I AP PEAL# I PART C -Decision under A p peal , The d ecision under appeal is the reco n siderat ion decision of th e Min istry o f Social Devel o pme nt and Soc i a l Innovation (The M inistry) dated the March 27, 2014, which denied the Appell ant income assi stanc e as a sole re c ipient, due to the determi n at ion that the Appellant r esided in a dependency relationship, that meets t he d e fi nition of spou s e, pursuan t to Section 1 a nd 1.1 of the Emp loyment and Ass istance Act (E AA). PAR T D -Re l ev ant L e gi sl atio n E m ployment a nd As sis tanc e Act, (EAA ) S ection 1 , 1.1 EAAT 003(10I06I01)
PART E -Summarv of Facts The ministry did not attend the hearing. Aft er confirming that the ministry was proceeded in acc ordance withs. 86(b) of the Employment and Assistance Regul Th e evid e nce be fo r e th e m in i stry at r econsideratio n • the appellant is a sole recipient of income ass • the appellant receives assistance as a Person wi • the appellant has not been designated a Person with D • the a p pell ant has b een in re ceipt of a s sista June 2010 • the appell a nt ha s resided with h er roommate • th e c u rren t re nt paid to the l a n d l o rd amounts to $875.00 with the appellant's share of that rent bei ng $ 220.00 • the appell a nt s hares a jo int ba nk accou nt in come from bot h roommates an d the funds wh • the ap pell a nt t akes c ar e of the ho use and her and the roomm a te takes c are of the bill s • the ap pell a nt has bee n star ted o n med ic atio persist e n t multiple barr iers (PPMB ) Me d i d epres sio n, chronic bac k pain a nd dia b et • the a ppellant has not be en determined t o In her Notice of A p peal dated April 7, 201 4 the a ppellant • " I am n ot liv ing common-law . T he p erson friend. The str es s of deal ing wit h this has le In her R e q u est f o r Re c o n s iderat i on, the ap pellan t included: • a lett er o f sup por t from th e local an ti-pov erty in a common-law r e lationship , but m e rel y • a lett er fro m t he ap pell ant 's landlord d et ailing amount discussed concerning tha t each of • a note from the appellant's physician indicating s cheduled t o see a psychiatrist fo r the con • a note from a former neighbour of the appellant and her roommate, indicating that he has seen nothing to indicate that the app e lla nt roomm ates • a letter from the appellant's roommate which states the following: • the appellant and her roomma t e have known each other since childhood, and are not in a comm on-law relationship • that the appellant suffers from depression as well as physical limitat • that the a ppellant suffe rs from anxiety difficulty functioning outside • that th e joi nt bank account was o p ened t aft er th e shopp in g and bi ll payments • that the aooellants' roommate tries to take her to doctor's aooointments and helps EMT 003(10/06/01) I APPEAL# n o tified, the he a r ing ation. con sisted of the foll owin g, an d is not d isp ute d: i s t ance with no dependants th Pe rsi stent Mult iple Barriers (PPMB) isabilities (PWD) nc e si n ce September 20 06 and P PMB s i nc e fo r t he past t wo years w ith h er roommate, and t his ac cou nt re c e iv e s the ere ac ces sed by b o th roo mmat e s roo m mate ' s cat s while h e is away at work and shopp i n g using the j oint ba nk account n for a n xiety with the l ate st p e r s on with cal R e port d a ted March 201 2 c o nfirming se v ere es Person with Disabil ities (P WD) wrote tha t: I liv e with is n ot my commo n law , jus t my best d to me go in g on anx ie t y m edication." gro up stating t hat t he app ellan t i s cle arly no t a c cept ing assista nce f rom a long -ti me frie nd the t enanc y agree ment w hich in d ic ates the t he r oomm a tes would pay every month that she is being treate d for anxiety and is dition da ted March 17, 2014 and her roommate are anything more than ions attacks, especially in public pla c es , and has o en able the app ellant's roommate to look
I APPEAL# her manage her medications • that the stress of her current situation has made her physically sick and worsened her depression • that the appellant and her roommate do not function as a couple, the roommate has his own private life and does not take the appellant with him when he travels • that the appellant is her roommate's longtime best-friend, and he is trying to help her as much as he can because she would not be able to live on her own. • a letter from the appellant noting the above mentioned support notes and letters, and indicating that she was mugged outside her apartment on March 14, 2014, a fact which has increased her level of anxiety when outside her home • a copy of the tenancy agreement between the appellant and her roommate, and the landlord dated January 16, 2014. • a copy of a Shelter Information form provided to the ministry indicating the amount that the appellant was to pay for her share of the rent • a copy of a letter from the landlord confirming that the appellant and her roommate had signed a tenancy agreement and detailing the amount of rent that each would pay • a copy of an email from the appellant's roommate to the local anti-poverty group confirming that he would pay $655 and the appellant would pay $220 for rent • copies of bank statements, and records detailing the transactions and details of the joint account held by the appellant and her roommate. At the hearing the appellant's roommate stated that: • they had opened a joint account about two or three years ago because it was easier for him to pay the bills etc. due to the appellant's difficulty in functioning outside the home, and that he does most of the bank transactions • the appellant and her roommate had lived together for approximately five years • the appellant and her roommate rent a two-bedroom apartment and each have their own bedroom • the appellant and her roommate have known each other for thirty-four years • the appellant and her roommate are just good friends, they do not go out together, and introduce one another to others as 'my roommate.' • the appellant's roommate does serve as a caregiver and provides advice to the appellant. At the hearing the appellant stated that: • she suffers from anxiety which it makes it very difficult for her to go out in public • It is because of her anxiety that her roommate does most of the shopping and banking • the number of stairs at their former apartment made it difficult and sometimes impossible for the appellant go out • her roommate would remind her about upcoming doctors' appointments, keep her on track with her medications, check up on her if she was feeling particularly poorly • the appellant does not rely on her roommate, but his presence and care makes her life easier • the appellant does not go out socially with her roommate, they each have their own families and friends, they live separate lives, and have just been best friends since the appellant was thirteen years old. EAAT 003( 10/06/01)
I APPEAL# PART F -Reasons for Panel Decision The issue on the appeal is whether the ministry's decision which determined that the appellant was residing in a common-law relationship and was therefore ineligible for assistance as a sole recipient, was reasonably supported by the evidence, or was a reasonable application of the applicable legislation and regulations. Section 1 of the EAA provides definitions required to interpret the Act as follows: "family unit" means an applicant or a recipient and his or her dependants; "dependant", in relation to a person, means anyone who resides with the person and who (a) is the spouse of the person, (b) is a dependent child of the person, or (c) indicates a parental role for the person's dependent child; Section 1 .1 of the EAA provides the definition of a spouse which is at issue in this appeal as follows: Meaning of "spouse" 1.1 (1) Two persons, including persons of the same gender, are spouses of each other for the purposes of this Act if (a) they are married to each other, or (b) they acknowledge to the minister that they are residing together in a marriage-like relationship. (2) Two persons who reside together, including persons of the same gender, are spouses of each other for the purposes of this Act if (a) they have resided together for at least (i) the previous 3 consecutive months, or (ii) 9 of the previous 12 months, and (b) the minister is satisfied that the relationship demonstrates (i) financial dependence or interdependence, and (ii) social and familial interdependence, consistent with a marriage-like relationship. Meaning of Spouse Residency The fact that the appellant and her roommate have been residing together is not disputed. The appellant states that she and her roommate have been living together for 5 years. Financial Dependence or Interdependence The ministry's position is that the fact that the appellant and her roommate have a joint bank account into which the income of both individuals is deposited and to which both individuals have access, and the fact that their rent is not of equal proportions, is indicative of financial interdependence consistent with a marriage-like relationship. The appellant's position is that she and her roommate share a joint bank account and are joint tenants paying unequal amounts of rent in order to help the appellant to live more comfortably and cope with the effects of PPMB, anxiety and the resulting poverty. The appellant denies that she is in a marriage-like relationship and argues that the financial and rental arrangements are the result of a carinq friendship which has lasted for over thirtv vears. EMT 003(10/06/01)
Panel Decision Section 1.1 (2)(b) (i ) of th e EAA de fi nes in part what constit was satisfie d t h at the relati on s hip demonstrate s fin with a m arriag e-like relat ion s hip and m eets this part of the definition of "spouse." The panel fac t , th a t th e ap pellant and her roommat e operate of rent and find that this is more consistent with a marriage-like betw een roomma tes. Therefor e the panel fi n d s th at ap pellant a nd her roo m mate are in a relationship t hat i n t erdependence c onsi stent with a marriage-li ke relat Social an d Familial I n terdependence T h e m inistry' s position is tha t the im b alance in the share of rent paid, the fact care of all expe n se s from the joint acco unt , takes care after the ap pellant is mor e co nsi stent with a marriage-like re Th e ministry furt h er argues that while the app e llant re flects tha t she has not b een identi fied a s P W D , ther that sh e r e cei ve s f r o m h er roo mmate. The ministry s tat em e nts by t he a ppellant, h er ro omm a te, and t he appellan rel ation s hi p betwee n the appe ll a nt and her roo m mate w The appell a n t 's posi tion is tha t the f act t hat he r room l o oks a fter expen ses, bill payments, and s hop pi ng care p r ovi d e d to her by a fri end of m a ny ye ar s , an d h er for m er n eighbour. The a p pell a nt' s p o sit ion is that th n o t necessary , is ver y he l pf ul to h er an d mak es he r ma rri age -lik e relat ions hip. Pane l Decisio n Section 1.1 (2 )(b )(ii) of t he EAA r equir es that the mi demonst r ates social an d f am i l i al inte r de pendence c pane l finds that t he de g r ee to w h ich t he a p pellan t an fa ct t hat th ere is an ex tensiv e sharing of household a onl y pay s a much s ma ller po r t i o n of the r ent an d t h agreeme n t, and the fact that the appellant relies upon and receives care from her roommate c onsistent with a marriage-like relations hip than it is like a roo a PWD who m a y require sign i ficant assistance but Therefore the pane l finds that the ministry reasonab roo mm ate are in a relation ship that demon strates so a marriage-like relationship. Conclusion The panel finds that the minis try ' s reconsidera t i o n deci relationsh ip th a t mee ts the def inition of spouse under secti section 1 of the EAA, and is therefore ineligible for income assistance as a sole recipient, was reasonablv s u ooorted bv the e vidence, and t he pan EMT003(10/06/01) I APPEAL # ' utes the meani n g of "sp ouse." The minist ry ancial dependenc e or interd epen d en ce consistent f inds as a sh ared b ank account an d pay unequal a mo unts relationsh ip t han a typical rel ation s h ip the ministry re asonably d e termined th at the d e m o n strates financial dependence o r i onship. t hat the ro omm ate took of a ll the shopping, bill payments, and lo oks lationshi p than a r oomm a t e relations hip. ha s been identif ied as a PPMB, the record efor e she does not require a ll the as sis tance g a v e g r eat er wei ght t o th is e vidence tha n to t 's f ormer n ei ghbour that sta ted th e as no thing m or e tha n a fri endship. mate pays a di sproporti onat e sha re of the ren t , demons tra tes nothing mor e t hat the k indne s s an d t his fa c t has been af firmed b y her roo mm ate and e care she receives fro m her roo mmate, while life m o re co mfortab le, but does not make i t a ni st ry be s a t i sfi ed th at t he re lationsh i p onsistent wi t h a mar ri a ge-like rel at ionship . The d h er ro omm at e a re finan ciall y inte rtwine d, the n d out-of-hom e d ut ies , t he fact th at the appellant at she an d her roommate have a join t tenancy is more mmate r el a t i o nship. Th e appella nt is not is P PMB whic h refl ect s barriers to e mployment. ly deter mi ne d that the appellant and her c i al and familial interdependence consistent with s i o n, which held that the appellant is living in a on 1. 1 of the EAA and dependant under el con f irms th e decision. \ ','
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.