PART C -Decision under Appeal The decision under appeal is the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation (Ministry's) reconsideration decision dated May 5, 2014 which held that the appellant is not eligible for a crisis supplement for a bed, bedding, and various hovsehold items pursuant to section 59 of the Employment and Assistance Regulation (EAR). Specifically, the Ministry f o und that 3 criteria in subsection 59(1) were not met because the minister was not satisfied that: 1. The crisis supplement was required to meet an unexpected expense or obtain an item unexpectedly needed; 2. There are no resources available in the family unit to meet the need; and 3 . Failure to meet the expense or obtain the item will result in imminent danger to the physical health of any person in the family unit. PART D -Relevant Legislation Employment and Assistance Act-EAA -section 4 Employment and Assistance Regulation -EAR -section 59 EMT 003(10/06/01)
P A RT E -S urnrna rv o f Facts The ev i d en c e befor e the Mini stry at reco n sideration i • A R equest f o r Rec onside r ation signed by the that: 1) hi s physical he a l th i s i n imm inent da nger b a semen t floo r; 2) he would a p preciat e a lis t of f rom his resi d e nc e in an other pro vi nce because he wa have a b e d a t his f o rmer re s ide n ce and wa s o a ffo rda ble re s ide n ce f o r t he s ame r e n t he wa s hom e l ess. He move d to BC to li v e with his fat c oncerned that h is Charter rig h ts h a ve b ee n v • A l ett er fr om t he a ppell a nt's fa the r dated Fe bruary Concern " in w hi ch he state d t h at the a ppel lan (appell an t 's address). " • A let ter f rom t h e ap pellant dat ed Apri l 8, 2 014 addresse " I am in ne ed o f , and r equest ing f i n anc ial st a r t Beddi ng, Kitchen u t ensil s, an d A ny o t h er items In h is No tic e of App eal dat ed June 6, 2014 , the appell in his f ormer pr ovi nce "d u e to unexp ec t ed financial h s tuden t l o an" . He stated t h at he "did n ot l ea v e b e hind a bed or abandon b I co u ld g i v en my f ina nc e s ." The panel find s t ha t the s appellant's n eed f o r the i t em s an d his financ i al resour pur suan t to secti o n 22(4)(b) of the EAA as testim o ny in w e r e b e fore the Mini st r y at the t im e the decisio n be i n In its Rec on sider a tion d e c i s i on, the Ministry st a t e d t h a s sis tan c e w ith the purcha s e of a bed, be d ding , a nd of h i s p e rson al it ems beh i nd whe n he moved from an The Ministry's background information in di ca ted that: • The appellant receives income assistan c e as a sole recipient; • He had 3 co n tacts with the Ministry between April 9-15th, 2014 with regard to his request for the crisis supplement; • The Ministry offered the appellant a list of local community resources on April 9th but he decline d it; • The appellant advised that when he was evicted from his residence in his former province, was not able to locale an affordable residence to move his belongings to. BC to live with his father he brought only a car The appellant did not attend the hearing. After confirming that he had received notification of the hearing date, time, and loca t i on, the hearing proceeded unde summarized its reconsideration decision at the hearing criteria fo r the crisis supplement with the appellant during all 3 contacts in which his request was discussed. EAAT003(10/06/01) ncluded: app ell ant o n A pril 30, 2 014 in which he s tated because he i s sle eping o n a c ol d , concrete co mmun ity resou rces; and 3) he wa s evicted s no lon g er attending schoo l. He did no t n income assistance. He could n o t find an p a ying bef o r e and was faced w ith being h er; could not af ford any othe r op t ion; a nd i s io lated. 15 , 20 1 4 address ed 'To Whom I t May t " is r ent ing a room fr o m me f o r $400 a m onth a t d to th e M inis try in w hich he stated t ha t up al lowan ce for t h e fo llow in g items: Bed, that may be covered b y th is progr a m." a nt stated that he could no lo nger atten d schoo l ardship S p ecifically a deni al to a ( pro vincial) elong i ngs, but br ought w hat tat ements in the N otice of A ppea l relate t o the ces. The panel admit s these stateme nts sup port of the informatio n a nd records that g appealed wa s made. at on Apri l 9, 2014 the appell a nt r eq u ested v ario u s household it ems b e cau s e he had left a ll o the r p rovince. he When he moved to ry-o n bag. r se c tion 86(b) of the EAR. The Ministry and added that it reviewed the eligibility
In r es po n se to qu estion s fro m the p anel, t h e Min istr y state • It doe s o n oc casion pro vid e beds or b e dding s have be en destro yed i n a fire. • A list o f co mmunity resourc es is r e adily ava ila Se rv ic e s also has a list of l oca l a g enc ies. Th ere commu nity that as sist with it e ms such a s bed • T he Minis t ry lo ok s at w he t h er the re i s imm inent sup pl e ment is not provided ) on a c ase by c ase vi sit to verify the client 's circu m sta n ces. I t lo oks in formati o n the cli e n t provid es. The panel mak es t he f o llow ing fi n di n gs of fact: • The appellant r ecei ves income a ss i s tance as • Th e a ppel la nt le f t scho ol i n another province whe e victed f rom his reside n ce for not at tendin g sch mo ve his belon g in g s t o ; and mo ved t o BC to live wi be longings w ith him • In February 2014, t h e a p pe l la nt 's father v erifie $400 pe r mo nth. • T he a ppel la nt req u e sted a crisis s uppl e ment for a 9. 2014 . • There are comm unity and no n-p rof i t or ganizati obtaining bed s and oth er items . EMT 003(10/06/01) d: uch as when t here ar e bed bugs o r t he it e ms ble at t h e Ministry 's office, and Co mmunity are no n -p rof it or ga ni z a t i ons in the appe llant's s. dan g er to a client's phy s ical health (if a crisi s ba sis . The M in istry does not make a home at t he si tuation i n t he context of the a sole re cip ie nt. n his st u dent l oan didn't com e through; was oo l ; c ould n ot f ind a n afford a ble r esiden ce to t h h is f a th er but co u ld not aff ord t o bring his d t h at he was re nting a ro om to the appellant fo r bed, b edding , an d h o useh o ld items o n April o ns i n the a ppella nt's communi t y t hat a s sist w ith
P A R T F R e a s o n s f o r P a n e l D e c i s i o n T h e i s s u e i n t h i s a p p e a l i s t h e r e a s o n a b l e n e s s o f t h e 2 0 1 4 , w h i c h h e l d t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t i s n o t e l i g i b l e f o r a n d h o u s e h o l d i t e m s p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 5 9 o f t h e E s u p p l e m e n t w a s r e q u i r e d t o m e e t a n u n e x p e c t e d n e f a m i l y u n i t t o m e e t t h e n e e d ; a n d t h a t f a i l u r e t o o b t a i p h y s i c a l h e a l t h o f a n y p e r s o n i n t h e f a m i l y u n i t . T h e f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n s o f t h e l e g i s l a t i o n a p p l y t o c r i s E A A I n c o m e a s s i s t a n c e a n d s u p p l e m e n t s : S e c t i o n 4 s t a t e s t h a t : S u b j e c t t o t h e r e g u l a t i o n s , t h e s u p p l e m e n t t o o r f o r a f a m i l y u n i t t h a t i s e l i g i b l e f o r i t E A R C r i s i s s u p p l e m e n t : P u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 5 9 : ( 1 ) T h e m i n i s t e r m a y p r o v i d e a c r i s i s s u p p l e m e n t t o o a s s i s t a n c e o r h a r d s h i p a s s i s t a n c e i f ( a ) t h e f a m i l y u n i t o r a p e r s o n i n t h e f a m i l y u n i t r e q u i r e x p e n s e o r o b t a i n a n i t e m u n e x p e c t e d l y n e e d e d a n d b e c a u s e t h e r e a r e n o r e s o u r c e s a v a i l a b l e t o t h e f a m ( b ) t h e m i n i s t e r c o n s i d e r s t h a t f a i l u r e t o m e e t t h e e x p ( i ) i m m i n e n t d a n g e r t o t h e p h y s i c a l h e a l t h o f a n y p e r s ( i i ) r e m o v a l o f a c h i l d u n d e r t h e C h i l d , F a m i l y a n d C o ( 2 ) A c r i s i s s u p p l e m e n t m a y b e p r o v i d e d o n l y f o r t h e r e q u e s t f o r t h e s u p p l e m e n t i s m a d e . ( 3 ) A c r i s i s s u p p l e m e n t m a y n o t b e p r o v i d e d f o r t h e p ( a ) a s u p p l e m e n t d e s c r i b e d i n S c h e d u l e C , o r ( b ) a n y o t h e r h e a l t h c a r e g o o d s o r s e r v i c e s . ( 4 ) A c r i s i s s u p p l e m e n t p r o v i d e d f o r f o o d , s h e l t e r o r c ( c ) i f f o r c l o t h i n g , t h e a m o u n t t h a t m a y b e p r o v i d e d m ( i ) $ 1 0 0 f o r e a c h p e r s o n i n t h e f a m i l y u n i t i n t h e 1 2 c a a p p l i c a t i o n f o r t h e c r i s i s s u p p l e m e n t , a n d ( i i ) $ 4 0 0 f o r t h e f a m i l y u n i t i n t h e 1 2 c a l e n d a r m o n t h p c r i s i s s u p p l e m e n t . T h e p a n e l n o t e s t h e M i n i s t r y ' s i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t t h e a p t h e r e f o r e m e e t s t h a t r e q u i r e m e n t u n d e r s e c t i o n 5 9 ( 1 ) t h i s c r i t e r i o n i s m e t . T h e p a n e l f u r t h e r n o t e s t h a t s e c t E AA T 0 0 3 ( 1 0 / 0 6 1 0 1 )m i n i s t r y ' s r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n d e c i s i o n o f M a y 5 , a c r i s i s s u p p l e m e n t t o p u r c h a s e a b e d , b e d d i n g , A R . T h e M i n i s t r y w a s n o t s a t i s f i e d t h a t t h e c r i s i s e d ; t h a t t h e r e a r e n o r e s o u r c e s a v a i l a b l e i n t h e n t h e i t e m s w i l l r e s u l t i n i m m i n e n t d a n g e r t o t h e i s s u p p l e m e n t s : m i n i s t e r m a y p r o v i d e i n c o m e a s s i s t a n c e o r a . r f o r a f a m i l y u n i t t h a t i s e l i g i b l e f o r i n c o m e e s t h e s u p p l e m e n t t o m e e t a n u n e x p e c t e d i s u n a b l e t o m e e t t h e e x p e n s e o r o b t a i n t h e i t e m i l y u n i t , a n d e n s e o r o b t a i n t h e i t e m w i l l r e s u l t i n o n i n t h e f a m i l y u n i t , o r m m u n i t y S e N i c e A c t . c a l e n d a r m o n t h i n w h i c h t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o r u r p o s e o f o b t a i n i n g l o t h i n g i s s u b j e c t t o t h e f o l l o w i n g l i m i t a t i o n s : u s t n o t e x c e e d t h e s m a l l e r o f l e n d a r m o n t h p e r i o d p r e c e d i n g t h e d a t e o f e r i o d p r e c e d i n g t h e d a t e o f a p p l i c a t i o n f o r t h e p e l l a n t i s e l i g i b l e f o r i n c o m e a s s i s t a n c e . H e o f t h e E A R . T h e M i n i s t r y d o e s n o t d i s p u t e t h a t i o n 4 o f t h e E A A g i v e s t h e m i n i s t e r d i s c r e t i o n t o
provide a crisis supplement to a family unit when all eligibility criteria are met. In the appellant's circumstances, the 2 criteria in subsection 59(1)(a), and 1 criterion in subsection 59(1)(b) must be satisfied. These are discussed as follows: Unexpected expense or item unexpectedly needed, EAR subsection 59(1)(a): Appellant's position In his Notice of Appeal, the appellant argued that his need for a bed, bedding, and household items was unexpected. He experienced "unexpected financial hardship" when his student loan application was denied "due to no fault of my own." In his Request for Reconsideration, he argued that when "faced with being homeless", he could not afford any other option but to move in with his father in BC, and leave his belongings behind. Ministry's position In its reconsideration decision, the Ministry's position was that the appellant's need f o r a bed and other items was not unexpected because "If it was a requirement to be attending school in order to reside where you were, then ministry is not satisfied it was unexpected that you were evicted when you were no longer attending school." At the hearing, the Ministry added that the appellant provided no documentation or information regarding the circumstances of his leaving school or whether he explored any other way to remain in school to avoid eviction. The Ministry further argued that "a crisis supplement is for unexpected/unforeseen circumstances that can't be reasonably planned for, but the appellant has been staying with his father since at least February but did not request the crisis supplement until April. He theref o re had time in between to pursue something else." The ministry argued that since the appellant was living with his father without a bed since at least February, his need for a bed and the other items was not unexpected because he had 2 months to look into obtaining them. Panel's decision The panel finds that the Ministry reasonably determined that the appellant's need for a bed, bedding, and various household items was not unexpected. While the Ministry logically argued that the appellant would have known that attending school was a condition of residing at his former residence, the panel finds that the evidence with regard to why he stopped attending school does not establish an unexpected circumstance. The evidence was that the appellant did not elaborate on why his student loan didn't come through unexpectedly; he only reported that it was "through no fault of my own.'' With regard to the amount of time that passed before the appellant applied for the crisis supplement, the panel is of the view that it would have been reasonable for the appellant to obtain a bed and other items shortly after moving to BC, rather than waiting 2 months to apply for the crisis supplement. In the panel's view, sleeping on the floor without a bed for 2 months does not confirm that an item was unexpectedly needed as required under subsection 59(1)(a). The panel finds that the Ministry was EAAT003(10/06/01)
therefore reasonable in determining that the appellant did not require the crisis supplement to obtain an item unexpectedly needed pursuant to subsection 59(1)(a) of the EAR. No resources available, EAR subsection 59(1)(a): Appellant's position In his Request for Reconsideration, the appellant argued that he did not have any resources because he was on income assistance in his former province of residence; did not have a bed there; and he could not afford to move his belongings to BC; he brought what he could with him. He argued that his "Charter Rights have been violated" because he could not afford any other option except to move to BC without his belongings. In his Notice of Appeal, he argued that "I do not have the Funds to purchase the requested items on my own or through any other community resources, family or friends." In his letter of April 8, 2014, the appellant indicated his need for resources by requesting a "financial start-up allowance" for a bed and other items. Ministry's position In its reconsideration decision, the Ministry argued that the minister was not satisfied that the appellant did not have funds to purchase the requested items or that he had exhausted all other resources because "you have not provided any information to confirm that there are no resources available to assist you." At the hearing, the Ministry submitted that a client would always be told about the list of community resources, or provided with a copy of the list if they indicated a need for a bed or other items. The appellant did not indicate that he obtained the list, contacted any of the resources listed, or that he "tried to get items here and there." The Ministry further submitted that if a client left their belongings due to a significant expense in moving the items (from one province to another, for example), the Ministry would take that into consideration in determining whether there were resources, but also look at the reason for the move. In the appellant's circumstances, the Ministry considered that he "chose to leave school to come here" as he did not advise why his student loan had failed to come through. At the hearing, the Ministry explained that the appellant receives income assistance including the shelter component to pay for his expenses and his room, and he is expected to use his support funds to pay for his basic needs. Panel's decision The panel finds that the Ministry reasonably determined that the appellant did not meet the criterion of "no resources available to the family unit" pursuant to subsection 59(1 )(a) of the EAR. With regard to financial resources, the appellant stated that he was on income assistance in another province and the Ministry noted that he continues to receive income assistance in BC to pay for his basic needs. With regard to community resources, the evidence indicates that while the appellant initially declined a copy of the Ministry's list of community resources but then stated that he would "greatly appreciate" the list, there is no evidence that he picked up the list and contacted any of the agencies that assist people with beds and other items. While the panel accepts the appellant's evidence that he could not EAAT 003(10/06/01)
afford to move the majority of his belongings across the country, he would still have the obligation to use his income assistance funds to meet his basic needs, and access community organizations in an attempt to spread his resources further once he arrived in BC. Further, the panel is of the view that the appellant could have looked into and contacted community resources in the time period between moving to BC to live with his father, and applying for the crisis supplement on April 9 th ; however, there is no evidence that he did so. With regard to the appellant's request for a "financial start-up allowance" which he would use to purchase a bed and other items, the panel notes that section 59 of the EAR pertains to a crisis supplement for unexpected circumstances, and does not mention any start-up allowance for a move to a new residence in another province. With regard to the appellant's view that "my s.6(2)(a)(b), (3)(a) Charter Rights have been violated" because "I could not afford any other option" but to move in with his father in BC and leave his belongings behind, the panel does not have the authority to consider the appellant's Charter argument when determining the reasonableness of the Ministry's finding that "there are no resources available to the family unit" pursuant to subsection 59(1)(a) of the EAR. Section 19(1) of the EAA imports section 44(1) of the Administrative Tribunals Act which states the tribunal does not have jurisdiction over constitutional questions. Imminent danger to physical health, EAR subsection 59(1 )(b)(i): Appellant's position In his Request for Reconsideration, the appellant argued that "I am at risk of imminent danger to my physical health as I am sleeping on a basement floor that is cold concrete." Ministry's position The Ministry's position is that the minister was not satisfied that "failure to assist you with the funds to purchase a bed would result in imminent danger to your physical health." In its reconsideration decision, the Ministry noted that "'imminent' leads one to believe there is a sense of urgency in the danger to your physical health and you advise you have been sleeping on the floor and the ministry assumes you have been sleeping on the floor since February." Further, the Ministry argued at the hearing that since the appellant is paying $400 per month for his room, "there are certain criteria regarding health and safety and things to be provided. It would be separate tenancy legislation but it plays into income assistance." Panel's decision Subsection 59(1)(b)(i) of the EAR section requires there to be a direct link between not obtaining the crisis supplement for the requested items and imminent danger to physical health. The panel notes that while the appellant reported that he was sleeping on a cold, concrete floor while paying $400 per month rent, he did not confirm how long he had been in that situation or whether he had ever had any kind of mattress or a couch to sleep on at his father's place. Without detailed information regarding the imminent danqer he faced, the Ministrv could not be satisfied that the aooellant's health would be EMT 003(10/06/01)
in danger if he did not receive a bed. The panel therefore finds that the Ministry reasonably determined that there is no imminent danger to the health of anyone in the family unit as required under subsection 59(1 )(b)(i) of the EAR. Conclusion The panel finds that the Ministry's denial of the appellant's request f o r a crisis supplement for a bed, bedding, and various household items was reasonably supported by the evidence. Accordingly, the panel confirms the Ministry's reconsideration decision. EAAT003(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.