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 January 16, 2014, which denied the Appellant Income Assistance (IA), as the Ministry determined that the Appellant was non-compliant with the conditions of her employment plan, (EP), contrary to Sec. 9 of the Employment Assistance Act. PART D -Relevant Legislation Employment and Assistance Act (EAA) Sec. 9 EAAT 003( 10/06/01)
P A R T E S u m m a r y o f F a c t s A s u m m a r y o f 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 t h e t i m I . A c o p y o f t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s e m p l o y m e n t p l a n ( E P ) s a p p e l l a n t ' s E P i n c l u d e d t h e f o l l o w i n g c o m p o n e n t P l a n C o n d i t i o n s C o n d i t i o n s o f t h e E P r e q u i r e t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t p a r t i c i p a t b y t h e m i n i s t r y o r E P B C c o n t r a c t o r a s s e t o u t i n s e c t i o n s S e c t i o n 3 ( a ) s e t s a s t a r t d a t e o f S e p t e m b e r 7 , 2 0 1 2 ; ( b ) l i P r o g r a m o f B C ( E P B C ) ; ( c ) p r o v i d e s t h e n a m e o f t h e c o n c o n d i t i o n o f c o n t i n u e d e l i g i b i l i t y f o r I A t h e a p p e l l a n t w i d i r e c t e d b y t h e E P B C c o n t r a c t o r . S h e m u s t a l s o w o r k w i m p a c t h e r e m p l o y a b i l i t y a n d w i l l c o m p l e t e a l l t a s k s a s s i a c t i o n p l a n . T h e a p p e l l a n t a g r e e d t o c o n t a c t t h e c o n t r a c t s h e i s u n a b l e t o a t t e n d a s e s s i o n o r w h e n s h e s t a r t s o r e n d t h e c o n d i t i o n s o f h e r E P s h e w 1 d e r s t a n d s t h a t s h e w i l l b e u n d e r s t a n d s t h a t s h e m u s t r e p o r t a l l i n c o m e , a n d r e p 0 1 t a r e v i e w a p p o i n t m e n t s a s r e q u i r e d ; ( e ) d a t e r e fe r r e d S e p t e m c o n t r a c t o r . S e c t i o n 5 : C o m p l i a n c e w i t h E P a n d A c t i o n s f o r N o n C o T o b e e l i g i b l e f o r a s s i s t a n c e , e a c h a p p l i c a n t o r r e c i p i e n t i a n E P , a n d c o m p l y w i t h t h e c o n d i t i o n s s e t o u t i n t h e E P . e m p l o y m e n t , o r b ) b e c o m e m o r e e m p l o y a b l e . A s s i s t a n c e d e m o n s t r a t e r e a s o n a b l e e f f o r t s t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n a p r o g r a m c e a s e s e x c e p t fo r m e d i c a l r e a s o n s , t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e p r S e c t i o n 6 : A c k n o w l e d g m e n t s T h e a p p e l l a n t a c k n o w l e d g e s t h a t i t i s a c o n d i t i o n o f e l i g i b c o n d i t i o n s s e t o u t i n h e r E P , i n c l u d i n g a n y c o n d i t i o n s t o T h e a p p e l l a n t u n d e r s t a n d s t h a t m i n i s t r y c o n t r a c t o r s h a v e u n d e r s t a n d s t h a t s h e m a y b e r e q u i r e d t o p r o v i d e v e r i f i c a t i n c l u d i n g p r o o f o f a c t i v e w o r k s e a r c h a n d / o r r e c o r d s o f a p r o g r a m a s r e q u i r e d b y t h e m i n i s t r y . T h e a p p e l l a n t fu r t h e r a g r e e s t h a t s h e a c k n o w l e d g e s a n d u e m p l o y m e n t r e l a t e d p r o g r a m t h a t s h e m u s t p a r t i c i p a t e fu l r e q u i r e d b y t h e m i n i s t r y c o n t r a c t o r . I n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e c o n d i t i o n s o f t h e E A A t h e a p p e l l a n o t c o m p l y w i t h t h e c o n d i t i o n s o f h e r E P , t h e a s s i s t a n c e i a p p e l l a n t a l s o a c k n o w l e d g e s t h a t s h e u n d e r s t a n d s t h a t p a r 2 . A c o p y o f 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 I n s e c t i o n 2 o f t h i s d o c u m e n t , w h i c h w a s c o m p l e t e d b y t h t h e a p p e l l a n t , t h e E P B C c o n t r a c t o r , a n d t h e m i n i s t r y w h i c • N u m e r o u s e n t r i e s m a d e b y t h e m i n i s t r y b e t w e e n S d i r e c t i n g t h e a p p e l l a n t t o r e c o n n e c t w i t h h e r E P B C E AA T 0 0 3 ( 1 0 / 0 6 / 0 1 )e o f t h e r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n i s a s f o l l o w s : i g n e d b y t h e A p p e l l a n t o n S e p t e m b e r 2 4 , 2 0 1 2 . T h e s : e fu l l y t o t h e b e s t o f h e r a b i l i t y i n t h e a c t i v i t i e s r e q u i r e d 3 ( a ) t o ( f ) o f h e r E P . s t s t h e n a m e o f t h e P r o g r a m / S e r v i c e a s E m p l o y m e n t t r a c t o r a n d a t e l e p h o n e n u m b e r ; ( d ) s t a t e s t h a t a s a l l p a r t i c i p a t e i n E P B C p r o g r a m m i n g r e g u l a r l y a n d a s i t h t h e E P B C c o n t r a c t o r t o a d d r e s s a n y i s s u e s t h a t m a y g n e d i n c l u d i n g a n y a c t i v i t i e s t h a t m a y b e s e t o u t i n a n o r a t t h e t e l e p h o n e n u m b e r l i s t e d i n p a r t ( c ) o f h e r E P i f s e m p l o y m e n t . I f t h e a p p e l l a n t f a i l s t o c o m p l y w i t h i n e l i g i b l e f o r I A u n d e r t h e E A A . T h e a p p e l l a n t a l s o n y c h a n g e s t o t h e m i n i s t r y a n d a t t e n d a l l m i n i s t r y b e r 2 4 , 2 0 1 2 ; ( f ) r e p o r t i n g r e q u i r e m e n t s a s p e r m p l i a n c e n a f a m i l y u n i t m u s t , w h e n r e q u i r e d t o d o s o , e n t e r i n t o T h e p u r p o s e o f a n E P i s t o h e l p a p e r s o n a ) fi n d w i l l b e d i s c o n t i n u e d i f a p e r s o n a ) f a i l s t o i n w h i c h h e o r s h e i s r e q u i r e d t o p a r t i c i p a t e o r b ) o g r a m . i l i t y t h a t s h e s i g n h e r E P a n d t h a t s h e c o m p l y w i t h t h e p a t t i c i p a t e i n a s p e c i f i c e m p l o y m e n t r e l a t e d p r o g r a m . t h e a b i l i t y t o r e p o r t b a c k o n h e r a c t i v i t i e s . S h e a l s o i o n o f h e r c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h e c o n d i t i o n s o f h e r E P , t t e n d a n c e o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n a n e m p l o y m e n t r e l a t e d n d e r s t a n d s t h a t , i f t h e m i n i s h y r e f e r s h e r t o a n l y a n d t o t h e b e s t o f h e r a b i l i t y i n t h e a c t i v i t i e s n t a c k n o w l e d g e s t h a t s h e u n d e r s t a n d s t h a t i f s h e d o e s s s u e d t o h e r o r h e r f a m i l y w i l l b e d i s c o n t i n u e d . T h e t i c i p a t i o n i n a n E P i s n o t o p e n t o a p p e a l . t i o n s i g n e d b y t h e a p p e l l a n t D e c e m b e r 2 4 , 2 0 1 3 . e m i n i s t J y , p r o v i d e s a r e c o r d o f i n t e r a c t i o n s b e t w e e n h r e p o r t s a m o n g o t h e r t h i n g s t h e f o l l o w i n g : e p t e m b e r 2 4 , 2 0 1 2 , a n d D e c e m b e r 1 0 , 2 0 1 3 , c o n t r a c t o r , r e m i n d i n g h e r t h a t t h i s c o n d i t i o n i s s e t
o ut in her EP, a nd f a i lure to d o so wi ll result in her ineligibility for • N umer ous ent ries m ad e during th e same t ime per a n y e arnin g s t o th e mi ni str y in a ti mely manner. • An entry made Ap ril 23, 2013 , reports that the appellant surger y for carpal tunnel . T he a p pellant w as adv patiicipate in the E PBC pr o g ram and if a doctor sta w hen the inf o r mation i s r ece ived. Howe v er, a t th t he app ell an t met wi th h e r EPBC c o n tractor and submi tunn e l but did not indi cate an i nab ili ty to see k or appell ant was a dvised by both th e min istr y an d h a nd she must co nt i nu e t o p ati icip ate as a cond ition • An entry ma de o n O c tober 15, 2013, rep01 i s th a t t brothe r is ba ck in hospital and that she i s e moti onal a n a ppointment wit h he r EPBC c ont r act or th is d ay • An entry made on D ecemb er 10, 2013, r e p o r ts that the n o n -comp l i ance. The appell ant has t ak en cash jobs o a sinc e re a tte m pt to par t i cip at e in EP B C prog ramm to bec o me financi a lly ind e pend e nt , and has not p i nabi lity to see k or a c cept empl o ym e n t o r pa tticip c on tac t the appell ant by ph o ne but was not su cce s In Section 3 o f the Req uest for Rec onsi d er at i on the a p pel r equest. I n thi s sectio n the app e ll ant rep orted th a t because of her mental s a n d that the w orke r f rom th e employm e nt place told he r she u nemp loyable at this time. Th e Reconsid e rati o n Decisio n fo u nd t hat the appell ant had failed to co d e c ision noted th e foll o wing, a m o ng other t hings; • Sectio n 9(1) of E AA states that f o r a f am ily uni t m ust comp l y with the condit io ns i n the EP. One of pat ii cipa te in E PBC p rogramming reg ularly an d was that the app e l lant would work wit h th e EPBC contractor to address any issues that may impact her employability, and comp l e te all tasks assigned including any activities that may be set out in an action plan. • T h e mi nist ry reports th at the app el lant ha s a histo1y with warnings of atta c he d in sec t i on 2 of the appellant's R equest for Rec establish that the appellant is currently in non-compliance, it does establish that the appellan well aware, on numerous occasion s, of the req u iremen contractor, provide evidence of work search, and/or to provide medical documentation to establish that she is un able to p articipate in t h e pr ogramming. • On January 16, 2014, the ministry contacted the appellant's former EPBC contractor who repmted that they had not offered to write a letter stating that they found the appellant to be unemployable. reported that the appellant had stopped participating in the program and had not attended appointments as required. They reported that the appellant had advised them that she could not attend appointments because she was net si tting and was attendi ng counseling for some mental EMT003(10/06/01) co nt inu ed benefits. iod reminding t he a p pellant of h e r obligation to repo rt advised the ministry th a t s he ma y require ised by th e ministry tha t at this time she i s r equire d to t e s she is una ble, t hat thi s w ill be ta ke n in to a c count is tim e she is expecte d to wor k. On Apri l 28 , 20 13, tted a medi cal r ep01i t hat in dic ate d s he has car pel acce pt emp loy ment o r c onfirm upc oming s u rg ery . The e r EPBC c ontractor that she was employm e n t obligate d of e l ig ibi l i ty. he a p pellant cont acted the mi nistt y a nd stat e d that her ly u nab l e to l o ok f or wor k. She re p mied that s he has a n d wil l d i s cuss w ith th e m . appell ant's EPBC file w as closed d u e to hab itu al v er the course o f her EP but h as not d em ons t r at ed ing to find gain fu l employm ent that woul d enable her rodu ced medic al inform a tion t ha t wou ld confirm a n ate in E PBC progra m ming. The minist r y at tempted to sful. A den i al letter was then se n t to t he appell an t . la n t is a s k ed to pr o vide her re aso n for makin g her ta te she i s n ot a bl e to deal wi t h people was writin g a letter sta tin g she fou n d her to be m ply with the co nditions of her EP. The t o be eligi b le f or IA, eac h me m be r of the f am ily unit the co ndition s in th e appella n t's EP was to as dir ected by her EPBC c on trac to r . Another condition n on-compliance with her EP, onsideration, and that wh i le this alone does not t was made t to attend a ppointments with her EPBC They health issues w h ich were
includ ed in as a n a ctivity within h e r action pla n. The contr was asked to provide con firm ation that sh e w as mental heal th, she refused to d o so. The ministry Re consideration Decision concluded that t he t h at s he had been gi ven numerous oppottunities to comply. Furth con s id eration her decl ared mental health conc e rns an d she was given an confirma ti on that she was unable to participate i nE PBC t he appellant had not complied w ith the conditions of herE IA under Se c t i o n 9 of E AA. In the a ppellan t's Notice of Appeal dated Jan u a r y 21, 2014, submitt after the Reconside r a t ion Decision, and pri o r to the hearing, sh able to deal with peopl e on a re gular basis until she staits speak her depress i o n and anxiety under control. She als o st ates another city so she is abl e to see a counselor regularly and cu rr e n t residence. Th e Notice of Appe a l was si gned by the appellan At th e hear ing t h e appell ant rep orted that she was se eing a writ e a letter s ta ting that she w a s u nemployable. The ap pellant pr ob l ems and that she ha s bee n dia gnosed with m ani c depression an medic ation. The appell ant repmted tha t s he c o u ld ha v e s so a s she t hought she had to send it to the T rib u nal 3 days repmt ed tha t sh e was b eing seen fo r a ssis tance with her menta member abou t t his stat ed tha t sh e had p a pe r w or k for a refe to c omplete which she onl y r ecei ve d las t week. W hen as ke d t h e da te of her la s t appo intment with her E PBC contrac unc e rta i n but said it was the sa me da y that s he info r me d tha t a s she was ve ry close t o h i m she was ve ry upset a nd t h at her br ot h er also suffers f r om mental heal th p r ob l e ms. u nderstand how she coul d be fo un d in n on-compl iance one m unable to do anyt hing for the p as t month and i s hop ing t o move to. The ministry sto od by the record a nd repmted that as the ap c ounselor fo r me n t al he alth i ss u e s the a p pel lant had failed to demonstrate reasonable effotts to participate program and that she ceased participating in the program without providing verifi doi ng so. The ministr y also informed the appe llant th at it m able to prov ide new medical information to the ministry regarding her mental health. The panel determined the appell ant's oral testimony was admissible as evide as it was in suppor t of t he r e cor ds be fo re the min ister at reco panel to c larify th e date and t he content o f the appellant's last me did not object. Findings of Facts: • The appellant is a single employable recipient with two dependent children under the age of I 0. • On September 7, 2012, the appellant entered into an EP with conditions. • The last time the anpellant met with herE PBC contractor was October 15, 2013. EAAT 003(10/06/01) ac t or also rep orted that when the appellant attend ing co u ns eling or ta king steps to ad dress her conditio n s of t he appellan t's E P were reasonable and etmore, the app ellant's action p la n took into o pportnnity to pro vi de med ical programming. Con sequently the mi nistry found that P and that she was th erefore not e l ig ibl e to r eceive e d to the Tribunal office by the appe l lant e re potts t hat she d o es not feel herse lf that she is i ng with a counse l o r and gets her e m ot i ons and t h a t s he is tr y ing to get into low income housing in to get out of the ho rrible livin g con diti on s of h e r t Jan uar y 21 , 201 4. n employment councilor an d was told th at sh e would re p o1ted tha t s h e h as seriou s ment a l health d is c u rr ent l y ta k ing anti d epression ub m i tte d med i c al evidence t o ver ify this bu t did n ot do i n adva n c e of the hearin g . Th e app e llant then l health a nd when questi on fu rthe r b y a panel rra l b u t had n ot comp leted it as there w ere 15 page s to r by a p an e l m e m b er the app ellant was the m i nis t r y th at her brot her was bac k in h o s pi tal a nd emo tional ly u nable to w ork. The appe l lan t r e por te d In conclus i on the ap pellant reported tha t s he didn 't onth a nd not t h e ne xt a s s he h as been s ick an d find a b etter p l ac e f or her and he r two chi l dre n to pellant f ailed to provi d e con fir m ation of see ing a in the cation of m edi cal re asons for ay b e poss ibl e for herE P to be amended if she is nce under section 22(4) of theE AA nsideration and pmticularly because it helped the eting w ith herE PB C contractor. The ministry
• On Dec e mber 10, 2 013, the a p pellan t's EPBC c ontra • On Dec e mber I 0, 2 013, the mi nist r y atte mpte d to • On Dece m be r I 0, 2013 , the mi nist r y sent a den ial lett EAAT 003(10106101) cto r fi le was cl osed for no n-c ompl iance. conta ct the app ell ant by phone bu t w as not su cces sful . e r to the a ppellant .
PART F -Reasons for Panel Decision The issue to be determined is whether the Ministry reasonably denied the Appellant IA, as the Ministry determined that she was non-compliant with the conditions ofherEP, contrary to Sec. 9 of the Employment Assistance Act. The Legislation states the following; Employment and Assistance Act Employment plan 9 (1) For a family unit to be eligible for income.assistance or hardship assistance, each applicant or recipient in the family unit, when required to do so by the minister, must (a) enter into an employ111ent plan, and (b) comply with the conditions in the employment plan. (2) A dependent youth, when required to do so by the minister, must (a) enter into an employment plan, and {b) comply with the conditions in the employment plan. (3) The minister may specify the conditions in an employment plan including, without limitation, a condition requiring the applicant, recipient or dependent youth to participate in a specific employment-related program that, in the minister's opinion, will assist the applicant, recipient or dependent youth to (a) find employment, or (b) become more employable. (./) (fan employment plan includes a condition requiring an applicant, a recipient or a dependent youth to participate in a . spec[fic employment-related program, that condition is not met if the person (a) fails to demonstrate reasonable ef orts to participate in the program, or (b) ceases, except for medical reasons, to participate in the program. ( 5) ff a dependent youth fails to comply with subsection (2), the minister may reduce the amount of income assistance or hardship assistance provided to or for the fa111ily unit by the prescribed amount for the prescribed period. (6) The minister may amend, su.1pend or cancel an employment plan. (7) A decision under this section (a) requiring a person to enter into an employment plm1, (b) amending, suspending or cancelling an employment plan, or (c) specifj,ing the conditions of an employment plan is final and conclusive and is not open to review by a court on any g r ound or to appeal under section 17 (3) [reconsideration and appeal rights]. The ministry's position is that the appellant was found to be non-compliant with the conditions of her EP, contrary to Sec. 9 of the Employment Assistance Act and is therefore ineligible to receive IA The appellant's position is that she ceased participation with her EPBC contractor because the contractor agreed to write a letter to the ministry stating that they found her to be unemployable at that time as she was unable to get her emotions, depression and anxiety under control. EMT 003( 10/06/01)
The appellant argued in her Request of Reconsideration, her Notice of Appeal and at the hearing, that the reasons she ceased participation with her EPBC contractor were because a) her EPBC contractor had agreed to write a letter stating that they found her to be unemployable at this time and b) that she was unable to deal wit h people on a regular basis until she is able to get her emotions, depression and anxiety under control, however no documental evidence was presented to substantiate either argument. The ministry argued in their Reconsideration Decision dated January 16, 2014, that the appellant's EPBC contractor denied ever having agreed to write a letter for the appellant stating that she was unemployable at this time, and when given an opportunity to provide documental evidence in support of her claim that she was seeing a counselor for her mental health, as provided for in her contractor action plan, she refused to do so. As to the appellant's decision to cease participation with the EPBC contractor for medical reasons, the ministry argued that both the contractor and the ministry had made the appellant well aware of the requirement to provide documental medical evidence to substantiate such a claim, and furthennore that she has been through this process before as documented in part 2 of her Request for Reconsideration. For these reasons the ministry argued that as the appellant failed to comply with the conditions of her EP as set out in EAA section 9(l)(b) by failing to demonstrate reasonable efforts to participate in the program by refusing to provide her EPBC contractor with required verification that she was attending counseling for her mental health, set out in EAA section 9(4)(a), and ceasing to participate in the EPBC program with out providing documented medical reasons for doing so as set out above in EAA section 9(4 )(b ), she is ineligible for IA. Under EAA section 9(1) , to be eligible for IA, the recipient, when required to do so by the minister, must enter into an employment plan, and comply with the conditions in the employment plan. Under sub-section (4 ), if an employment plan includes a condition requiring the recipient to participate in a specific employment-related program, that condition is not met if the person fails to demonstrate reasonable effm1s to pat1icipate in the program, or ceases, except for medical reasons, to pm1icipate in the program. The panel finds that on September 7, 2012, the appellant entered into an EP with conditions. One of the conditions required for continued eligibility for IA is that she participates in EPBC programming regularly and as directed by the EPBC contractor. Another condition is that she will work with the EPBC contractor to address any issues that may impact her employability and complete all tasks assigned including any activities that may be set out in an action plan. The panel finds based on the evidence presented that the ministry was reasonable in determining that the appellant's EPBC contractor did not promise to write a letter to the ministry stating that they found her to be unemployable at this time. The panel also finds that the ministry was reasonable in determining that as the appellant failed to provide verification of her participation in an activity identified as being listed in her contractor action plan, (mental health counseling) when required to do so by her EPBC contractor, she failed to meet the requirements set out in her EP and in the legislation set out above in EAA section 9(l)(a). The panel further finds that as the appellant ceased to pat1icipate in her EPBC program on October 15, 2013, and without the provision of the required documental medical evidence, the ministry was reasonable in determining that the appellant did not meet the legislative requirement set out in EAA section 9( 4)(b ). Therefore the panel finds that the ministry's reconsideration decision was reasonably supported by the evidence and is a reasonable application of the legislation based on the circumstances of the appellant and confirms the decision. The appellant is not successful in her appeal. EAA T003(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.