I APPEA PART C -Decision under Appeal The Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation (the ministry) decision dated 8 May 2014 determined that the appellant exceeded the 20 day time limit set bys. 79(2) of the Employment and Assistance Regulation for filing his request for reconsideration and therefore denied the appellant the right for a reconsideration of a decision made by the ministry on 11 December 2012. PART D -Relevant Legislation Employment and Assistance Act (EAA), section 17. Employment and Assistance Regulation (EAR), section 79. EAAT 003(10/06/01)
PART E -Su mma rv of Fa ct s T h e f ollo w i ng evidenc e was bef ore t he min istry at • An undat ed, un signe d docume nt, a p pare ntly hand w ou t to a number of issues in re spec t o f the ap pellant's f • An undat ed, u nsi gned docume nt titl ed " Investi gatio i ndi cat ing a nu m b er o f fin an c ial i s su e s in respe mentio ns "Ad min err o r let ter to b e d one ". • A pri nto ut of a mi nistry Ove rpay men t N o tification da advisin g hi m th at he had receiv ed an overpaymen the mont hs of O c tobe r and No v em ber 20 1 2 , constituting a d At the bo ttom of t ha t le tter, the re is a p ara grap h n otifica tion an d I am aware of m y r i ght to requ es t h e paragraph is blank, including wh ere t he app t h a t docu ment w as an O verpayme nt Chart print amou nt to be repai d and the rea sons thereof . • A letter dat e d 11 D e ce mber 2 012 to the ap pel lan m ade by t he m inist ry" . The let ter a l so s tat ed that the no t ifie d of t h e deci sion to file a r equest for re con • On 13 D e ce mber 2 012 , t he m in istr y in dicates t • In w hat appears to b e a printo ut of the a pp ella nt s tates th at the app ellant atten ded a m e eti ng on 13 m in i stry's o ffi c e in his community and d i sc u s se f o r ass ist ance as a full time studen t and a ssets in exc new a p pl ication and it wa s an admin err o r that h go i n g to be cl osed by Inv estigat i ve O f ficer as there a pp eal . T he r e are n o appeal bene f i ts t o be issu • A docu m e nt da te d 4 Jan ua ry 2 01 3 tit led "R eview an ove rpa y ment fo r und eclar ed as set s and "ine Iden t ified" and " Va l i d consent signed O cto ber 12, s tates " N otice o f admin overpayment let ter completed and placed on file to be delivered to client at f irst con tac t. C l ie nt is no lon ger rece iving as sistance. • A Fax Cover Sheet dated 19 March 2013 from the appellant to the ministry in respec Eviction Notice. It states "RE : reconsid e ration and telephone [number] if you are ab l e to provide a ssistance further." Attached to this fax is a Notice to End a Residential Tenancy dated 15 March 2013 by the landlord giving the appellant 10 days to vacat • In October 20 13, the ministry indicates the appellant began receiving ass month's cheque dated 30 October 2013, the ministry manually deducted $20 for the repayment the debt he owed. Ongoing $20 monthly repayments were set up to begin with the February 2014 cheque. • Repayments of $20 each were taken from the appellant March 2014. • On 19 March 2014, the appella nt met a ministry worker and requested that the ministry return the $ 20 repaym en t . The worker explaine d to the appellant that the reason for the repayment was for an overpavment incurred in 2012 and the notes further mention the aooellant stated he had not EAAT 003(10/06/01) I AP PEA i 7 the ti me of recon sideratio n: r itt en notes from a m inis try worker pointing inancial s it uat ion . n Worksheet" with th e a pp ell an t 's name and ct of ass e ts a n d other rela ted m a tte rs. I t als o ted 11 December 2 012 to the a ppellant t of a ssis tance f or whic h he was not e ligib le for ebt due to the pr ov i nce to b e re pai d. s tat ing : " I ack now l edge th at I have r eceived this t a r ec onsid er a tio n of this de ci si on " b ut the re st of e lla n t 's sign ature was to be af fixe d. A ttached t o ed on 1 O Dec em b er 2 012 indic at ing the ex act t infor m ing h i m o f the overpay ment " as an er ror a ppella n t had 20 bus ine ss days after he was s iderat ion . h e appell an t was a d vi s e d of t he deci sion in perso n. 's file a t th e ministry an d dat ed 8 May 2 014 , it De cem b e r 2 01 2 a t what seems to be the d h i s si tuat ion. H e was ad v i sed he w as "not el igi b l e es s ... Client [the app ell a nt] i s not p wd and a e w as even is sued i n t he first p lace. Th is f ile is i s no eligibility. C l ien t do es have the right to ed he did not rec eive I.A. la st mont h . " Overv i ew" by a m in ist ry review work er indicating ligible as in School" also indica ting "Admi n E r ror 2012. This file i s a c ombinatio n of er rors. " It also C h e q u e p r o duction tu r n ed off." t of an request for assistance. Pl ea se let me k n ow by a t this po i n t or if you require a nything e his renta l premises for failing to pay his rent. istance again but on that of ' s monthly assistance in February and
been in fo r me d of the 2 012 d eci sion and had not rece m entio n th e app el la nt i n dicated he was awar e a ss ist ance c hequ e b efore Ma r c h and t h at he had req decisi ons on n u merous o ccasion s. T he ap pel lant wa allocated b y legisla tion for fili n g a request f o r r e • A t p age 2 of 4 o f a docum ent d ated 24 M ar ch 2014 ti fo r Recons i derat ion" by the mi nist ry i t is indicat eff e c tive on 11 De cember 2012, tha t t he "Dat e 2 013 and that th e "Date th e r e questor must submi • In his reques t for reconsiderat i on d ated 2 7 Ap ril info rme d of t h e deci sion made in De cemb e r 20 N o vember 2012. With re s pe c t to the m e et in g on 1 repay ment of $ 20 be retu rned to him but rather st ated th at w as t he fi r st time the minis try noti f i ed b een adv is e d of an ov erpa ymen t by letter dated re quests for reco nside rat i on in resp ec t of t ha t lett reap plied f or i ncome assi sta nce and f iled a request f with a n outs tanding debt but t ha t the minis tr y ig $20 had been d ed u ct ed f ro m his mont hly assistance c work er w h o in for me d h im of tho se d eduction s. over p aym e nt w as sent t o him a s it was i n corr ectly hi s mail in g add ress and fax num ber. He d e nied havin 2 013 . He indic ated t hat the men t i on th at he h a d December 2 012 i s fals e and t hat he ha d previously app ellant t h en sta ted that he h a d provi ded documentary eviden abou t h is health condit ion and si tuation b u t t hat m e etin g on 13 December 2 012 t ook place, he st r equire d befor e any d ec i sion woul d be made , with ille gal decisi ons w ere m ade with r esp ect to his financia d ecis io ns should be recons idered. In his Notice of Appeal dated 5 June 2014, the appellant reiterates the request for reconsideration. He adds that he filed a reque designation in November 2012 and that there are "multiple requests for reconsideration already at this point". Sinc e there are a number of inconsistencies between the evidence the appellant, the panel makes the following findings of facts: • The appellant did not receive the 11 Decembe r w as "addressed to the off ice a s no forwarding address" and the appellant's evidence is to the effect he did not receive that letter. • The p an el accepts that the appellant understood from to provide further documentation with no specific deadline since the ministry could have had the appellant sign the acknowledgement that he had received notification of the overpayment and that app e a red at the bottom of the document "Ove r pa it provided no evidence that it even attempted to have that acknowledaement sianed. Additionallv, EAAT 003(10/06/01) I A PPE Ai ived an overpaym e nt lett e r . The no t e s a l s o that $2 0 h a d b een deduc ted from anot her ues t e d a r e c o ns id era tion of m ini s try' s s infor med he had exceeded the tim e c o nsi derati on. tled "Emplo yment and As si s tanc e R equ est e d a t "Releva n t Dat es" t h a t the dec i s i on was re questor info r me d of decision" wa s 3 0 October t form" w as 27 Novem ber 2013. 201 4, the ap pel lant in dic ated he had not be en 12 a b out t he overpaym e nt of Oc t obe r and 9 M arch 2014, he den ied having r equested t h e a ske d the wo r k er w hat the a m ou nt was f or. He him of the 2012 o verpaymen ts bu t tha t he h a d 22 J uly 20 13 a n d that he had made s ev era l er. H e stat e d t ha t o n 6 Aug u st 2 01 3, he or reconsiderati on of an y deci sion d ealing nore d it. He furth er sta ted he w a s n o t aw are that h eque prior to t he mee t ing with the min ist ry He cl a im ed no lett er i nforming him of the ad dressed despite t he mi n i str y bei ng aw are of g bee n delivere d that let ter pr i o r to 29 Marc h be en informed in p erson of t he de c i s i on on 13 made a compla int again st that worker. T he c e t o the minis tr y in vestig a t or d ocumen t at io n was rejecte d. R ec o gniz in g t he at e d that he wa s tol d f urther d ocume ntat i o n w as no specific deadline giv en. He cla i med th a t l s it ua t ion and stude n t situ ation and t hos e fa c t s as presen ted in h i s st for a P erson with Di s abil ities (PWD) provided b y the ministry and by 2012 letter si nce t he ministry's notes indicate it the 13 December 201 2 mee ting that he h ad yment Notification" dated 11 December 2012 but
t h e p r i n t o u t o f t h a t m e e t i n g d e m o n s t r a t e s t h e r e e l i g i b i l i t y f o r i n c o m e a s s i s t a n c e b u t n o m e n t i o n F u r t h e r , i n a m i n i s t r y d o c u m e n t d a t e d 4 J a n u a r o v e r p a y m e n t l e t t e r c o m p l e t e d a n d p l a c e d o n f i s u g g e s t i n g t h a t i n a l l l i k e l i h o o d , a t t h a t d a t e , t h e o v e r p a y m e n t a n d c o n f i r m i n g h i s e v i d e n c e . • T h e m i n i s t r y d i d n o t p r o v i d e a n y e v i d e n c e t h a t o f t h e o v e r p a y m e n t s o n 3 0 O c t o b e r 2 0 1 3 a s m R e c o n s i d e r a t i o n d a t e d 2 4 M a r c h 2 0 1 4 o t h e r t h i s s u e d o n t h a t d a t e a n d i n c l u d e d a m e n t i o n o f a • T h e a p p e l l a n t r e a l i z e d t h a t t h e m i n i s t r y d e d u c t e o f O c t o b e r 2 0 1 3 , F e b r u a r y a n d M a r c h 2 0 1 4 s i n m i n i s t r y ' s o f f i c e o n 1 9 M a r c h 2 0 1 4 t o a s k w h y t c h e q u e . • W h i l e t h e m i n i s t r y m a k e s n o m e n t i o n o f a l e t t e r o f t h o s e o v e r p a y m e n t s , t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s e v i d e n c r e q u e s t f o r r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n a c c o r d i n g l y . H o w e v e v i d e n c e o f t h a t a l l e g e d r e q u e s t f o r r e c o n s i d e r a i n t h e a b s e n c e o f c o n c r e t e e v i d e n c e e i t h e r f r o m p a n e l c o n c l u d e s t h a t i f t h a t r e q u e s t f o r r e c o n s i d t h e i s s u e o f t h e O c t o b e r a n d N o v e m b e r 2 0 1 2 o • T h e a p p e l l a n t w a s n o t i f i e d a t t h e l a t e s t o n 1 9 M l e a s t w h e n h e r e a l i z e d $ 2 0 w a s d e d u c t e d f r o m s u c h d e d u c t i o n . E M T 0 0 3 ( 1 0 / 0 6 / 0 1 )I A P P E A L w a s a d i s c u s s i o n w i t h t h e a p p e l l a n t a b o u t h i s o f a n y o v e r p a y m e n t s i n t h e p r e v i o u s m o n t h s . y 2 0 1 3 , t h e w o r k e r i n d i c a t e s " N o t i c e o f a d m i n l e t o b e d e l i v e r e d t o c l i e n t a t f i r s t c o n t a c t " , a p p e l l a n t h a d n o t y e t b e e n a d v i s e d o f t h e t h e a p p e l l a n t w a s n o t i f i e d o f t h e d e c i s i o n i n r e s p e c t e n t i o n e d o n p a g e 2 o f t h e R e q u e s t f o r a n s t a t i n g t h a t t h e O c t o b e r 2 0 1 3 c h e q u e w a s $ 2 0 d e d u c t i o n . d $ 2 0 f r o m h i s m o n t h l y a s s i s t a n c e f o r t h e m o n t h s c e , f r o m h i s o w n e v i d e n c e , h e w e n t t o t h e h i s a m o u n t w a s d e d u c t e d f r o m h i s a s s i s t a n c e d a t e d 2 2 J u l y 2 0 1 3 s e n t t o t h e a p p e l l a n t i n r e s p e c t e i s t h a t h e d i d r e c e i v e s u c h a l e t t e r a n d f i l e d a e r , t h e a p p e l l a n t d i d n o t p r o v i d e a n y d o c u m e n t a r y t i o n n o r o f i t s d e l i v e r y t o t h e m i n i s t r y ' s o f f i c e a n d t h e a p p e l l a n t o r f r o m t h e m i n i s t r y ' s n o t e s , t h e e r a t i o n w a s m a d e , i t w a s f o r a n o t h e r m a t t e r , n o t v e r p a y m e n t s . a r c h 2 0 1 4 o f t h a t d e c i s i o n i f n o t e a r l i e r , a t t h e v e r y h i s m o n t h l y a s s i s t a n c e a n d h i s c h e q u e s i n d i c a t e d
I APPEA PART F -Reasons for Panel Decision The issue under appeal is whether the ministry's decision that the appellant exceeded the 20 day time limit set by s. 79(2) of the EAR for filing his request for reconsideration and was therefore denied the right for a reconsideration of a decision made by the ministry on 11 December 2012 was a reasonable application of the legislation or reasonably supported by the evidence. The applicable legislation in this matter is s. 17 of the EAA: 17 (1) Subject to section 18, a person may request the minister to reconsider any of the following decisions made under this Act: (a) a decision that results in a refusal to provide income assistance, hardship assistance or a supplement to or for someone in the person's family unit; (b) a decision that results in a discontinuance of income assistance or a supplement provided to or for someone in the person's family unit; (c) a decision that results in a reduction of income assistance or a supplement provided to or for someone in the person's family unit; (d) a decision in respect of the amount of a supplement provided to or for someone in the person's family unit if that amount is less than the lesser of (i) the maximum amount of the supplement under the regulations, and (ii) the cost of the least expensive and appropriate manner of providing the supplement; (e) a decision respecting the conditions of an employment plan under section 9 [employment plan]. (2) A request under subsection (1) must be made, and the decision reconsidered, within the time limits and in accordance with any rules specified by regulation ... And s. 79 of the EAR: 79 (1) A person who wishes the minister to reconsider a decision referred to in section 17 (1) of the Act must deliver a request for reconsideration in the form specified by the minister to the ministry office where the person is applying for or receiving assistance. (2) A request under subsection (1) must be delivered within 20 business days after the date the person is notified of the decision referred to in section 17 (1) of the Act and may be delivered by (a) leaving it with an employee in the ministry office, or (b) being received through the mail at that office. The ministry acknowledges that the appellant may not have received the documents dated 11 December 2012 but argues that the appellant was advised in person on 13 December 2012 when he met with a ministry worker. The ministry further argues that greater weight must be given to its notes. Yet, it notes that the $20 repayment of 30 October 2013 does not confirm the appellant was then informed of the overpayment decision of 11 December 2012 but that the appellant acknowledges having been informed by letter on 22 July 2013. Thus, in any event, the ministry argues that the request for reconsideration was filed beyond the 20 days limit even considering the latest date, 19 March 2014, when the appellant claims he was informed of the decision. The appellant first argues that the EAA and the EAR do not apply but the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act (EAPWDA) and the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Regulations (EAPWDR) should apply since meanwhile he was designated as a PWD. Further, he araues he has not been advised of the 11 December 2012 decision until 19 EMT 003(10/06/01)
I APPEAi -March 2014 because he never received the letter sent on 11 December 2012 and was not told on the face to face meeting he had with a ministry worker on 13 December 2012 that he had to repay the overpayment but only that he had to provide more documentation to address this issue. He argues that he did not know of the overpayment despite the $20 deduction made on his cheques in October 2013 or later in February and March 2014. With respect to the applicable legislation, the panel notes that both s. 79(2) of the EAR and s. 71 (2) of the EAPWDR set the same 20 days time limitation to deliver a request for reconsideration and thus finds the argument that the EAPWDA and the EAPWDR should apply has no merit. The panel notes this matter was the result of a series of errors by the ministry and that the evidence the ministry provided was often inconsistent. Thus, the panel considers the evidence in favour of the appellant and concludes that, without any doubt, he had been notified of the overpayments for October and November 2012 and the reasons thereof, on 19 March 2014. Yet, the appellant dated his Request for Reconsideration on 27 April 2014, received at the ministry's office the next day, 28 April 2014, well beyond the 20 business days provided bys. 79(2) of the EAR and a review of the legislation shows that no extension of the time period can be granted. Consequently, the ministry still reasonably determined his Request for Reconsideration was not delivered within 20 business days after he was notified of the ministry's decision and reasonably determined the appellant's request for reconsideration could not be considered since it was not made within the time limits specified by regulation under s. 17(2) of the EAA. Therefore, the panel finds the ministry's decision was reasonably supported by the evidence and confirms the decision. EAAT 003(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.