I APPEAL PART C -Decision under Appeal The Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation (the ministry) reconsideration decision dated 29 April 2014 determined that the appellant was not eligible for continued income assistance because she failed to demonstrate reasonable efforts to comply with the conditions of her Employment Plan (EP) as required under section 9 of the Employment and Assistance Act by failing to attend the scheduled orientation session and workshops. PART D -Relevant Legislation Employment and Assistance Act (EAA), section 9. EAAT 003(10/06/01)
I APPEA PART E -Summary of Facts The following evidence was before the ministry at the time of reconsideration: • On 13 January 2014, the appellant applied for income assistance. • On 14 February 2014, the appellant was deemed eligible for income assistance and discussed with the ministry an EP, with referral to a sub-contractor that she had to contact within 10 business days and was advised that she might become ineligible for income assistance should she fail to comply with the EP. • A 2-page EP dated 14 February 2014 signed by the appellant on 17 February 2014 for the period starting 14 February 2014 until 12 February 2016 with the Employment Program of British Columbia (EPBC). At the outset the EP states: "It is important that you follow through with the conditions of the EP. If you are unable to follow through please advise the ministry. If you fail to comply with your EP you will be ineligible for assistance." Among the details of the EP, the following parts are relevant: o "I am aware that if I am not contacted by [the contractor] I must attend their office by (February 27, 2014) located at [address]. As a condition of continued eligibility for assistance, I must attend and participate in [the program] as directed by the ... contractor or subcontractor. .. I must notify the ... sub/contractor if I am unable to attend a session ... I understand that if I fail to comply with the conditions of my [EP], I will be ineligible for assistance under the [EAA]." • On 12 March 2014, communication from EPBC to the ministry with information from the subcontractor that the appellant had not made contact with them. • On the same date, the sub-contractor contacted the ministry reporting that: o Telephone calls to the appellant on 21 (9:34 AM), 25 (9:32 AM), 28 February (8:49 AM) and 3 March 2014 (4:26 PM). o Orientation: 4 March, 9:00 AM rescheduled and 11 March 2014, 9:00 AM "No-show". • On 13 March 2014, the program's electronic communication indicates that the appellant has yet to make contact with EPBC. The ministry places a hold on the appellant's April income assistance cheque. • On 25 March 2014 the ministry was advised by EPBC that the appellant moved to another community. • On 26 March 2014, the appellant attends the ministry's office to enquire about her April benefits and when asked why she did not attend the program, she indicated she had no phone and was in the midst of moving, effective 1 April 2014. She also indicated that she had rescheduled one appointment but did not attend additional appointments thereafter. • A one-page "Medical Report Employability" report completed and signed by the appellant's physician on 24 April 2014 indicates that the appellant suffers from dental caries and abscesses, onset Feb. 2014 and depression, onset 2011, her medical condition being described as "severe". The expected duration of that medical condition is expected to last 1 to 3 months. Part of the document is illegible but another part mentions that the appellant is not able to eat properly because of pain and depression. • On 28 March 2014, the appellant filed with the ministry a Request for Reconsideration. • In a letter dated 28 April 2014, the appellant's advocate indicated that shortly after signing her EP the appellant made the decision to move to another community to be closer to family. She has considerable barriers to employment and her doctor confirmed that she is living with severe depression since 2011 and a severe dental abscess since February 2014, thus experiencinq EMT 003(10/06/01)
s i g n i f i c a n t m e d i c a l c o n c e r n s t h a t p r e v e n t e d h e A t t h e h e a r i n g , t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s m o t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a j o b , s h e s u g g e s t e d t h a t t h e t w o o f t h e m g e t a n a p a a p a r t m e n t w a s i n t h e m o t h e r ' s c o m m u n i t y s o h e r d c o m m u n i t y . S h e a n d t h e a p p e l l a n t c o n t a c t e d t h e m p r e v i o u s c o m m u n i t y t o h e r n e w o n e . S h e s a i d s h e t i m e s i n M a r c h t o g e t t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s f i l e t r a n s f e r r e d e p o s i t f o r h e r n e w a p a r t m e n t a n d s h e r e c e i v e d i t a n d t h e a p p e l l a n t g o t a r i d e w i t h a f r i e n d a n d w e n t t o t h e m i n i s t r y ' s o f f i c e t o g e t t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s m o n t h h o u r b e f o r e m e e t i n g w i t h a n a g e n t a b o u t 1 O m i n u t e a p p e l l a n t ' s i n c o m e a s s i s t a n c e h a d b e e n c a n c e l l e d a s i t w a s c l o s i n g t i m e . O n c e t h e y w e r e b a c k i n t h e i o r g a n i z a t i o n t h a t h e l p e d t h e m g e t s o m e a s s i s t a n c e m o t h e r s t a t e d t h a t t h e f e a r t h a t h e r d a u g h t e r w o u l d d i f f i c u l t o n h e r a s s h e w a s a f r a i d t o b e h o m e l e s s . S b e c a u s e o f h e r p r o b l e m s w i t h a t o o t h a n d s h e i s s t b e c a u s e o f a w a i t i n g l i s t . T h e a p p e l l a n t t e s t i f i e d t h a t a t t h e t i m e s h e s i g n e d t m o t h e r ' s c o m m u n i t y a n d d i d n o t k n o w t h a t s h e w o u w a s s h a r i n g w i t h a n o t h e r i n d i v i d u a l . T h e e l e c t r i c i t y f o r f a i l i n g t o p a y b i l l s a n d t h e y e n d e d u p b e i n g w i t h c o t e n a n t e v i c t e d h e r f r o m t h a t a p a r t m e n t a n d s h e m o t h e r ' s p l a c e t o g e t s h e l t e r b u t s h e w a s m o v i n g b t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e w e n t t o t h e s u b c o n t r a c t o r i n p e r s 1 1 M a r c h a n d t h e n s h e c a l l e d t h e s u b c o n t r a c t o r t o a t t e n d t h e n e w d a t e . S h e a l s o a s k e d t h a t h e r f i l e b e t h o u g h t s h e c o u l d f o l l o w u p t h o s e s e s s i o n s i n h e r n t e s t i f i e d t h a t w h e n s h e s i g n e d t h e E P s h e a l r e a d y w w h o a d v i s e d h e r t h a t s h e w o u l d n e e d t o f i l l o u t a n o d a t e , s h e d i d n o t y e t h a v e t h e a b s c e s s i n h e r m o u t h h e r f o r m e r c o m m u n i t y o n 2 4 A p r i l 2 0 1 4 t o s e e h e r d E m p l o y a b i l i t y " a n d g a v e i t t o h e r s o t h a t s h e c o u l d b d i d n o t g e t a n y l e t t e r f r o m t h e m i n i s t r y t o t h e e f f e c t w h y . T h e p a n e l d e t e r m i n e d t h e a d d i t i o n a l o r a l e v i d e n c e w w a s i n s u p p o r t o f t h e r e c o r d s b e f o r e t h e m i n i s t e r a t i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t t h e e v e n t s d e s c r i b e d i n t h e v a r i o u E M T 0 0 3 ( 1 0 / 0 6 / 0 1 )I A P P E A L r f r o m s e a r c h i n g o r o b t a i n i n g e m p l o y m e n t . t , b e c a u s e s h e w a n t e d t o h e l p h e r d a u g h t e r g e t a r t m e n t , w h i c h t h e y d i d a s o f 1 A p r i l 2 0 1 4 . T h e a u g h t e r h a d t o m o v e f r o m h e r p r e v i o u s i n i s t r y t o h a v e h e r f i l e m o v e d f r o m t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s w e n t i n p e r s o n t o t h e m i n i s t r y ' s o f f i c e a c o u p l e o f d a n d o n c e s h e ( t h e m o t h e r ) w e n t t o g e t a d a m a g e s o t h a t s h e c o u l d r e n t i t . O n 2 6 M a r c h 2 0 1 4 , s h e b a c k t o t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s f o r m e r c o m m u n i t y t o a t t e n d l y a s s i s t a n c e p a y m e n t . O n c e t h e r e , t h e y w a i t e d ½ s b e f o r e c l o s i n g t i m e , w h o a d v i s e d t h e m t h e b u t d i d n o t t e l l t h e m t h e r e a s o n a n d s e n t t h e m o u t , r c o m m u n i t y , t h e y c o n t a c t e d a n a d v o c a c y w h i l e t h e m a t t e r w a s s o r t e d o u t . T h e a p p e l l a n t ' s n o t b e a b l e t o p a y h e r p o r t i o n o f t h e r e n t w a s v e r y h e a l s o s t a t e d t h a t h e r d a u g h t e r w a s o n a n t i b i o t i c s i l l w a i t i n g t o g e t t h a t d e n t a l p r o b l e m a d d r e s s e d h e E P , s h e h a d n o t d e c i d e d t o m o v e t o h e r l d b e e v i c t e d s h o r t l y a f t e r f r o m t h e a p a r t m e n t s h e i n t h e a p a r t m e n t h a d b e e n c u t o f f e a r l i e r t h a t w e e k o u t a c e l l p h o n e f o r a f e w w e e k s . S h e s a i d t h a t h e r n e e d e d a n e w r e s i d e n c e u r g e n t l y a n d w e n t t o h e r a c k a n d f o rt h b e t w e e n t h o s e 2 c o m m u n i t i e s . S h e o n t o h a v e t h e o r i e n t a t i o n s e s s i o n r e s c h e d u l e d t o a d v i s e s h e w a s s i c k a n d w o u l d n o t b e a b l e t o t r a n s f e r r e d t o h e r n e w c o m m u n i t y a n d s h e e w c o m m u n i t y w h e r e i t c o u l d b e r e s c h e d u l e d . S h e a s d e p r e s s e d a n d m e n t i o n e d t h a t t o t h e w o r k e r t h e r f o r m b u t t h a t d i d n o t g o a n y f u r t h e r ; a t t h a t b u t w a s o n a n t i d e p r e s s a n t s . S h e h i t c h h i k e d t o o c t o r w h o c o m p l e t e d t h e " M e d i c a l R e p o r t r i n g i t b a c k w i t h h e r a n d g i v e t o t h e m i n i s t r y . S h e h e r i n c o m e a s s i s t a n c e w o u l d b e t e r m i n a t e d a n d a s a d m i s s i b l e u n d e r s . 2 2 ( 4 ) o f t h e E A A a s i t r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n , i n p a rt i c u l a r t h a t i t w a s a d d i t i o n a l s d o c u m e n t s .
PART F -Reasons for P anel Deci sion The is sue u nder appeal is wheth e r t he minis t ry's decision th continued income assis tan ce because she failed to demonstrate r the conditions of her EP as required under sec tion orientation ses sion and workshops, was a reason a s u ppor ted by the evidence. The appli cab le legislation in this m atter i s s. 9 of the EAA: 9 (1) For a fa m ily u nit to be el i gible for i nc ome a s sistance or re ci pient in the f am ily unit, when required to do s o (a) enter into an employment plan, and (b) c o mply with the conditi ons in the empl oyment plan . (3) The minister m ay s pecify the conditions in a n emp co nd i t i on req uirin g th e ap plicant, recipient or d epe n relat ed pro gram that, in the mini s ter 's opini o n, will a t o ( a) fi n d e mp l oymen t , or (b ) be come mor e e mploy able . (4 ) If an emplo y m en t plan i n c ludes a c onditi on requ y outh t o parti cipate in a spe c ific employmen t -rela ted ( a) f a ils to d em onstrat e re asonabl e eff o rts to pa r ticip (b) c e ases, e x cept for medi cal reas ons, to partici pa (6) The mini ste r may amend, su spend or cancel a n (7) A de cisi on un d er th is section (a) re q u irin g a p ers on to en t er int o an empl o y m e n t p (b ) amendi ng, s u spending o r cancelling a n employm ( c) sp e cif ying th e co nditio ns of a n e m ployment plan is f i nal and c o nclusi v e and i s n ot open t o review by a cou secti o n 17 (3) [re cons i der at i on and appeal rights]. T h e ministry i n i t i ally arg u e d that th e app ellant had failed to contact ministry and failed to comply with her EP by not going to any meeting and orientation session. Referring to the medical report provided b y the appellant's physician, t not prov ide evidence t hat she could n o t participate in the activities of her EP and that a work search for the period 24 January -4 February 2014. Further, the ministry argued that she had ample time to co ntac t t hem about h er medical condition between w h en she go t h er m edical report. Thus, she had not made reasonable efforts to particip employment program. Ho wever, at th e h earing , t he according to normal p ra ct i ce, more weight s houl d h ave been given t decision should have been overt urned at the reconsideration leve contest it should the pane l rescind that deci s ion. EM T003(10/06/01) I APPEAL a t the appe llant was not el igible for easonable eff orts to comply wi t h 9 of the EAA by failing to attend th e sched u led b le a ppli c ation of the legislation or reasonably har d s h i p ass istance, each applicant or b y the mi nister, must .. loyment plan in cl u ding, with o ut limitat ion, a de n t you t h to partic ipate in a speci fi c emplo ym en t s sist the appl i ca n t, reci p i e nt or dep endent y o u t h i ring an a ppl i ca n t, a reci p ient or a depen d e nt p r ogr am, t hat cond ition is n ot m et if t h e p erso n ate i n the program, or t e i n th e p r ogr a m .. . e m p loy ment pl an. lan, e nt plan, or rt on any ground or to appeal under the sub-contrac tor and the he m inistry argued tha t it did she completed 1 7 February a nd 2 6 March 2014 ate in her m inistry too k a di fferent po sition and argued th at o the medical report and the l and thus, t he ministry would not
The a p pellant a rgued th at she a n d her m other ha d the sub-cont ra ct or on many occasions t o have her f tha t s h e was d iffi cul t to reach at the tim e beca u s e sh ap art m ent and the fact she c o u l d n o t r e-cha rge her ill becaus e of a d ental abs cess a n d, a s a re sul t wa th e m know a nd to re-sch edule i t. She th ought her file tha t she coul d c o n ti nue her E P th e r e . She is still ill and mo n t hs. T he pan el must asses s th e rea s o n a bl eness of the a nd t he applica bl e leg i slati o n. T ha t th e mi ni stry too co ns idered by th e p anel but i s no t deter m ina t i v e of the interpret th e relevant l e gi slation and a pply it t o the facts o The pan el notes t hat t h e ministry's en t r i e s in thei r doc whether t h e a ppella nt contact e d them or the sub -co the a ppell ant " had ye t n ot made contact wit h" the sub-con the appoi ntm ent sched uled f or 4 March 2 014 w as " their o ffice to have it re s che d u le d ) . F urther, the ministry' contact e d EPBC prior t o 25 March 20 14 be caus e o appe llant was mov ing to her ne w commu nity , whi c h contact e d t hem to g e t her file transf erred. The p an el app ointme nt wi th the contra ct or had been r es chedul had contact ed EPBC at some t ime pr i o r to Marc h 2 she had mad e contact wit h EPBC an d ther efo re fin as sertion that the a ppellant had not atten ded the EP ration ale f o r denial . Fur t her, the pa nel f in ds the minis t r y was unreaso nable medi c al repor t on t h e gr oun d s the a ppell ant s houl d condition before 2 6 Mar ch and beca use the f act that the mont hs did not amount to "co mm e nt re g a rdi n g [her] abilit clearly stated that the condition was severe and was expected to last to 1 -3 months, during which the appellant could not work. The panel finds that the medical condition that prompted the physician to state tha t t h e appellant could n ot wor k for 3 month depre ssion because the onset of dep ression was in 2011 and is an ongoing condition while the abscess started after the EP was signed (according to the appellant) and is an ailment that needs to b e m edically a ddressed in th e short term ( t h e physic which is obviously connected to th e a bs cess and is so the p anel notes that in her testimony, the appella nt postpone her orientati on session scheduled for 11 March 2014 because she was sick. Thus, the panel finds the appellant did mention a medical reason for not attending a session before 26 March 20 14, at least incid entally. The panel also accepts the annellant's t estimonv t h EAA T00 3 (10/ 06/01) I AP PEAL made lots of ef forts, conta c t i ng the m ini stry a nd ile tra n sferr ed to her n ew home community and e h ad n o p h on e, giv en the lack of power in her ce ll p h on e. F urther, she arg ue d that she b ecame s unabl e t o attend a session and ca l l ed i n to l et would b e tr ansferr ed to h er ne w comm unity a n d her doc tor to l d her not to work for about 3 r econsidera t io n de cision in terms of the ev i dence k a d iffer ent pos ition a t the h e a rin g is to be iss ue th at i s befor e the pane l. T h e p a nel must f the ap pellan t 's c ase. um ents ar e inc onsis t en t when det e rmi n i ng ntrac t o r. The e ntry o n 12 M arch 2014 states that t ra ctor whi le a few lines belo w, it st ates t hat r e s che duled" (th e appellant testi fied she went to s e v ide nce doe s indica te t h e appellant had n that date EPB C no t ifie d the ministr y t hat the confirms t he appellant's t e s timony t ha t s h e had f i nds t hat the fa c t the M ar ch 4 , 2014 ed , together wit h t he ev i d e nc e th at the app ella nt 5 , 2014, sup ports t he a ppe l lan t's stat ement s t h at ds the minis try un r e a sonabl e in r elyi ng on its B C o ffice by Fe brua ry 27, 2 014 a s pa rt of its in not giv ing muc h weight , i f an y , to the h ave mentioned to t he m inis t ry her m e di ca l ph ys icia n st a t ed sh e could not wo rk for 3 y to par t ic i p at e in [he r EP]". The doctor s w as the abscess i n her mouth and not the ian mentions that she "i s not able to eat properly" m ething t h at sho u l d not last lo n g). Additionall y, stat ed that she called t he sub-co n t ra ct or t o at she con t a ct e d t he sub -c ontractor b v ohone to
re-schedul e t he 11 M a rch o rientat ion session a nd a mini st ry's or sub-c on t r a ctor's re co r ds did not m e nt ion hearin g that the app el lant p rob ably contacted someone a ge nt a nd i f that wa s t h e case, t here would be no mention o c opy of the ministry or the sub-c ont rac t or's fil es or logs Give n the e vi dence prese nted, the panel co n clu des the su b -c o n tr acto r to re-s c hedul e her i nit i a l ap pointmen c o mmun it y. Furt her, th e pane l finds more we i ght should have bee indi c ated sh e could not w ork f or 3 months -the p a because it d id not re f er to partic ip at io n in an E P . The p describe d as severe w hi ch pr evented t h e ap pe llant distin ctio n betwe en w or k and participa tion in an em finds the evidence s ho ws t he appellant made reason fil e transferred and, additionally, she had medica l rea u nder s. 9(4) of the E AA, an d the re fo r e t he m in is t ry w i th her EP and w a s in el igible fo r inc o m e ass i s tan c Th e panel f inds t he mini stry de c ision was n ot reason decis ion. Th e refore , t he ministr y's d ec isio n is ove rturn EMT 003(10/06/01) I APP E A d v ised them she was i l l despi t e th e fac t that the that ca l l, giv e n the m i nistry' s e xp l a nation at the wh o w as responding to the ph o n e but n o t an n her file. Th e pa n el al so notes that no w as p rovided for this ap peal. th at t he app ell an t did con t act the ministry an d / or t and fo r the transfer of her file t o her ne w n given to t he p h ysici an r ep ort t h at ne l finds it was u nreason abl e to d ismiss this h ysi cian r efer re d to a me d ical c onditi on that he from workin g an d to re quir e a physici an to m a ke a p loy ment p lan is un re as onable. T h us, the p a ne l a b l e ef for ts to co m p ly w it h h er EP and get h er so ns to ceas e to participate in th e program unr easonably dete rmine d she f ailed to c omp ly e un d er s. 9(1) of the EAA. ab l y supp o rted by the eviden ce a n d res ci nds the ed in favour of the app ell ant.
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.