I APPEAL# PART C -D E C IS ION UNDER APPEAL The decisi on under appeal is the M inis t ry's reconside ration decision dated Mar c h 18, 2 014 which hel d that the appe llant's fami ly unit was n o t eligibl e for inco me assistance bec ause h e did not co mp ly with the con d ition s o f his Employ ment p lan under s .9 of the Employ ment and A ssi st ance Act. PA R T D-RE LEVAN T LE G ISL A TION Emp loy m ent and Ass i s tance Act (EA A) sec t i on 9 . ElA102{05/06/17)
I APPEAL# PART E -SUMMARY OF FACTS With the consent of the parties, this hearing is conducted in writing pursuant to section 22(3) (b) of the Employment and Assistance Act. The evidence before the ministry at the time of the reconsideration included: • The appellant was added to his common-law spouse's ministry file as of January, 2012. • An updated Employment plan (EP) was signed by the appellant on January 20, 2014; the terms of the EP include the provision that the appellant attend his first appointment with an Employment Program of British Columbia (EPBC) contractor by January 27, 2014. The appellant would then work with the contractor to address any issues that may impact his employability and complete all tasks assigned including any activities that may be set out in an action plan. The appellant would notify the contractor if he was unable to attend a session, or when he started or ended any employment. • By signing the EP the appellant acknowledged that it was a condition of continued eligibility that he both signs the plan and comply with the conditions set out in the plan, and that non-compliance with the conditions would result in the discontinuation of income assistance to the appellant and his family. • The appellant did not attend his first EP intake appointment with the EPBC contractor, and this was rescheduled to February 13, 2014. • The appellant did not attend the appointment on February 13, 2014, and his spouse called to reschedule this appointment. The reason given for not attending was that the appellant was unable to wake up. • The appellant did not attend the next scheduled appointment on February 18, 2014, and his spouse called to reschedule this appointment as well. The spouse was advised that if the appellant missed the next appointment, no further appointments would be scheduled. • The appellant did not attend the appointment on February 27, 2014. • On February 27, 2014 the appellant's family unit was denied further assistance by the ministry due to the appellant's non-compliance with the EP requirements and the EPBC Program; this was communicated in person to the appellant and his spouse. • On February 27, 2014 the appellant's spouse advised the ministry that the missed appointments with EPBC were due to the appellant being too tired to attend. No clarification was provided by the appellant, but the spouse stated that one child had been sick and another child had night terrors. • On March 5, 2014 the appellant submitted a request for reconsideration. • On March 18, 2014 the EPBC contractor confirmed with the Ministry that the appellant did not attend any sessions or completes an action plan and the contractor's file was closed. • A reconsideration decision was completed on March 18, 2014 by the ministry. The appellant filed a Notice of Appeal of the reconsideration decision, received by the Employment and Assistance Appeal Tribunal (EAAT) on March 27, 2014. A written hearing was requested. The written submissions of the appellant and the ministry contained no new evidence. EIA 102(05/06/17)
I A P P F 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 u n d e r a p p e a l i s t h e r e a s o n a b l e n e s s o f t h e m i n i s t r y ' s d e c i s i o n t o d e n y t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s f a m i l y u n i t i n c o m e a s s i s t a n c e b e c a u s e t h e a p p e l l a n t f a i l e d t o 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 i s E P p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 9 o f t h e E A A . S p e c i f i c a l l y , t h e P a n e l m u s t d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e m i n i s t r y ' s d e c i s i o n t o d e n y i n c o m e a s s i s t a n c e t o t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s f a m i l y u n i t d u e t o n o n c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h e E P i s r e a s o n a b l y s u p p o r t e d b y t h e e v i d e n c e o r i s a r e a s o n a b l e a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e a p p l i c a b l e e n a c t m e n t i n t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h e a p p e l l a n t . S e c t i o n 9 o f t h e E A A p r o v i d e s : E m p l o y m e n t p l a n 9 ( 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 o r h a r d s h i p 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 n t h e f a m i l y u n i t , w h e n r e q u i r e d t o d o s o b y t h e m i n i s t e r , m u s t ( a ) e n t e r i n t o a n e m p l o y m e n t p l a n , a n d ( b ) c o m p l y w i t h t h e c o n d i t i o n s i n t h e e m p l o y m e n t p l a n . ( 2 ) A d e p e n d e n t y o u t h , w h e n r e q u i r e d t o d o s o b y t h e m i n i s t e r , m u s t ( a ) e n t e r i n t o a n e m p l o y m e n t p l a n , a n d ( b ) c o m p l y w i t h t h e c o n d i t i o n s i n t h e e m p l o y m e n t p l a n . ( 3 ) T h e m i n i s t e r m a y s p e c i f y t h e c o n d i t i o n s i n a n e m p l o y m e n t p l a n i n c l u d i n g , w i t h o u t l i m i t a t i o n , a c o n d i t i o n r e q u i r i n g t h e a p p l i c a n t , r e c i p i e n t o r d e p e n d e n t y o u t h t o p a r 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 a t , i n t h e m i n i s t e r ' s o p i n i o n , w i l l a s s i s t t h e a p p l i c a n t , r e c i p i e n t o r d e p e n d e n t y o u t h t o ( a ) f i n d 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 . ( 4 ) I f a n e m p l o y m e n t p l a n i n c l u d e s a c o n d i t i o n r e q u i r i n g a n a p p l i c a n t , a r e c i p i e n t o r a d e p e n d e n t y o u t h t o p a r 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 a t c o n d i t i o n i s n o t m e t i f t h e p e r s o n ( a ) f a i l s t o 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 t h e p r o g r a m , o r ( b ) c e a s e s , e x c e p t f o 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 o g r a m . ( 5 ) I f a d e p e n d e n t y o u t h f a i l s t o c o m p l y w i t h s u b s e c t i o n ( 2 ) , t h e m i n i s t e r m a y r e d u c e t h e a m o u n t o f i n c o m e a s s i s t a n c e o r h a r d s h i p a s s i s t a n c e p r o v i d e d t o o r f o r t h e f a m i l y u n i t b y t h e p r e s c r i b e d a m o u n t f o r t h e p r e s c r i b e d p e r i o d . ( 6 ) T h e m i n i s t e r m a y a m e n d , s u s p e n d o r c a n c e l a n e m p l o y m e n t p l a n . ( 7 ) A d e c i s i o n u n d e r t h i s s e c t i o n ( a ) r e q u i r i n g a p e r s o n t o e n t e r i n t o a n e m p l o y m e n t p l a n , ( b ) a m e n d i n g , s u s p e n d i n g o r c a n c e l l i n g a n e m p l o y m e n t p l a n , o r ( c ) s p e c i f y i n g t h e c o n d i t i o n s o f a n e m p l o y m e n t p l a n i s f i n a l a n d c o n c l u s i v e a n d i s n o t o p e n t o r e v i e w b y a c o u r t o n a n y g r o u n d o r t o a p p e a l u n d e r s e c t i o n 1 7 ( 3 ) [ r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n a n d a p p e a l r i g h t s ]. S e c t i o n 9 ( 1 ) o f t h e E A A p r o v i d e s t h a t , w h e n t h e m i n i s t r y r e q u i r e s , a p e r s o n m u s t e n t e r i n t o 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 o f t h e E P i n o r d e r 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 . U n d e r S e c t i o n 9 ( 3 ) o f t h e E A A , t h e m i n i s t r y h a s t h e a u t h o r i t y t o s p e c i f y c o n d i t i o n s i n a n E P , i n c l u d i n g a r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t t h e p e r s o n p a r t i c i p a t e i n a n e m p l o y m e n t r e l a t e d p r o g r a m . P u r s u a n t t o S e c t i o n 9 ( 4 ) o f t h e E A A , i f a n E P i n c l u d e s a c o n d i t i o n r e q u i r i n g a p e r s o n t o p a r 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 a t c o n d i t i o n i s n o t m e t i f t h e p e r s o n f a i l s t o 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 t h e p r o g r a m o r i f t h e p e r s o n c e a s e s , e x c e p t f o 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 o g r a m . E l A 1 0 2 { 0 5 / 0 6 / 1 7 )
I APPFAI # Position of the Parties The ministry's position is that the appellant entered into an updated EP on January 20, 2014 requiring the appellant participate in EPBC, and to attend his first appointment with an EPBC contractor by January 27, 2014. The appellant signed the updated EP, agreeing that he understood the conditions, activities, and consequences of non-compliance with the EP; the decision summary contained within the March 5, 2014 request for reconsideration noted the appellant's stated understanding of his obligations. The ministry confirmed that the appellant did not attend the initial meeting with the assigned EPBC contractor by January 27, 2014 as agreed. The appellant did not attend 3 rescheduled meetings, including the last one on February 27, 2014. Based on the appeal record, the ministry maintains that the appellant did not comply with the conditions of the EP and did not demonstrate reasonable efforts to participate in the program. Furthermore, the appellant did not provide sufficient evidence confirming that he was unable to participate in the EP due to medical reasons. The ministry was not satisfied that the appellant didn't understand the conditions of the EP; the appellant and his spouse were well informed, and the appellant could have contacted the ministry directly if he had any questions. The appellant's position, as laid out in his Notice of Appeal to the EAAT signed on March 25, 2014, is that he did not understand the terms of the EP. He misunderstood what 'complying' meant and believed that if he had valid reasons for missing appointments, this would be sufficient to comply with the signed EP. The reasons given for his missed appointments were his son having night terrors, and a job interview (February 27, 2014). Panel Decision In determining the reasonableness of the ministry's decision, the panel finds that the appellant entered into an EP on January 20, 2014 that included the condition that he attends his first appointment with the EPBC contractor by January 27, 2014. A condition of continued eligibility for assistance was that he participates in the EPBC program and as directed by the EPBC contractor; this included the completion of all tasks assigned. The EP clearly states that ii the appellant failed to comply with the conditions of his EP, he would be ineligible for assistance. Section 9(1) of the EAA provides that, when the ministry requires, a person must enter into an EP and comply with the conditions of the EP in order to be eligible for income assistance. Section 9(3) of the EAA details the ministry's authority to specify conditions in an EP, including a requirement that the person participate in an employment related program. Section 9(4) of the EAA provides that if an EP includes a condition requiring a person to participate in a specific employment-related program, that condition is not met if the person fails to demonstrate reasonable efforts to participate in the program or if the person ceases, except for medical reasons, to participate in the program. By signing the EP, the appellant acknowledged that he understood the conditions as set out and agreed to them. Between January 20, 2014 and February 27, 2014 an initial (and timely) appointment with the EPBC contractor was cancelled, as were three further scheduled appointments. The appellant's spouse, who cancelled and rescheduled the last appointment, was told that ii the February 27, 2014 appointment was missed, there would be no further scheduled appointments. The evidence of record shows that although required to do so, the appellant did not meet with the EPBC contractor resulting in the contractor closing his file, reporting that no sessions were attended and no action plan completed. E!A 102(05/06/17)
N o medic al evidence has been provided that the appel lant illness. The panel finds that the minist r y reasonably determined that conditions of his E P . T he appe llant failed to mee t t he conditi contractor by the required date of Jan uary 27, 2014 , and had not met with the February 27, 2014 in spite of 3 additi o nal scheduled, and subsequently T he refor e , the panel finds that t he ministry reasonably c dem o nstrate r ea s onabl e e ffort s to participate in the employment pr w ith t he conditions of hi s employment pla n. The panel also finds tha t t he appellant has not provid ed c ompl ying wi th the condition s of th e EP. The p anel finds tha t t he m inistry r easonably det erm ined that th reasonab le effort to parti c i pa t e in his em pl oym ent progra was not p rev en ted f rom p ar tic ipating d ue to ill ne s s, and pursu a nt t o sectio n 9(1) of the EAA. The P anel finds that the m ini st ry' s deci sion d e nyi ng t he w as a reasonable applica t i on o f th e applicable legis la tion in the ci confirms the ministry' s decis ion. EIA102(05/06l17) I APP EAL# w as una ble to p articipate i n the EP due to th e appe llant failed to c omply with the o n tha t he meet wi th his EPBC contractor by c a nc el e d , appointments. oncluded tha t t he a pp e l lant fa iled to o gram a nd w as not in compliance evide n ce tha t illn es s prevented him f rom e appellant had not made a m pursuant to sect ion 9(4) of the EA A, a nd ac cordingly was not e ligi b l e for a ss i s t ance a ppella nt's f amily unit incom e a s sist ance r cumst an ces o f the app el lant and
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.