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 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 o f D e c e m b e 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 p p e l l a n t h a d n o t m e t a n y o f t h e t h r e e c o n d i t i o n s 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 i l i t i e s R e g u l a t i o n s u p p l e m e n t w a s n o t n e e d e d f o r a n u n e x p e c t e d e x a v a i l a b l e a n d t h a t f a i l u r e t o o b t a i n a c r i s i s a l l o w a n 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 S e c t i o n 5 7 ( 1 ) o f t h e E A P W D R 1 E M T 0 0 3 ( 1 0 1 0 6/ 0 1 )l 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 ' s ( t h e 1 7 , 2 0 1 3 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 f o r h y d r o b e c a u s e t h e m i n i s t r y d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e u n d e r s e c t i o n 5 7 ( 1 ) o f t h e E m p l o y m e n t a n d ( E A P W D R ) . T h e m i n i s t r y d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e p e n s e , t h a t t h e r e w e r e a l t e r n a t e r e s o u r c e s c e f o r h y d r o w o u l d n o t r e s u l t i n i m m i n e n t d a n g e r t o
PART E -Summarv of Facts The information before the ministry at the time of reconsideration included the following: • The summary of facts section of the reconsideration decision dated December 17, 2013, which states: the appellant is currently receiving disability assistance as a sole recipient with no dependent children. His file opened in July, 2005. -on November 5, 2013, the appellant submitted a hydro bill to the ministry dated October 25, 2013 in the amount of $3,525.84 and requested a crisis supplement for utilities. -portions of the hydro bill date back to November, 2012, and this matter had been through reconsideration and tribunal processes and denial was upheld. The ministry notes that the appellant's hydro bill has not been paid in full since November, 2012. • The decision summary section of the reconsideration decision above, which states: -The appellant receives monthly disability benefits of $946.42, of which $375 is for shelter funds intended to provide rent and utilities. the appellant was aware that the hydro bill with a current balance of $3,525.84 has not been paid in full since the fall of 2012. He acknowledged to the ministry worker that he had been aware of his accumulating hydro bill for some time. -the ministry worker confirmed with the hydro supplier that this current balance was an accumulation back to November 2012. -the appellant told the worker that he lived in a 12 by 48 ff mobile home and used motors to run a pond for raising fish. He also infonned the worker he used electric power to grow medical marijuana and had a wood burning stove that could be used for heat. The decision to be reconsidered section of the Request for Reconsideration, dated November 6, 2013 which states: -the ministry worker was informed by the appellant after the crisis supplement was requested that the appellant planned to challenge the hydro supplier regarding the amount of the hydro bill but was told he would have to hire an electrician. The appellant told the ministry worker that he uses little energy himself but does operate small motors to run a pond in which he raises fish. • the Reason for Request for Reconsideration section of the Request for Reconsideration dated November 25, 2013 in which the appellant states: -the hydro supplier told him they [hydro] will not accept a partial payment. the appellant requires hydro for light, fridge, heater and 3 pumps for his fish tanks. Water is also on a pump. 1 EMT003(10/06/01)
-he lives in a 12 by 8 ft mobile home. he has a license to grow medical marijuana and can grow 30 plants which get heat from a stove pipe from a wood heater. -he has been making regular payments for hydro but "there is no explanation why the hydro bill has increased so rapidly." -he states that "the installation of [a] smart meter has caused the bill to raise outrageously." -the hydro supplier has informed him that the supplier is waiting to hear from the ministry by December 11, 2013 • a hydro bill dated October 25, 2013 to the appellant stating that the total amount owing is $3,525.84, and that the payment is past due. • an electric billing history of the appellant from the hydro supplier from January 201 O to November 2012. The history shows the appellant's daily average hydro use as: -35 kWh (kilowatts per hour) for 2010, based on meter readings from January 20 to December 28; -54 kWh for 2011, based on meter readings from January 26 to November 1; -51 kWh for 2012, based on meter readings from February 23 to November 23. • a copy of the ministry worker's file note on the appellant, with entries from October 3, 2013 to December 12, 2013, stating that the overdue hydro bill of $3525.84 which the client asked the ministry to pay on November 5 and again on November 6, 2013 is "an accumulation of not fully paid bills back to November, 2012." The file note continues as follows: "Worker notes that Tribunal declined to pay bill in Feb/13 -part of this bill would relate to bill in the Tribunal." The note states that the ministry worker advised the appellant on November 5, 2013 to ask the hydro provider "for an evaluation of where Hydro.' [The panel interprets this as a suggestion from the ministry worker that the appellant ask the hydro provider to explain the appellant's hydro charges.) The note also states that the appellant informed the worker on November 6, 2013 that the appellant "uses little hydro, but does have fish pond with motors etc." After the reconsideration decision of December 17, 2013, the following information was received: 1. The appellant's reasons for appeal dated December 30, 2013, in which the appellant wrote: "I did not expect hydro bill to be as high as it is. Found wire buried in ground two weeks ago, pulled out, since [then] my use has been 40 to 55 K.W. per day with everything running. Not 750." The appellant states that he is sure that it [his high bill) is the result of another family's "doings." 2. A note from the appellant's doctor dated February 3, 2014 stating: "[the appellant] has severe COPD [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease] and should not use a wood stove -avoid all smoke into lun s includin wood smoke, tobacco, ot, automobile." 1 EAAT003(10/06/01)
3 . A s u b m i s s i o n b y t h e a p p e l l a n t i n c l u d e d i n t h e t r i b u n a l ' s a p p e a l r e c o r d p a c k a g e d a t e d M a r c h 3 1 , 2 0 1 4 t h a t i n c l u d e s a d i s c o n n e c t i o n n o t i c e d a t e d M a r c h 3 , 2 0 1 4 t o t h e a p p e l l a n t f r o m h i s h y d r o s u p p l i e r , i n d i c a t i n g a " t o t a l a m o u n t o w i n g " o f $ 4 , 5 3 8 . 7 0 . 4 . A 1 2 p a g e s u b m i s s i o n f r o m t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s a d v o c a t e d a t e d M a r c h 2 7 t h a t i n c l u d e s t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s h y d r o b i l l s , w i t h b i l l i n g d a t e s f r o m M a y 2 8 , 2 0 1 3 t o F e b r u a r y 2 5 , 2 0 1 4 . T h e f o l l o w i n g i s t h e r e s u l t o f t h e p a n e l ' s s u m m a r y o f t h e i n f o r m a t i o n o n t h e b i l l s . U s i n g t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n , t h e p a n e l c a l c u l a t e d t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s d a i l y k Wh u s a g e f o r t h e p e r i o d s i n d i c a t e d a s f o l l o w s : -1 1 4 k W h : M a r c h 2 3 M a r c h 3 1 , 2 0 1 3 -1 1 3 . 7 k Wh : A p r i l 1 M a y 2 4 , 2 0 1 3 -1 1 9 . 6 k W h : M a y 2 5 J u l y 2 4 , 2 0 1 3 -7 8 . 7 k Wh : J u l y 2 5 S e p t e m b e r 2 4 , 2 0 1 3 -1 1 6 . 6 k Wh : S e p t e m b e r 2 5 N o v e m b e r 2 1 , 2 0 1 3 -6 4 . 2 9 k Wh : D e c e m b e r 2 1 , 2 0 1 3 F e b r u a r y 1 9 , 2 0 1 4 T h e b i l l s s h o w t h e f o l l o w i n g p a y m e n t s / c r e d i t s , w h i c h t o t a l $ 1 , 2 3 4 , 2 9 : -$ 1 5 4 . 2 9 ( c r e d i t s ) A p r i l 1 J u l y 2 4 , 2 0 1 3 -$ 4 0 0 . 0 0 A p r i l 2 4 , 2 0 1 3 -$ 1 0 0 . 0 0 S e p t e m b e r 1 0 , 2 0 1 3 -$ 1 0 0 . 0 0 S e p t e m b e r 1 3 , 2 0 1 3 -$ 1 0 0 . 0 0 O c t o b e r 3 , 2 0 1 3 -$ 2 0 0 . 0 0 N o v e m b e r 2 2 , 2 0 1 3 -$ 8 0 . 0 0 J a n u a r y 1 0 , 2 0 1 4 -$ 1 0 0 . 0 0 J a n u a r y , 2 4 , 2 0 1 4 5 . A d o c u m e n t p r e p a r e d b y t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s a d v o c a t e o n h i s b e h a l f a n d p r e s e n t e d t o t h e p a n e l d u r i n g t h e h e a r i n g . T h e d o c u m e n t s t a t e s : T h e a p p e l l a n t u s e s 2 5 5 5 a m p m o t o r s t o r u n t h e p u m p s y s t e m f o r h i s f i s h p e n a n d 6 2 5 0 w a t t h e a t l a m p s t o m a i n t a i n t h e t e m p e r a t u r e o f t h e w a t e r a t 7 0 -7 4 d e g r e e s . T h e f i s h w i l l d i e i f t h e y h y d r o i s c u t o f f . 1 E AA T 00 3 ( 1 0 / 0 6 / 0 I )
The appellant has not been able to sell any of the fish he is raising because he is still awaiting a license to do so. He uses a wood stove for about 20 percent of his heat and the heat rises to the green house where he grows medicinal marijuana under license for personal use for his chronic pain. He does not use hydro for the marijuana. -The appellant states his mortgage payment is $550 per month. In November, 2013, the appellant contracted the hydro provider and requested an investigation regarding what he considered to be the high cost of hydro. The hydro provider was only able to check the hydro meter at the pole on the appellant's property. The appellant informed hydro that in December, 2013 he found a wire sticking out of the ground beneath his trailer but the appellant states "they (hydro] were not able to deal with that." -The appellant contacted the RCMP about his suspicion that someone was tapping into his hydro. At the hearing the appellant stated he contacted the RCMP in December, 2013 and the police gave him a file number for their investigation. The panel notes that the appellant did not provide the file number at the hearing. -The appellant claims his daily hydro use has been reduced to 54 k\Ml since he found (and pulled out) the wire under his trailer in December, 2013. -The appellant has severe food allergies which restrict him to mainly seafood and fresh vegetables. He relies on the fish he raises for seafood and the byproducts are used in hydroponics to grow vegetables that he states he could not otherwise afford. The panel finds that the documents comprising #1-5 above contain information in support of the information and records that were before the minister when the decision being appealed was made. The documents provide supporting financial information as well as information related to the circumstance of the appellant relevant to the ministry's determination. The panel therefore finds that they are admissible as evidence in accordance with the Employment and Assistance Act (EAA), Section 22 (4). 1 EM T003(1 0/06/01)
PART F -Reasons for Panel Decision The issue under appeal is whether the ministry's reconsideration decision, which denied the appellant's request for a crisis supplement to p ay for hydro, was a reasonable application of the legislation in the circumstances of the appellant or was reasonably supported by the evidence. The ministry determined that the appellant had not met any of the three conditions under section 57(1) of the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Regulation (EAPWDR). The ministry determined that the supplement was not needed for an unexpected expense, that there were alternate resources available and that failure to obtain a crisis allowance for hydro would not result in imminent danger to the appellant's health. Employment and Assistance for Persons With Disabilities Regulation Crisis supplement 57 (1) The minister may provide a crisis supplement to or for a family unit that is eligible for disability assistance or hardship assistance if (a) the family unit or a person in the family unit requires the supplement to meet an unexpected expense or obtain an item unexpectedly needed and is unable to meet the expense or obtain the item because there are no resources available to the family unit, and (b) the minister considers that failure to meet the expense or obtain the item will result in (i) imminent danger to the physical health of any person in the family unit, or (ii) removal of a child under the Child, Family and Community Service Act. (2) A crisis supplement may be provided only for the calendar month in which the application or request for the supplement is made. (3) A crisis supplement may not be provided for the purpose of obtaining (a) a supplement described in Schedule C, or (b) any other health care goods or services. (4) A crisis supplement provided for food, shelter or clothing is subject to the following limitations: (a) if for food, the maximum amount that may be provided in a calendar month is $20 for each person in the family unit, (b) if for shelter, the maximum amount that may be provided in a calendar month is the smaller of (i) the family unit's actual shelter cost, and (ii) the maximum set out in section 4 of Schedule A or Table 2 of Schedule D, as applicable, for a family unit that matches the family unit, and (c) if for clothing, the amount that may be provided must not exceed the smaller of (i) $100 for each person in the family unit in the 12 calendar month period preceding the date of application for the crisis supplement, and (ii) $400 for the family unit in the 12 calendar month period preceding the date of application for the crisis supplement. (5) The cumulative amount of crisis supplements that may be provided to or for a family unit in a year must not exceed the amount calculated under subsection (6). 1 EMT 003(1 0/06/01 )
(6) In the calendar mont h i n which the app l ication or reque under subsection ( 5) i s ca lcula ted by multiplying by hardship assistan ce that may be provide d for the month un unit t h at m a t che s the f amily unit. (7) Despite subsection (4 ) (b) or (5 ) or both, a crisis supp u nit for the fol lowing: (a) fuel for h eatin g; (b) fu el f or c ooking m eal s; ( c) (BC Reg. 13/2 003) W ith res pect to the p art of Secti on 57(1)(a), EAPWDR, dealing with an une ministry's pos it ion is that util ities are an ongoi n g expense and cannot be appellan t was awar e tha t h is hyd ro bi ll ha s no t b e en pai t here f ore con t ends t hat i t c a n not reaso nably accep pay for an unexpected i tem o r a n u ne x p ecte d e x p ense. T h e appe l lant st a t es t hat i n January , 2 010, a ne i gh a higher hydr o reading. The ap pellant' s posit i on is t unexp ect edly h igh. In his Reas o n f or Reque s t for Reco th a t the i nstalla t i on of smart m e ter s ha s caus e d h is hydr s e c t ion of hi s Notice f o r A ppeal, De c ember 30, 201 wire b u rie d in t he ground and at tac h ed under hi s tr o ut. Since t hen his hyd ro bill ha s decr e a sed co nsidera he pulled ou t the wi re to 4 0 -5 5 kW h da ily afterward T he a ppell a n t restated at the hear i n g tha t he s usp ec sta t ed th a t a ft er he disc ov ered the w i re un der h is trailer, he a lleg ati o n o f p o we r th eft . He st ate d that the i nv e s ti appellant provided no documentat ion to confirm that the RCMP was investigating his allegation. He also stated at the hearing that he caught a neighbor switchi higher reading in January, 201 o and that he lives in a neighborhood where he cannot trust his neighbors. He stated that after he asked hydro to check hi that there was no problem with the meter and t hat his power use furth er. Al the hearing the appell ant likely in May or June, he could not remember. The panel finds that it was reasona bl e of the ministry to take expense that the appellant should have expected. The panel finds, however, that the issue here is whether the amount of the appellant's hydro bill was expected. The panel finds that it was unr easonable of the ministry not to consider the amount of the appellant's hy reconside r a ti on d ecision. The p a nel finds that the appellant's contention that his hydro bill was too hiqh is not inconsistent with the evidence provided. The panel notes that the evidence shows 1 EAAT003(10/06/0I) st for the su p plement i s made, th e amount 2 the maximum amo unt of di s abili t y ass i s tance o r d e r Sc hedule A or Sche du le D to a family l e ment may be p rovided to or for a f ami ly water; ( d) hydr o. x p ected expens e, the c onsidered unexpected. Th e d in f ull s i nce the f all o f 2012, T he mi n i s t r y t that th e appellant needs a cr isis supplement t o bor switched t he app ellant's met er f o r a m e ter wit h ha t his hy d ro bills s ince th e f all of 2012 hav e bee n ns id er ati o n, Dec em b er 25, 2013, h e states o bill t o incre ase . In t he R ea son s for Appeal 3, he states that t w o w e eks pre vious l y he found a ailer. The appell a n t stat es th a t he pulled the wi r e bl y , f rom an av e r age of 750 k\Nh da i ly before s. ted some o n e w as t a p ping int o h is p o wer . He as ke d the RCMP to i nve s ti g ate h is g ati o n has unco vered no wr o n g do i n g s o far . Th e ng his hydro meter to one with a s meter, t h e hy dr o provider informed him h e would have to hire an e l e ctrician to investigate stated that the smart meter was installed i n 2 0 12, the posit i o n th at utilities are an ongoing dro b ill i n its in 2013
the l ast ti me the app ellant's hydro bill was pa i d in full not co ver the period from December 2 012 to March 23, 2 1 , 2013, the bills fro m March 2 3 , 2013 to No vem be c ont r ast, the bill f or the per i od afte r t he appellant claimed he p trailer is significantly lower: 64.29 kWh daily for the period from 201 4 . The panel also notes that t he ap pellant' s daily 54 l<Wh re spectively, compared wit h h is March 23 to November daily. While t he panel finds th at the se numbers alon was a victim of powe r · theft d u ring 20 1 3 , they are not inconsisten fi nd s it is reasonable that these numbers s hould have been tak mini s try's decision with respect to the issue of whether th high during 2013 as t he app ellant claimed. Becaus unr easonable the m i ni s tr y's decision with respect to Section 57(1 )(a), EAPWDR, dealing un e xpec ted e xpen se. With respect to t he p art of S e c tion 57(1 )( a), E A PWDR, mi nist r y 's po s itio n i s tha t the app e l lant has regula r mo u t ili ties for the appella nt 's mo bi l e home. The appell $9 4 6.42, whic h incl ud e s $37 5 f or rent a n d utilities . inc ome from t he ap pel lant 's fish pond or fr o m the sa t he appella n t s tates he r eceives no inco me f rom t he persona l med ical use to tr e at c h ro nic pain . H e a lso fis h he rai ses , though he h o pe s to obta in a li cense re nt a nd utilities, th e panel not es th a t the app el lant s m o nt h and th is is not disput ed by the m i nis t r y. The panel mini s tr y ' s d e c isi o n wit h respec t to the part of Section resources. W i th re s p ect to the Section 5 7(1 )(b) , EAPWD R , the mi woo d bur nin g stov e that could be us ed for heat. Accordi su b s t ant i ate an imminent danger to the appellan t 's health. The appellant's severe impairme nt s incl uding C OP D, as th ma a nd emphy his ho me warm; and his chronic pain and restrict ed showers. Furiher he needs electricity to maintain the fish and the vegetables he produces. The evidence prov id ed by the appellant includes a note from the appellant's doctor stating: "[the appellant has severe COPD and should not use a wood stove -avoid all smoke into lungs [including] wood smoke, tobacco, pot, automobile. " In light of the appellant's statements about his need for electricity and his doctor's note ind i cati ng that the appellant should not use a wood stove, the panel finds to be unreasonable the ministry's decision with respect to Section 57(1 )(b}(i), EAPWDR dealing with imminent danger·. As the panel finds the ministry's decision to be unreas 57(1)(a) and (b), the panel rescinds the mini stry's decision to for hydro and refers the matter back to the mini stry on November 6, 2013, the app e llant was denied a crisis supplement for utilities; that decision was upheld on appeal. The recon s i deration decision currently under appeal dated was based on the annell ant's request for a crisis surn1lement for a lwdro bill dated October 25, 1 EAAT003(10/06/0I) w a s Novemb er 2012. While the bills provided do 2013, and from November 21 to December r, 2 1, 2013 a verage 108.46 kWh daily. In u lled th e wire out from beneath his Decemb e r 2 1, 2013 to February 19, p ow e r use for 2010 and 20-11 was only 35 and 2 1, 2013 average of 108.46 kVVh e do not prove the appella nt's contention that he t with such a content ion. The panel en under consideration in the e appellant 's power bill was unexpec tedly e they were not, th e p anel fin ds to be with an dea l ing w ith a va i lab ility o f r e source s, the n t hly disab i l ity bene f its to pro vide for adequate a nt rece ives a mo nt hl y disability bene fits of The m inistry states t h at th er e i s no inf o rmation on le of med i c i nal ma r i j ua na . T he panel note s t h at marijuana , whi ch he gr o w s un d er li cens e for his states he h a s o f ye t r e ceived no in come from the t o sell t hem. Re gard i ng the adeq u ac y of $3 75 f o r ta tes hi s mortgage payments are $5 5 0 per therefo r e finds t o be unreas ona ble the 57(1 )(a}, EAPWDR, d e a l ing with ava il abil ity of n i stry 's pos ition is th a t the a p pell ant has a ng to the mini str y, there is no information t o position is that he has sema that re quire he t 1as the ability to keep joint mobility req ui re that he t ak e l ong ho t on a ble w it h re s pe c t to den y the appellant a crisis supplement for a decision as to amount. The panel notes that December 17, 2013 2013
(which included amounts owing accumulated up to November, 2012). 1 EAAT003(10/06/0I)
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.