. The appellant states that the ministry sent the appellant's shelter allowance cheque for the month of January 2013 to the appellant's previous temporary residence in error. The ministry did not provide him with clear reasons as to why this took place. The appellant did not request that his shelter allowance be sent to his previous temporary residence. Summary of Facts Ministry The ministry relies on the Reconsideration Decision, additional clarifying information in the form of telephone logs attached thereto, the ministry's written submissions which the ministry states are supplementary to the minister's Reconsideration Decision, and documents submitted with the appellant's Request for Reconsideration. The ministry states the facts are as follows: The appellant is a person with disabilities and has no dependants. The ministry states that the appellant contacted the ministry on December 19, 2012 and at that time inquired as to why his January 2013 shelter allowance had been sent to his previous temporary residence while in the months immediately previous it had been sent to his correct permanent address. The appellant was at a new temporary residence and wanted his shelter allowance cheque to be sent directly to this new residence. A ministry worker reviewed the appellant's file and determined that his shelter allowance was registered to be sent to an incorrect residence. The appellant was not living at his previous temporary residence which was the residence registered on file. The ministry states that its records indicated that from May 2012 the appellant's disability assistance cheque had been mailed to the appellant's correct permanent address. However, for January 2013 a cheque for $75 was sent to the appellant's new temporary residence while the appellant's shelter allowance of $375 was sent to the appellant's previous temporary residence and not the appellant's new temporary residence. On December 19, 2012 the ministrv worker cancelled the previous temoorarv residence as the EAAT003 (10/06101)
I APPEAL# appellant's shelter service provider. The ministry worker advised the appellant to contact the landlord at his new temporary residence and provide the ministry with a new "shelter document" so that the proper shelter service provider could be registered in the appellant's file. The ministry worker also instructed the appellant to contact his previous temporary residence and request that they return to the ministry the January 2013 shelter allowance they received. The panel finds that no evidence was presented to the panel to confirm that the appellant contacted his previous residence. The appellant was advised that a new shelter allowance cheque could not be issued until the cheque issued to the appellant's previous temporary residence had been returned and cancelled. The panel finds that, contrary to this statement, the ministry did in fact issue a new shelter allowance cheque before the previous shelter allowance cheque was returned and cancelled. On December 19, 2012 the ministry worker contacted the appellant's previous temporary residence and was advised by a representative there that the shelter allowance cheque would be returned to the ministry. On December 19, 2012 the ministry issued a second January 2013 shelter allowance cheque for $375 directly to the appellant for his new temporary residence. On February 18, 2013 the appellant contacted the ministry to inquire about shelter funds for March 2013 as he had left his new temporary residence. On February 18, 2013 the ministry reviewed the appellant's file and discovered that a duplicate shelter allowance cheque in the amount of $375 had been issued for January 2013. The initial $375 shelter allowance cheque had not been returned by the appellant's previous temporary residence. The ministry worker created a service request to review the administrative error. On February 28, 2013 a ministry worker reviewed the appellant's file and determined that there had been an administrative overpayment to the appellant in the amount of $375.The ministry worker completed an Overpayment Calculator Form and sent a letter to the appellant advising him that an error occurred which resulted in him receiving disability assistance that he was not eligible for. On March 7, 2013 the ministry again contacted the appellant's previous temporary residence at which time a representative of the previous temporary residence advised the ministry that the $375 shelter allowance cheque would not be returned to the ministry as the appellant owed money to the previous temporary residence for the period of time he stayed there in August of 2012. The ministry notes that the appellant advised them that he left his previous temporary residence after one day in August 2012 and that subsequently the appellant was hospitalized for four weeks. The ministry acknowledges that subsequent to his hospital stay the appellant returned to his previous permanent residence and that the ministry continued to send the appellant's disability assistance and shelter allowance cheques to that address. Telephone Logs On April 4, 2013 the ministry, as represented by the reconsideration officer, contacted by telephone a representative of the appellant's previous temporary residence. The ministry sought clarification from this representative of the following facts: That for January 2013 the ministry sent, in error, a shelter allowance cheque of $375 directly to the a•• ellant's previous temporary residence; That on December 19, 2013 the residence indicated that it EAAT003 (10/06101)
I APPEAL# would return the cheque to the ministry; That on March 7, 2013 another representative of the residence advised the ministry that the appellant owed money to the residence for his stay in August of 2012 and as a consequence the cheque would not be returned to the ministry; That the ministry wished to know exactly what the appellant owed this residence for rent. The representative of the residence indicated to the ministry that he was unaware of the issue of the appellant's January 2013, shelter allowance cheque. He indicated that the residence representative of March 7, 2013 no longer worked at the residence. The representative said that he would contact the residence's accountant to find out what had happened but was unsure of how long it would take to provide this information to the ministry. On April 5, 2013 the ministry reconsideration officer again spoke to this representative who indicated he had not as yet received any information from the accountant with respect to the appellant. The reconsideration officer advised the residence . representative that she would proceed with making the Reconsideration Decision on the basis of the information provided. On April 4, 2013 the ministry, as represented by the reconsideration officer, contacted by telephone the community services representative named in the appellant's Consent to Release/Obtain Information Form. The ministry was seeking the appellant's approval for an extension of the reconsideration decision due date to provide the time necessary to obtain the above noted clarifying information from the appellant's previous temporary residence. The ministry did not have the appellant's telephone number. The ministry indicated to the community services representative that the appellant's consent would delay the reconsideration decision, however this would not affect the appellant's shelter allowance for April or May and that at present the $375 overpayment had not as . yet been debited from his disability assistance. • The community services representative advised that she would attempt to contact the appellant and convey the ministry's request and information. On April 5, 2013 the ministry received a voice mail . message from the community services representative advising that she was not able to reach the appellant. The reconsideration officer stated that she was unsuccessful in obtaining clarifying information from the appellant's previous temporary residence as to the amount the appellant owed, if any, to this residence or whether the residence would or would not repay the $375 shelter allowance cheque to the ministry. On or about April 5, 2013 the ministry's reconsideration officer concluded that the facts indicated that the appellant owed his previous temporary residence $375. The reconsideration officer made her Reconsideration Decision only on the basis of the information provided up to April 5, 2013. EAAT003 (10/06/01)
I APPEAL# 7 . PART F Reasons for Panel Decision The issue under appeal is whether the ministry's determination that for January 2013 the appellant was issued a shelter allowance in the amount of $375 for which the appellant was not eligible under EAPWDA Section 5 and under EAPWDR Section 24, and that as a consequence the appellant is liable to repay to the ministry the ineligible $375 shelter allowance under the EAPWDA section 18 (1), was reasonably supported by the evidence, or a reasonable application of the legislation in the circumstances of the appellant. Legislation Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act (EAPWDA) Section 1 Excerpts Interpretation 1 (1) In this Act: "applicant" means the person in a family unit who applies under this Act for disability assistance, hardship assistance or a supplement on behalf of the family unit, and includes (a) the person's spouse, if the spouse is a dependant, and (b) the person's adult dependants; "disability assistance" means an amount for shelter and support provided under section 5 [disability assistance and supplements]; "family unit" means an applicant or a recipient and his or her dependants; "recipient" means the person in a family unit to or for whom disability assistance, hardship assistance or a supplement is provided under this Act for the use or benefit of someone in the family unit, and includes (a) the person's spouse, if the spouse is a dependant, and (b) the person's adult dependants; EAPWDA Section 5 Disability assistance and supplements EAAT003 (10/06/01)
I APPEAL# 5 Subject to the regulations, the minister may provide disability assistance or a supplement to or for a family unit that is eligible for it. EAWPDA Section 18 Overpayments 18 (1) If disability assistance, hardship assistance or a supplement is provided to or for a family unit that is not eligible for it, recipients who are members of the family unit during the period for which the overpayment is provided are liable to repay to the government the amount or value of the overpayment provided for that period. (2) The minister's decision about the amount a person is liable to repay under subsection (1) is not appealable under section 16 (3) [reconsideration and appeal rights]. EAPWDA Section 19 Liability for and recovery of debts under Act 19 (1) An amount that a person is liable to repay under this Act is a debt due to the government that may be (a) recovered in a court that has jurisdiction, or (b) deducted, in accordance with the regulations from any subsequent disability assistance, hardship assistance or supplement for which the person's family unit is eligible or from an amount payable to the person by the government under a prescribed enactment. (2) Subject to the regulations, the minister may enter into an agreement, or accept any right assigned, for the repayment of an amount referred to in subsection (1). (3) An agreement under subsection (2) may be entered into before or after the disability assistance, hardship assistance or supplement to which it relates is provided. (4) A person is jointly and separately liable for a debt referred to under subsection (1) that accrued in respect of a family unit while the person was a recipient in the family unit. Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Regulation (EAPWDR) Section 24 Amount of disability assistance 24 Disability assistance may be provided to or for a family unit, for a calendar month, in an amount that is not more than (a) the amount determined under Schedule A, minus EAAT003 (10/06/01)
I APPEAL# -(b) the family unit's net income determined under Schedule B. EAPWDR Schedule A Sections 1, 2, and 4 Excerpts Maximum amount of disability assistance before deduction of net income 1 (1) Subject to this section and sections 3 and 6 to 9 of this Schedule, the amount of disability assistance referred to in section 24 (a) [amount of disability assistance] of this regulation is the sum of (a) the monthly support allowance under section 2 of this Schedule for a family unit matching the family unit of the applicant or recipient, plus (b) the shelter allowance calculated under sections 4 and 5 of this Schedule. Monthly support allowance 2 (1) A monthly support allowance for the purpose of section 1 (a) is the sum of (a) the amount set out in Column 3 of the following table for a family unit described in Column 1 of an applicant or a recipient described in Column 2, plus (b) the amount calculated in accordance with subsections (2) to (4) for each dependent child in the family unit. Column 2 Column 3 Column 1 Item Family unit composition Age or status of applicant or Amount of recipient support 1 Sole applicant/recipient and no Applicant/recipient is a person $531.42 dependent children with disabilities Monthly shelter allowance 4 (1) For the purposes of this section: "family unit" includes a child who is not a dependent child and who resides in the parent's place of residence for not less than 40% of each month, under the terms of an order or an agreement referred to in section 1 (2) of this regulation; , EMT003 (10/06/01)
I APPEAL# (2) The monthly shelter allowance for a family unit to which section 14.2 of the Act does not apply is the smaller of (a) the family unit's actual shelter costs, and (b) the maximum set out in the following table for the applicable family size: Column 1 Column 2 Item Family Unit Maximum Monthly Size Shelter ,i 1 1 person $375 Position of the Appellant The appellant argues that the ministry has admitted that the January 2013 shelter allowance was sent to the incorrect residence as a result of ministry error. At no time did the appellant request that his January 2013 shelter allowance be sent to his previous temporary residence. In January 2013 the appellant was not living at his previous temporary residence. The previous temporary residence was not entitled to any rent from the appellant for January 2013. The appellant argues that the ministry cannot legally settle a past debt incurred by the appellant · without the appellant's consent. The Appellant argues that the issue of the previous temporary · residence retaining the ministry's January 2013 shelter allowance cheque sent to the residence in error is a separate and distinct issue from the issue of any possible debt owed to the residence by the appellant for his stay in August 2012. Therefore the ministry must recover any funds issued in error to the previous residence from the previous residence. The appellant argues that the circumstances provide evidence that the ministry's decision to recover the funds from the appellant and not the previous temporary residence was motivated by the fact that recovery from the appellant would be far easier than recovering the funds from the previous temporary residence. The appellant argues that the question of what may be the least difficult method of recovery of the funds must not be a factor in the ministry's decision. The appellant further argues that it is unreasonable for the ministry to charge the appellant with a debt that resulted from an administrative error committed by the ministry. Further, the appellant argues that the repayment of the $375 would be a significant financial burden. The appellant also argues that the panel must consider the Mission Statement of the Ministry of Social Development and provides excerpts of the Mission Statement as part of his submissions. The appellant refers the panel to the section of the ministry Mission Statement entitled "Principles" and quotes the following passage: "In carrying out its mission, the Ministry of Social Development is guided bv the followino principles: oersonal responsibility, active particioation, innovative EAAT003 (10/06/01)
I APPEAL# partnerships, citizen confidence, fairness and transparency, clear outcomes, and accountability for results". The appellant argues that in accordance with the above principles the ministry must demonstrate that it is guided by the principles of personal responsibility, fairness and transparency and accountability for results. Further, in pursuance of these principles the ministry must bear personal responsibility for their shelter allowance error, and be accountable for the results of this error. The appellant argues by means of analogy that the appellant's situation is similar to a bank putting the appellant's funds ("put your funds") in the wrong person's account and then requiring the appellant to pay back the money when the wrong party refuses to repay the money. The appellant argues that the issue of the other party not returning the money is strictly an issue between that party and the bank and that similarly the issue that the previous temporary residence has refused to return the cheque is a matter that must only be resolved between the previous residence and the ministry. The appellant argues that the EAPWDA Section 18 (1) does not apply to the appellant as he did not receive a benefit he was not entitled to but rather only received one January 2013 shelter allowance in the amount of $375. The appellant argues that on the basis of all the information presented the appellant did not receive two January 2013 shelter allowance amounts. He submits that the ministry erred in attributing an overpayment to the appellant. The appellant's position is that the ministry cannot legally hold him liable for any alleged past debt to his previous temporary residence. Further, the appellant argues that the previous temporary residence cannot compel payment of any alleged past debt by retaining the January 2013 shelter allowance cheque sent to it in error . . Position of the Ministry The ministry argues as follows: That EAPWDR Section 5 sets out that the minister may provide disability assistance or a supplement to or for a family unit that is eligible for it. The EAPWDR Section 24 sets out that disability assistance may be provided to or for a family unit in an amount that is not more than the amount determined under Schedule A minus the family's net income under Schedule B. The EAPWDR Schedule A sets out that a single person with disabilities who has no dependent children is eligible for disability assistance of a maximum of $906.42 ($531.42 support and a rnaximum of $375 shelter). The EAPWDA Section 18 (1) sets out that if disability assistance, hardship assistance or a supplement is provided to or for a family unit that is not eligible for it, recipients who are members of the family unit during the period for which the overpayment is provided are liable to repay to the government the amount or value of the overpayment provided for that period. The ministry's position is that the information provided for the Reconsideration Decision establishes that $375 in disability assistance was overpaid to the appellant for January 2013 as the $375 shelter allowance was issued twice. The ministrv araues that the first $375 Januarv 2013 shelter allowance was issued on the appellant's EAAT003 (10106/01)
I APPEAL# file on behalf of the appellant and that the appellant was not eligible to receive these funds. The ministry's position is that pursuant to Section 18 (1) of the EAPWDA, if disability assistance is provided to a family unit that is ineligible to receive it the family unit is liable to repay the amount of the overpayment. The ministry argues that there are no provisions in the legislation that would allow the minister to adjust the repayment amount based on the reason the overpayment occurred. The ministry further argues that it does not have any legislative authority to request repayment of a third party for funds issued on behalf of the appellant. The ministry argues that the debt between the appellant and the third party is an issue between them and not for the ministry to resolve. The ministry's position is that the appellant was issued $375 in disability assistance that he was not eligible to receive and is therefore required to repay this amount to the ministry. Analysis The panel finds that in or about December 2012 the ministry mistakenly sent the appellant's January 2013, $375 shelter allowance cheque to the appellant's previous temporary residence. The panel finds that on December 19, 2012 the ministry sent a second January 2013, $375 shelter allowance cheque to the appellant's correct place of residence. In EAPWDA Section 1, under the heading "family unit" the term is defined as meaning an applicant or a recipient and his or her dependents. In EAPWDA Section 1, under the heading "recipient" this term is defined as the person in a family unit to or for whom disability assistance or a supplement is provided under the Act for the use or benefit of someone in the family unit. The panel finds, with respect to the definition of "recipient", that when the appellant was issued two shelter allowance cheques in the amount of $375 each for January 2013 the appellant was a person "to or for whom" disability assistance or a supplement was provided under the Act for his "use or benefit". The panel finds that the ministry was reasonable in determining that when for January 2013 the appellant received two shelter allowance cheques he was a recipient to or for whom disability assistance or a supplement was provided under the Act for his use and benefit. With respect to the appellant's argument that the ministry cannot legally settle a past debt incurred by the appellant without the appellant's consent the panel finds that the appellant does not provide any evidence or legislative support for this proposition. With respect to the appellant's argument that the circumstances provide evidence that the ministry's decision to recover the funds from the appellant and not the previous temporary residence was motivated by the fact that recovery from the appellant would be far easier than recovering the funds from the previous temporary residence the panel finds nothing in the evidence before it to support the assertion that the ministry exercised its discretion in accordance with the above noted motive. With respect to this assertion by the appellant the panel notes that in the appellant's submissions added to the Reauest for Reconsideration he araues that it is "patently unreasonable" to hold the EAAT003 (10/06101)
IA PPEAL# appellant responsible for a ministry error and compel him to repay the January 2013 sheller allowance overpayment amount to the ministry. With respect to this argument the panel finds that its jurisdiction is limited to the reasonableness of the Reconsideration Decision and that there is no evidence before it that the ministry exercised its discretion arbitrarily or in bad faith, With respect to the appellant's argument regarding the ministry Mission Statement the panel finds that the ministry Mission Statement is not legislation but rather general information that is not specific to the appellant. Further, the panel finds it has no jurisdiction to consider the Mission Statement in the context of this appeal and is restricted to only determining the reasonableness of the ministry's Reconsideration Decision in the context of the supporting evidence and the applicable legislation . . With respect to the appellant's bank analogy argument the panel finds that this argument must be · distinguished on the facts as the bank, in contrast to the ministry, does not have a statutory power to impose liability for the repayment of debt in the event an overpayment is found. Further, in the bank analogy the appellant refers to the money erroneously paid out by the bank as being his own. If in the Bank analogy the funds are the appellant's then the bank owes a debt to him. In the present appeal no issue has been raised that the ministry owes a debt to the appellant for the funds sent in error to the previous temporary residence. With respect to the appellant's argument that the EAPWDA Section 18 (1) does not apply to the appellant as he did not receive a benefit he was not entitled to but rather only received one January 2013 shelter allowance in the amount of $375, the panel finds that contrary to the appellant's submission the EAPWDA Section 18 (1) specifies, inter alia, assistance "provided to or for a family unit". EAPWDR Schedule A sets out that a single person in the appellant's circumstances is eligible for disability assistance of a maximum of $531.42 support and a maximum of $375 shelter allowance. The panel finds that for January 2013 the appellant was twice issued a $375 shelter allowance. The panel finds that the ministry was reasonable in concluding that for January of 2013 the appellant was twice issued a shelter allowance of $375 and exceeded the maximum of eligible disability assistance allowable under EAPWDR Schedule A and EPWDR Section 24 for a calendar month. EAPWDR Section 24 sets out that the ministry may provide disability assistance "to or for a family unit" for a calendar month in an amount that is not more than (a) the amount determined under Schedule A, minus (b) the family's net income determined under Schedule 8. The panel finds that the ministry was reasonable in determining that, on the basis that for January 2013 disability assistance was provided to the appellant and that a $375 shelter allowance was provided for the appellant twice for that month, the total amount of disability assistance was more than a) the amount determined under Schedule A, minus (b) the family's net income determined under Schedule B EAPWDA Section 5 sets out that the minister may provide disability assistance or a supplement to or for a family unit that is eligible for it. The panel finds that on December 19, 2012 the ministry proceeded with issuing a second $375 shelter allowance cheque to the appellant's correct temporary residence on the basis of a promise from the appellant's former temporary residence that they would return to the ministry the $375 shelter allowance cheque sent to them in error. The panel finds that on Februarv 18, 2013 the ministrv determined that the annellant's Previous , EAAT003 (10/06/01)
I APPEAL, temporary residence had not returned the shelter allowance cheque. On this basis the ministry determined that an overpayment of ineligible disability assistance had been made to the appellant. With respect to Section 5 the panel finds that in issuing a January 2013, $375 shelter allowance cheque to the appellant's previous temporary residence the ministry had provided disability assistance for the appellant for which he was not eligible. EAPWDA Section 18 (1) states that if disability assistance, hardship assistance or a supplement is provided to or for a family unit that is not eligible for it, recipients who are members of the family unit during the period for which the overpayment is provided are liable to repay to the government the amount or value of the overpayment for that period. The panel finds that pursuant to Section 18 (1) the ministry was reasonable in its determination that because disability assistance was provided for the appellant that he was not eligible to receive the appellant is liable to repay to the government the $375 January 2013 shelter allowance overpayment. Conclusion The panel finds that the ministry's Reconsideration Decision which determined that for January 2013 the appellant was issued a shelter allowance in the amount of $375 for which the appellant was not eligible under EAPWDA Section 5, and under EAPWDR Section 24, because for January 2013 the ministry issued the appellant two shelter allowances in the amount of $375, and that as a result the appellant is liable to repay to the ministry the ineligible $375 shelter allowance under the EAPWDA Section 18 (1) was a reasonable application of the legislation in the circumstances of the appellant and the panel confirms the ministry's decision. EAAT003 (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.