� APPEAL# PART C -Decision under Appeal The decision being appealed is the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation (the "Ministry") March 17, 2014 reconsideration decision in which the Ministry determined that, in accordance with the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Regulation section 1, section 9, section 24 and Schedules A and 8, the Appellant's employment insurance benefit, including deductions, is considered unearned income and must be deducted from the monthly disability assistance the Appellant would otherwise be eligible for. PART D -Relevant Legislation Employment ant Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Regulation ("EAPWDR") Sections 1, 9 and 24, Schedule A and Schedule 8. EMT 003(10/06/01)
P A R T E S u m m a r y o f F a c t s T h e A p p e l l a n t d i d n o t a p p e a r a t t h e h e a r i n g . T h e P w i t h n o t i c e o f t h e h e a r i n g a n d t h e n t h e P a n e l p r o c e 8 6 ( b ) 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 R e g u l a t i o T h e M i n i s t r y h a d t h e f o l l o w i n g e v i d e n c e f o r i t s r e c o 1 . I n f o r m a t i o n f r o m i t s r e c o r d s t h a t : • T h e A p p e l l a n t i s e l i g i b l e t o r e c e i v e d d i s a b i l i t P e r s o n s w i t h D i s a b i l i t i e s ( " P W D " ) d e s i g n a t i o • O n F e b r u a r y 2 7 , 2 0 1 4 t h e M i n i s t r y a d v i s e d t e m p l o y m e n t i n s u r a n c e ( " E l " ) b e n e f i t b e f o r e • T h e M i n i s t r y c o n f i r m e d t h e A p p e l l a n t ' s w e e k t h e f e d e r a l g o v e r n m e n t . T h e M i n i s t r y w a s a d E l b e c a u s e o f a n o v e r p a y m e n t . • T h e M i n i s t r y a d v i s e d t h e A p p e l l a n t t h a t t h e o d e t e r m i n e d e l i g i b i l i t y f o r d i s a b i l i t y a s s i s t a n c e 2 . C o p y o f E l c l a i m r e p o rt d a t e d F e b r u a r y 2 5 , 2 0 1 4 A p p e l l a n t ' s b e n e f i t s : b e n e f i t s s t a rt e d J a n u a r y 1 9 , 2 r a t e i s $ 5 1 4 p e r w e e k w i t h 2 8 w e e k s o f e n t i t l e m e n t b e n e f i t w a s $ 5 1 4 ; t h e s e c o n d w e e k o f F e b r u a r y 1 6 2 3 , 2 0 1 4 a p a y m e n t o f $ 5 5 8 w a s i s s u e d . 3 . 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 i n w h • I n a n e f f o r t t o b e t r a n s p a r e n t w i l l a l l m o n i e s d e d u c t i o n s t o h i s E l e a r n i n g s w e r e n o t c l a i m m a i n t e n a n c e a r r e a r s . • A t t h e t i m e h e f i l e d f o r a s s i s t a n c e w i t h t h e M g a r n i s h m e n t o f h i s E l b e n e f i t s . • H e r e c e i v e d h i s E l p a y m e n t o n F e b r u a r y 2 5 , $ 5 9 6 n o t $ 9 8 6 ( a f t e r i n c o m e t a x d e d u c t i o n s ) h e l p i n t h e w a y o f a s s i s t a n c e . • H e w a s u n a w a r e o f a n y g a r n i s h m e n t a t t h e t i n t e n t t o m a k e t h i s p r o c e s s a n y m o r e c o m p l i • H e a s s u r e d t h e M i n i s t ry t h a t h e d i d n o t r e c e i g i v e l u m p s u m p a y m e n t s u n l e s s r e p a y i n g f o r l u m p s u m p a y m e n t a n d s u b m i t t e d a b a n k s t a f r o m E l . • H i s g o a l i s n o t t o r e l y o n t h e M i n i s t r y f u n d i n g c a s e , b u t a l l a v e n u e s a r e b e i n g e x p l o r e d , i n c p r o v i n c i a l p r o g r a m a n d g e t t i n g a n y r e t r a i n i n g • H e a n d h i s w i f e a r e f a c i n g e v i c t i o n f r o m t h e i r u n a b l e t o p a y r e n t ; t h e y n o w h a v e a m o n t h l y M i n i s t r y . 4 . C o p y o f A p p e l l a n t ' s b a n k s t a t e m e n t d a t e d M a r c h g o v e r n m e n t f o r E l f o r $ 5 5 8 o n F e b r u a r y 2 5 , 2 0 1 4 . E AA T 0 0 3 ( 1 0 / 0 6 / 0 1 )A P P E A L # : a n e l c o n f i r m e d t h a t t h e A p p e l l a n t w a s p r o v i d e d e d e d i n h i s a b s e n c e i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h s e c t i o n n . n s i d e r a t i o n d e c i s i o n : y a s s i s t a n c e w i t h a d e p e n d e n t s p o u s e w i t h n w i t h n o d e p e n d e n t c h i l d r e n . h e A p p e l l a n t t h a t h e h a d t o d e c l a r e h i s g r o s s d e d u c t i o n s . l y E l b e n e f i t s o f $ 5 1 4 l e s s $ 3 2 i n c o m e t a x e s w i t h v i s e d t h a t t h e A p p e l l a n t h a d d e d u c t i o n s f r o m h i s v e r p a y m e n t a m o u n t w a s n o t e x e m p t f r o m h o w i t . w i t h t h e f o l l o w i n g i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t t h e 0 1 4 a n d e x p i r e o n J a n u a r y 2 4 , 2 0 1 5 ; t h e b e n e f i t ; t h e f i r s t w e e k o f F e b r u a r y 9 , 2 0 1 4 t h e g r o s s , 2 0 1 4 t h e g r o s s b e n e f i t w a s $ 5 1 4 ; o n F e b r u a r y i c h h e w r o t e t h a t : h e r e c e i v e s , i t b e c a m e k n o w n t o h i m t h a t s o m e e d ; t h e d e d u c t i o n w a s f o r r e p a y m e n t o f f a m i l y i n i s t r y , h e w a s n o t a w a r e t h a t t h e r e w o u l d b e a 2 0 1 4 f o r t h e w e e k s o f F e b r u a r y 9 a n d 1 6 t o t a l l y , a s h e d e c l a r e d t o t h e M i n i s t r y w h e n t h e y f i l e d f o r i m e a n d f o r t h a t h e a p o l o g i z e s ; i t w a s n o t h i s c a t e d t h a t i t h a s b e c o m e . v e a l u m p s u m E l p a y m e n t b e c a u s e E l d o e s n o t a n y a r r e a r s ; h e h a s n o t b e e n i n f o r m e d o f a n y t e m e n t s h o w i n g a l l m o n e y d i r e c t l y d e p o s i t e d t o e x i s t ; u n f o r t u n a t e l y a t t h i s t i m e , t h i s i s n o t t h e l u d i n g p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n p r o g r a m s o f f e r e d b y a t h a t m a y b e a v a i l a b l e . h o m e d u e t o g a r n i s h m e n t o f h i s E l a n d a r e i n c o m e t h a t i s l e s s t h a n t h a t e l i g i b l e f r o m t h e 4 , 2 0 1 3 s h o w i n g a d e p o s i t f r o m t h e f e d e r a l
I APPEAL# In his notice of appeal, the Appellant wrote that since the latter part of January 2014, when he applied for disability assistance, he received 2 checks from El. One check was for the entire month of February totaling $596 and the gross amount was higher -$986 before deductions. This gross amount was still less than what the two of them would have received in monthly PWD assistance by about $286. Until March 24, 2014 he received only one El check. This has been over a period of over 2 months and their income from El would now look more like a net income well under the Ministry amounts, by far more than $286. As of March 25, 2014 he received his second El payment. Taking that into account and adding the 2 El payments together of $596 net or $986 gross -the payment received for the entire month of February plus $7 48 net and $986 gross -the payment received for March, the total is $1,344 of actual money received over the past 2 months. The Appellant submitted a copy of his bank statement showing a deposit on March 11, 2014 for $7 48 for El benefits. The Appellant also stated that he understands that the Ministry's legislation is worded so that his El conflicts with it. But he is also aware that without further continued assistance from the Ministry they will undoubtedly be left with no home nor the means to feed or clothe themselves. He wrote that he continues to sign promises to repay all monies and only hopes that they can work together through this very difficult and incredibly stressful time. The Appellant made notes on two documents. On the El claim report he referred to the 2 payments for $514, underlined the February 23, 2014 amount of $558 and wrote "these amounts totaled saw a payment issue for the amount underlined". On the first page of Appendix A of the reconsideration decision, after the 2 nd paragraph of the Background section, the Appellant wrote "As of March 2014, please note that I have received No notice of any over payment from El and thus no overpayment deductions have been made". After the 3 rd paragraph under Legislation, the Appellant wrote "For Feb. the gross El was only $986 and as such shouldn't a top up be issued?" Since the Appellant did not appear at the hearing, the Panel will consider the information in his notice of appeal to be his submissions for the appeal hearing. The Panel finds that the Appellant's written statements in his notice of appeal provide additional details about his El benefits. Therefore, pursuant to section 22(4) of the Employment and Assistance Act, the Panel admits the written statements as being in support of evidence that was before the Ministry at reconsideration. At the hearing the Ministry reaffirmed its reconsideration decision. The Panel makes the following findings of fact: 1. The Appellant and his spouse are eligible for $1270.58 a month in disability assistance as a family unit of 2 adults. 2. Starting on January 19, 2014 the Appellant was eligible for $514, less $32 income taxes, for 28 weeks in weekly El benefits. 3. For the week of February 9, 2014 the gross benefit was $514 and for the week of February 16, 2014 the gross benefit was $514. 4. On February 25, 2014, the Appellant received $558 in El benefits. 5. On March 11, 2014, the Appellant received $748 in El benefits. EM T003(10/06/01)
APPEAL# � PART F -Reasons for Panel Decision The issue in this appeal is whether Ministry reasonably determined that, in accordance with the EAPWDR section 1, section 9, section 24 and Schedules A and B, the Appellant's employment insurance benefit, including deductions, is considered unearned income and must be deducted from the monthly disability assistance the Appellant would otherwise be eligible for. The following sections of the EAPWDR apply to the Appellant's circumstances in this appeal: Definitions 1 (1) In this regulation: "unearned income" means any income that is not earned, and includes, without limitation, money or value received from any of the following: (g) employment insurance. Limits on income 9(1) for the purposes of the Act and this regulation, "income" in relation to a family unit, includes an amount garnished, attached, seized, deducted or set off from the income of an applicant, a recipient or a dependent. (2) A family unit is not eligible for disability assistance if the net income of the family unit determined under Schedule B equals or exceeds the amount of disability assistance determined under Schedule A for a family unit matching that family unit. Amount of disability assistance 24 Disability assistance may be provided to or for a family unit, for a calendar month, in an amount that is not more than (a) the amount determined under Schedule A minus (b) the family unit's net income determined under Schedule B. Schedule A -Disability Assistance Rates (section 24(a)). Monthly support allowance 2 For family unit of two recipients -$700.56. Monthly shelter allowance 4 For family unit of two recipients -$570. Schedule B -Net Income Calculation (section 24(b)) 1 Exemptions from income. 6 The only deductions permitted from unearned income are the following: (a) any income tax deducted at source from employment insurance benefits. 7 Exemptions -unearned income. The Parties' Positions The Appellant submitted that the gross amount of El benefit he receives in a month is less than the $1270.50 in disability assistance that he is eligible for. He stated that in February 2014 he received $986 gross -$596 net in El benefits and in March 2014 he received $986 gross -$748 net in El benefits. He also submitted a copy of a bank statement showing a deposit of $558 in El benefits on February 25, 2014 and a copy of a bank statement showing a deposit of $748 on March 11, 2014. . EMT 003(10/06/01)
APPEAL# � The Ministry's position is that the Appellant's monthly $2056 El benefit is considered unearned income and therefore is not exempt from the net income calculation for disability assistance under Schedule B of the EAPWDR. The Ministry noted that under section 9(1) of the EAPWDR income · includes an amount garnished from the income of a recipient. The Ministry determined that, except for income tax deducted from the El benefit, the Appellant's El benefit, including the garnishment for family maintenance arrears, must be deducted from the Appellant's disability assistance under section 24 of the EAPWDR. Therefore, under section 9(2) of the EAPWDR, the Appellant is not eligible for disability assistance because his monthly El benefit of $2056 exceeds the $1270.56 in disability assistance his family unit would be eligible for under Schedule A of that regulation. The Panel's Findings and Conclusion In his notice of appeal, the Appellant stated that his gross El benefit for February and for March 2014 was $986; however, he provided no documentation to support those amounts. He also provided no documentation to support the net El benefit figures he cited. The Panel finds that the only documents in the record regarding the Appellant's El benefit amounts are the El Claim Report and the copies of the Appellant's bank statement showing the $558 deposit on February 25, 2014 and the $748 deposit on March 11, 2014. There is also evidence that the Ministry confirmed the amount of the Appellant's benefits with the federal government. The Panel gives these two records and the Ministry's confirmation more weight than the information provided by the Appellant. Based on the El Claim Report and the Ministry's confirmation, the Panel finds that the Appellant is eligible for $514 a week, less $32 taxes, in El benefits, or $2056, less $128 taxes, for a 4 week month. Section 24 of the EAPWDR provides that disability assistance may be provided to or for a family unit, for a calendar month in an amount that is not more than the amount of assistance determined under Schedule A minus the family unit's net income determined under Schedule B. Under Schedule A, the Appellant's family unit is eligible for $1270.50 a month in disability assistance. The Appellant receives El benefits of $2056 a month, which is defined as unearned income under section 1 of the EAPWDR and which under section 9(1) includes any amount garnished. Schedule B lists various exemptions and deductions which may be applied to the calculation of net income. The Panel finds that the only one applicable to the Appellant's circumstances is section 6 (a); that is, any income tax deducted at source fr.om employment insurance benefits. Therefore, the Panel further finds that the Ministry reasonably determined that under section 9(2) of the EAPWDR, the Appellant is not eligible for disability assistance because his monthly net unearned income in the form of El benefits exceeds the monthly disability assistance his family unit would be eligible for under Schedule A of that regulation. Having reviewed and considered all of the evidence and the relevant legislation, the Panel finds that the Ministry's reconsideration decision was reasonably supported by the evidence. Therefore the Panel confirms that decision. EAAT 003(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.