�APPEAL# PART C -Decision under Appeal The Decision under Appeal is the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation, (Ministry), Reconsideration Decision, dated June 12, 2014, which denied the Appellant Income Assistance (IA), as the Ministry determined the Appellant was non-compliant with the conditions of her employment plan, (EP), contrary to Sec. 9(1 )(b) of the Employment Assistance Act, (EAA). PART D -Relevant Legislation EAA Employment and Assistance Act -Section 9 EAAT003(10/06/01)
P A R T E S u m m a rv o f F a c t s T h e e v i d e n c e b e f o r e t h e m i n i s t r y a t r e c o n s i d e r a t i o e m p l o y a b l e r e c i p i e n t o f I A w i t h n o d e p e n d a n t s . O n s h e u n d e r s t o o d a n d a g r e e d t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n a n e m s h e a g r e e d t o p a r t i c i p a t e r e g u l a r l y a n d a s d i r e c t e d a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t f a i l i n g t o c o m p l y w i t h t h e c o n d i c o l l e c t I A . O n F e b . 3 , 2 0 1 3 , t h e m i n i s t r y a d v i s e d h e r o f t h e c o c o n d i t i o n s f o r m i s s i n g s c h e d u l e d w o r k s h o p s . T h e m f o r t h e n e x t d a y a n d s h e w o u l d c o n t i n u e t o a t t e n d . t h e a p p e l l a n t m i s s e d w o r k s h o p s o n F e b . 3 , 4 a n d 6 c o n t r a c t o r a d v i s e d t h a t t h e y w o u l d b e c o n t a c t i n g t h A p r i l 1 5 t h • O n A p r i l 2 8 t h e c o n t r a c t o r a d v i s e d t h e m a p p e l l a n t . O n M a y 2 0 t h e c o n t r a c t o r a d v i s e d t h e y T h e y h a d s e n t a l e t t e r o n M a y 1 3 t h a d v i s i n g t h e a p p b y M a y 3 0 h e r f i l e w o u l d b e c l o s e d . O n M a y 2 6 t h e t h e m t o r e s c h e d u l e h e r m i s s e d w o r k s h o p s . O n M a w i t h t h e a p p e l l a n t . S h e h a d a t t e n d e d o n l y 2 o f 1 4 w a f t e r b e i n g a d v i s e d a g a i n o n l y o n F e b . 3 , o f t h e c o n s u c h , s h e w a s d e n i e d I A . I n h e r r e q u e s t f o r r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h e a p p e l l a n t a d v t h e c o n t r a c t o r o n J u n e 5 . S h e p r o m i s e d t o m e e t w c a s e m a n a g e r h a s d i s c u s s e d w i t h h e r c o m p l i a n c e w a t t e n d a l l a p p o i n t m e n t s a n d w o r k s h o p s i n o r d e r t o c o n s e q u e n c e s o f n o n c o m p l i a n c e . O n J u n e 1 2 t h e r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n d e c i s i o n u p h e l d t h e d e c i s i o n n o t e d t h e a p p e l l a n t h a d b e e n a d v i s e d o n F w i t h t h e E P . A f t e r t h e a p p e l l a n t a d v i s e d t h e m i n i s t r y a t t e n d a n d p r o v i d e d n o i n f o r m a t i o n t o s a y w h y s h e n o m e d i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n h a d b e e n s u p p l i e d t o i n d i c a a t t e n d . A s s u c h , t h e m i n i s t r y d e t e r m i n e d s h e h a d n t h e c o n d i t i o n s o f h e r E P . A s s h e h a d n o t d e m o n s t r c o m p l y i n g , t h e y d e t e r m i n e d s h e w a s n o l o n g e r e l i g i O n t h e N o t i c e o f A p p e a l t h e a p p e l l a n t w r o t e t h a t s h a n d s h e l t e r a s s h e s t i l l h a d n o j o b . S h e w a s n o w a t E AA T 0 0 3 ( 1 0 / 0 6 / 0 1 )I A P P E A L # n s h o w e d t h a t t h e A p p e l l a n t w a s a s i n g l e A u g . 2 1 , 2 0 1 3 s h e s i g n e d a n E P , a c k n o w l e d g i n g p l o y m e n t p r o g r a m t h r o u g h a p r o g r a m c o n t r a c t o r ; b y t h e c o n t r a c t o r . B y s i g n i n g t h e E P s h e a l s o t i o n s o f t h e E P m e a n t s h e w o u l d b e i n e l i g i b l e t o n s e q u e n c e s o f f a i l i n g t o c o m p l y w i t h t h e E P i n i s t r y w a s a d v i s e d t h e a p p e l l a n t w a s s c h e d u l e d O n A p r i l 3 t h e c o n t r a c t o r a d v i s e d t h e m i n i s t r y t h a t t h , b u t s h e h a d a t t e n d e d F e b . 1 4 a n d 2 0 t h • T h e e a p p e l l a n t t o r e s c h e d u l e m i s s e d w o r k s h o p s b y i n i s t r y t h a t t h e y w e r e u n a b l e t o c o n t a c t t h e h a d n o c o n t a c t w i t h t h e a p p e l l a n t s i n c e F e b . 2 0 . e l l a n t t h a t i f t h e y h a d n o t h e a r d f r o m t h e a p p e l l a n t c o n t r a c t o r r e p o rt e d t h e a p p e l l a n t h a d c o n t a c t e d y 2 8 t h t h e m i n i s t r y r e v i e w e d t h e m i s s e d w o r k s h o p s o r k s h o p s a n d h a d f a i l e d t o a t t e n d F e b 4 , 5 , a n d 6 s e q u e n c e s o f f a i l i n g t o c o m p l y w i t h t h e E P . A s i s e d s h e h a d b e e n a c c e p t e d i n t o t h e p r o g r a m w i t h i t h t h e c o n t r a c t o r ' s c a s e m a n a g e r a n d t h a t t h e i t h t h e E P . S h e a g r e e d t o f u l l y p a r t i c i p a t e a n d b e e l i g i b l e f o r I A . S h e w a s n o w f u l l y a w a r e o f t h e d e n i a l o f I A f o r f a i l i n g t o c o m p l y w i t h t h e E P . T h e e b 3 o f t h e c o n s e q u e n c e s o f f a i l i n g t o c o m p l y s h e w o u l d g o o n F e b 4 , 5 a n d 6 , s h e f a i l e d t o c o u l d n o t a t t e n d . F u rt h e r , t h e d e c i s i o n n o t e d , t h a t t e m e d i c a l i s s u e s h a d i m p a c t e d h e r a b i l i t y t o o t d e m o n s t r a t e d r e a s o n a b l e e f f o r t s t o c o m p l y w i t h a t e d a n y m i t i g a t i n g f a c t o r s p r e v e n t i n g h e r f r o m b l e f o r I A . e h a d n o i n c o m e a n d t h a t s h e n e e d e d I A f o r f o o d t e n d i n g c l a s s e s w i t h t h e c o n t r a c t o r .
I APPEAL# At the hearing the appellant did not attend. After confirming the Appellant was properly notified of the hearing, the matter proceeded under section 86(b) of the Employment and Assistance Regulation. At the hearing the ministry adopted the reconsideration decision and argued the appellant had failed to comply with the EP by failing to demonstrate reasonable efforts to participate in the program and had not provided any evidence of mitigating circumstances that prevented her from complying with the EP. EAAT 003(10/06/01)
I APPEAL# PART F -Reasons for Panel Decision The issue on appeal is whether the ministry reasonably concluded that the appellant did not comply with the conditions of her EP, by failing to demonstrate reasonable efforts to participate in her employment program through nonattendance and failure to participate in the service provider's program. The Legislation states the following; Employment and Assistance Act Employment plan 9 (1) For a family unit to be eligible for income assistance or hardship assistance, each applicant or recipient in the family unit, when required to do so by the minister, must (a) enter into an employment plan, and (b) comply with the conditions in the employment plan. (3) The minister may specify the conditions in an employment plan including, without limitation, a condition requiring the applicant, recipient or dependent youth to participate in a specific employment related program that, in the minister's opinion, will assist the applicant, recipient or dependent youth to (a) find employment, or (b) become more employable. (4) If an employment plan includes a condition requiring an applicant, a recipient or a dependent youth to participate in a specific employment-related program, that condition is not met if the person (a) fails to demonstrate reasonable efforts to participate in the program, or (b) ceases, except for medical reasons, to participate in the program. Under Sec 9(1 ), to be eligible for income assistance, each recipient, when required to do so by the minister, must enter into an employment plan, and comply with the conditions in the employment plan. The issue here is whether the Appellant was properly denied IA as being non-compliant with the conditions of her EP, contrary to Sec. 9(1)(b). The Appellant argues in her Notice of Appeal that she would now comply and understands the consequences if she does not comply. The ministry adopts the reconsideration decision and argues the appellant was given warnings but still did not comply with the EP. In relation to whether it was reasonable for the ministry to find the appellant was non-compliant with her EP, it is noted that the Appellant signed the EP, acknowledging she understood and agreed to participate in an employment program. The EP notes in several different places the effects of non compliance and that compliance is a condition to receiving IA. She was warned on Feb. 3 of the consequences of non-compliance and failed to attend the very next day after promising to do so. The appellant attended only 2 of 14 workshops. She has not provided any explanation for her non attendance. It is clear she was non-corn liant with the terms of her EP and she did not demonstrate EMT 003( 10/06/01 I
�APPEAL# reasonable effort to participate in the program as required under sec. 9(4)(a). Further, the appellant provided no medical evidence that would demonstrate she could not participate in the program and as such cannot bring herself within the provisions of sec. 9(4)(b). The panel finds that the decision by the ministry, that the Appellant was non-compliant with the conditions of her EP, contrary to sec. 9(1)(b) of the EAA because she failed to demonstrate reasonable efforts to participate in her employment program and that she had no medical excuse for not participating was reasonable based on all the available evidence and the panel confirms the decision. EAAT 003( 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.