P A R T C D e c i s i o n u n d e r A p p e a l T h e d e c i s i o n u n d e r a p p e a l i s t h e M i n i s t r y o f S o c i a l m i n i s t r y ) ' s R e c o n s i d e r a t i o n D e c i s i o n d a t e d F e b r u a r a p p e l l a n t ' s r e q u e s t f o r a c r i s i s s u p p l e m e n t t o p a y a T h e m i n i s t r y ' s d e c i s i o n s t a t e s t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s r e 5 7 ( 1 ) o f t h e E m p l o y m e n t a n d A s s i s t a n c e f o r P e r s o n t h e o u t s t a n d i n g b i l l i s n o t a n u n e x p e c t e d e x p e n s e o i n s u f f i c i e n t i n f o n n a t i o n t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t t h e a p p e l l a a l t e rn a t i v e s t o m e e t t h e n e e d a n d t h a t f a i l u r e t o s e c t o t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s h e a l t h . P A R T D R e l e v a n t L e g i s l a t i o n E m p l o y m e n t a n d A s s i s t a n c e f o r P e r s o n s w i t h D i s a b E m p l o y m e n t a n d A s s i s t a n c e f o r P e r s o n s w i t h D i s a b S c h e d u l e AD e v e l o p m e n t a n d S o c i a l I n n o v a t i o n ( t h e y 2 4 , 2 0 1 4 i n w h i c h t h e m i n i s t r y d e n i e d t h e n o u t s t a n d i n g t e l e p h o n e a n d i n t e rn e t b i l l . q u e s t d o e s n o t m e e t t h e c r i t e r i a s e t o u t i n S e c t i o n s w i t h D i s a b il i t i e s R e g u l a t i o n ( E A P W D R ) i n t h a t r i t e m n e e d e d u n e x p e c t e d l y , a n d t h e r e i s n t h a s e x p l o r e d a l l a v a i l a b l e r e s o u r c e s o r u r e t h e p h o n e l i n e w i l l r e s u l t i n i m m i n e n t d a n g e r il i t i e s A c t ( E A P W D A ) s e c t i o n 5 i li t i e s R e g u l a t i o n ( E A P W D R ) , s e c t i o n 5 7 a n d
PART E -Summary of Facts The appellant is designated as a person with disabilities, and is a sole recipient of disability assistance with no dependants. On January 29, 2014 the appellant was advised by the ministry that he was ineligible for the crisis supplement to pay his outstanding telephone and internet bill, and he requested reconsideration of that decision on February 11, 2014. The evidence before the ministry at the time of the reconsideration decision consisted of: • The appellant's Request for Reconsideration (RFR) dated February 11, 2014 to which the appellant attached a typed letter. He states that he has been unable to pay his phone and internet bill because, "the internet amount owing was attached to my phone bill. This extra amount caused me to go into arrears." He adds that if he does not pay the outstanding $291.33 he will lose his phone service. The appellant explains that he was born deaf and has never been able to speak and relies on his telephone and teletype system (TTY) in order to communicate with anyone outside of his residence and that loss of the telephone would put him at serious risk. He states that he takes diabetic medication which sometimes makes him forget if he has paid his bills or not. • A copy of the appellant's outstanding telephone and internet bill, stating that $362.13 is due February 16, 2014 and that the last payment made was for $50 on January 9, 2014. As set out in the reconsideration decision, the ministry states that telephone is an allowable utility for shelter costs, however internet is not. The ministry explains that the appellant's request was denied because the ongoing telephone and internet charges were not unexpected. The ministry calculates that the outstanding amount of $291 is not a monthly amount but approximately 6 months of outstanding charges. The ministry states that there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the appellant has explored the possibility of assistance from family or friends with paying the bill or made a request to the service provider to arrange a suitable payment plan. The ministry concludes that they are not satisfied that failure to secure the telephone line will result in imminent danger to the appellant's health, adding that telephone is an allowable utility, internet is not, and both are not considered essential utilities within the legislation. In his signed Notice of Appeal the appellant did not provide any additional information or reasons he disagreed with the ministry decision. The appellant's evidence at the hearing included the following information: • The appellant stated that because he had entered a three year contract with the service provider, if he cancelled the internet portion of his telephone/internet service he would be charged a $300 cancellation fee, in addition to the outstanding amount of $291 on his account. He was unsure when the contract period was expected to expire or be up for renewal. • The appellant stated that his account with the service provider has been suspended and the internet has been cut off and he has been asked to send the modem back to the companv .
Th e t el epho ne is cu r ren t l y still wo rking. • The app e llan t o w n s the TTY system that he u purcha se d the syste m 16 y e a rs ago. • The app e llan t s ta t e d that he takes medica tion b lo od p re ssu re each m o r n ing , whic h ca use s b i ll s. • Th e a pp e ll a nt s ta t e d that he h ad w an t ed to s a r range a mon thly payment plan to resolve the outstanding b approp ri ate numb e r to send the f ax a n d t he n Ja n uary , h e h ad not made any additional payme • The a ppellant s tat ed t hat he does not have a t he outstanding bil l and he plans to go to a loc a ble to help h im in commu n icating and n e g ot • The appe l lant s tat ed th a t h e lives a lone and if his teleph no way of comm uni cating wi t h an yone ou t sid em erge n cy because of his d ia be tes a n d high blood pressur The min istr y relied primarily on its r e c ons ide r ati on dec receivin g a $25 alloc ati o n fo r t e lep h on e as part of his mon se s to commu nicate via the telep h o ne line . He f or type 1 1 di abetes t wi ce da i l y, and for h ig h h im t o be f or ge t f ul ab ou t t h ing s such as p aying h i s e n d a m e ss age, via fax , to the servic e provider to ill, but he needs to fi nd ou t the he wil l do so. O ther t han the $50 p a id in nts to the a ccoun t. ny friends o r fami l y th at c an assi st him wi t h pay i n g al assistan ce o ffice where an advoca t e m ay be ia t in g a pa yment plan w it h the serv ic e prov i d er. on e was di sco nnected he w o uld have e of his home i f he were t o h ave a me dical e . ision and c on f irmed that the ap pell an t is th l y s helter ass istan ce.
P A R T F R e a s o n s f o r P a n e l D e c i s i o n T h e i s s u e o n a p p e a l i s w h e t h e r t h e m i n i s t r y ' s d e c i s p a y a n o u t s t a n d i n g t e l e p h o n e a n d i n t e r n e t b i l l , o n t h l e g i s l a t e d c r i t e r i a o f E A P W D R s e c t i o n 5 7 ( 1 ) , w a s r e r e a s o n a b l e a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e a p p l i c a b l e l e g i s l a t i o n T h e r e l e v a n t s e c t i o n s o f t h e l e g i s l a t i o n a r e a s f o l l o w C r i s i s s u p p l e m e n t 5 7 ( 1 ) T h e m i n i s t e r m a y p r o v i d e a c r i s i s s u p p l e m e n t t a s s i s t a n c e o r h a r d s h i p a s s i s t a n c e i f ( a ) t h e f a m i l y u n i t o r a p e r s o n I n t h e f a m i l y u n i t r e q o b t a i n a n i t e m u n e x p e c t e d l y n e e d e d a n d i s u n a b l e t n o r e s o u r c e s a v a i l a b l e t o t h e f a m i l y u n i t , a n d ( b ) t h e m i n i s t e r c o n s i d e r s t h a t f a i l u r e t o m e e t t h e e x ( I ) I m m i n e n t d a n g e r t o t h e p h y s i c a l h e a l t h o ( i i ) r e m o v a l o f a c h i l d u n d e r t h e C h i l d , F a m i l ( 2 ) A c r i s i s s u p p l e m e n t m a y b e p r o v i d e d o n l y f o r t h e c a l e n d s u p p l e m e n t I s m a d e . ( 3 ) A c r i s i s s u p p l e m e n t m a y n o t b e p r o v i d e d f o r t h e p u r p o s e ( a ) a s u p p l e m e n t d e s c r i b e d I n S c h e d u l e C , o r ( b ) a n y o t h e r h e a l t h c a r e g o o d s o r s e rv i c e s . ( 4 ) A c r i s i s s u p p l e m e n t p r o v i d e d f o r f o o d , s h e l t e r o r c l o t h i n g ( a ) I f f o r f o o d , t h e m a x i m u m a m o u n t t h a t m a y b e p r f a m i l y u n i t , ( b ) i f f o r s h e l t e r , t h e m a x i m u m a m o u n t t h a t m a y b e ( I ) t h e f a m i l y u n i t ' s a c t u a l s h e l t e r c o s t , a n d ( 1 1 ) t h e m a x i m u m s e t o u t i n s e c t i o n 4 o f S c h e f a m i l y u n i t t h a t m a t c h e s t h e f a m i l y u n i t , a n d ( c ) i f f o r c l o t h i n g , t h e a m o u n t t h a t m a y b e p r o v i d e d ( I ) $ 1 0 0 f o r e a c h p e r s o n I n t h e f a m i l y u n i t i n a p p l i c a t i o n f o r t h e c r i s i s s u p p l e m e n t , a n d ( i i ) $ 4 0 0 f o r t h e f a m i l y u n i t I n t h e 1 2 c a l e n d a c r i s i s s u p p l e m e n t . ( 5 ) T h e c u m u l a t i v e a m o u n t o f c r i s i s s u p p l e m e n t s t h a t m a y b i o n t o d e n y t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s c r i s i s s u p p l e m e n t t o e b a s i s t h a t h i s r e q u e s t d i d n o t m e e t t h e a s o n a b l y s u p p o r t e d b y t h e e v i d e n c e o r w a s a i n t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h e a p p e l l a n t . s : o o r f o r a f a m i l y u n i t t h a t i s e l i g i b l e f o r d i s a b i l i t y u i r e s t h e s u p p l e m e n t t o m e e t a n u n e x p e c t e d e x p e n s e o r o m e e t t h e e x p e n s e o r o b t a i n t h e i t e m b e c a u s e t h e r e a r e p e n s e o r o b t a i n t h e I t e m w i l l r e s u l t i n f a n y p e r s o n i n t h e f a m i l y u n i t , o r y a n d C o m m u n i t y S e rv i c e A c t . a r m o n t h i n w h i c h t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o r r e q u e s t f o r t h e o f o b t a i n i n g I s s u b j e c t t o t h e f o l l o w i n g l i m i t a t i o n s : o v i d e d I n a c a l e n d a r m o n t h I s $ 2 0 f o r e a c h p e r s o n I n t h e p r o v i d e d i n a c a l e n d a r m o n t h I s t h e s m a l l e r o f d u l e A o r T a b l e 2 o f S c h e d u l e D , a s a p p l i c a b l e , f o r a m u s t n o t e x c e e d t h e s m a l l e r o f t h e 1 2 c a l e n d a r m o n t h p e r i o d p r e c e d i n g t h e d a t e o f r m o n t h p e r i o d p r e c e d i n g t h e d a t e o f a p p l i c a t i o n f o r t h e e p r o v i d e d t o o r
for a family unit in a year must not exceed the amount calculated under subsection (6). (6) In the calendar month in which the application or request for the supplement is made, the amount under subsection (5) Is calculated by multiplying by 2 the maximum amount of disability assistance or hardship assistance that may be provided for the month under Schedule A or Schedule D to a family unit that matches the family unit. (7) Despite subsection (4) (b) or (5) or both, a crisis supplement may be provided to or for a family unit for the following: (a) fuel for heating; (b) fuel for cooking meals; (c) water; (d) hydro. (BC Reg. 13/2003) Whether the expense is unexpected or whether the request is required to obtain an item unexpectedly needed The appellant does not address whether the bill was unexpected, but argues that his medication for diabetes and high blood pressure often causes him to be forgetful, particularly with things like paying bills on time. The ministry's position, as set out in the reconsideration decision, is that the information does not establish that there was an unexpected expense, or that a supplement was required to purchase an item unexpectedly needed. The ministry states that although the appellant says that his diabetes medication sometimes makes him forget to pay a bill, it appears that the outstanding $291 is the result of the bill accumulating over a course of up to 6 months, and the appellant's payment of $50 in January demonstrates that he did remember to make a payment to his telephone bill. The ministry adds that 'forgetfulness' as a side effect of the medication would need to be confirmed by the appellant's medical practitioner. The panel finds that the evidence establishes that the outstanding telephone and internet bill had been accumulating over a period of months; therefore, the panel finds that the ministry's decision, that the appellant's request for a crisis supplement was not for an unexpected expense or to obtain an item unexpectedly needed as required by EAPWDR section 57(1)(a), was reasonable. Whether resources available The appellant argues that he does not have access to any resources to meet the expense of his outstanding telephone and internet bill. He has found it difficult to communicate with the service provider in order to arrange a monthly payment schedule and plans to seek the assistance of a local advocate to help him communicate and negotiate with the service provider. The ministrv's position is that the annellant has not demonstrated that he has explored other
resources such as family or friends to assist with the bill, or made contact with the service provided to arrange a payment plan. The ministry also argues that the appellant receives $25 for telephone, as included in his monthly shelter assistance. The panel finds that although the appellant has explained that he intends to arrange a monthly payment plan with the service provider and access assistance from an advocate in order to do so, he has not yet made these arrangements; therefore, the panel finds that the ministry reasonably determined that the appellant has not demonstrated that he has no other resources available to him and that the appellant's request did not meet the criteria of EAPWDR section 57(1 )(a). Imminent danger to health The appellant's position is that because he is deaf and does not speak, he requires his telephone and teletype to communicate with anyone outside his residence, the loss of his telephone line will put him at serious risk in case of emergency due to his diabetes or high blood pressure. The ministry's position is that they are not satisfied that the loss of the telephone line will result in imminent danger to the appellant's health, adding that telephone is an allowable utility, internet is not, and both are not considered essential utilities within the legislation. The panel acknowledges that the appellant's inability to communicate with anyone outside his residence does put him at risk in case of an emergency; however, the panel finds that the ministry reasonably interpreted the use of the word "imminent" in Section 57(1 )(b)(i) to refer to an immediacy such that the danger to life is likely to happen soon and the appellant's telephone and TTY are still currently connected and working; therefore, the panel finds that the ministry reasonably determined that the appellant's request did not meet the criteria of EAPWDR section 57(1)(b). Conclusion In conclusion, the panel finds that the ministry's decision to deny the appellant a crisis supplement to pay an outstanding telephone and internet bill because he did not meet the criteria under Section 57(1) of the EAPWDR was reasonably supported by the evidence and a reasonable application of the legislation in the circumstances of the appellant. The panel thus confirms the ministry's 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.