I APPEAL PART C -Decision under Appeal The Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation's (the ministry) reconsideration decision dated 7 April 2014 determined the appellant was not eligible for income assistance due to failing to provide the information requested by the minister under section 10(1) and (4) of the Employment and Assistance Act (EAA). Further, that under s. 32 of the Employment and Assistance Regulation (EAR), the ministry declared the appellant ineligible for assistance until the appellant complies with the direction. PART D -Relevant Legislation EAA section 10. EAR section 32. EAAT 003(10/06/01)
I APPEAL PART E-Summary of Facts . The ministry and the appellant were not in attendance at the hearing. After confirming that both the ministry and the appellant were notified, the hearing proceeded under s. 86(b) of the EAR. The following evidence was before the ministry at the time of reconsideration: • The appellant has been receiving income assistance, as a single person with Persons with Persistent Multiple Barriers (PPMB) qualification, since her file was reopened on May of 2012. • In January 2014, the appellant indicated to the ministry she received $1217.51 in "child taxes" and in February, $1335.61. • A Residential Tenancy Agreement (RTA ) between the appellant and her landlord, signed by the latter on 4 February 2014 and by the former on 7 February 2014 for a specific rental unit starting on 7 February 2014 at a monthly cost of $1500.00, on a month to month basis. The RTA also indicates a security deposit of $750.00 to be paid in 2014. The document indicates a ?-page addendum with "multiple" additional terms was attached but not provided. • The ministry indicates having received the appellant's Residential Tenancy Agreement mentioned above on 20 February 2014 as well as a letter from MCFD indicating the appellant's children could stay with her. • A 4-page document titled "Canada child tax benefit" (CCTB) dated 20 February 2014 from the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) to the appellant with a residence address other than the one on the RTA mentioned above, indicating: o A change to the eligible children: the appellant is no longer eligible for one of her children as of December 2013 and the amount deposited being just over $400.00; o An assessed family income of just over $15,000.00 for 2012; o An annual entitlement for Canada Child tax benefit (CCTB) and National child benefit supplement (NCBS) of a total just under $12,000.00. o An amount owed of just over $130.00; o A monthly entitlement schedule from February to June of just over $850.00 per month. • On 25 February 2014, the ministry requested that the appellant provide the following documents: o Her Residential Tenancy Agreement; o Proof of family bonus and child tax benefits payments; o Confirmation of amount being paid; o Confirmation of amount being paid and date of any back payment received in January or February 2014; o Proof of any bank account held by the appellant; o 90 day statements for any open bank account held by her; o Rent payment receipts for February 2014; • On 21 March 2014, the appellant spoke with a ministry worker and advised that she felt the ministry was harassing her and that she would not provide any further information. • A letter dated 24 March 2014, signed by a social worker with the Ministry of Children and Social Development (MCFD) confirming the appellant resides at the address being the object of the above-mentioned RTA with 3 of her 4 children, the fourth returning to her home in June of this year. The author offers his assistance with respect to the ministry's assessment and expresses his concerns that the appellant may not be able to pay her rent without her social assistance and "would hate to see this family of 5 in search of a residence again". • A letter dated 24 March 2014 by the aooellant to the ministry expressing concerns of being EAAT 003(10/06/01)
h a r a s s e d b e c a u s e h e r f i l e w a s r e v i e w e d d e s p i t y e t h a v i n g t o r e l o c a t e h e r s e l f a n d h e r f a m i l y t w c a r e f u l l t i m e . S h e s t a t e d t h a t a f t e r s h e e x p l a i n e s h e w o u l d r e c e i v e h e r c h e q u e a t t h e e n d o f F e c a l l f r o m t h a t w o r k e r , t e l l i n g h e r t h a t h e r f i l e h a d s u b m i t t e d h e r r e n t a l a g r e e m e n t a n d i n d i c a t e d s • A n u n d a t e d 4 p a g e d o c u m e n t a p p a r e n t l y d r a f t e i n d i v i d u a l s a n d 1 c o m m u n i t y o r g a n i z a t i o n t h a t a I n h e r N o t i c e o f A p p e a l d a t e d 2 8 A p r i l 2 0 1 4 t h e a p d e s p e r a t e l y i n n e e d o f a s s i s t a n c e . " E AA 1 0 0 3 ( 1 0 / 0 6 / 0 1 )I A P P E A ! e h a v i n g p r o v i d e d a l l t h e d o c u m e n t s r e q u e s t e d b u t i c e b e c a u s e o f t h i s . S h e h a s 3 o f h e r c h i l d r e n i n h e r d h e r s i t u a t i o n t o a m i n i s t r y w o r k e r , s h e w a s t o l d b r u a r y . Y e t , s h e i n d i c a t e d s h e r e c e i v e d a p h o n e b e e n s e n t b a c k t o r e v i e w . S h e c l a i m e d h a v i n g h e h a d a f i l e w i t h M C F D . d b y t h e a p p e l l a n t l i s t i n g t h e n a m e s o f 1 3 r e f r i e n d s a n d / o r s u p p o r t h e r a n d h e r f a m i l y . p e l l a n t s t a t e s : " I a m a m o t h e r o f 4 . I a m
P A RT F -R easo ns fo r Pa nel D e ci sion The issue u nde r app eal i s wheth er the mini s t ry's deci income assist a nc e due to failing to p r ovide the in formatio 10(1) and (4) of t h e EAA an d fu rther, t h at under s. 32 of i neligible for as sist ance un t i l t he a p pellant comp lies of the l egis l at ion or r e as onably suppor ted by the e T he re le v ant legislati on pro viding the author ity to the be foun d a t s . 1 0 of the EAA that s ta t es: 1 0 (1) Fo r the purpose s of ( a) de t e rmining wheth er a p erson wanti ng to a p ply e ligible t o ap ply fo r it, (b) de t e rmining or audit ing eligi bility for income assis (c) ass e s si ng e mployab ility a nd s kills fo r th e purpo (ct ) asse ssin g co m pli a n c e with the con ditions of an employm the m inist er may do o ne or m ore of the following: (e) direct a per son re fer re d to in pa ragrap h (a), an inf o rmation with in the t im e and in the mann er specif ( f ) seek v erifica tion o f any information s u pp lied to the min (a) , an a pp l ic a nt or a recipi ent ; (g) di rect a person refe rr ed to in pa ragrap h (a), an inf o rmation he or she supp l ie d to th e min iste r. .. (4) If a n appl ica nt or a recip ient fa i ls to comply w ith a direction u declare the fam i ly unit ine ligi b l e for inco me a ssista nc p rescribed peri od ... The pr es c ribed peri od for which a p erson who f ail s a t s . 32 o f the EAR: 32 (1) F o r t he purp os es o f sec t i on 1 0 (4) [inf ormation the m i nister may d ecl are the famil y u nit ine ligi ble for co mplies with the di rection. The ministry argues that there were discrepancies between what the appellant stated terms of chi ld taxes an d the information provi ded by the neede d further information to audit her eligibility for assistance. While she did provide a copy of her RT A , the ministry states that she need ed to clarify the damage deposi accompanying note m e ntioning a c redit and s he n eeded rent. In order to proper ly audit her eligibility for assistance the ministry furthe to provide proof of any bank ac co u n t she may have as well as bank statements fo days so that it could confirm chil d tax deposits and/or rent paym appell ant could affo rd a $1,5 0 0.00 month ly rent. Finally, the mini such information and that it was reasonably determined she was ineligible for assistance and would remain ineligible until she provides such information. The annel la n t aroues that the ministrv is harassinq her EMT 003(10/06/01) I APPEAL sio n t h at the app ellan t was not el igibl e f or n r e q ue s ted by th e minis ter under sect ion t he EAR, t he min istr y de c l ar e d the app ellant w i th the dir ect ion , w a s a reas onable ap plicati on vidence. mi nister to request this t yp e of inf ormati on can for income a s sistance or h ar d ship as sistan ce is tance , h ardsh ip ass ista nce o r a suppl eme nt, ses of an empl o y ment plan, or ent plan, a pp lican t or a re cipi ent t o supply th e min ister w ith ied by th e mi nis ter ; ister b y a per s on ref erred to i n para g r aph applicant or a re cipi ent to su pply v e ri f i c ati on of any n de r thi s sectio n, the min ister may e, har dsh ip as sistance or a supp lement f o r the to pr ovi de the reques t ed in format i on is determi ned a n d ve rifi cation ] o f the Act , the period for whic h a s sis ta nce lasts until the appl ican t or rec ipie nt she received in CRA as w e ll as in terms of her re sidence and t of $750.00 and an to provide con firmation of p ayment f or her r argues that she needed r the previous 90 ent, as well as indicate how the stry argues that she failed to provide since she claims she provided all the
inf o r matio n r eq ue sted a nd t hat the a ction of the mi relocate twice because o f that . She argues tha t once she expl sh e was t old she wo u ld receive h e r assistan c e cheque at the en received a call from t hat s ame w orker indicating her file had been flagged for review again. She stat e s she submitted her re ntal agreement, that she could not g was a bsent an d that she has a file wi th MCFD tha t argue s she is a mother of four and she is in dire need of assista The evi dence is that the ap pella nt did provi de her RTA provide some document ation from the CR A ab o ut h sup plement. The CCTB notice indicates that an amount of $435.53 per mo the appell ant, indicating she does have a bank a ccount. o n more t han on e occas i on that the appella nt provide statement(s) of rec eipts and confirmatio n of the date and amount of any back payment she received from for J anu ary and February 2014 in d e termining th e e vide nc e befor e the p anel is tha t the appell ant pro v d ocu m e nts but refu sed t o provide a ll the inform a tio was b ei n g haras sed. The pane l f i nds the evidence supports tha t the ministry failed to comply with the mini str y's r eque st to provide statem e nt( s ) , furth e r in formation fro m CCTB and pro 10(2) of the EAA. The panel finds t he ministry's d ecision a ssistan ce, h ardship assis tan ce or a su pple m e nt fo EAA was reasonab le. In ref erence t o th e conse quence s for fa i l i n g to provid 32 (1 ) of t h e E A R states that for the purposes o f s. 10 may decl are the family unit inelig ible for a ssist anc e the di r ectio n. The pane l fi nds th at the m ini s try re asonably th at the f amily u nit is inelig ibl e fo r assistanc e unt il th Therefore, the pane l finds that, bas ed on the e v idence supported by the e vi d enc e and confirms the decision pursu the EAA. EMT 003(10/06/01) I APP EAL � n istry jeop a rdized her housing situation, having to ai n ed h e r situ ation to a minist ry worker, d of F ebr uary but that later, she e t a rent receipt beca use her land lord can confirm her famil y sit uation. She fina lly nce. for her current res idence and that she did er child tax benefits a nd her National child bene fit nth is "dire ct deposited" for The e vidence is that the ministr y re q u ested her bank account(s); rent the CCTB appe llant' s eligibility f o r income assi st ance. T he id ed some i nformation -R TA and som e CC TB n the m inist ry requested , s tati ng t hat sh e fe lt sh e reasona bly determi n ed tha t the a ppel la nt proo f o f a n y bank acc ount sh e had, her bank v i d e h e r re nt re ceipts a s r eque sted u nd e r s. to declare that the ap pel lan t is i n e l ig ibl e for r the p r esc r ibed per iod as s et out in s . 10(4) of the e information o r v eri f i c ation w h e n d i rected , s. (4 ) of the EAA, the pe riod for which the m in ister last s until the app li c ant or recip i en t comp lies w i th app lied se cti on 3 2 of t he EAR in decl ari n g e ministry's d i recti on is c omp l ie d with. , the m inist ry's de cisio n w as reasonab ly ant to par agraphs 24(1 )(a) and 24(2)(a) of
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.