PART C -Decision under Appeal This is an appeal of the reconsideration decision of the Ministry of Social Developm I nnovation ( Ministry) dated January 9 , 2014, in whi ch t income assistance for the months of May, June, July and Augu determined that the Appellant had failed to submit mont required by sec t ion 11 of the Emp lo y ment and Assistance Act. PA RT D -Relevant Legislat i on Em pl o y m ent and Assist anc e Act (EAA) se cti ons 1 Em pl o y m ent and Ass i st a nce Regulation (E A R) se c ti EAAT 003(10/06/01) A PPEAL# � e nt and Social he M inistr y d eni ed t he A ppellant's re qu est f o r st 2013 b e cause the Ministry hly re p o rting s t u bs fo r t hes e mont hs as and 11 . on 33 .
PART E -Su mmar v of F ac t s The inf ormation befor e the Min istry at reconsiderati • A let ter from the Ap pella n t's advocate dated No release the Appellant's income assis tance cheque thi s l ett e r , the Appell ant's advocate n otes that assistance che ques for M a rch and April 2013 in October 2013 follow decision by t h e Ministry. The App ellan t's advocat shelter fo r the period of May through A u gust allowa n ce for these months. • The A ppell ant ' s submissions on reconsideration prepared by he December 20, 2013 (4 pages), which are discus A t t he hearin g, the App ellant s ub m itted 58 pages of docum under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act ( in cluded the follow in g docume n ts: • One page letter signe d by the Appell a nt dat e funds from G IC s and the amou n t of the s e f u nd • A Medical Repo r t -Employability form compl 20 13 a nd s igne d by the A p pell a nt on February 21, notes on thi s form that t h e Appellan t suff e rs f brain injury s usta ined in May 2 011. • A cop y of t he A ppe ll ant 's Appl icat ion for In come th e Appel lant o n Feb ruary 26, 2013 (3 pages). as the ad dress of the Mi ni stry off ice where sh addre s s") note d be si de it. Th er e is n o p hone • A cop y of t he A p pellant 's A p pli cati o n for Income As is n ot si gne d and d ate d by the A p pe llant. In thi num ber , a nd indi cate s that sh e h a s be en homel na me of the she l te r i n which she is l iving . T h " Pref err e d call bac k w i n d ow : 8 :3 0 a.m. -12 p. me with a brain injury . I am homeless & it has been hard to fi I applied before but was not eligible be c ause non discretionary trust." • A copy of the Appellant' s Emplo yment Readiness Information Questionnaire (3 pages). form is not si gn ed and d a ted by t he Ap pellant. number (the same number as pro vided on the Appellant's Application for Income Assistance (Par t 2) for m ). • Three different versions of the computer printout of the Ministry's notes for the Appellant's file from February 14, 2 013 through March 3, 2014 (12 pages, discussed further below. The Appellant submitted that the information set out in the FOi Request Documents was before the Ministry at the time the decision under appeal was made and that it is relevant to the Appellant's appeal. The Ministry did n o t o b je ct to the a dmi s si on Documents and confirmed that all the documents in the FOi Request Documents were copi Ministry documents and Ministrv notes in the Aooellant's file. EM T003(10/06/01) �APPEAL# on included the fol lowin g documents: v e m be r 20 , 201 3 r e questing the Mini s try s for May, Ju n e , July and August 2013. In t h e Ministry pro vided the Appe ll ant her income ing a reconsid eration e also notes the Appellant was living i n a 2013, so she does not requ est the shelter r a d vocate an d dat e d sed below. ents t hat sh e o b t ained t hrough a requ est " F Oi Request Do cum ents"). Thes e d F e bruary 14, 2 0 13 i ndica tin g she r e c ei ved s . e t ed by the App ell a nt's ph y sician on Feb ru ary 21, 2013 (1 page ) . T h e Appe l lant 's ph ys i c i a n ro m the p ri mary medical c onditio n of a traumati c Ass istan ce (Par t 1) form dat e d a nd signe d by On t hi s for m, the Appe lla nt's a d dress is listed e c o mpleted t he form with "NFA" ("no fi x ed number fo r the Appe l lant l i s ted on th is f orm . sist a nc e (Part 2) form (4 page s) . This f o rm s f o rm, the Ap pella n t p rovid es a te lep h o ne ess in the las t 12 months an d provi des the is f orm also cont ain s the fo ll o w i n g co m ment: m . I suf fered a n assau lt 2 y e ars ago whic h left nd a place t o live with no income. of GICs. I have cashed them out & put them in a This T his f orm includes the Appellan t's telephone 9 pages and 6 p ages) ("Notes") of t he information containe d in the FOi Request es of The panel admits the information in the
FO i R equest Documents s u bmitted by t h e A pp ellan Emplo ymen t Ass istance Act as info rm atio n and r e cords decisi o n being appea led was made. The panel al so App ella nt in her test im o ny and the Minist ry re present inf orm at ion tha t was before the mi n ister when the de 22(4) of the EAA . T he Ap pella nt suff ered a traum ati c brain in jury in 20 on Feb ruary 2 6, 2013 w hen she at tended at a Min i str I ncome Assi stan ce For m ( P art s 1 an d 2). At t he time s hom eless a nd l ivi ng in a s h elter, t he name o f which r epr ese nt a t ive at the heari ng said it is Mini str y pr actice assist ance i s homeless and/or li ving in a s helt e r f or with " NFA" on t he Appl ica tio n for Inco me As sist ance c on t a i n ed in t he FOi Req uest Do cumen t s . The Appell n umbe r wa s pr ovi ded on the Applicati on f o r Income Ass Readi ness Inform a t ion Q u es tionn aire. Th e App ellan voice mail and s h e can not receive mes sa ges on it. The Ministry con firmed t ha t t h e Appell an t i s no w des t he E mplo y m e nt and Assis t an ce for P e rs on s wit h D assistance. T h e Mi nist r y confir med tha t t h e Min i s try to f irst app ly for i ncome assistance so that t h ey a re recei to b e desig nat ed a PWD, whic h proc es s can t a ke s eve In her submissions on reco nside r a t io n and in her testimony a co m p leted th e Applica t ion for A s sista nc e F o rms on Fe M inist r y w or ker. The Appellant could not r emember st ub requ iremen t to her a t t h e time s he ap pli e d for inc receive any mes sag es f rom the Minis t ry after she sub and s h e di d not r eturn t o or c on t a ct t he Minis try o f fice The Appel lant said that she was not aw ar e that the Ministry had determine receive income assistance and had issued her cheques for thought that she was ineligible for income assist ance In August 2 013, the Appellant contacted the Ministry offi application. T he A ppellant told the p anel tha t be cause an d she understood it take s longe r to get disability assistance than income assistance contact the Ministry office for sever al mon ths. The Appellant also told the panel that because of her brain injury, she cannot remember things and oft en forge The Notes indic a te that on or about February 14, 2013, the A "as critical statu s" and the Min istry had tried to co ntact leave a message. The Notes state, "it appears incident occurred two years ago. Applicant currently states NFA." The Notes indicate that on February 15, 2013, the Ministry tried to contact the Appellant b y phone but was unable to leave a voicemail. The Notes for February 19, 2013 indicate that "Stage 1 completed" for the Appellant and refer to the shelter where the Appellant was living and that "book ed s t aa e 2 for 2013Feb26@9 a.m. advised of documents to brina in." EAA T003(10/06/01) APP E AL # � t at th e he aring un der secti o n 2 2(4) o f the t h at were before t he minister w hen t h e a dmi ts the information p r o vide d by both the ati ve a t the hea rin g as test im o ny in suppo rt of cis ion b ein g app ealed was made, und er sect ion 11 . T he Appellant appl ied f or i ncome assi stance y of fic e a nd co m ple ted t he A p plic atio n f or he ap plie d f or income assi stanc e, she was was ind ic a t e d on Par t 2 of the f orm. The Min ist ry w hen an individu al ap plyi n g for income t he wor ker t o indicate the Min is try office addre ss For m (Pa r t 1 ) a nd this i s reflected on t he form ant ha s a c ell phone and this t el e phone ist a nce F or m (Part 2) and Emplo ymen t t t o ld the p ane l that h er ce l l ph one does not ha v e i g nated a person with d i sa bi li ties ("PWD") und er isabilit ies Act and re ceive s m o nthly d isab il ity ad vises app li c an t s w h o seek PW D de signa tion ving some income a ssis t a nc e while th ey wait ral months. t t h e h earin g, t h e Appellant s ai d that s h e bruary 2 6, 20 13 a t the Ministry o ffi c e with a if the Mi nistry worker e xplai ned t h e re po r ting ome as si s t a nce . The A ppellant said she d i d not m i t ted her applicati on for inc ome a ssi s t an ce f rom Fe br u ar y 26 , 20 13 throug h Ju l y 2013. d she was eli gibl e to March and April 201 3 -s he said sh e becau se s h e had not hear d from the Ministry. ce and asked about the status of he r she had also app l ied fo r disability assistance , sh e didn't ts thi ngs. pp ellant applied for i ncome assistan ce th e Appe llant by ph one b ut was una ble to
I APPEAL# The Notes for February 26, 2013 indicate that on that date the Appellant was reapplying for PWD and "states she has been living in shelter for the past 1 year and half ... prior to that she was at [hospital] as she had traumatic brain injury." The Notes state, "wrkr [worker] explained rights/responsibilities, stubs, rates, and rights to [reconsideration]/appeal and third party checks." At the hearing, the Ministry representative explained that the rights and responsibilities are set out on the Income Assistance Application Form (Part 1 ). The Ministry representative also said that reporting stubs are attached to Ministry cheques and that the stubs are only available at Ministry offices. The Notes indicate that on March 13, 2013, the Ministry had received all the Appellant's required documents and state, "Cit [client] is eligible for [income assistance] wrkr is processing case." The Notes for March 13, 2013 also state, "Cit is currently NFA. Wrkr has set up monthly ongoing for support $235 and turned chq production on. Wrkr has issued cit $235 for March and added MSP. Wrkr has also created an AT employment plan for cit." There is no reference in the Notes for March 2013 that the Ministry attempted to contact the Appellant by telephone. The Notes for April 4, 2013 state, "Cit has not picked up March or April benefits. Cancelled this date. Chq prod [production] off and BF [bring forward] set to close file." The Notes for April 18, 2013 state, "**CHEQUE PRODUCTION REMAINS OFF** client has not picked up 2013mar/2013apr supports. Client has trust and RDSP and intends to apply for pwd. File left to autoclose or when pwd app is abandoned. Will need to reassess eligibility." There are no Ministry notes on the Appellant's file from April 18, 2013 to August 13, 2013 -a period of approximately four months. The Notes for the morning of August 16, 2013 state, "client would like to be reassessed for eligibility/ requesting call back at [telephone number] -advising email sent to of/265." The Notes for the afternoon of August 16, 2013 state, "p/c [phone call] from cit re: case. Cit requesting RAP [reapplication] appt booked because she is requesting IA [income assistance] again. Git's file still open RAP needed. Email to d/o." The Notes for August 20, 2013 state, "call from cit and advocate [name]-cit has a head injury and is currently in a homeless shelter. PWD app is pending. Advsd cit to submit current bank stmnts/profiles to review eligibility for IA ...." The Appellant told the panel that she never picked up her income assistance cheques for March and April 2013 because she did not know that they had been issued to her. On September 1, 2013, the Appellant requested the Ministry reissue her income assistance cheques for March and April 2013, but the Ministry denied her request. The Appellant's request for reconsideration of the Ministry's decision was successful and in October 2013 the Ministry approved her March and April 2013 income assistance and reissued the cheques to her. Through the letter from her advocate dated November 20, 2013, the Appellant requested the Ministry reissue cheques for her for the months of May, June, July and August 2013. The Appellant told the panel that she did not know she was supposed to complete a monthly reporting stub in order to receive income assistance because she had never received any income assistance cheques until after her successful request for reconsideration in October 2013. EMT 003( 10/06/01)
A P P E A L # '. P A R T F R e a s o n s f o r P a n e l D e c i s i o n T h e i s s u e o n t h i s a p p e a l i s w h e t h e r t h e M i n i s t r y ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t t h e A p p e l l a n t i s n o t e l i g i b l e f o r i n c o m e a s s i s t a n c e f o r t h e m o n t h s o f M a y , J u n e , J u l y a n d A u g u s t 2 0 1 3 b e c a u s e s h e f a i l e d t o s u b m i t ' m o n t h l y r e p o r t i n g s t u b s a s r e q u i r e d b y s e c t i o n 1 1 o f t h e E A A , i s r e a s o n a b l e . A p p l i c a b l e l e g i s l a t i o n R e p o r t i n g r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r r e c i p i e n t s o f i n c o m e a s s i s t a n c e a r e s e t o u t i n s e c t i o n 1 1 o f t h e E A A a n d s e c t i o n 3 3 o f t h e E A R , w h i c h p r o v i d e t h e f o l l o w i n g : 1 1 R e p o r t i n g o b l i g a t i o n s ( 1 ) F o r a f a m i l y u n i t t o b e e l i g i b l e f o r i n c o m e a s s i s t a n c e , a r e c i p i e n t , i n t h e m a n n e r a n d w i t h i n t h e t i m e s p e c i f i e d b y r e g u l a t i o n , m u s t ( a ) s u b m i t t o t h e m i n i s t e r a r e p o r t t h a t ( i ) i s i n t h e f o r m p r e s c r i b e d b y t h e m i n i s t e r , a n d ( i i ) c o n t a i n s t h e p r e s c r i b e d i n f o r m a t i o n , a n d ( b ) n o t i f y t h e m i n i s t e r o f a n y c h a n g e i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s o r i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t ( i ) m a y a f f e c t t h e e l i g i b i l i t y o f t h e f a m i l y u n i t , a n d ( i i ) w a s p r e v i o u s l y p r o v i d e d t o t h e m i n i s t e r . ( 2 ) A r e p o r t u n d e r s u b s e c t i o n ( 1 ) i s d e e m e d n o t t o h a v e b e e n s u b m i t t e d u n l e s s t h e a c c u r a c y o f t h e i n f o r m a t i o n p r o v i d e d i n i t i s a f f i r m e d b y t h e s i g n a t u r e o f e a c h r e c i p i e n t . 3 3 M o n t h l y r e p o r t i n g r e q u i r e m e n t ( 1 ) F o r t h e p u r p o s e s o f s e c t i o n 1 t ( 1 ) ( a ) [ r e p o r t i n g o b l i g a t i o n s ] o f t h e A c t , ( a ) t h e r e p o r t m u s t b e s u b m i t t e d b y t h e 5 t h d a y o f e a c h c a l e n d a r m o n t h , a n d ( b ) t h e i n f o r m a t i o n r e q u i r e d i s a l l o f t h e f o l l o w i n g , a s r e q u e s t e d i n t h e m o n t h l y r e p o r t f o r m p r e s c r i b e d u n d e r t h e F o r m s R e g u l a t i o n , ( B C R e g . 3 3 4 / 2 0 0 7 ) ( i ) w h e t h e r t h e f a m i l y u n i t r e q u i r e s f u r t h e r a s s i s t a n c e ; ( i i ) c h a n g e s i n t h e f a m i l y u n i t ' s a s s e t s ; ( i i i ) a l l i n c o m e r e c e i v e d b y t h e f a m i l y u n i t a n d t h e s o u r c e o f t h a t i n c o m e ; ( i v ) t h e e m p l o y m e n t a n d e d u c a t i o n a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f r e c i p i e n t s i n t h e f a m i l y u n i t ; ( v ) c h a n g e s i n f a m i l y u n i t m e m b e r s h i p o r t h e m a r i t a l s t a t u s o f a r e c i p i e n t ; ( v i ) a n y w a r r a n t s a s d e s c r i b e d i n s e c t i o n 1 5 . 2 ( 1 ) o f t h e A c t . T h e w o r d s " a p p l i c a n t " a n d " r e c i p i e n t " a r e d e f i n e d i n s e c t i o n 1 o f t h e E A A a s f o l l o w s : I n t e r p r e t a t i o n 1 ( 1 ) i n t h i s A c t : " a p p l i c a n t " m e a n s t h e p e r s o n i n a f a m i l y u n i t w h o a p p l i e s u n d e r t h i s A c t f o r i n c o m e a s s i s t a n c e , . . . o n b e h a l f o f t h e f a m i l y u n i t , a n d i n c l u d e s ( a ) t h e p e r s o n ' s s p o u s e , i f t h e s p o u s e i s a d e p e n d a n t , a n d ( b ) t h e p e r s o n ' s a d u l t d e p e n d a n t s . " r e c i p i e n t " m e a n s t h e p e r s o n i n a f a m i l y u n i t t o o r f o r w h o m i n c o m e a s s i s t a n c e . . . i s p r o v i d e d u n d e r t h i s A c t f o r t h e u s e o r b e n e f i t o f s o m e o n e i n t h e f a m i l y u n i t , a n d i n c l u d e s ( a ) t h e p e r s o n ' s s p o u s e , i f t h e s p o u s e i s a d e p e n d a n t , a n d ( b \ t h e p e r s o n ' s a d u l t d e p e n d a n t s ; E AA T 0 0 3 ( 1 0 / 0 6 / 0 1 )
The Appellant submits that the Ministry unreasonably applied to her the reporting requirement set out in section 11 of the EAA and section 33 of the EAR. The Appellant argues that because she never knew that the Ministry had determined she was eligible to receive income assistance in March 2013 and she did not know the Ministry had issued income assistance cheques to her for March and April 2013, she was not a "recipient" under section 1 and 11 of the EAA. The Appellant points to the evidence that she never picked up her March and April 2013 income assistance cheques and the Ministry stopped cheque production on her file in April 2013 to support her argument that she was never a "recipient" of income assistance under the EAA. The Appellant says that because she was not a "recipient" of income assistance, the reporting obligations set out in section 11 of the EAA and section 33 of the EAR do not apply to her and the Ministry unreasonably applied the legislation to her. The Appellant says that she only received income assistance after the successful reconsideration decision in October 2013. The Appellant also argues that she did not know she was to complete the required reporting stubs for the months of May, June, July and August 2013 because she did not receive the first assistance cheques in March and April 2013 to which the reporting stubs were attached and she had never seen a reporting stub and could not remember the reporting obligation of the stub being explained to her. The Appellant also argues that because she is a person with a traumatic brain injury who was living in a shelter at the time she applied for income assistance in February 2013, the Ministry had a duty to follow its policies, "Reasonable Steps Prior to Cheque Signalling" and "Providing Services to Clients with Mental Health Issues." The Appellant says that.the Ministry knew that she was living in a shelter as it is noted "NFA" on her application (Part 1) and the name of the shelter is listed on the form (Part 2), and that she had a cell phone, but that the Ministry made no attempt to contact her to tell her that the Ministry had approved her application for income assistance and issued assistance cheques to her. The Appellant argues that the Ministry's "Reasonable Steps Prior to Cheque Signalling" policy requires Ministry staff to make reasonable attempts to contact the client and to note the attempts in the client's file notes. The Appellant argues that there is no record in the Notes for her file of attempts to contact her after she was declared eligible for income assistance in March 2013. The Appellant also argues that the Ministry did not follow its policy, "Providing Services to Clients with Mental Health Issues" because the Ministry worker did not confirm that the Appellant understood how the income assistance cheques would be issued to her and the reporting stub requirements. The Ministry relies on the reconsideration decision and says that the mandatory reporting obligations set out in section 11 of the EAA and section 33 of the EAR apply to the Appellant for the months of May, June, July and August 2013 and because she failed to submit reporting stubs for these months, she is not eligible for income assistance for these months. In response to the Appellant's arguments, the Ministry asserts that because it issued income assistance cheques to her in March and April 2013, income assistance was provided to her and the Appellant was a recipient of assistance under section 11 of the EAA and obliged to comply with the reporting requirement by submitting the prescribed stubs. The Ministry argues that it doesn't matter that the Appellant didn't pick up her cheques. The Ministry says that because the Appellant was living in a shelter, she should have come to the Ministry office to follow up on the status of her income assistance application, and notes that she did not attend at the Ministry office or call the Ministry office between February 26, 2013 and August 16, 2013 although the Appellant has a cell phone and had made contact with the Ministry office. EAAT 003( 10/06/01)
S ection 1 of th e EAA def ines a "re ci p i e nt" in the EAA i n come a ssistanc e ... i s pro vided u nder th i s Act." The eligib le to receive inc ome assist anc e in March 2013 T here is n o ev i denc e b e fore t he p anel t hat t he M inistr eligibil ity to th e Appellant unt il s h e call ed the Ministr no tes tha t th e Minist ry do es n ot have an ob liga tio n t evidenc e before the pan el is tha t the pr escr i bed repo assista nce cheques , as conf irme d b y the Minis try repres th e p anel is that the Ap pella nt did no t r eceive he r fi r rep ort in g st u b s we re attached unti l Oct ober 2013, aft r eiss uing h e r Ma rch and Ap ril 2 01 3 income assist anc Sectio n 11 o f the E AA and sec tio n 33 o f the EAR provide that for a family inco m e a ssis t a n ce, a re cipient must s ubm i t a r epor t c al en d ar month a nd t his rep orti ng ob l ig ation is mandat app eal, t he Mi nistry det erm ined t hat the Ap pellant w mont hs of May, J une , J uly and Au gust 20 13 because she did (t h e p rescrib ed fo rms) a s re qu i red by the l eg isl ation The A p pellan t a r g ue s t hat b e caus e she did no t kn ow e ligible for i n com e assistanc e a nd i ssued Ma rch and th e stubs are a tt a ch e d bu t which she didn' t p ick u p, obliga t i ons s et o ut i n se c tion 11 of th e EAA and sec of the l e gislati on to her cir cum s t a nces. Es sentially, practical inten ts and purp oses , p r ecl ude d f rom sub m J une , July and Aug ust 2 013 by t h e p a s sa g e of ti m e eligible a nd t h e Mi n i s try f irst issue d c heques) and Oct an d A pril 2013 incom e as sis t a n ce ch e qu e s) a nd th a appli ed th e reporti n g obli gati ons of the legi s la tion to Under section 24 of the EAA, this pane l must confi rm panel finds the decisio n is reasonably supported by the evid applicable e nactment in the ci rcumstances of the Appellant. reasonably sup ported by the e vidence o r is n ot a rea in the cir cumstances of the App el lant, th e panel m u st res and, if the decision cannot be implemented wi thout a furth must re fer th e fur ther decision bac k to the minister. In this case, the panels finds that the Mini s t ry's application of the mandatory reporting obligations of section 11 of the EAA and section 33 of the EAR to the Appellant for the months of May, June, July and Aug ust 2013 in the cir cumstances where she did not receive her first income assistanc for March and April 2013 and the attached reporting stubs until October 2013 to be an unreasonable, retroactive application of the legislation to the Appellant in her circumstances. The panel acknowledge s that the reporting obligations are mandatory and that the Appell comply with the reauirements of section 11 of the EAA and section 33 of the EAR bv completinr:i EAAT 003(1 0/06/01) �A P PE AL# as "the p erson in a family uni t to o r fo r whom M i nistry d et er mine d that t he Appell a n t was , a s evidenced in t he Not e o f Ma rch 1 3 , 2013. y commu nic ated i ts d etermina tion of h e r y offic e in l ate August 2013; h owev er, the panel o co m municate t his in fo rmati on to ap plican ts . The rtin g stu bs are att ached to the income e ntative at t he hearing. T he evidence b e fore st income assista nce ch eq ues to wh i c h t he e r th e Ministr y 's r econside ration de c is ion e cheq ues. u nit to b e elig ib le for in t he pre scribed for m by th e 5 t h day o f each o ry. In the rec on sideration decisi on u n de r as n ot eligib le fo r in come as sis t ance f or t he n ot su bmi t the monthly re port ing s tu bs . t hat the Mi nistry had d etermined she was April 2013 ass i s tanc e cheques for her to wh ic h the Mi nistry 's application of th e repo rti n g tion 3 3 of th e E A R is an un r ea sonable a ppl i catio n t h e A ppellant's argument is th at she w as, f or al l i tting the mand ator y reporting stub s for May, between March 2 013 (when sh e w as decl ared ober 2013 ( wh en s h e fir st r ec eived the M arch t the Mi nistry ha s unre aso n a bl y , re t r oactively her . the Ministry's reconsideration decision if the ence or is a re asonable applica t i on of the If the panel finds that the decision is not sonable applica t io n of the applicable enactment cind th e Ministry's re consideration decision er decision as t o the amount, the panel e cheques an t must
APPEAL# : reporting stubs for the months of May, June, July and August 2013 in order for the Ministry to determine the amount (if any) of the Appellant's eligible income assistance for those four months. Accordingly, the panel finds that the Ministry's determination that the Appellant is not eligible for income assistance for the months of May, June, July and August 2013 because she failed to submit reporting stubs as required by section 11 of the EAA and section 33 of the EAR, is an unreasonable application of the applicable enactment in the circumstances of this Appellant. The panel therefore rescinds the Ministry's decision and refers the further decision as to amount back to the minister. EAAT003(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.