APPEAL# I PART C-Decision under Appeal The decision under appeal is the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation (the ministry) reconsideration decision dated February 12, 2014 which denied the appellant's request for a supplement for storage fees under Section 55 of the Employment and Assistance for Persons With Disabilities Regulation (EAPWDR) as the appellant is not eligible for the moving supplement and his request does not fall within the ministry's policy for payment of storage fees as part of moving costs. PART D -Relevant Legislation Employment and Assistance for Persons With Disabilities Regulation (EAPWDR), Section 55
APPEAL# I 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. The evidence before the ministry on Reconsideration included the following documents: 1) Residential Tenancy Agreement for the rental of premises by the appellant and a room-mate on a month-to-month basis commencing February 1, 2014 at a total rate of $1,000 per month; 2) Letter dated January 31, 2014 to the ministry from an advocate on behalf of the appellant s t a t i n g i n p a r t t h a t : • The enclosed Residential Tenancy Agreement shows that there is an end date to his storage locker fees as the appellant will be moving into his place on February 7. • The appellant's request meets the criteria for payment of storage locker fees since there is only a limited time frame. • The appellant has been residing at a shelter and has, therefore, not been issued any shelter allowance. • The appellant should be allowed to use his shelter allowance to obtain his belongings and finally move into a stable residence; and, 3) Request for Reconsideration dated January 14, 2014. In his Notice of Appeal dated February 24, 2014, the appellant expressed his disagreement with the ministry's reconsideration decision and wrote that the ministry did not correctly apply the relevant legislation to his facts. Prior to the hearing, the advocate provided a written submission on behalf of the appellant which included some additional information in support of evidence previously submitted. The advocate stated that: • The appellant has been staying at several different shelters, which are intended as short-stay or temporary facilities and do not accommodate anyone that want to stay long-term. • The appellant has not accessed his shelter allowance of up to $375 for several months. In these circumstances, it is not uncommon for the ministry to allow a client to access their shelter portion to pay for things such as utilities, strata fees, phone bills, and storage fees. • The appellant has several priceless items, including family heirlooms and pictures that he would not be able to replace. Having access to his belongings would give him a fresh start in life. • The appellant's former room-mate was assisting him by paying for the storage costs, and the appellant was accessing other resources as long as he could. The former room-mate is unable to pay presently and, therefore, the appellant has made a request of the ministry. • The appellant did not know at first how long his items would remain in storage and he proceeded to obtain outside help through his ex-room-mate to pay for the storage. • Only now, when the appellant had an end-date in sight because he was moving into a new residence has he requested assistance from the ministry. The Ministry relied on the reconsideration decision which states that: • The appellant is designated as a Person With Disabilities (PWD). • On October 16, 2013, the appellant submitted a shelter information form to stay at a hotel for $800 per month. • On October 23, 2013, the aooellant advised the ministrv that he was no lonaer livina at the
APPEAL# I hotel and was hoping to be in BC Housing as of November 1, 2013. • On December 4, 2013, the appellant advised the ministry that he was temporarily staying at a shelter and requested funds for storing his belongings. • The appellant completed the paperwork to apply for BC Housing on December 4, 2013. • The appellant did not provide the ministry with any documents or receipts related to the storage facility at this time. • On December 17, 2013 the appellant inquired about his request for funds to cover storage costs since he was a couple of months behind on payment and he was in danger of losing all of his belongings. The appellant advised the ministry that he was told that he was "next on the list" for BC Housing. • The appellant did not provide the ministry with any documents or receipts related to the storage facility at this time and the appellant was denied a moving supplement to pay for his storage costs. The ministry did not raise an objection to the admissibility of the evidence in the appellant's written submission. The panel admitted the information which provides further details of the appellant's living circumstances and the storage of his personal belongings and, therefore, is in support of the information and records that was before the ministry on reconsideration, pursuant to section 22(4)(b) of the Employment and Assistance Act.
PART F -R easons for Pa n el Decisio n T h e i ssue on th is a ppe al is whet her th e decision by the for a supp leme nt f or s torage fee s as part of a m o ving E mploy men t and Assistan ce fo r Perso ns With D isabi suppo rted by the evi d ence or a re a sonabl e app l i c a ci rcum stances of the a p pe l lant. T he leg is l ati v e cri ter ia to be c onsidere d e l igible for th Sec tion 55 of th e E A P W DR a s fo llo w s: Sup pl eme n ts f o r mo ving, t ra n sp ortatio n and living cos ts 55 ( 1) I n t h is sect i o n: " li ving co s t " m e ans the cost o f accommod a ti on and meals "mo v ing c ost " m e an s t h e c o s t o f m o vin g a famil y u nit "tr ansp o r tatio n cost" mean s the cost of t ra ve lli ng from one (2 ) Su b j ect to subs ecti ons (3) a nd (4), th e mini ster m ay provid disabil ity ass i s t a nce or h ardship as sis tanc e to as sis t wit (a) m oving cost s r e quired to m ove anywhere in Canada arranged con f i r med e mpl o y me nt that w o ul d sign if ica and the r e c ipient i s re q uire d to move t o begin that empl ( b) mo v ing c o st s required t o move t o a no ther p rovi nce o its l i v i n g cir cumstan ces; (c) m ov i n g costs r e quired to move w ithin a m unicipality or u unincorpo rate d area be c au s e t he family unit's rented and a notice to vaca te ha s been gi ven, o r has b een ( d ) m o v ing costs re q uire d to m o v e withi n a municipali ty u n incorporat e d are a if th e fami ly u ni t's shelte r costs (e) m oving co s ts require d t o move to another ar ea in B safe t y o f any person in the family unit; {f) transportation costs and living costs required to attend a hearing relating to a child protection proceeding under the Child, Family and Com munit y S er vice Act, if a recipient is given notice of the hearing and is a par proceeding; (g) transportation costs, living costs, child care costs and fees resultin (i) the required attendance of a recipient in the family unit at a hearing, or (ii) other requirements a recipient in the family unit must fulfil in connection with the exercise of a m a intenance th at m ust assign maintenance ri gh ts]. (3) A family unit is eligible for a supplement under this section only if (a) there are no resources available to the family unit to cover the costs for which the supplement may be provided, and {b) a rec ipi e nt in the family unit rece i ve s the minister's approval before incurring those costs. ... I APPEA L# minis try, which denie d th e ap pel lant's request c ost supplement un de r Se c tion 55 of the lities R egulation (EAPWDR ) , was r ea s o nably tion of th e a pp l i c able e na ctme n t in the e s upplemen t for moving cost s are set out in ; and its person al effects fr o m o n e place to a n othe r; pla ce to anothe r . e a supp l e me nt t o or for a family u n it t h a t is eligib l e fo r h one o r more of the f o llowin g : , if a r eci p i ent i n t h e family unit i s not working but has ntly p romote t he fina nc i a l i nd e p e ndence o f t h e f amil y unit oyment; r countr y , if the famil y un it is req uire d to mov e to improv e ni ncorporat e d ar ea or to an adjac e nt munic ipal i ty or r e s identi al a ccomm oda ti o n is bein g s o ld or d em ol ished condem ned; or unin cor p or ate d are a or to an adjace nt municip ality o r wo uld be sig n ifi c an t l y re du ce d as a r e sult of the move; r itish Columbia t o av oid an im minen t threat to the phys i cal ty to the g from right a ssigned to the minister u nde r sectio n 17 [categories
Minis try's Po sition The mini stry ' s posit ion is that the ministry poli cy provi s torage fees can be co nsidere d as "mo v i n g costs" and possessions must b e stored for a lim ited pe rio d of time, b moving supp lem ent. The min istry p ro vided an il lustration a move that f its w i t hi n the scenario s s et out in Section tha t th ey h ave to v a cate th eir pre s e nt resi denc e before th e r e is a temporary time lap se of about a month d u orde r to facilitate the move. The minis t ry's posi t i on sup plement as the circumstances of his move do not fall within mo ve within o r to an adjacent municipality, as set out in Section 55(2) of the EAPWDR argued that the appella nt d id n o t m ove because hi s condemned or becaus e his shelter costs will be signif ap pellan t wa s previously residing in a sh elter with no she adjac ent comm un ity for ren t o f $5 0 0 per month and argu ed that th e appellan t had alre ady in curr e d the storage expe an d, th ere fo r e, t he mi nis try 's ap proval was not receiv costs, as r eq uired unde r S e ction 55(3 ) of th e E APWDR. ap pella nt did n ot kno w w hen or where he w as go ing to into s t orage and he , therefore, w as not ' requ ir e d' to sto f rom dat e to da t e) , as stipulated by the mi nistry p o licy. A p pella nt's positi on The ap pel la nt ' s posi t io n is tha t since h e h a s been staying at ac cess e d hi s she l t er all ow ance of up to $375 f o r seve u nco mmo n f o r th e ministry t o all ow a c l ient t o access their s storage fee s, a s part o f t he min istry polic y relate d to th his advo c a t e, th a t he h a s se v e r al price l es s items, incl wo u l d not be abl e to r eplace and havi ng acces s t o h The app e llant ar gued that h i s f o r me r roo m -mate wa he was acce ssing other resourc es as long as he could but the former room-mate is presentl t o pay and , therefore, the appellant has made a request of the minis did not know at first how long his items would remain in storage and he proceeded t help through his ex-room-ma te to pay for the storag be c on sid ered a " moving cos t " sin c e, at the t ime of his costs alrea dy in sight as he was moving into a new residence and provided a residential tenancy agreemen t corro borating this. Panel decision Section 55(1) sets out a definition of the costs that are provided for in the section, including "moving cost" as being the cost of moving a family unit and its personal effects from one place to another. While the cost for rental of a storage unit is not specifically included in this definition policy clarifies that where the cost can be said to be part of the cost for moving a family unit and its personal effects from one place to another in the specific scenarios set out in the section, and if the possession must be stored for a limited period of time to facilitate this move, the ministry is given discretion to consider storage fees as a part of the family unit's "moving cost." The oanel finds that the evidence establishes where the annellant has moved "to" since he entered A PPEAL# I des the ministry discreti on to consider tha t paid by t he m inistry when a pe rson's ut onl y if the person is eligible for the of a move that might fa l l under the policy as 5 5(2) of the E APWDR wh ere the family knows the new reside n ce is av ai l able to t hem a nd ri ng which their personal effects must be stored in is that th e appellant is not eligible for the m oving one of the li sted scenarios requiri ng a . The m inistry prev ious re sidence is bei ng s old, d emolishe d or ican t l y reduce d. The m inistry ar g ue d th at the l te r costs and he moved to a re sidence in an h is she lt e r costs ther eb y i ncreased. The minis t ry n se s at the time o f r econs iderat i on e d by t he ap pell a n t b ef o r e he inc urr e d these Further, the mi nistry ar gued tha t the m ove at the ti me th a t he put h i s b elon gings re h i s bel ongin g s for a speci fic tim e period (i. e . several di ffer en t she lter s, h e has not ral mo nths an d, i n thes e c ir c umstances , it is no t h el t er porti on to pa y f o r things su ch as e le g isl at ion. The appe l lan t argued , through u di ng fa mily hei r l oo ms and picture s that he is belo ng i ngs wo u l d give h i m a fres h start i n lif e . s assisting him b y paying f or the stor age costs so y unable try. The app e llant argue d that he o obta in outside e. The appellant argued that his storage fees can reques t , he had a n end date fo r his storage , the ministry
APPEAL# I into a tenancy agreement for rental of premises commencing February 1, 2014 at the rate of $1,000 per month for him and a room-mate. However, the panel finds that there is insufficient evidence to establish where the appellant has moved his person effects "from" as the appellant has been staying at several forms of temporary accommodation without his personal effects. The ministry stated that the appellant submitted a shelter information form on October 16, 2013 to stay at a hotel for $800 per month, but that he also advised the ministry approximately a week later that he was no longer living at the hotel and was hoping to get into BC Housing. Since that time, the appellant has been staying at "several different shelters" at no cost to him and with his personal effects already deposited in a storage facility. The ministry stated that on December 17, 2013 the appellant advised that he was already "a couple of months" behind on payment of his storage fees and he was in danger of losing all of his belongings, but he did not provide the ministry with any documents or receipts related to the storage facility to clarify when his personal effects were moved into storage. The appellant has also not provided information about the circumstances of his move of his possessions out of his previous residence and into storage, or the amount of rent he paid at the residence where his personal belongings had been located. The panel finds that, in the absence of these details being provided by the appellant, the ministry reasonably considered the move of the appellant from a shelter to the new residence as his "move" from accommodation at no cost to accommodation at a cost of $500 per month, which represents an increase in shelter cost rather than a significant reduction. The panel finds that the ministry reasonably concluded that the circumstances of his move do not fall within one of the listed scenarios requiring a move within or to an adjacent municipality, namely because his previous residence was being sold, demolished or condemned or because his shelter costs would be significantly reduced, as set out in Section 55(2) of the EAPWDR. While the appellant did not argue that his move falls within one of the scenarios in Section 55(2) of the EAPWDR, his position is that since he has been staying in temporary accommodations, he has not accessed his shelter allowance of up to $375 per month for several months and he should be allowed access to the shelter portion to pay for his storage fees, as part of the ministry policy related to the legislation. The appellant has not provided a reference to either a section in the EAPWDR or a particular provision in the ministry policy that provides the ministry with discretion to pay for the cost to store a person's personal possessions in lieu of, or as part of, the person's shelter costs, and the panel finds that the ministry reasonably determined that to be eligible for a supplement, the storage costs need to be considered within the definition of "moving costs." Section 55(3)(b) of the EAPWDR states that a family unit is eligible for a supplement only if a recipient in the family unit receives the ministry's approval before incurring the moving costs. The panel finds that the costs for rental of the storage unit were 'incurred' when the appellant entered into an agreement with a storage facility and moved his personal belongings into the facility, as this is when the appellant assumed the legal obligation to pay for the storage unit, whether he paid the amounts on his own behalf or his room-mate paid the costs for him. The appellant did not dispute that on December 17, 2013 he advised the ministry that he was, at that time, "a couple of months" behind on payment of the storage fees, which had been paid for by his room-mate prior to the arrears accruing. As the appellant did not request a supplement from the ministry until December 4, 2013, the panel finds that the ministry's approval was not obtained by the appellant prior to incurring the cost for storage. The panel finds that the ministry reasonably determined that the requirement in Section 55(3)(b) of the EAPWDR was not met in the appellant's circumstances and he is, therefore, not eliqible for the movinq suoolemenl.
APPEAL# I The ministry policy provides that storage fees can be considered as "moving costs" and paid by the ministry when a person's possessions must be stored for a limited period of time, but only if the person is eligible for the moving supplement. As set out above, the panel finds that the ministry reasonably concluded that the appellant is not eligible for the moving supplement under Section 55 of the EAPWDR. The panel finds that the appellant also did not define for the ministry the "limited period of time" for which his personal possessions would require storage either at the time that he put his belongings into storage or at the time of his request for the supplement. The appellant argued that at the time of his request for the supplement, he had an end date for his storage costs already in sight as he was moving into a new residence and that he provided a residential tenancy agreement corroborating this. However, the appellant did not dispute that he requested a supplement for storage fees from the ministry on December 4, 2013, and that he completed the paperwork to apply for BC Housing on that same day. The ministry stated that on December 17, 2013 the appellant advised that he was told that he was "next on the list" for BC Housing, with no further information provided about the likely date for occupancy, which the panel finds indicates that the appellant still did not know at this time how much longer his personal effects would remain in storage. The panel finds that the ministry reasonable determined that the appellant is not eligible for payment of storage fees as "moving costs" as the appellant has not demonstrated that it was necessary to store his personal effects for a limited period of time in order to facilitate his move. Conclusion Overall, the panel finds that the ministry's decision which denied the appellant's request for a supplement for storage fees under Section 55 of the EAPWDR, is a reasonable application of the applicable enactment in the circumstances of the appellant and the panel 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.