A PPEAL # � PART C-De cision under Appeal The Decision u n d er appeal is t he M inistry of Social Deve l op m ent a nd Social Inn ov ation, (ministry), Re c onsideration Decision, dated May 20, 2014, which determined th e appellant was ineligibl e for ass i s tance until s uch ti me as the app e l lant provided information reque sted under s ec. 10 of the Employmen t and As sistance for P ersons with Dis ab i l i ties Ac t . P ART D -Releva nt Leg i s l a t ion EAPWDA-Emp l o yment an d Ass i s tanc e for P e rsons wi th Di s ab ilities Act. -Sec. 10 EA P W D R Em ployme n t a nd Assis tanc e fo r Per so ns wi th D isabiliti es Regulat io n --Se c . 28 EMT003(10/06/0I)
PART E -Summa r v of F acts The e v ide n ce be fore t h e M i n i stry at the t i m e of the r econsider receiving assist an ce s i nce 2 002. In Feb. of 20 14 a mi n i stry a s the m i nistry b ecame awar e t h e app ellan t had app eare und e r o a th that s h e ha d been rec eivin g su p po rt pa yme n t Unio n. The d ocument s ta te d a ny s upp or t paymen ts due ha S u ch paym en ts had never been re po rt ed to the minist ry. d oc umen ts from t he appe lla nt, i nclud i ng a r ecord o f al l maintenance paym IO was ad v ise d th a t t h e a p pell an t c oul d not provi de a r e ha d not received s uch payment s. The appellant s ubsequ ently provided a written s t at e ment in wh o a th in De c . 201 2 was signed with out the appel lant un d erstan at t h e time the document wa s e xecuted she had been a dvised sign this d ocum ent so that he r s o n coul d ge t in to co llege pro vince . In Dec o f 20 1 2 she w as suffe rin g fr om m en t al not have her glasse s wh e n the do cument was s ign ed, a nd it. S he fu rther ad v is ed th a t m ost o f t he informati on in the hers , w h ich is actu a l ly a drug store. Sh e advised she h a d only had r ece i v ed $500. She i ncluded a l ett er fr om Western U 2013 Western Union had not b e en used t o s upply funds The R econsidera ti on De cision de te rmined that the material requeste o f d etermini ng a nd au d i t i ng the appellant' s eligibi lit y fo d e nying the app el lant ' s r econside ration reques t : • 1-The a p pella nt had only p rovide d in f ormati o n f mini stry had re queste d information to 20 03 a n d the ministry w ere not pr oduced b a ck to 2003 ; a nd • 2-T he min i stry co ns i dered that the app e l lant's wri appe lla nt's s tateme n t made u nde r oat h . The min is li y determined that the appellant con tin ued to be ineligi information back to 2003 had been supplie d . Th e a ppellant a ppealed to the T ri b unal stating she thought she had provided the necessary in she wished an opportunity to provide further evidence. Prior to the hearing the appellant pr ovi d e d fu rt her information • 1-A document signed under oath confirming that she had not received the maintenan her husband and confirming the other details she had previously provided to the ministry in her written st atement. • 2-Two letters fro m We stern Uni on c o nfirming she had Jan. 2008 to June 30 2014, for the six years prior. EAA T003( 10/06/01) AP Pl= A I # : ati o n s howe d that t h e a p pe lla nt h ad been I nvest i gative O ffi c er (IO ) be gan a review of her f i le d befor e a n o tary in De c . 2012 and signed a d ocum ent s s i nce Ja n . 2003 f ro m her ex husband thrn We s tern d been mad e and her hus ba nd was not i n arre a r s. As a r esul t of this t h e IO reque sted a la r g e num b e r o f ents received since J an. of 200 3 . T h e co rd of payme nt s m ade since J an. o f 2 0 03 because she i ch she advi s ed that the document take n under di n g wha t t h e docume nt st a t ed. She ad vise d th a t by he r son an d h er ex -hus b an d th a t sh e n eeded to . The appell a nt' s s o n a nd the e x-h usband l i ve out of h ea l th issues , the side e f fe cts fr om m edica tion, s he did n o one w a s wi t h her t o read it to her when she sig ned do cu m ent w a s false, including the add ress liste d as r eceived $ 300 in 2 003 a nd more rece n tly in 2 014 ni on which advised tha t in the fiv e yea rs prio r to May t o the app ellant from he r e x-husband. d by the IO wa s nece ssa ry fo r the p urpo se r as sista nce. The decision wa s ba sed on t wo re a sons fo r rom Wester n Union f or the p a st five yea r s . B ut the w a s unable t o determ in e why the reco rd s tte n stat emen t alo n e wa s insufficie n t t o counter the b l e for assistance until such t ime a s the formation and that . c e payments from not received any payments through them from
• 3-Several medical r eports sh owi ng a history of mental health issues and also on three mon ths after Dec. 20 12 she had signi f icant mental health issues includin family mem ber's pass ing. Section 22 (4 ) (b ) of the Employ ment and Assi stance Act states a informat ion a nd r ecords t ha t were before the minister w written tes t imony i n supp01t of t he i nformation and records referred to matte r the ministry did not object t o the admissibility of the new docnments. m a t er i al augme nted the evidence on a pp e al a nd w a s consisten de c i s io n. As su ch, the panel deter m ined that the new documents At the hearing the appellant confirmed he r pr i or statements to the ministry a s i gning of t he docu m ent in Dec . 2 0 12 . I n e ssence, she d wa s simply signing a d ocumen t th at made it po ssi b l e f or t o college. S h e was in su ch a bad me n ta l st ate at t h e ti m sign e d was s e nt to t he no ta ry, p r esu m ably fo r her ex-h us not se en i t b efo r e s h e went to t h e no tary. She had s upp lied a an d was to l d th e only thin g sh e could do would be to h ire a lawye l aw yer . S he had begged Weste rn U nion enough th at the years and could go no further. The m inist ry repres entative at t he hearing advis ed th at s rec o nsiderati on dec is i on was m a de they did not h ave all the informat Base d on th e informati on ava i la ble at the t ime o f the decision it explanation for wh y record s were not av ail a ble prior to 200 truth o f the no tariz e d do c um en t , a s op po s e d to the document The ap pella nt had suppl ie d a ll of the ot her d ocum e nts they had reques asked the mini stry repr es e ntati ve indica ted t ha t in her v i t he req uest for i n fo rm a t ion that was out standin g , h ow e ver res p onsible for the fi l e. EAA T003(10/06/01) A PP E Ai # '. e confirming that in th e g a suicide attempt after a panel may admit as evide nce o nly th e h e n the de cision being appe aled was ma de, and oral or in the de c isio n. At the hearin g o f this The panel det ermined t hat the new t with the evidence in t he record of the m inis t r y were admissible in the hear ing. bout what had occurred a round the i d n ot kn o w w ha t she w a s signing and she thought she h e r ex-husban d to get a small loan so h er son c o uld go e a n d s h e wa s taken a d va n ta g e o f . The d ocu m ent she ban d, a nd she simply went t her e a n d s i g ned it. Sh e h ad l l the inf ormatio n she coul d from Western U nion r and g et a subpoen a. She could not af fo r d a y g ave he r a n other letter t o say t h ey ha d gon e back s i x he w a s also an I O . S h e advised that at t h e time t h e ion that was c mT ently before t h e pa nel . was re a son able . T he ministry had re cei ved no 9 and they o nly had a wr itten st atemen t denying the t h at wa s now a vailab le whic h w a s also u nder o ath. t ed; onl y thi s iss ue r ema i n ed. When ew the materi a l th at was now provided w o ul d satis f y , she could not spea k for the IO wh o was u l timate ly
PART F -Reasons for Pa nel Dec i s io n The is sue to be determine d is whe t h er the Ministry r easo determined that th e App el lant was non -co m p liant with t EAPWDA and the EAPWDR Sec . 28. The Legisla tio n stat es the followin g; Employment and Assistance for Persons with Di Information and verif ica t ion 10 (1) Fo r the purposes of (a ) d et er mining w het her a p erson w anting to apply fo eligibl e t o app l y for it, (b) dete r minin g or a u d iti ng eligibility for di sability (c ) a ssessi ng em ploy a bil it y an d sk i lls for th e pm poses (d ) assess ing c omp lia nce with the conditio n s o f an e t h e m inis ter may do one or m ore of the foll owing: (e) d ir ect a pe rson re ferre d t o in par agrap h (a), an app in fo rma tion within t h e ti me and in t h e m anne r sp (f) seek ve ri ficat ion of an y informatio n suppli ed to the min an applicant or a r eci pient; ( g) d i r ec t a person referred to in paragrap h (a), an applic information h e or she suppli e d to the minister. (2) The minister may direct an applicant or a recipient to supply verification of information minister if that i n formation r e lates to the e lig ibility of th e ass i s t anc e or a supp l ement. (3) Subsection (1) (e) to (g) applies with respect to a dependent youth for a purpose referred to in subs ection (1) (c) or (d). (4) If an applicant or a recipient fails to comply with a d irection family unit ineligible for disability assistance, hardship assistance or a supplement for the prescribed period. (5) If a dependent youth fails to comply with a direction under this section, the minister may reduce the amount of disability ass istance or ha r dship as sistance provided to or for the fami EMT 003(10/06/01) : APPl;'A I H n ably denied the a ppellant assista n c e , a s the Ministr y h e request for information requi r e d under Sec. 10 of the sa b ilities Act r disabil ity assistance or hardsh i p ass i s t ance i s ass i s tan ce, h a rdship assi stance or a su pple ment , of a n employ men t plan, or mpl oy m ent plan , l ic a nt o r a r ecip ien t to supp ly t he mi nister wi th ec i fie d by the m inister; is ter by a per so n referred to i n p aragrap h ( a) , ant or a recipi ent to supply verification of any received by the fami ly unit for disability assistance, hardship u n der thi s sec t io n, the minister may declare t he ly unit bv the prescribe d amoun t for the
prescribed period. Emplo yment and Assist an ce for Persons wi Consequences of failing to pro v id e information or verification 28 ( 1) F o r th e purpo ses of section 10 ( 4 ) [info rmation and v minister ma y de c l are the family u nit inel i gibl e for assistance lasts until the d irection. ( 2 ) For t h e purposes of section 10 (5) [information and verifi ( a) the amount by which the minis t e r may reduce the dep e ndent youth's family unit is $100 for each calendar month, and (b ) the p eri o d for w hich the mini ster may r educe depe nd e nt yo ut h' s famil y unit l asts until t he d epe U n d er Sec. 10 the mi nistry can direc t a recipi ent t o su p of th e re cipien t of ass i s t anc e. Under sub sec tio n 4, t he min pro vide t he information. Sec . 2 8 of t he r egul at io n allo ws inform at i o n is provided . The appellant a r gu es that she has no w co mplied wi th the reque p r o v ided . She h as s t at ed under oath th at the Dec . 2012 docu w h y sh e cann o t prov i d e info rmatio n prior t o 2009 . Th e it was rea s o nable based o n th e a v a ilable i nfo rma tion. The rec onsi d era t i o n decisio n was base d on tw o points; no 2003-200 9, a n d a s ta temen t m ade und er oa th v e rsus a s ta decis ion accepted t he initi al infor m ation fro m W estern Union m on i es had bee n rec eived b y t he app ellant through We stern U explana tion for t he t i me frame prior to thi s . That infor m panel, and it confirmed that Western Union did not keep re notewo rthy, but not decisive, that the ministry representative present at the hearing indicated this would satisfy her as an IO. Based on the evidence available at the time of the reconsideration, the ministry decision would have been reasonabl e. However, as new admissible evidence shows that the appellant could not provide what was requested, and Western Union has confirme d they cannot provide rec issue is no t rea so na ble and the panel overtur ns it. The other point made by the reconsideration decision is that the appellant had simply provided a signed written statement denying what she had stated under oath, and that this did not satisfy the ministry. available evidence at the reconsideration level, this was probably a reasonable decision, but there is new admissible evide nce. The appellant h a s since atte n d ed anoth received these payments. It is noteworthy that the first notarized document states that all payments were received through Western Union and it has been confirmed that since 2009 no such payments were made. Thi aooellant's storv. This oanel makes no finding as to which of the documents made under oath is or may be true. EAA T003(10/06/01) APPE AL# � th Disabiliti e s Regulation when dir e c t ed e rificatio n ] o f the Act, the period for which t h e the applican t or recipient complies wi t h c a tion] of t h e Ac t, disability assistance or hardship a ssistance of the the disabilit y as sistanc e o r hardsh ip assi stance of the n de n t youth com plies w ith t he direction. ply inform a tion to determin e eligibi lity for a n d th e audit istry can d ec lare the person ine l i g i ble if th ey do not the minis t r y to declare the rec i pient in eligible un t il t he s t and th e info rmat ion that is r e qui r ed has bee n m en t was u ntrue, an d furthe r she has ex p laine d m inis t ty ar gues that at t he time the decis io n was made expla n ati on for docu m en ts not being prov i ded from temen t t h a t was not under oath. The recon sideration th a t fr om 2 009 unti l t he time of t he le tte r no ni o n fro m the ex-husba nd. But th ere was no ation wa s now pro vided, foun d a dm iss ible b y t h e cor ds back t o the time requested by the ministry. It is ords back that far , t h e finding on this Again, based on the er no ta ry and u nder oath c on fir med that she had not s gives some credence to the
APPEAL# � The reconsideration decision was concerned that the ministry simply had a written account by the appellant versus a document under oath. The appellant has now provided an explanation under oath that the first document was untrne. Again, although not binding on the panel, the ministry representative stated this would satisfy her. Based on the new evidence now available to the tribunal, the panel finds that the decision on this issue was not reasonable and overturns it. As such, the panel finds that the Ministry's reconsideration decision, based on all of the evidence now available, is not reasonably supported by the evidence and is not a reasonable application of the legislation based on all the evidence. The panel rescinds the 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.