I APPEAL PART C -Decision under Appeal The decision under appeal is the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation (the "ministry") reconsideration decision of May 12, 2014 wherein the ministry denied disability assistance to the appellant because he owns real property valued at $110,000 which is in excess of the asset limit allowed under Section 1 0 (2) of the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Regulation (EAPWDR) and which does not fall within the allowable exemptions set out in EAPWDR Sections 10 (1), 11(1) and 12.1. PART D -Relevant Legislation EAPWDR Sections 1 (1 ), 10(1 ), 11( 1 ), 12.1 EAAT003{10/06/01)
APPEAi I PART E-Summa of Facts The evidence before the ministry at reconsideration consisted of the following: • The appellant's request for reconsideration dated May 6, 2014 which included his one page written submission stating that he had been unable to sell a parcel of land owned by him ("the property") or to obtain a loan against the value of the property, and was receiving no income from the property. • State of Title Certificate dated June 18, 2013 listing the appellant as the registered owner of the property • 2014 BC Property Assessment Notice assessing the value of the property as $110,000. The appellant is a single person with a PWD designation who acquired the property with money he inherited in April 2013. On April 8, 2014 he requested income assistance but was denied by the ministry because he possessed an asset valued in excess of the allowable asset limit of $5,000. The appellant explained to the ministry worker that the property was now worth $200,000 because he had made improvements by building the foundation for a house. The appellant told the ministry that his father was supporting him and that he had run out of funds to make additional improvements to the property. In his Notice of Appeal dated June 3, 2014 the appellant stated that he was penniless and had listed the property with a real estate agent. Prior to the hearing the appellant submitted as additional evidence a real estate listing information sheet dated May 6, 2014 listing the property for sale at a price of $249,900. At the hearing the appellant provided oral evidence that: • He does not believe that the property is an "asset" within the meaning of EAPWDR Section 1 (1) because due to its failure to sell it cannot be converted into cash; • He did not expect the cost of constructing a foundation to be so high; • He has made every attempt to sell the property, but the offers to date are far below what is reasonable; • He decided not to put the property into a land trust because it was up for sale; • He did not immediately list the property for sale because he believed he already had a prospective buyer; • On April 8, 2014 he provided the ministry with the business card and phone number of the prospective buyer and thought the ministry would contact the prospective buyer. The ministry did not object to the new written and oral evidence. The panel determined that both the oral and written evidence were admissible under S. 22(4) of the EAA as it was in support of the records before the ministry at reconsideration because it described in greater detail the appellant's attempts to prepare the property for sale and his attempts to sell it. At the hearing the appellant put forward his stepmother ("L"} as a witness. L told the panel that she was uncomfortable providing oral evidence and asked if she could read a letter instead. The letter stated that she and her husband (the appellant's father) had used a banking line of credit to lend the appellant approximately $173, 000 to enable him to build a house on the property and to support him while he was ineli ible for disabilit assistance. She confirmed that the cost of foundations had far EMT003(10/06/0I)
APPEAL I exceeded expectations, and that the appellant had suffered a breakdown in February 2014, which halted the project. She stated that the interest on the line of credit is $500 per month which is causing her and her husband a lot of stress. L added that they had also paid the damage deposit and first month's rent for an apartment the appellant was sharing with his adult children. She and the appellant discussed transferring title to the property to Land the appellant's father, but the appellant was told by the ministry that he could be penalized if he transferred the ownership of the property at this time. The ministry objected to L's evidence on the grounds that it was not relevant to the issue under appeal. The panel determined that L's evidence was admissible under S. 22(4) of the EAA as evidence in support of the records before the ministry at reconsideration because it corroborated the appellant's evidence that he had borrowed money from his father and step-mother in order to construct a foundation on the property and was supported financially by them. The ministry relied on its reconsideration decision and clarified that the ministry denied the appellant's request for assistance because the appellant possessed an asset with a value that was higher than the total allowable value of $5,000 and did not fall within the exemptions listed in EAPWDR Section 10(1). The ministry added that the appellant did not provide sufficient evidence to satisfy the ministry that he had taken all reasonable steps to sell the property. In particular, the appellant did not provide the ministry with evidence that the property had been listed for sale. If he had provided listing documentation in addition to the property assessment that he did provide the ministry could have made a temporary exemption of the property for up to 3 months under EAPWDR Section 12.1. The panel makes the following findings of fact: 1. The appellant has a PWD designation; 2. The appellant is the sole owner of the property; 3. The 2014 assessed value of the property is $110,000. EAA T003(10/06/01)
I APPEAL PART F -Reasons for Panel Decision The issue under appeal is the reasonableness of the ministry's decision wherein the ministry denied disability assistance to the appellant because he owns property valued at $110,000 which is in excess of the asset limit allowed under Section 1 0 (2) of the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Regulation (EAPWDR) and which does not fall within the allowable exemptions set out in EAPWDR Sections 1 0 (1 ), 11 (1) and 12.1. The relevant legislation is set out in the EAPWDR: Definitions 1 (1) In this regulation: "asset" means (a) equity in any real or personal property that can be converted to cash, (b) a beneficial interest in real or personal property held in trust, or (c) cash assets; Asset limits 1 O (1) The following assets are exempt for the purposes of subsection (2): (c) a family unit' s place of residence; (d) money received or to be received from a mortgage on, or an agreement for sale of, the family unit's previous place of residence if the money is (i) applied to the amount owing on the family unit's current place of residence, or (ii) used to pay rent for the family unit's current place of residence; (y) assets exempted under (i) section 11 (2) [asset development accounts], (ii) section 12 (2) [assets held in trust for person with disabilities], or (iii) section 12.1 (2) [temporary exemption of assets for person with disabilities or person receiving special care]; (2) A family unit is not eligible for disability assistance if any of the following apply: (a) a sole applicant or sole recipient has no dependent children and has assets with a total value of more than $5 000; (b) an applicant or recipient has one or more dependants and the family unit has assets with a total value of more than $10 000. (3) The minister may authorize one or more of the following: (b) that saleable acreage and buildings owned by an applicant or recipient are to be treated as though they were the place of residence of the applicant's or recipient's family unit for the period specified by the minister. EAA T003(10/06/01)
T em po ra ry exem ption o f assets for person with dis 12.1 (1) In this s ection, "person rec eiving special accommodatio n or care in a private hospital or speci alc o hol treatment centre. (2) D uring t he exemption pe riod des cribed in with disa bilitie s or by a p erson receiving section 1 0 ( 2) {asset lim it s] if the m inister i (a) establ ish a registere d disability savings (b) co ntrib ute s om e or all ofthe asset plan or trust. (3) The exemption under subsection (2) star a nd ends 3 mo n th s after that date unless (a) th e exe mption period is exte (b) th e exe mptio n ceases to app (4) The min ist er may extend the ex emp t io s atis f ied th at the p ers on is ma king reas savings pla n or tr u s t. The m in istry argue s t hat the appellant was inel igi b l e with a valu e that was higher th an t h e t o ta l all owa ble e xem p ti o ns lis ted in EAPWDR S ectio n 10( 1 ) . T h e ministry s ati s fy th e m in istry that h e ha d take n all r e a so n able pr ovide the m i nistr y w it h e v i dence that t he pro pert y The appel lant argu es that: • the p roperty is n ot an "a sset" within the meaning of EAPWDR Section 1 (1) because due to its failure to sell it cannot be converted into cash; • the prop erty is now worth $200,000 because he made improvements by building the foundation for a house; • his fathe r was suppor ting hi m and he ha d run out of funds to the property; • he did not expect the cost of constru cti ng a foundation to be so high; • he has mad e e v e ry a ttempt t o sell t he p r o perty, the prope rty; • he dec ided not to put th e property into a la nd • he did not immediately list t he proper ty for sale becaus pro s p e cti v e bu yer; • on April 8, 2014 he provided the ministry with the business card and phone number of the prospective buyer, and thought t hat the ministry would contact • on Mav 6, 2014 he listed the property for sale at a orice of $249,900. EAAT 003(10/06/01) I APPEAL abilities or p erson re ceivi ng s p ec ial ca re c are" mean s a pe rson who is recei ving al care facil ity , other than a drug or sub s e ction (3 ) , an as set received by a person spec ial care is exem p t for the purposes of s satisfied th a t the pers on intends to plan or trust, and to the registered disab ility savings ts on the date t he person recei v e s the asset n de d t o a later d a te unde r subs ec tion (4), or l y unde r s u b sec t io n (5 ). n p e rio d t o a speci f i ed d a t e if the m inister is o nable eff o r ts to e s ta bli s h a regi s tered d isab il ity for as sista nc e becau s e he possess e d an asset v al ue o f $5 ,000 t ha t did not f al l with i n th e argu es further t ha t t he ap pell an t d id n ot steps to s ell the p rop e rty beca use h e did n ot ha d been li s ted for s ale. make additional improvements to b u t the off ers to date are far below the value of tr u st be cause it wa s up for sal e ; e he belie ved he already had a the prospective buyer;
T he appellant a ls o a r g ued that the panel must be guided by British Columbi a (Employment and As sistance Appeal Tribunal), i s author i t y for the pro position that all of the appellant's circumstanc be considered by the panel. He added that in Hudson the court requir evidence of the appellant if i t fin ds th at h e has be en The p a nel fin ds that the appellant is the sole owner of the pro $11 0,000. The panel also fin d s that the property is an asset 1 (1) because it constitutes equity in r ea l prope r ty th appel lant has not yet be en able to sell the property t into cash in future. The pane l also fin ds tha t the m in istry r easonably dete disability ass istance becaus e his asse ts exceed $5,000 as set out in EAPWDR Secti d oes not fall within the all owa ble e xemptions l iste d in Secti The pan el finds further that the mi ni s tr y re asonably tem po rar y ex emption of assets for a pe rson with di s a t the t ime of re consi der atio n he faile d to provi de t o the m ini stry tha t tha t he h ad ma de al l r ea s o na ble effo pro vi de the mi nistry with a l i sting agre em en t to con fir The pan el h as c onsid ered the Hudson c a s e ( s u pra ) whi ac cept the ev ide nce of the a ppe lla nt if i t ha s bee n t r u ownership of th e pr op erty an d the step s the a p pellant for sale . In Hu dson t he court foun d (among oth er th suffi cie nt re as o ns f o r placi ng mo re w e igh t on a med o f th e appel lan t . In thi s in s t ance th e p anel is no t p ref appel lant. In con clusion, t he p a n el f ind s that t h e min istry reas onab for di s abi lity assistance because his assets exceed t Sect ion 11 (2) and do n ot fa ll within the all o wable exemptions listed also reasonably determined that the appellant is not eligible for a te person with disabilities under Section 12.1 because prior to rec d oc ume nt a tion to satisfy the ministry that he had taken all reasonable steps to sell the property. Accordingly this panel finds that the ministry's decisio because h is assets exceed t h e allowable limit and be had had taken a l l re as on able s t eps t o sell t he property confirms the decision. EAAT 003(10/06/01) APPEA I the Brit is h Colum bia case of Hudson v. 2009 BCSC 1461 which he submits es, includin g L's evidence, must es t h at the panel accept th e truthful . per ty wit h an assess ed v alue o f within the meaning of EAPWDR Section a t can be converted in t o ca s h. Although the hi s does not a lter the fac t th at it can b e co n v e r ted r min ed t h a t the appellant is not eligi bl e for o n 11 ( 2 ) an d on 1 0 (1 ). de t e rm ined th a t a p pellant i s no t eligible fo r a a bi lit ies under E A PWD R Sectio n 12.1 because the m inistr y sufficient do cum entati on to sa tisfy rts t o sell the property, a nd in par t i cul ar fai led to m that the prop e rty was bei ng o ffere d fo r sale. c h the ap pel lan t submi ts req uire s t he pa nel t o thfu l. Th ere i s no fac tual di s p ute c o ncerni ng the h a s tak e n to im pro ve the pr oper t y and to list it ing s ) t hat the p a ne l had f a ile d to provi de ical p ractit ioner 's evid ence than o n the ev idence erri ng th e ministry's e viden ce to tha t of the ly determined that the ap pe lla nt is n ot eli gible he a l lo wable limit o f $ 5 ,000 set out in E A PWDR in Section 1 0 (1 ). The min istry mpo rary e x e mption o f ass et s fo r a onsideration he failed to provide n to den y disab ility assistance to the appella nt cause he failed to satisfy the ministry that he i s reasonably suppor ted by the evi d e nce 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.