P A R T C D e c i s i o n u n d e r A p p e a l T h e d e c i s i o n u n d e r a p p e a l i s t h e M i n i s t r y o f S o c i a l m i n i s t r y ) r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n d e c i s i o n d a t e d M a y 2 8 , 2 0 f o r i n c o m e a s s i s t a n c e f o r f a i l u r e t o c o m p l y w i t h t h e r e q u i r e d b y s e c t i o n 9 ( 1 ) ( b ) a n d s e c t i o n 9 ( 4 ) o f t h e E P A R T D R e l e v a n t L e g i s l a t i o n E m p l o y m e n t a n d A s s i s t a n c e A c t ( E A A ) s e c t i o n 9 ( 1 ) E m p l o y m e n t a n d A s s i s t a n c e A c t ( E A A ) s e c t i o n 9 ( 4 )A P P E A L I D e v e l o p m e n t a n d S o c i a l I n n o v a t i o n ' s ( t h e 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 w a s n o t e l i g i b l e t e r m s a n d c o n d i t i o n s o f h i s e m p l o y m e n t p l a n a s m p l o y m e n t a n d A s s i s t a n c e A c t ( E A A ) . ( b )
PART E-S u mm a ry of Fact s Th e evi d ence before t h e mi nistry at the t ime o f rec o 1 ) Th e appell a nt 's Req ue s t for R ec o nside ratio n states that he ca n no w job hunt more e ffi c ient tel ls him how to d o this; 2) A copy of the empl oymen t plan si gned by the a 3) A l et ter from the mini s try dated Februa ry 18, thro u g h with the conditi ons of his emplo yment was a sked to co n t a c t t he cont rac t e d se rvice prov may be del a yed; an d 4) A l et ter from the min istry dated April 1, 2014 stati did n ot att e n d sche dul e d app o intm ents and workshops or d se eki n g. A s a res u lt, the appella nt is no lon ger Th e m i nis try states tha t: • January 31 , 2014-E mplo yment P r ogr a ms of appella n t but s i nce h is phone was n ot i n s e r v • F e b ruar y 7, 2 0 1 4-EPB C ma il e d the appe llant a r espon se was received; • Febru a ry 1 8, 2014-the ministry sent the app with the t erm s of his emplo ymen t p l an in o rd appel lan t to con ta ct EPBC by Fe bruary 26, 2014. The EP BC reported to t h e m inis try : • Februa ry 1 8 , 2 014-the las t t ime the ap pel lant • March 4, 201 4-t h e a ppel l an t at tended h is a ppoi • Apri l 1, 2014-a t t h e M a rch 3 , 2 0 1 4 a p pointment, an d did not submi t a j o b sea r c h; • Ma rch 10-13, 2014 the appellant failed to attend scheduled workshops; • March 17, 2014 the appellant attended his appointment and had not been looking for work; • March 31-April 4, 2014 the appellant failed to attend scheduled workshops. In his Notice of Appeal (N O A), d at ed Ma y 30, 2014 the appell 1) He did not attend training from EPBC, but did take similar training from another service p rovide r from May 1, 2014 -May 23, 2014; 2) After ta king this t r ai n i n g he can now do a job s resume"; 3 ) He has a job search log of jobs he has applied for; and 4) In 2001, he was in a motor vehicle accident that makes it period of time". A PPEi> I nsider atio n consisted of: (R F R ) d a t ed May 6, 2014 i n which t he ap pel la nt l y be cause h e recently a tte n de d a pr o gram that p pella nt on Se ptem ber 3 , 2 0 13; 2014 stating t h at th e appel la nt ha d n ot followe d plan an d the wor k e r wo u ld li ke to talk to him . He ider b y F ebru ary 26 , 2 0 14 or his a ss i s t ance ng that this wa s the second ti me the app ell an t emonstrat e any effo rts tow a rd s jo b e lig i b le f or i n c o me as si s tan ce. British Co lu mbi a (E PBC ) t r ie d to call the ice, they e maile d h im r equestin g an ap poi ntme nt; letter regardin g his complia nce, but no el lant a l etter a dvis i n g him that he mus t comply er t o r e main e li g i ble for as sist an ce a nd a s ki ng the was in wa s October 29, 2013; ntme n t on March 3 , 20 14; the a ppe llant ha d not been looking for work ant stated: earch a n d has deve loped a "pres ent a ble difficul t for him "to be on h i s f e et fo r a
I n h i s N O A , t h e a p p e l l a n t s u b m i t t e d : 1 ) A n o t e f r o m a p h y s i c i a n d a t e d J u n e 1 0 , 2 0 1 p h y s i c a l l a b o r f o r m e d i c a l r e a s o n s ; 2 ) A l e t t e r f r o m a s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r o t h e r t h a n E j o b p r o g r a m f r o m A p r i l 7 , 2 0 1 4 M a y 1 6 , 2 0 t o p e r s o n a l i s s u e s . T h e a p p e l l a n t r e c e i v e d a 3 ) A c e r t i f i c a t e s t a t i n g t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t h a s s u 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 t a t e d t h a t h e t h o u g h t E P B C p r o g r a m t h a t w a s i n h i s e m p l o y m e n t p l a n . H e m p l o y m e n t p l a n b e c a u s e h e b e c a m e d e p r e s s e d . p l a n b u t h e d i d n o t r e a l l y u n d e r s t a n d t h e c o n d i t i o n s c o n t a i n s a l o t o f b i g w o r d s " . T h e m i n i s t r y s t a t e d t h a t E P B C h a s n o t c o n t a c t e d t h r e c e i v i n g p r o g r a m m i n g f r o m a n o t h e r p r o v i d e r . T h e a p p e l l a n t ' s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s t a t e d t h a t t h e a p p e r e s t r i c t i n g h i m t o j o b s i n v o l v i n g p h y s i c a l l a b o r , w h i c a c a r a c c i d e n t . S h e s t a t e d t h a t t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s b u t h e w a s n o t s e e i n g a d o c t o r a b o u t t h e d e p r e s s i o T h e m i n i s t r y d i d n o t o b j e c t t o t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s a d d i t i o a d d i t i o n a l d o c u m e n t a t i o n a n d t h e o r a l s u b m i s s i o n a a p p e l l a n t ' s m e d i c a l c o n d i t i o n a n d t h e p r o g r a m h e w i n f o r m a t i o n a n d r e c o r d s b e f o r e t h e m i n i s t r y a t t h e t i 2 2 ( 4 ) o f t h e E m p l o y m e n t a n d A s s i s t a n c e A c t .A P P E A i I 4 s t a t i n g t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t i s n o t a b l e t o d o P B C s t a t i n g t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t w a s e n r o l l e d i n a 1 4 , b u t h e e x i t e d t h e p r o g r a m o n M a y 5 , 2 0 1 4 d u e $ 1 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 t r a i n i n g a l l o w a n c e f o r t h e p r o g r a m ; a n d c c e s s f u l l y c o m p l e t e d F O O D S A F E L e v e l 1 . t h e p r o g r a m h e t o o k w a s b e t t e r f o r h i m t h a n t h e e h a d n o t b e e n a b l e t o c o m p l y w i t h h i s H e w a s n o t i n c o m p l i a n c e w i t h h i s e m p l o y m e n t o f n o n c o m p l i a n c e a s o u t l i n e d i n t h e p l a n -" i t e m t o l e t t h e m k n o w t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t w a s l l a n t h a s a g r a d e 1 0 e d u c a t i o n a n d t h i s i s h h e c a n ' t d u e b e c a u s e o f t h e i n j u r i e s s u s t a i n e d i n w e r e c o n t r i b u t i n g t o t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s d e p r e s s i o n , n . n a l e v i d e n c e . T h e p a n e l h a s a c c e p t e d t h e s i t p r o v i d e s f u rt h e r i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t t h e a s e n r o l l e d i n . T h i s e v i d e n c e i s i n s u p p o r t o f t h e m e o f r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n , i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h s e c t i o n
APPEAi I PART F -Reasons for Panel Decision The issue to be determined at appeal is whether the ministry's reconsideration decision which found the appellant ineligible for income assistance due to non-compliance with his employment plan under section 9(1)(b) and section 9 (4) of the EAA was reasonably supported by the evidence or a reasonable application of the legislation in the appellant's circumstances. The relevant legislation is as follows: EAA 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. (2) A dependent youth, 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) falls to demonstrate reasonable efforts to participate in the program, or (b) ceases, except for medical reasons, to participate In the program. 5) If a dependent youth fails to comply with subsection (2), the minister may reduce the amount of Income assistance or hardship assistance provided to or for the family unit by the prescribed amount for the prescribed period. (6) The minister may amend, suspend or cancel an employment plan. (7) A decision under this section (a) requiring a person to enter Into an employment plan, (b) amending, suspending or canceling an employment plan, or (c) specifying the conditions of an employment plan Is final and conclusive and Is not open to review by a court on any ground or to appeal under section 17 (3)[reconsideration and appeal rights].
APPEA I The ministry argued that on September 3, 2013 the appellant signed an employment plan confirming he read, understood and agreed to the conditions listed in the employment plan and he understood that failure to comply with the conditions would result in ineligibility for assistance. Those conditions stipulated that the appellant was to participate in an employment program as directed by EPBC, to work with EPBC to address issues that may impact his employability, to complete all tasks assigned to him and to notify EPBC if he is unable to attend a session or if he starts or ends employment. The ministry's position is that the appellant failed to demonstrate a reasonable effort to participate in that employment program. EPBC reported in February 2014 that the last time the appellant attended was October 2013 and that while he attended on March 3, 2014 he had not been looking for work and did not submit a job search. Further, the appellant failed to attend scheduled workshops. The ministry wrote the appellant on February 7 and 17, 2014 requesting an appointment but no response was received. They were not informed the appellant was receiving programming from another provider other than the EPBC program that was stipulated in his employment plan. Although the appellant submitted a note from a physician with his NOA, the note does not indicate that he suffers from any medical issues that would impact his ability to attend his employment program and complete the tasks asked of him by EPBC. The appellant argued that he was not able to go to many jobs prior to February 18, 2014 because he was working on completing his grade 12. In April, he found a program that he felt was very similar to the EPBC program, but would give him the skills he needed. Through this program he has received a Food Safe certificate and a Level One Frist Aid certificate. The appellant stated that he has not been attending any program since May 5, 2014. Further, he argued that he did not really understand the conditions of non-compliance as outlined in the plan, stating "it contains a lot of big words", Panel Decision Section 9(1)(b) of the EAA directs that an individual must comply with the terms of an employment plan to maintain eligibility for income assistance. Section ,9(4) states that if an employment plan includes a condition requiring participation in a specific employment related program, that condition is not met if the person fails to demonstrate reasonable efforts to participate in the program, or ceases, except for medical reasons, to participate in the program. The appellant's employment plan stipulated that he was to participate in an employment program as directed by EPBC. While the appellant feels that the program he chose gave him the skills he needed and was better suited to him, he admits that he did not regularly participate in either of the programs. The evidence indicates the appellant missed appointments with EPBC, did not attend regularly, missed scheduled workshops, was not searching for work or submitting job searches and did not respond to requests for appointments from the ministry. While the appellant argued he did not understand the employment plan as it contained a lot of big words, he signed the employment plan indicating that he understood and agreed with the conditions. The conditions of the plan and the consequences of non-compliance with the plan were explained to the appellant by the ministry at the time and in letters sent to him. As such, the panel finds that the ministry's decision that the appellant did not demonstrate reasonable efforts to participate in the employment related program was reasonably supported by the evidence.
APPEA I Section 9(4) of the EAA, however, recognizes that medical reasons may prevent a person from demonstrating reasonable efforts or continuing to participate in an employment program. The appellant argues that he could not comply with his employment plan because he is "down on himself and suffering from a personal depression." He was in a motor vehicle accident that makes it difficult for him to be on his feet for a period of time". He has a grade 10 education and this could restrict him to jobs involving physical labour. The appellant submitted a note from a physician that stated the appellant was not able to do physical labour for medical reasons. The ministry recognized that these circumstances may be contributing to the appellant's depression, but he was not seeing a doctor about the depression. Although he submitted a note from his physician, the note does not indicate he suffers from any medical issues that would impact his ability to attend his employment program and complete the tasks asked of him by EPBC. The appellant's employment program required him to attend appointments and scheduled workshops and to submit job searches, none of which require physical labour. There is no documentation from a physician that indicated the appellant suffers from depression and that this condition affected his ability to comply with these tasks. Therefore, the panel finds the ministry's decision that medical reasons did not prevent the appellant from making a reasonable effort to participate in his employment program is reasonable supported by the evidence. The panel finds the ministry's decision that the appellant is not eligible for income assistance pursuant to section 9(1) of the EAA as he did not comply with the conditions of his employment plan is reasonably supported by the evidence and confirms the decision. The appellant is not successful in his appeal.
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.