I APPEAL PART C -Decision under Appeal The decision under appeal is the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation (Ministry) reconsideration decision dated May 23, 2014 which held that the Appellant was not eligible for a crisis supplement to pay her hydro bill because she did not meet all of the legislated criteria set out in section 57 of the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Regulation (EAPWDR) in particular, that it was an unexpected expense. Although the Ministry was satisfied that the Appellant did not have the resources to cover the cost of the utility bill to avoid disconnection and that the disconnection could result in imminent danger to her physical health, the Ministry held that it was not unexpected that a failure to make the payments required would result in having her electricity disconnected. PART D -Relevant Legislation Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Regulation (EAPWDR) section 57 EAAT378(14/07 /21)
PAR T E -Summar v of Facts The d o c u ments before the Minist ry at reconsid eration w • T he App e llant 's undated Req uest f or Reconsi deration; • Fax f r om the A ppe l lan t's ad vo c at e dated M ay 13, 2014 Seve ral p age s ab o u t r adi ant panels, energy e f ficiency, • Po wer compa n y bil ls da te d : J a nuary 2 2, 2013, Marc 2013, Au g ust 22, 2013 , S eptember 2 4 , 2 0 13, and Ja • P ow er c ompany's Noti ce of D isconnec tion dated Ju ne The Min istry's in formation indicated: • T he A ppell a n t is a sole rec ip i ent with Per son s w i th D • The App e llant re ceives $986.42 e a ch mon th in i n come assi sh elter. T he b a lance is for n u t ritio na l sup ple m e nt s and • In July 2 01 2 , the Mini str y paid the p ower c ompany $324 to Payment Plan ( EPP) of $155 /month. • Up until Au gus t 2 0 13 , t he Mini str y was paying th e $155/month EPP to the powe Ap pellan t . • T he p o wer company's met er r ead e rs were o n strike time, us age was estimated. • The J uly 2 4, 2013 bill indicate s t hat the ne x t b ill wo uld r based on the amount of p ow er t he App e l la nt c o ns umed o • The Aug ust 22, 2 013 p ower company b ill ind i ca ted a • I n Febru ary 2014, the Ministry a dj usted the Appellant' Minis try t hat she di d not want the Minis try to increase $1 55 t o th e ne w E PP of $ 3 78 and th at s he wanted t o • The App e llan t made extra payments i n November a nd f o r a total of $ 5 50. • Th e Se ptember 24, 2013 pow er com pa ny b il l showed • The January 27 , 20 1 4 powe r compa n y b ill show e d a I n t he App ell ant's w r itten s ubmi ssi on incl uded i n h e r Req • the Appellant was in a car a ccident and was unable to us reliance on electric heaters to heat her home; • the Appellant's oil furnace broke down a nd sh e was un • it was an unusually co l d winter which also incre ased The A p pellant stated that she beg an a renovation of her house roof h ad to be stop ped while the power company stri ke and that could not be done during t he strike . The panel makes the following findings of fact: • The EPP o f $ 1 55 was not high enough to cover the ann • The EPP was ad justed to $378 to reflect the previous year's usage (August 2012 to August 2013); • The Appellant's hydro usage during the subsequent year (August 2013 to August 2014) was higher due to unexpected circumstances; • The power company bills confirm the increased usage; • The Appellant's extra payments (totaling $550} were not enough to cover the monthly difference between the $155 oaid bv the Ministrv and the EPP of $378. EMT378(14/07/ 21) APPEAL I ere as follow s: (17 p ages) setti n g out the App e llant ' s argument. and the power company's bills wer e at tach e d ; h 22, 20 13, Ma y 23 , 2 013 , J une 2 4, 2013, July 2 4 , n ua r y 2 7, 2 01 4; and 22, 2014. isab ilitie s design atio n. stance, of whi ch $531.4 2 is s upport and $3 75 is d i et allow ance. prevent d isc onnec ti on and s et up an E q u a l r co mpany on be half of the from S prin g 2013 until C hris t mas 2013. D uring that eflect an upd at e d equal p aym ent of $378 / m onth v e r the pr evious 12 mont hs. n i ncr e ase in the E PP to $ 378/mon th. s she lter costs. At tha t ti me , the A ppel lan t ad v i se d the t h e monthly paym ent to th e power company from be ab le t o choose w hen to mak e extra p ay men t s. December 2 0 13 and J a n u ary, Ma rch an d April 2 01 4 an amount owing of $ 604.34. n amount owi n g of $1,0 77.74 . u est f or Reconsi derati on, she stated that : e her woo d stove. This caused an i ncrea sed able to fix it causing an increase in h e r ele ct r i9it y bill; her use of electri city. in 2012 that is still ongoing. The work on the wa s on b ecause the p o wer need ed to be disconnected ual cost of the Appellant's electricity usage;
APPEAL I PART F -Reasons for Panel Decision The issue on appeal is whether the Ministry's decision to deny the Appellant a crisis supplement for utilities to pay her hydro bill because the Ministry was not satisfied that her disconnection for failure to pay her bill was an unexpected expense is reasonably supported by the evidence or is a reasonable application of the applicable legislation in the circumstances of the Appellant. The Appellant provided a summary of her argument by fax dated July 16, 2014. This was provided to all panel members prior to the hearing. Since the Ministry had not received it, a copy was provided to the Ministry by the panel chair for review at the commencement of the hearing. There was no objection to this submission. The panel finds that the submission details the Appellant's argument the Ministry's reconsideration decision was unreasonable. The panel admits it under section 22(4)(b) of the Employment and Assistance Act as argument in support of information and records that were before the Ministry at the time the decision being appealed was made. The relevant legislation is section 57 of the EAPWDR: Crisis supplement 57 (1) The minister may provide a crisis supplement to or for a family unit that is eligible for disability assistance or hardship assistance if (a) the family unit or a person in the family unit requires the supplement to meet an unexpected expense or obtain an item unexpectedly needed and is unable to meet the expense or obtain the item because there are no resources available to the family unit, and (b) the minister considers that failure to meet the expense or obtain the item will result in (i) imminent danger to the physical health of any person in the family unit, or (ii) removal of a child under the Child, Family and Community Service Act. (2) A crisis supplement may be provided only for the calendar month in which the application or request for the supplement is made. (3) A crisis supplement may not be provided for the purpose of obtaining (a) a supplement described in Schedule C, or (b) any other health care goods or services. (4) A crisis supplement provided for food, shelter or clothing is subject to the following limitations: (a) if for food, the maximum amount that may be provided in a calendar month is $20 for each person in the family unit; (b) if for shelter, the maximum amount that may be provided in a calendar month is the smaller of (i) the family unit's actual shelter cost, and (ii) the maximum set out in section 4 of Schedule A or Table 2 of Schedule D, as applicable, for a family unit that matches the family unit; (c) ii for clothing, the amount that may be provided must not exceed the smaller of (i) $100 for each person in the family unit in the 12 calendar month period preceding the date of application for the crisis supplement, and (ii) $400 for the family unit in the 12 calendar month period preceding the date of application for the crisis supplement. (5) The cumulative amount of crisis supplements that may be provided to or for a family unit in a year must not exceed the amount calculated under subsection (6). (6) In the calendar month in which the application or request for the supplement is made, the amount under subsection (5) is calculated by multiplying by 2 the maximum amount of disability assistance or hardship assistance that may be provided for the month under Schedule A or Schedule D to a family unit that matches the family unit. (7) Despite subsection (4) (b) or (5) or both, a crisis supplement may be provided to or for a family unit for the following: (a) fuel for heating; (bl fuel for cookina meals; 8AAT378(14/07/ 21)
(c) wa ter; (d) hydro. I n or der to be eligib le for a crisis supp lement, the Appe EAPWDR . T he request ed item mu st be required: 1. To mee t a n unexp ected expen se, or to obtain an item unexpect AND 2 . The Appellan t h as no reso urces available to meet the e A ND 3 . F ai l ur e to meet the expens e or obtain the item will result The Ministr y ac k now ledges that the Appellant meets the second and third criteria but states that the fi criteria is not met, th at the Appellant is n ot eligible for the crisis supplemen failure to make the pa y men t s required would eventua l ly res Th e Appellant argue s t hat se veral unexpec t ed circumsta t he roof, th e v ehicle acc i dent preventing he r use of the wood sto down of her oil furna ce lead t o h igher r e lia n ce on a nd use desp ite the fact t hat she had b ee n m akin g ex tra pay m en T he Appel lan t f urt h e r argues in h er ad ditional sub m i s sion a por t ion of t he h y d ro b ill was u nex p e cted a n d s h e t heref EA PWDR . It is also her p osition that bein g up to d a t e in her c r i sis suppl em ent is n ot a cr i t e r i on t h at is f o und in t h e reg app r o priate food by pa y ing m ore on her h ydr o bills. The Appellant argue Mi nistr y to impo se add i t i onal criteri a th a t are not in the T he panel find s th e Mi ni s try 's d et er mination t ha t the Appella u tili ties t o pay h e r hydro bi ll to avoid di s connec t ion was notes tha t: • despite seve ra l un expec t ed circums t a nces, t h e Ap pellan • the Ap pel lant a cknowledged th a t d ue t o her c ircumsta • althou g h the p o w e r compa ny ' s strike was une xpec ted she ant i cipated, sh e h a s an oblig a t ion t o pay f o r electricity us The panel finds the ministry' s reconsideration decision was reasonably suppo c o nfirm s the decision. EAAT378(14/07 /21) A PPEAL I ll a nt must meet t he criteria set ou t in section 57 of the edly n eeded xpense or o btain th e item in imminent danger t o h er physical he alt h . rst t bec ause it i s not unexpected that a ul t in her e lectr icity b eing disco nnecte d . nces , the power c om p an y strike, the d elay in repl a cing ve, the p a r tic u l arly cold winter , a n d th e break o f e l ec t ri city resul ted i n an u nexpec tedly hi gh bi l l ts. o f Ju ly 16, 2 014 th a t t he Minist ry ack nowle dged that ore satisfies th e requir em en t in se ction 57 of the pa y m ent s at the ti me of her a ppli catio n for the ulatio n and she could n ot jeopa r diz e h er nee d for s th a t it is unreaso n ab le f or th e r e g ula t io n . n t w as not eligible for a crisis supp le me n t for rea so n a bly suppor ted by the eviden ce as the pa nel t d id use the elec t ric ity she w as b illed fo r ; nces she had an increa sed reli ance on elec tri c i ty; a n d a nd t h e am o unt of electric ity sh e used was mor e than age and that ob ligati on is not unexpected. r ted by the evi d e nce and
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.