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 " ) r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n d e c i s i o n o f J a n u a r y 2 0 , 2 a s s i s t a n c e t o t h e a p p e l l a n t fo r t h e s i x m o n t h p e r i o d 2 0 1 3 b e c a u s e , p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 2 8 ( 1 ) o f t h e E m p D i s a b i l i t i e s R e g u l a t i o n ( E A P W D R ) , s h e w a s d e c l a r i n f o r m a t i o n a s d i r e c t e d b y t h e m i n i s t r y . S h e w a s t h s e r v i c e p r o v i d e d o r c o s t i n c u r r e d b e f o r e t h e c a l e n d a a s s i s t a n c e , a s s e t o u t i n E A P W D R s e c t i o n 2 3 ( 5 ) . 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 E AA T 0 0 3 ( 1 0 / 0 6 / 0 1 )D 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 0 1 4 w h e r e i n t h e m i n i s t r y d e n i e d b a c k d a t e d · c o m m e n c i n g A p r i l 2 0 1 3 a n d e n d i n g S e p t e m b e r 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 e d i n e l i g i b l e f o r a s s i s t a n c e f o r f a i l u r e t o p r o v i d e e r e f o r e n o t e l i g i b l e t o r e c e i v e a n y a s s i s t a n c e f o r a r m o n t h i n w h i c h s h e a g a i n b e c a m e e l i g i b l e f o r i l i t i e s A c t ( E A P W D A ) S e c t i o n 1 0 i l i 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 s 2 3 , 2 8
PART E -Summary of Facts The evidence before the ministry at reconsideration consisted of the following: The appellant's request for reconsideration dated January 6, 2014, to which was attached: 1. copies of the appellant's bank statements for the period May 1, 2013 to September 30, 2013; 2. a two-page invoice from the appellant's current residence (Residence B) covering the period December 31, 2012 to January 2, 2014 indicating an outstanding balance of $ 2 , 8 6 4 . 0 0 m o r e t h a n 9 0 d a y s p a s t d u e ; 3. a two-page letter from the appellant's cousin and personal representative (PR) dated January 5, 2014. In her letter the PR asked for backdated disability assistance (DA) for the appellant for the six-month period commencing in April 2013 and ending in September 2 0 1 3 a n d a r g u e d t h e fo l l o w i n g p o i n t s : • The appellant is a woman in her sixties with Down Syndrome who is now blind and beginning to suffer from Alzheimer's. She has been receiving DA for several years. • In December, 2012 she moved from her former residence (Residence A) to Residence B. • The appellant's DA continued to be deposited into her bank account, from which Residence B automatically removed rent of $710.00 per month. The PR believed that this rental payment arrangement was working well. • At the beginning of October 2013 the PR was informed that the ministry had closed the appellant's DA file in July 2013 and that Residence B had not received payment of the appellant's rent for the period April 2013 to September 2013. • Residence B did not inf o rm the PR that they had not received the appellant's rent from her bank account. • The PR assumed that the appellant's rent was being paid because the automatic withdrawal was set up months before the ministry cancelled the automatic deposit of the appellant's DA into her bank account. • The ministry sent a request f o r information to the Residence A address, when the ministry had a note on file that the appellant had moved to Residence B. • The ministry asked the appellant's social worker to instruct the appellant to send information to the ministry regarding the appellant's change of address, but this did not happen. • When the PR asked the staff at Residence B why neither she nor the social worker were advised that the appellant's rent was six months in arrears they responded that they were unsure why it happened but advised that they had undergone a change in staff at the time the automatic withdrawals failed to transfer funds from the appellant's bank account to the account of Residence B. • Several people "dropped the ball" to ensure that the appellant's DA would continue. • Throughout the period in question the appellant's eligibility remained the same, and her DA was reinstated as soon as the problem was discovered and the required information provided to the ministry. • Now that the oversights have been corrected the appellant should receive her backdated DA for the months of March 2013 through September 2013. • The PR was advised by a ministry employee that "it is not [their] mandate to gather information to sunnort eliaibilitv", to which the PR araues that it should not be the EAAT 003(1 0/06/01)
m inistry's ma n dat e to discontin ue D A the mistakes of o thers, es p e ci a lly when t In her oral submissions at th e hearing the P R a rgu e attempt to locate th e appe l lant because th e ministry had the appellant's on fi le bu t sent a letter to Re s i dence A which was never that she relied on the ministry to continue its practice of automatically depositing the appellant's mo nthly D A into her ba nk accou nt, a prac tice th at had recipient of D A in 20 07. In h e r oral submission the ministry representative relied on expl ai ne d the s e q uence of e vents that led to the m in wa s ineligible for DA due to her failure to provide information as requested. is as follows: • O n Feb r uary 26, 2 01 3 a mi ni s try w ork e r rece L iving BC (CL BC) s oci al worker who a dvised had mo ved from Resi den c e A to Resi dence B, and provi B. • It is n ot usua l prac t ic e fo r th e minis t ry to a ccept b ecause CLBC is a f amiliar and he lpf ul li aison ch al lenged adul ts i n t h is ins t an ce the minis t ry wo wo rker to r equ i re the ma n a gement of Re si den the ministry on th e a p pellant's be h alf. The m a pp ellant's f ile t o indic ate that the a ppellant ha i nf o rma ti on relat i n g t o her D A eligib il ity. • When a file is placed on " s igna l " the ministry's comp can c ell ation of the automat i c m onthl y payme the pay men t me th od fr o m automat i c bank deposit t minist ry office until th e reci pien t att ends at th • Th e appel la nt's M a y 201 3 D A c he que wa s he tena n c y ag reemen t. B ecaus e the ap pellan t did n not provided the DA cheque was cancelled. • The appellant's June and July DA cheques were also cancelled due to the appellant's failure to attend the ministry's office to pick up the cheque and verify the requested information. • On J uly 19, 20 13 the ministry's computer s ystem automati b ecaus e the appella nt had not attended the ministry offic consecutive mon t hs. The ministry representative stated that the ministry works on a "shared caseload" system. "signal" was placed on the app ellant's fi l e req u i ring ad appellant's file shifted from the original ministry worker who received the change of address email to another department. The ministry representative added that the ministry does not have the capacity to check into why a DA recipient has not appeared at t cheques. In closing the ministry representative reiterated the ministry's position that the appellant was ineligible for DA because she failed to provide information related to her onaoina eliaibilitv and as a result EAAT 003(10106101) to those who are eligible and incompetent, d u e t o he ov ersigh ts have been ex p la in ed. d that the ministry di d not make a reason able new address (Residence B) r eceived by th e a ppell a nt. The P R ad ded been in place since th e appellant be came a the reconside rat io n decision and i s tr y's declaration in A p ril 2013 that the appellant The s equence of e vents i v ed a n ema i l from th e appellant' s Co mmu nity the minis try that in D e cem be r 201 2 the appell a n t ded th e ma ilin g ad dr e s s of Resid en c e o r r ep ly to e-mai l communications , but between the minis t r y a nd developm entall y rker repl i ed by e-ma i l and dir e cted the so c ia l c e B to s end t he appellan t's rental a greement to inist r y w o r k e r then placed a "si gnal" on th e d bee n r eques ted to provid e additio nal ute r ized p aymen t system tr ig gers a nt int o a recipient's bank acc ou nt and chang e s o an indi vid ual c h e qu e , whic h is h e ld at the e office and provid e s t he requested inform at i on . ld at the ministry of fic e for v erific atio n of h er o t appear a nd t he requested inf or mation was cal ly closed t he appellant's D A f ile e to ret rieve her DA for two Once a ditional information, respo n sibility for the he ministry office to pick up her monthly DA she
w as de c lared ineligib l e f or assi stance i n April of 2013. she was not eligible for a n y assi stance in respect of services pro 2 0 13 , th e calendar month in which assistance was requ EAAT003(10/06/01) Pursuant t o S ec t ion 23(5) of the E A PWDR vided or costs incurred until Oc tober e s ted.
PART F -Reasons for Panel Decision The issue under appeal is the reasonableness of the ministry's decision wherein the ministry denied backdated assistance to the appellant for the six month period commencing April 2013 and ending September 2013 because, pursuant to section 28(1) of the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Regulation (EAPWDR), she was declared ineligible for assistance for failure to provide information as directed by the ministry. She was therefore not eligible to receive any assistance for a service provided or cost incurred bef o re the calendar month in which she again became eligible for assistance, as set out in EAPWDR section 23(5). The relevant legislation is set out in the EAPWDA and EAPWDR: EAPWDA Information and verification 10 (1) For the purposes of (a) determining whether a person wanting to apply for disability assistance or hardship assistance is eligible to apply for it, (b) determining or auditing eligibility for disability assistance, hardship assistance or a supplement, (c) assessing employability and skills for the purposes of an employment plan, or (d) assessing compliance with the conditions of an employment plan, the minister may do one or more of the following: (e) direct a person referred to in paragraph (a), an applicant or a recipient to supply the minister with information within the time and in the manner specified by the minister; (f) seek verification of any information supplied to the minister by a person referred to in paragraph (a), an applicant or a recipient; (g) direct a person referred to in paragraph (a), an applicant or a recipient to supply verification of any information he or she supplied to the minister. (2) The minister may direct an applicant or a recipient to supply verification of information received by the minister if that information relates to the eligibility of the family unit for disability assistance, hardship assistance or a supplement. (4) If an applicant or a recipient fails to comply with a direction under this section, the minister mav declare the familv unit ineliaible f o r disability assistance, hardship EAA T003( 10/06/01)
assistance or a supplement for the prescribed period. EAPWDR: Effective date of eligibility 23 (5) A family unit is not eligible for any assistance in respect of a service provided or a cost incurred before the calendar month in which the assistance is requested. Consequences of failing to provide information or verification when directed 28 (1) For the purposes of section 10 (4) [information and verification] of the Act, the period for which the minister may declare the family unit ineligible for assistance lasts until the applicant or recipient complies with the direction. The appellant's PR argues that the ministry failed to take reasonable steps to locate the appellant bef o re declaring her ineligible for DA for failing to provide information regarding her new tenancy. The PR argues further that because the appellant's disability did not change during the period in which she was declared ineligible for DA she should receive backdated DA payments for the six month period commencing April 2013 and ending September 2013. The ministry argues that the appellant failed to submit her new tenancy agreement as directed by the ministry and therefore, pursuant to section 28(1) of the EAPWDR, she became ineligible for assistance until she complied with the ministry's direction, and because she did not collect her DA cheques for two consecutive months her file was closed. The ministry argues further that the appellant was not eligible f o r assistance in respect of a service provided or a cost incurred before she again requested assistance in October 2013. This panel recognizes that a series of missteps by the persons and agencies that support and care for the appellant occurred, and that these missteps led to the appellant's failure to provide the requested information as directed by section 10 of the EAPWDA, resulting in the ministry's declaration of her ineligibility to receive DA under section 28(1) of the EAPWDR and subsequent closure of her file. However, as the appellant did not provide the required information until October 2013 this panel finds that the ministry reasonably concluded that the appellant was not eligible f o r assistance in respect of any service provided or cost incurred between April 2013, the month she was declared ineligible, and October 2013, when she was determined eligible. Pursuant to section 23(5) of the EAPWDR she is therefore not eligible to receive backdated assistance for the period commencing April 2013 and ending September 2013. Accordingly this panel finds that the ministry's decision to deny the appellant backdated DA for the six-month period commencing April 2013 and ending September 2013 is a reasonable application of the applicable legislative enactments in the appellant's circumstances and confirms the decision. EAAT003(10/06101)
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.