I APPEAL PART C -Decision under Appeal The decision under appeal is the reconsideration decision of the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation ("the ministry") dated 07 July 2014 that found that, pursuant to sections 9(2) and 24 of the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Regulation, the appellant is not eligible for income or disability assistance because the net income of her family unit is in excess of the applicable assistance rate. The ministry also confirmed that, as she did not meet the initial eligibility criteria established under the Employment and Assistance Act or the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act, she should not be provided a Person with Disabilities (PWD) Designation Application. At the hearing, the ministry stated that sections 10(2) and 28 of the Employment and Assistance Regulation also apply. These sections have similar wording as those cited, except referring to "income assistance," instead of "disability assistance." PART D -Relevant Legislation Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act (EAPWDA), section 3. Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Regulation (EAPWDR), sections 4, 4.1, 9 and 24: Schedule A and Schedule B, section 3. Employment and Assistance Act (EAA). Employment and Assistance Regulation, sections 10(2) and 28. EAA T003(10/06/01)
APPEAL I PART E -Summary of Facts The evidence before the ministry at reconsideration consisted of the following: o The appellant's Application for Income Assistance/Disability Assistance, Part 1 and Part 2, dated 05 June 2014. The Application shows the appellant residing with her common-law spouse. The appellant reports zero monthly income. Monthly income for the spouse is shown as $2100 in employment wages. • Cheque stubs from the spouse's employer for three biweekly periods in March and April 2014, with net pay in the amount of $1275 -$1318. For the purposes of explaining the reconsideration decision, the ministry took his monthly net income to be "a minimum of $2500." The cheque stubs also show an employer $25 biweekly contribution to an RASP, with a total of $75 withheld, indicating the spouse contributes $50 to the company pension plan biweekly. • The appellant's Request for Reconsideration, dated 19 June 2014, to which was attached a letter giving her reasons. She writes that she understands that her spouse's monthly income for March and April 2014 is above the PWD rate by approximately $320-$270. It would be more than acceptable if this excess were taken off the PWD amount. She bears the burden of her disability; this is difficult enough and to add all financial responsibility onto her spouse is even more unbearable for her. The overwhelming rising costs of living, including food, monthly household repairs, water, medical prescriptions, etc. are a real hardship for two incomes let alone one. As supportive as her spouse is, they are not married and she fears that down the road her guilt and the weight of her disability will be too much to place on her spouse. She states that she is in a desperate situation and needs assistance. In her Notice of Appeal, dated 15 July 2014, the appellant writes "Need to go over [spouse's] financial statement and taxes." At the hearing, the appellant submitted a letter from her spouse dated 05 August 2014 stating that it was his intention to increase his RASP contributions to $75 per pay-cheque, an increase from $25 per paycheck. These contributions are to the company pension plan organized by his employer. Using pay stubs from January 2014, he calculates that from total take-home pay of $2391.61, less the $1000 income exemption, his net income would be $1391.61 or $121.05 over the disability assistance rate of $1270.56. By increasing his RASP contribution, his income would fall close to or below the allowable rate. The ministry representative pointed out that RASP contributions per se cannot be deducted from unearned income for the purposes of calculating net income. Contributions to the company pension plan can be deducted, but only the base amount required by the plan administrator and that base amount would have to be determined. The appellant also submitted a note from herself and her spouse stating that the spouse has been driving a vehicle for a company in which the appellant is a part owner. The letter stated that it has become apparent that the spouse did not keep very good track of vehicle expenses. She will be more vigilant in making sure receipts are not lost. Including these expenses would reduce her income from the business. The ministry noted that her Application form did not show any other earned or unearned income from her business, or anv other income for her spouse. EMT 003(10/06/01)
I APPEi The ministry stood by its position at reconsideration. The panel finds that the information provided by the appellant at the hearing regarding her spouse's intention to increase his RASP/company pension plan contributions and her and her spouse's involvement with a small business was not before the ministry when it made its decision and is not in support of (i.e. it does not substantiate or corroborate) any information before the ministry when it made its decision. Pursuant to section 22(4) of the Employment and Assistance Act (set out below) the panel therefore does not admit as evidence this information. The panel notes that even if this information had been admitted as evidence, it would not have changed the panel's decision (see Part F, Reasons for Panel Decision below). Panels of the tribunal to conduct appeals 22 (4) In a hearing referred to in subsection (3), a panel may admit as evidence only (a) the information and records that were before the minister when the decision being appealed was made, and (b) oral or written testimony in support of the information and records referred to in paragraph (a). EAAT 003(10/06101)
APPEA I PART F -Reasons for Panel Decision The issue in this appeal is whether the ministry's decision, that found that, pursuant to section 9(2) of the EAPWDR and section 10(2) of the EAR, the appellant is not eligible for income or disability assistance because the net income of her family unit is in excess of the applicable assistance rate, was reasonably supported by the evidence or was a reasonable application of the legislation under the circumstances of the appellant. Another issue is whether the ministry was reasonable in confirming that, as she did not meet the initial eligibility criteria established under the Employment and Assistance Act or the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act, she should not be provided a PWD Designation Application. The relevant legislation is from the EAPWDA: Eligibility of family unit 3 For the purposes of this Act, a family unit is eligible, in relation to disability assistance, hardship assistance or a supplement, if {a) each person in the family unit on whose account the disability assistance, hardship assistance or supplement is provided satisfies the initial and continuing conditions of eligibility established under this Act, and {b) the family unit has not been declared ineligible for the disability assistance, hardship assistance or supplement under this Act. And from the EAPWDR: Process for assessment of eligibility for disability assistance 4 The eligibility of a family unit for disability assistance must be assessed on the basis of the 2-stage process set out in sections 4.1 and 4.2. Application for disability assistance -stage 1 4.1 (1) The first stage of the process for assessing the eligibility of a family unit for disability assistance is fulfilling the requirements of subsection (2). (2) The applicants for disability assistance in a family unit (a) must complete and submit to the minister an application for disability assistance (part 1) form and must include as part of the application {i) the social insurance number of each applicant in the family unit who is a person described in section 6 {2) [citizenship requirements], and (ii) the information, authorizations, verifications and declarations specified by the minister, as required in the application for disability assistance (part 1) form, and Limits on income 9 (1) For the purposes of the Act and this regulation, "income", in relation to a family unit, includes an amount garnished, attached, seized, deducted or set off from the income of an applicant, a recipient or a dependant. {2) A family unit is not eligible for disability assistance if the net income of the family unit determined under Schedule B equals or exceeds the amount of disability assistance determined under Schedule A for a family unit matching that family unit. Section 1 O of the EAR reads the same, except referring to "income assistance." EAAT003(10/06l01)
I APPEAl Amount of disability assistance 24 Disability assistance may be provided to or for a family unit, for a calendar month, in an amount that is not more than {a) the amount determined under Schedule A, minus {b) the family unit's net income determined under Schedule B. Section 28 of the EAR reads the same, except referring to "income assistance." From Schedule B of the EAPWDR: Calendar month exemption -earned income 3 (1) Subject to subsections (2) and (2.1 ), the amount of earned income calculated under subsection {3) is exempt for a family unit. (2) If an application for disability assistance {part 2) form is submitted to the minister, the family unit may not claim an exemption under this section in relation to the first calendar month for which the family unit becomes eligible for disability assistance unless (a) a member of the family unit who is designated as a person with disabilities previously received disability assistance under the Act or a former Act, or {b) a member of the family unit received income assistance under the Employment and Assistance Act for the calendar month immediately preceding that first calendar month. (3) The exempt amount for a family unit that qualifies under this section is to be calculated as follows: (a.1) in the case of a family unit that includes two recipients, only one of whom is designated as a person with disabilities, the exempt amount is calculated as the lesser of {i) $1 ooo, and {ii) the family unit's total earned income in the calendar month of calculation; In the reconsideration decision, the ministry reviews the relevant legislation relating to income and eligibility for assistance. The ministry determined that the applicable monthly rate of income assistance for the appellant's family unit size and composition under Schedule A of the EAR is $877.22. For disability assistance, the applicable monthly rate under Schedule A of the EAPWDR is $1270.56. As the appellant had indicated an intention to apply for PWD designation, the ministry assessed her eligibility for disability assistance and compared her family unit's net income, determined through examination of her spouse's cheque stubs, to be a minimum of $2500. As this amount of net income is greater than the applicable monthly disability assistance rate of $1270.56, pursuant to section 9(2) of the EAPWDR, the position of the ministry is that the appellant is not eligible for disability assistance (or income assistance). The ministry noted that while there is a PWD earnings exemption, it is not available to applicants in the first calendar month for which the family unit becomes eligible for disability assistance, except in certain circumstances not applicable to the appellant. The ministry also held that a PWD designation application is not to be provided as a way to obtain other programs and services other than disability assistance. As the appellant did not meet the initial financial eliaibilitv criteria of the EAPWDR, the ministrv determined that she should not be provided a EMT 003( 10/06/01)
PWD designation appl ication. The position o f t he app el lant is that she is in a desperate situation an is unfair for her to continue to expect her com mon her dis ability as well as the ever-increasing cos ts suggestions as t o how the f a mily unit's i nc om e might b P a nel dec ision At the hearing, the app ellant made submissions on ways her fami These subm ission s were b ase d o n information t hat the pane evidence. Accor dingly, the pan e l will not addr ess the prop exce p t to note that the mini s t r y raised signif icant quest The panel n o t es that t he sta rting point for the adminis d isa bility ass i sta nc e pro grams unde r the E A A and EA tests, d e p ending on s ize a nd composit ion of the fami that th e person mu s t me et to be desig n a ted a s a "p the PWD d es ignation ap plica t ion form in e ithe r t h e A EAP W D R states that t he elig ib i lity of a fa mily u nit for d b a sis of the 2-stage pro cess se t out in s e cti ons 4 . 1 an o f an Applicati on for Disa b il ity Ass i s tance form, w i cit izen sh i p , addres s, fa mily un it size and compos i tion, recent income panel, i t is c lear that the l egis l a t io n ca ll s for e l igibility in c o me and as se t (a n d other basic) cr iteria be fore form. T he evidence i s that the appellan t' s net income of disabili t y ra t e of $12 7 0.56. The panel f in ds that the mi mon thly in come exem p ti o n und e r sec ti on 3 of Sche app e llant i n the fi r st mon th of eligi bilit y . The p a nel dete r mi ned that, p u rs u ant to s ectio n 9(2 ) of the EAPWD as sistance as h er net i ncome determined under Schedu disability assistance determined under Schedule A, and thus the appellant does not satisfy one of the initi al condition s for eligibili ty for disability assistance as required under section As the threshold net income for income assi stance follows that the ministry was reasonable in determining that the appellant was not eligible for income a ssistance. A ccordingly, the panel finds that the ministry's decision, that found the appellant not eligible for disability assistan ce or income assistance and to deny the appellant's request to provide her a PWD designation applic a t ion, is r easonably supported b y the legislation in the circumstances of the appellant. The panel therefore confirms the ministry's decision. EAAT 003( 10/06/01) APPEAL I d needs the mini s t r y's support . It law spou se to pay all financial responsibilities of of mai ntaining a hous ehold. She has made e redu ced to below the $1270.56 thresho l d . ly unit's income m ight be reduced . l has fou n d to be inadmis sible as os itions raised in thes e submiss ions, ions as to th eir v alidity. tration of the ministry ' s in c ome assi stance and P WD R is a framework of income a n d asset l y uni t. While t he EAPWD A set s ou t the criteria erson with d isabilities, " n o ref eren c e is ma d e to ct or t he Regu lati o n. How ever, sec tio n 4 of the i s ability ass i s tance mu st be a ssessed on t he d 4. 2 , wit h the first stage bein g the subm ission th in formati o n in cl ud ing Soc i al I nsurance Nu m b e r , b y sou rce, a ssets, et c. To the to be assessed f irs t on th e bas is of me eti ng t he going on t o pro vide a PWD designa tion a pplica t ion at least $2500 e xc e ed s the a p plicable monthly nistry w as re asonable in d et erminin g that t he dul e B of the EA PWDR is not ava i la ble to the therefore fi nds t ha t t he minis try reasonably R , the ap pella nt is not eligi bl e fo r d isab ility l e B equals or exceeds the amount of 3(a) of the EAPWDA. is lower th a n th a t for disability assis tance, it the ev i d enc e and is a reasonable application of
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.