I APPEAL PART C-Decision under Appeal The decision under appeal is the reconsideration decision of the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation (the ministry) dated 26 February 2014 that found that the appellant was not eligible for income assistance pursuant to section 16 of the Employment and Assistance Regulation. The ministry determined that the appellant is enrolled as a full-time student in an unfunded program of studies at a university without prior approval from the ministry and therefore is not eligible for income assistance. PART D -Relevant Legislation Employment and Assistance Regulation (EAA), sections 1 and 16 Canada Student Financial Assistance Regulations, section 2 EAAT003(10/06/01)
P A R T E S u m m a r v o f F a c t s T h e e v i d e n c e b e f o r e t h e m i n i s t r y a t r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n 1 . A S t u d e n t S c h e d u l e / B i l l f r o m t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s 3 c o u r s e s . C o u r s e n u m b e r s a r e i n t h e r a n g e 2 . A n ( u n d a t e d ) u n i v e r s i t y A d u l t C o u r s e P l a n n e ( W i n t e r t e r m -3 c o u r s e s ) a n d p l a n n e d c o u r s f i r s t a n d s e c o n d l y t o a s o c i a l w o r k c e rt i f i c a t e 3 . F r o m t h e m i n i s t r y ' s f i l e s , a s s e t o u t i n t h e a p r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n d e c i s i o n : • 2 4 J a n u a r y 2 0 1 4 t h e a p p e l l a n t a d v i s s c h o o l i n g a n d w a s s t i l l l o o k i n g f o r w o r • 0 3 F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 4 t h e a p p e l l a n t a t t e a s s i s t a n c e w i t h f u n d i n g f o r c o u r s e s a t r e l a t i n g t o w h a t t y p e o f s c h o o l s h e w a d e t e r m i n e h e r c o n t i n u e d e l i g i b i l i t y f o r • 0 7 F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 4 t h e a p p e l l a n t s u b a t t e n d i n g a n A B E S A F ( A d u l t B a s i c E d u p g r a d i n g p r o g r a m . S h e a d v i s e d a m i s e t o f 2 c l a s s e s f o r a t o t a l o f 5 c l a s s e s d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t w a s a f u c l a s s e s ( 6 0 % ) ; h e r b o o k s a n d t u i t i o n w s h e h a d s t a r t e d h e r c l a s s e s o n 0 6 J a n s h e h a d n o t b e e n r e f e r r e d o r p r e a p p r o c o n t r a c t o r . S h e s t a t e d t h a t s h e w a s n o E P B C w a s n o t w i l l i n g t o s u p p o rt h e r e u p g r a d i n g o n h e r o w n . S h e a d v i s e d t h h e r f i l e . • 0 7 F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 4 t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s E P N o v e m b e r 2 0 1 3 t h e a p p e l l a n t a n d t h e l o o k i n g i n t o a " s k i l l s p r o g r a m " a t t h e u n s h o r t l y a f t e r a n d E P B C c o u l d n o l o n g e i n s t i t u t e d a f u rt h e r c o n v e r s a t i o n i n J a n a d v i s e d t h e c a s e m a n a g e r t h a t s h e h a u n i v e r s i t y o n h e r o w n . S h e a d v i s e d t h e w o u l d n o t b e a b l e t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e a t t e n d a n y u p c o m i n g a p p o i n t m e n t s . E a d v i s e o f t h e c l o s u r e o f h e r f i l e . • 1 1 F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 4 t h e m i n i s t r y s u p e r w a s d e e m e d n o l o n g e r e l i g i b l e f o r a s s p r o g r a m w i t h o u t p r i o r a p p r o v a l o f t h e m 4 . T h e a p p e l l a n t ' s R e q u e s t f o r R e c o n s i d e r a t i o n , a n n e l l a n t w r i t e s t h a t s h e w i l l b e f o c u s i n q o n f E AA T 0 0 3 ( 1 0 / 0 6 / 0 1 )I A P P E A i i n c l u d e d t h e f o l l o w i n g : u n i v e r s i t y f o r W i n t e r 2 0 1 4 , s h o w i n g e n r o l l m e n t i n 0 0 1 t o 0 9 9 . r c o m p l e t e d b y t h e a p p e l l a n t , s h o w i n g c u r r e n t e e n r o l l m e n t , l e a d i n g f i r s t t o a D o g w o o d D i p l o m a o r d e g r e e . p e l l a n t ' s R e q u e s t f o r R e c o n s i d e r a t i o n a n d i n t h e e d t h e m i n i s t r y t h a t s h e h a d b e g u n u p g r a d i n g h e r k . n d e d t h e m i n i s t r y o f f i c e . S h e r e q u e s t e d a u n i v e r s i t y . T h e w o r k e r r e q u e s t e d a l l d o c u m e n t s s a t t e n d i n g a n d h o w t h i s w a s f u n d e d i n o r d e r t o a s s i s t a n c e m i t t e d c o n f i r m a t i o n t o t h e m i n i s t r y t h a t s h e w a s u c a t i o n S t u d e n t A s s i s t a n c e P r o g r a m ) u n f u n d e d n i s t r y w o r k e r t h a t s h e w a s a b o u t t o s t a r t a n o t h e r . U p o n r e v i e w o f t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n t h e m i n i s t ry l l t i m e s t u d e n t a s s h e i s c u r r e n t l y a t t e n d i n g t h r e e e r e p a i d f o r b y A B E S A P f u n d i n g . S h e s t a t e d t h a t u a r y 2 0 1 4 . W h e n a s k e d , t h e a p p e l l a n t s t a t e d t h a t v e d t o a t t e n d t h e u n i v e r s i t y b y t h e E P B C l o n g e r a t t e n d i n g t h e E P B C p r o g r a m a n d t h a t d u c a t i o n a l g o a l s s o s h e h a d a p p l i e d f o r t h e a t E P B C h a d t o l d h e r t h a t t h e y w o u l d b e c l o s i n g B C c a s e m a n a g e r a d v i s e d t h e m i n i s t r y t h a t i n c a s e m a n a g e r h a d a n i n p e r s o n d i s c u s s i o n a b o u t i v e r s i t y . H o w e v e r t h e p r o g r a m l o s t f u n d i n g r f u n d h e r a t t e n d a n c e . T h e c a s e m a n a g e r a l s o u a r y 2 0 1 4 t o d i s c u s s t h e s i t u a t i o n ; t h e a p p e l l a n t d d e c i d e d t o f o l l o w t h r o u g h w i t h g o i n g t o t h e c a s e m a n a g e r t h a t t h i s w a s h e r p a t h a n d s h e E P B C p r o g r a m a n y m o r e a n d t h e r e f o r e w o u l d n o t P B C t h e n s e n t a n o t i f i c a t i o n t o t h e m i n i s t r y t o v i s o r r e v i e w e d h e r f i l e . I t w a s d e t e r m i n e d t h a t s h e i s t a n c e . S h e i s a f u l l t i m e s t u d e n t i n a n u n f u n d e d i n i s t ry . d a t e d 1 3 F e b r u a ry 2 0 1 4 . U n d e r r e a s o n s , t h e u l l t i m e e m o l o v m e n t . T h e r e a s o n s h e i s d i s t u r b e d
APPEAL ii I by the decision is that she had a case worker who could have helped with staying on social assistance while she got credits for a GED through a program recommended by them. She seriously had no idea she would be cut off for going to school to fulfill her dream of becoming a social worker. She still needs help as she transitions into the workforce and will find a way to get her upgrading, including online. Now her priority is not to get homeless but stay safe and get a full-time job. In her Notice of Appeal, dated 05 March 2014, the appellant writes: "I'm sorry I didn't fully understand the consequences of me going to school to pursue a better life. I had the caseworker who I was working with, who really we didn't connect. I was working with [name] before and she was great. She offered solutions" At the hearing, the appellant stated that when she first started with the EPBC contractor, she was assigned a case manager who was very helpful and supportive. This case manager left and she did not connect well with the next case manager. When she told this case manager that she wanted to upgrade her schooling and eventually work towards becoming a social worker, she was met with a "blank stare," as though the case manager did not believe that she would follow through with her plans. She stated that this case manager provided her with no encouragement or advice as to how she might take upgrading courses while still remaining on income assistance. As a result, she decided to follow her own path and enrolled at the university for courses beginning on 06 January 2014. On her own, she managed to obtain ABESAF funding for these classes. She stated that she did not feel it was fair that some of her classmates at the university received ministry assistance while she had been declared ineligible. The appellant stated that she does not have high school graduation. The courses she enrolled in are towards obtaining a Dogwood Diploma. She hopes to obtain the necessary credits for this diploma by January 2015. She explained that of the three courses she was taking, one was a full course and the other two were half courses. She stated that her university did not consider her a full-time student. The ministry stood by its position at reconsideration. The ministry representative explained that an Employment Plan (EP) was a "living document," that could be amended from time to time, but never retroactively, to take into account new client circumstances and opportunities. The ministry has clients with EPs that allow them to take upgrading courses with ABESAP funding for tuition and books, but only with the ministry's prior approval. The panel finds that the information provided by the appellant in her oral testimony is in support of the evidence before the ministry when it made the decision under appeal. The panel therefore admits the information provided the appellant under section 22(4) of the Employment and Assistance Act. Findings offact At the hearing, the ministry representative declined to confirm that it was the ministry's understanding that the courses taken by the appellant were upgrading courses, not at the post secondary level, stating that the level of courses was not relevant. Considering that the appellant does not have high school graduation, that the courses she enrolled in were numbered in the range 001 to 099 (less than 100+ numberinQ usually associated with university EAAT 003(10/06/01)
lev el cour ses) , that these courses are for credit towards a school gradua t i on dipl oma) and that tuit ion for these cou e d ucation or academic upgrading, the p anel find s a enroll e d were not at a post-secondary s chool level. EM T003(10/06/01) APPEAL I Dogwood Diploma (the P rovince's high r s es was funded by ABESAP for ad ult basic s fact that the courses in which the app ellant
PAR T F Reasons for P anel Deci sio n The issu e in th i s ap pe al is whether the m inistry d eci ass ista nce pursu ant to s ec tion 16 o f th e EAR is reasonabl r eas on a ble app l ica tion o f th e legislation in th e circumstances of issu e is whet h e r the min istry was rea so nable in determining time student in an un fun ded program o f st udies a t a u and t h erefore is n ot elig ibl e for in c ome as sis tance . T he applica ble legis lation is fr o m the EA R ; De f initio ns 1 (1 ) In this re g ulation: "fu ll-time stude nt" ha s th e s ame meaning as i n ( Canada); . "fun ded program o f studi e s" means a pr o g ram of studies provided to a s tude nt e n r o l led i n i t; "unfu nded prog ram of st ud i es " means a p ro gram o f or s tu d ent financial as sist ance. E ff ect of f a mil y u nit in clud ing full-time st u den t 16 ( 1) A family un i t i s n ot eligi ble f or income as si s tance for t recipient is enro lled as a full-ti m e st udent (a ) in a fun d ed pr ogram of stu dies (b) in a n unf unde d pro gram o f stud (2) Th e period referred to in su b se c tion ( 1) (a ) ex t e nds from the fir s t day of th a nd con t i nues until th e last da y studies are held, a n d (b) is not l o ng er tha n one y ea r And from the Canada Student Financial Assistance Regulations (CSFAR): 2. (1) In the Act and these Regulatio ns, "course" means for mal ins truc t i o n or training that cons institution to be equivalent to, an essential element of a program of studies at a post-secondary school level at that institution, but does not include any formal instruction or practical training req professional corporation or for the practice of any trade or profession unless that formal ins training is necessary to obtain a deg ree, certificate or diploma from that designated educational institution; "full-time s tuden t" "full-time student" means a person (a) who, during a confirmed period within a period of studies, is enrolled in courses that constitute (i) at least 40 per cent and less than 60 per cent of a course load recognized by the designated educational institution as constitutina a full course load, in the case of a oerson who has a EAA T003(10/06/01) I APPEA L sion t h at the a ppellant was no t e li gible f o r i nc o me y su p port e d b y the evi dence o r is a th e appel lant. More spec ific all y, th e th a t the app el l an t i s enroll e d a s a f ull n ive rsity w ith out pr ior approval f ro m the ministry t he Cana da S tud ent Fin ancial Ass istance R e gu lat i ons for which st ud ent financi al a ssistanc e m a y b e f st ud ie s f or which a student enrolle d in it is no t eli gib le he p e riod descr ib e d in su bsect i o n ( 2) i f an applicant o r a , o r i e s without th e pri o r approval o f th e min i ster . e mon th f o llo wing th e mon th in w h ich clas ses c ommence of th e month in which ex ams in t he relevant p r ogram of titutes, or is determ ined b y a d esignated e ducational uired f or acceptance in a tructio n or practical
I APPEAL permanent disability and elects to be considered as a full-time student, or (ii) at least 60 per cent of a course load recognized by the designated educational institution as constituting a full-time course load, in any other case, (b) whose primary occupation during the confirmed periods within that period of studies is the pursuit of studies in those courses, and (c) who meets the requirements of subsection 5(1) or 7(1) or section 33, as the case may be. [These references relate to eligibility for obtaining a direct loan, continuing to be or again becoming a full time student and obtaining a Canada student grant.] The position of the ministry, as set out in the reconsideration decision, is that the appellant is enrolled as a full-time student in an unfunded program of studies at a university without prior approval from the ministry. The appellant is therefore not eligible for assistance pursuant to section 16 of the EAR. At the hearing, the ministry stated that the CSFAR is used because universities have varying definitions of what constitutes full-time status. Only the 60% benchmark from the CSFAR definition is applicable. The appellant's position is that her university does not consider her a full-time student. Panel findings In determining the reasonableness of the ministry decision, the panel must review the application of the legislation to the facts before the panel. The panel has found as fact that the courses in which the appellant enrolled were not at a post-secondary school level. Section 16 of the EAR applies to an applicant or recipient who is a full-time student. The EAR defines "full-time student" as having the same meaning as in the CSFAR. The CSFAR defines "full-time student," in the case of a person, other than one with a permanent disability, who is enrolled in courses that constitute at least 60% of the course load recognized by the designated educational institution as constituting a full-time course load (and meets other criteria, including those relating to eligibility for Canada student loans and/or grants). In turn, the CSFAR also defines "course" as "formal instruction or training that constitutes .. .. an essential element of the program of studies at a post-secondary school level at that institution [panel emphasis]." The ministry's position is that the reference to the CSFSR is meant only to import the "60% benchmark" into the EAR. The panel considers this interpretation to be unreasonably selective, as it only only that part of the definition of "full-time student" in the CSFSR. The EAR states that "full-time student" has the same meaning as in the CSFAR. It is clear that the meaning of "full-time student" in the CSFRA, taking into account the definition of "course," applies only to persons taking post secondary school level studies. The panel finds that, as the appellant was not enrolled in post-secondary school level studies, and as section 16 of the EAR applies only to a "full-time student" under the meaning of the CSFAR -that is, a student in a program of studies at a post-secondary school level -the ministry's decision that the appellant was not eligible for income assistance pursuant to section 16 of the EAR was not a reasonable application of the legislation in the circumstances of the appellant. The panel therefore rescinds the ministry's decision that the appellant was ineligible for income assistance because she was a full-time student. EMT 003{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.