: A PPFAI # PART C -Decision under Appeal The deci sion under appea l is the Minis tr y of Social D eve lopm ent and Social Innovation' s (ministry ) decisi on, dated M ay 23 2014, whi ch denied the app ellant a reconsideration of the decisi on to discontinue his Person's with Persis t ent Multiple Barriers (PPMB ) level assistanc e. The minist ry fo und the appell an t f a i led to req ue s t reconsideration within 20 busin e ss days as require d under sec. 79(2) of the Employm ent and Assistance Regulation. PART D -Relevant Legis la tion Empl oymen t and Ass i s tanc e R e gu lations , (EAR) s ec . 79 E mplo yment a nd Assistance Ac t, (EA A) s e c. 17 EAAT 003(10/06/01)
P ART E -Summ arv of F acts Ev idence T h e eviden ce in t he a ppe al rec ord sho wed that on N a dv is ing he must submit certai n in f orma t io n to t he min fo r PPMB, o r his PPMB would be d i sc ontinued. On M dif fer en t ad dress th a n th e N o v. lett e r, w as sent t o th PPM B ben e fits , as he h ad not pro v i ded t he req uired busine ss d a ys to re quest r econs idera t io n. The lett e r the app ell ant had 20 busin e ss days w i t hin which t o f for Recon si d e ration, d a t e d st amped by th e minist ry on M a d vised on M ar. 20 of the decision t o deny him further In the R eq uest for Recons idera t io n the appellant advised he do ct o r was o n vacation. T he r equest al so includ ed for t he PPM B a ss e s smen t. Th e decisi on deter m ine d the ministry w ould no t cond a proce ss had exp i r ed. The de c is ion not e d the a ppella de c ision to stop his PP MB s u ppl e men t an d the deadline f r equ es t to reconsider w as not pr ovi d ed u ntil May 16, w R egul atio n . Th e d ecision not e d th a t a lth o ugh the app had been i n fo r m e d in N o v. tha t the m aterial wa s re quired one ha d contacte d the minis try to reques t an ex t ension or meet i ng th e deadline t o reques t reconsi derati on. I n h is N oti c e of App eal th e a p pellant sta t e d h e knows he t ime frame bu t all th e p r op er i nf or m ation i s no w p r ov could make clea r h is disabilities. At the hea ring t he app ellant a dvis ed h e did not receiv town. Hi s medical conditions have not change since his ini the Dr. was on vacation but he now und erstands the D time to get in to see the Dr. He has a rare condition, and except for a Dr. in another city, only this Dr. can advise as to his medical conditions. He thought that he needed to provide all the information at once, which is what he did once he had the m aterial. letter an d that he w ould have attended t he ministry shor reco n sideration. He had previously reque st e d a n e x initially applied for PPMB the fi rs t ti me two years ago. He realizes now he should have filed sooner. He did not contact the ministry when he found out the Dr. was unavailable. At t he hearing the ministry advised that the process for person advising the ministry they want reconsideration, at which t (HR100) is drawn up, including the ministry's reasons for denial. the requestor is informed of the decision, March 20, request for reconsideration had to be submitted. The initial denial letter, in this case the March 13 EAAT003(10/06/01) : AP PC AI " ov . 8 , 2 0 13 a let ter wa s sent t o the app el lant istr y, by Jan. 3 1 , 2014 , t o r eview his eli g ibi lity ar. 1 3, 2 0 1 4 a d enial letter f or PP M B , sen t t o a e ap pellant, advisin g he w ould n o longer re c e iv e in formation . T his le tter a d vis ed he h ad 20 a lso included oth e r mater i al whi c h also s tate d il e a Request f or Reconsider at io n. T h e Req ues t ay 1 6, re cords that the ap pellant wa s P PMB ben e fits. was late wi th the ma terial becau se his the req uired information re quested by t he mi n i stry u ct th e reco nside ration, as t he tim e limit f or such nt was advise d o n Mar. 13 a nd 20 th of t he o r r ec o nsi deration was April 17. The hich excee ds th e time allow ed by t he ellan t state d his D o ctor w as on v ac at i on, he fo r a r eview of h is PPMB s ta tus . F urther , no to a dvis e the mi n is tr y there wa s a p ro bl e m wa s late g e t ting th e PPMB b ack w ith in th e ided . H e ask e d for an in person h ea ring s o he e t he Nov. l etter a s he had mov e d to a diff erent tial PPMB desi gnatio n. Initially he thought r . was injure d and off work. It t oo k a period of He c onf irmed that h e did rece i ve the Ma rch 1 3 tly a fter, likely March 20, w hen he requested tension o f time for reconsideration when he a Request for Reconsideration involves a i m e the Reconsideration Form, Page 2 of this form records the date and al s o records the date, A pril 17, by whi ch the
�APPEAL# letter, includes information on how to appeal and also includes information on advocates. The legislation allows 20 business days for a reconsideration request and this matter was not a few days late, the request was provided more than a month late. There had never been any request for an extension or any contact by the appellant to advise of any difficulties. The appellant's PPMB application is being reviewed, but as a new application. Here the only issue was the late request for reconsideration. Findings of Fact The panel finds as a fact that the initial Nov. letter was not received by the appellant as he had moved to another town. This is corroborated by the different address of the March letter. The panel finds that the March 13 letter was received by the appellant and that he attended a ministry office on March 20 where he was informed of the decision and advised the ministry he wished to appeal the denial of his PPMB. The panel finds that the appellant was aware, from his initial PPMB application two years prior, that if needed, he could apply for an extension to provide further information after submitting a request for reconsideration. EMT 003(10/06/01)
I APPEAL# PART F -Reasons for Panel Decision The issue to be decided is whether the ministry's decision to deny the appellant reconsideration was reasonable based on the evidence and the applicable legislation. The relevant legislation is as follows: Employment and Assistance Act Reconsideration and appeal rights 17 (1) Subject to section 18, a person may request the minister to reconsider any of the following decisions made under this Act: (a) a decision that results in a refusal to provide income assistance, hardship assistance or a supplement to or for someone in the person's family unit; (b) a decision that results in a discontinuance of income assistance or a supplement provided to or for someone in the person's family unit; (c) a decision that results in a reduction oflncome assistance or a supplement provided to or for someone in the person's family unit; (d) a decision in respect of the amount of a supplement provided to or for someone in the person's family unit if that amount is less than the lesser of (i) the maximum amount of the supplement under the regulations, and (ii) the cost of the least expensive and appropriate manner of providing the supplement; (e) a decision respecting the conditions of an employment plan under section 9 [employment plan]. (2) A request under subsection (1) must be made, and the decision reconsidered, within the time limits and in accordance with any rules specified by regulation. (3) Subject to a regulation under subsection (5) and to sections 9 (7) [employment plan], 18 and 27 (2) [overpayments], a person who is dissatisfied with the outcome of a request for a reconsideration under subsection (1) (a) to (d) may appeal the decision that is the outcome of the request to the tribunal. (4) A right of appeal given under subsection (3) is subject to the time limits and other requirements set out in this Act and the regulations. (5) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may designate by regulation (a) categories of supplements that are not appealable to the tribunal, and EAAT003(10/06101 I
I APPEAL# (b) circumstances in which a decision to refuse to provide income assistance, hardship assistance or a supplement is not appealable to the tribunal. Employment and Assistance Regulation How a request to reconsider a decision is made 79 (1) A person who wishes the minister to reconsider a decision referred to in section 17 (1) of the Act must deliver a request for reconsideration in the form specified by the minister to the ministry office where the person is applying for or receiving assistance. (2) A request under subsection (1) must be delivered within 20 business days after the date the person is notified of the decision referred to in section 17 (1) of the Act and may be delivered by (a) leaving it with an employee in the ministry office, or (b) being received through the mail at that office. Positions of Parties The ministry's position is that the appellant was entitled to appeal to the tribunal as the decision resulted in a reduction of income assistance or a supplement, however the decision should be upheld as the legislation requires a time limit of 20 business days and the appellant is well beyond this. The appellant argues that he thought he should deliver the material all at once and did so once he had the forms prepared by the Dr. Decision It was not disputed that under sec 17(1) (c) that the appellant was entitled to appeal to the tribunal, as the decision resulted in a reduction of income assistance or a supplement. The issue is whether the ministry reasonably determined that reconsideration should not be conducted in these circumstances. The legislation provides a 20 business day time limit for requesting reconsideration. The decision relied on the Nov. letter to show the appellant was non-responsive, which the panel finds the appellant never received. However, it is clear from the evidence that the appellant was aware that he could apply for an extension to provide further material, after submitting a request for reconsideration, as he had done previously. It is also clear that material was provided to the appellant by the ministry, in the March 13 letter and the Request for Reconsideration Form, which clearly sets out in several places that the appellant has 20 business days to submit the request. The appellant was aware of extensions being granted if needed. This was not a matter where the appellant was a few days out of time, he was a month late. Section 17(3) of the EAA provides that, subject to certain exceptions, a person who is dissatisfied with the outcome of a request for reconsideration under subsection (1 )(c) may appeal the decision that is the outcome of the request to the Tribunal. In this case, the ministry's determination that there is no right of reconsideration was the "outcome" of the appellant's request. The panel finds that the ministry's determination that the appellant did not have a right to reconsideration is a reasonable aoolication of the aoolicable enactment in the annellant's circumstances under s.24 (1)(b) of the Act EAAT003(10/06/01)
A P P F A I II : for the reasons outlined above. In view of this finding, the panel confirms under s.24 (2) of the Act the ministry's decision that there is no right to reconsideration. It follows that the appellant is not entitled to have the request for reconsideration proceed to reconsideration. EAA T003(10/06/01)
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.