�APPEAL# PART C -Decision under Appeal The decision under appeal is the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation (the "ministry") reconsideration decision dated June 12, 2014 which held that the appellant was denied disability assistance as the appellant did not provide information requested by the Ministry pursuant to section 1 O of the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act ("EAPWDA") and section 28 of the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Regulation ("EAPWDR"). PART D -Relevant Legislation Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act ("EAPWDA") Section 1 O Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Regulation ("EAPWDR") Section 28 EAAT003(10/06/01)
P A R T E S u m m a r y o f F a c t s T h e m i n i s t r y r e q u e s t e d t h a t a n o b s e r v e r b e p e r m i t t e d t a p p e l l a n t t h a t i t w o u l d b e o n l y w i t h h i s p e r m i s s i o n t h a t t h a t h e w a s f i n e w i t h t h e m i n i s t r y o b s e r v e r a t t e n d i n g t h T h e a p p e l l a n t a l s o r e q u e s t e d t o b e p e r m i t t e d t o r e c o r d h e a r i n g s a r e n o t p u b l i c a n d f o r t h a t r e a s o n h e w o u l d n o T h e e v i d e n c e b e f o r e t h e M i n i s t r y a t r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n w a 1 . L e t t e r d a t e d M a r c h 1 2 , 2 0 1 4 a d d r e s s e d t o t h e a p p e l l a d v i s e d t h e a p p e l l a n t t h a t h i s f i l e h a d b e e n s e l e c t e d f o r e l i g i b i l i t y o r a u d i t i n g h i s p a s t e l i g i b i l i t y f o r a s s i s t a n c e p u T h e f o l l o w i n g d o c u m e n t a t i o n w a s l i s t e d a s n e e d e d b y M • R e n t r e c e i p t ( s ) , M o r t g a g e p a y m e n t ( s ) , a n d / o r u t • P a y s t a t e m e n t s f o r a l l i n c o m e ( e a r n i n g s , E m p l o i n c o m e ) f o r t h e p e r i o d o f J a n u a r y 1 , 2 0 1 3 t o d a t • R e c o r d o f e m p l o y m e n t f r o m a l l e m p l o y e r s d u r i n • S t a t e m e n t s f o r a l l b a n k a c c o u n t s , s o l e o r j o i n t , f p r o f i l e ( s ) . A l l b a n k d o c s s h o u l d b e a r b a n k s t a m p • S t a t e m e n t s f o r a l l i n v e s t m e n t s , R R S P s , p e n s i o n • I n c o m e T a x N o t i c e o f A s s e s s m e n t f o r y e a r -2 0 1 T h e a p p e l l a n t w a s i n f o r m e d t h a t h e c o u l d r e q u e s t a n i n b e c o n t a c t e d a t a l a t e r d a t e t o s e t u p a n a p p o i n t m e n t i f i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t w o u l d b e a d v i s e d i n w r i t i n g a n d w i l l b e o f f e r e d t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o m e e t t o d i s c u s s t h d e c i s i o n . A p h o n e n u m b e r w a s p r o v i d e d b y t h e i n v e s t i g o f t h e l e t t e r s h o u l d t h e a p p e l l a n t h a v e q u e s t i o n s o r r e q u 2 . L e t t e r d a t e d M a r c h 2 1 , 2 0 1 4 f r o m t h e a p p e l l a n t t o t h e • T h e a p p e l l a n t i s u n s u r e f r o m w h o m h e r e c e i v e d w h o w r i t e s h i m a l e t t e r . • T h e a p p e l l a n t r e q u e s t s a m e e t i n g i n p e r s o n i f a n • H e r e q u e s t s t h a t t h e 1 0 h a v e g o v e r n m e n t i d e n t i f • H e i n d i c a t e s t h a t h i s c e l l p h o n e n u m b e r i s o n f i l e 3 . A l e t t e r d a t e d M a r c h 2 8 , 2 0 1 4 a d d r e s s e d t o t h e a p p e t h e s a m e i n f o r m a t i o n a s " L e t t e r O n e " w i t h a r e q u e s t f o r 4 . A l e t t e r d a t e d A p r i l 1 0 , 2 0 1 4 a d d r e s s e d t o t h e a p p e l l a t h e p r e v i o u s 2 l e t t e r s i n t h a t i t r e f e r r e d t o s e c t i o n 1 O o f t t o p r o v i d e v e r i f i c a t i o n o f i n f o r m a t i o n a n d d o e s n o t c o m p T h e l e t t e r i n d i c a t e d t h a t i f t h e i n f o r m a t i o n r e q u e s t e d i s n m i n i s t r y m a y b e u n a b l e t o d e t e r m i n e h i s e l i g i b i l i t y a n d w d i s c o n t i n u e o r a d j u s t t h e a m o u n t o f a s s i s t a n c e o r m a y d a p p e l l a n t i s e n c o u r a g e d t o p r o v i d e t h e r e q u e s t e d i n f o r m r e q u e s t e d d o c u m e n t s b y t h e d a t e i n d i c a t e d , c o n t a c t t h e 5 . O n A p r i l 2 2 , 2 0 1 4 a s u b s e q u e n t l e t t e r w a s s e n t t o t h e M a r c h 1 2 , M a r c h 2 8 a n d A o r i l 1 0 , 2 0 1 4 w e r e s e n t t o t h e E M T 0 0 3 ( 1 0 / 0 6 / 0 1 ): A P P E A L # o s i t t h r o u g h t h e h e a r i n g . I t w a s m a d e c l e a r t o t h e t h e m i n i s t r y o b s e r v e r b e a l l o w e d . T h e a p p e l l a n t s t a t e d e h e a r i n g . t h e h e a r i n g ; h o w e v e r , h e w a s i n f o r m e d t h a t t h e t b e a l l o w e d . T h e a p p e l l a n t w a s c o m p l i a n t . s a s f o l l o w s : a n t f r o m t h e m i n i s t r y ( " L e t t e r O n e " ) w h i c h r e v i e w f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f d e t e r m i n i n g h i s c u r r e n t r s u a n t t o E A A s e c t i o n 1 0 . a r c h 2 1 , 2 0 1 4 : i l i t y b i l l s ; R e n t r e c e i p t s f r o m F e b r u a r y 1 , 2 0 1 4 t o d a t e . y m e n t I n s u r a n c e , C a n a d a P e n s i o n P l a n , o r a n y o t h e r e . g t h e p e r i o d o f J a n u a r y 1 , 2 0 1 3 t o d a t e . o r t h e p e r i o d o f J a n u a r y 1 , 2 0 1 4 t o d a t e a n d b a n k . f u n d s a n d a n y o t h e r a s s e t s . 2 . p e r s o n i n t e r v i e w t o d i s c u s s t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n o r h e m a y f u r t h e r c l a r i f i c a t i o n o f i n f o r m a t i o n i s n e e d e d . T h e l e t t e r o f a n y d e c i s i o n t h a t r e s u l t s i n c h a n g e s t o h i s e l i g i b i l i t y e d e c i s i o n a n d r e q u e s t a r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e a t i v e o f f i c e r ( 1 0 ) w h o s e n a m e a p p e a r e d a t t h e b o t t o m i r e f u r t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n . m i n i s t r y ' s 1 0 w h i c h s t a t e s : t h e l e t t e r a n d c a n n o t s e n d i n f o r m a t i o n t o j u s t a n y o n e y t h i n g i s r e q u i r e d f r o m h i m . i c a t i o n . a n d a s k s t h e 1 0 t o c a l l a n d s e t u p a m e e t i n g w i t h h i m . l l a n t f r o m t h e m i n i s t r y ( " L e t t e r T w o " ) w h i c h c o n t a i n e d t h e d o c u m e n t a t i o n b y A p r i l 4 , 2 0 1 4 . n t f r o m t h e m i n i s t r y ( " L e t t e r T h r e e " ) w h i c h d i f f e r e d f r o m h e E A P W D A a n d i n d i c a t e d t h a t " i f a p e r s o n i s d i r e c t e d l y , t h e y m a y b e d e c l a r e d i n e l i g i b l e f o r a s s i s t a n c e . " o t p r o v i d e d b y t h e a p p e l l a n t b y A p r i l 2 2 , 2 0 1 4 , t h e i l l c o m p l e t e i t s r e v i e w w i t h o u t h i s i n p u t , a n d m a y e t e r m i n e t h a t a n o v e r p a y m e n t h a s o c c u r r e d . T h e a t i o n a s s o o n a s p o s s i b l e a n d i f u n a b l e t o o b t a i n t h e 1 0 . a p p e l l a n t f r o m t h e m i n i s t r y s t a t i n g t h a t l e t t e r s d a t e d a o o e l l a n t a s k i n q h i m t o n r o v i d e i n f o r m a t i o n w h i c h h a s
I APPEAL# not been received and therefore the appellant is no longer eligible for assistance and his file will be closed on May 20, 20i 4. 6. A letter from the appellant to the ministry dated May 2i, 20i4 contained the following information; • the appellant had to deal with the ministry's Prevention and Loss Division over the past few months, • he had not received the information he requested in his March 2i, 20i 4 letter from the ministry , • he had a conversation with the 10 who wrote the letter; however, before they could discuss the information he had requested, the 10 hung up the phone, • the appellant states that he has rights, • he faxed a letter to the Minister, Deputy Minister and a casework at the ministry on May 9, to which he has not had a response, he feels discriminated and disrespected by the ministry, • the appellant states that he has sought legal advice and was told that he has every right to ask for and receive the information he had requested before turning over any personal and financial information to anyone, • he was of the understanding that his permanent disability benefits would never be cut, • he indicates that the last letter in which is stated that he has 20 days to appeal calculated the wrong date, • the appellant states that the first letter asked under the wrong Act and was not signed making it invalid, • the second letter went to an old address, the third letter was not signed, so it was an invalid request, • the appellant would like a meeting with the workers involved in his case as well as the minister or deputy and • states that because he is hard to deal with doesn't mean he gets to be ignored. 7. A cheque cashing history from the appellant's account from December 31, 2013 to May 8, 2014 with a note written by the appellant which reported that he received a cheque from an insurance company for "pain and suffering" which covered a 3 -month period (January 2014 -$750, February 2014 -$750 and March 2014 -$250) while the total amount of $1750 was shown as deposited on March 14, 2014. The appellant stated that he has always understood that he only needed to declare amounts over $800 for a single month. 8. A Request for Reconsideration dated June 5, 20i 4 which indicated that the ministry responded to the appellant's concerns and the proof he had asked for on March 21, 2014 was finally given to him on June 4, 2014, 70 days later. The appellant indicated that he is still in need of assistance and requested reconsideration as the delays were not his fault. Included with the Notice of Appeal was a second letter dated June 25, 2014 from the appellant as follows: 1. The appellant argues that the adjudicator got the legislation wrong by using ministry instead of minister and when referring to the appellant's 'family unit'. He states that he did not get clarification that a ministry worker can direct him to supply the requested information until June 4, 2014. 2. The appellant argues that the ministry made the decision to cut off his disability assistance on May 20, 2014 when he had not yet received the clarification on the Minister/Ministry issue and that because of that he was caused unnecessary stress. 3. The appellant argues that the 10 did not sign the letters, not making them legitimate. Also the appellant states that the 10 requested information under the wrong Act. After the 10 corrected the request for information letter, he did not send the clarification that the appellant had requested in his March 21, 2014 letter. At the hearing the appellant testified that he had sought legal advice and that he is entitled to be provided the clarification he had requested from the ministry. He stated that an unsigned letter by law is null and void and before providing the personal information requested, he wanted to be sure it was legitimate. The appellant stated that the reason that the audit came to be was because of a rent issue and someone he knows wanting to aet him in trouble. He stated that he does not understand whv consideration was not aiven to the fact that EMT 003(10/06/01)
h e i s d i s a b l e d a n d t h a t i t t o o k 7 0 d a y s b e f o r e h e r e c e i v r i g h t s w e r e n o t r e s p e c t e d . T h e a p p e l l a n t i n d i c a t e d t h a t J u l y a n d t h a t h e h a s o n l y $ 2 t o h i s n a m e . W h e n a s k e d r e q u e s t e d h a d h e s i n c e s u p p l i e d a n y o f t h e i n f o r m a t i o n t h e l e t t e r d a t e d A p r i l 1 0 , 2 0 1 4 ) ; h e s t a t e d t h a t h e d o e s r e q u e s t e d d o n o t a p p l y t o h i m s u c h a s P a y S t a t e m e n t s w h e r e a s , h e d o e s n o t y e t h a v e a r e n t r e c e i p t , h i s I n c o m a d d r e s s a n d h e c a n n o t g e t a n o t h e r o n e a n d h e h a s n o t ( w h i c h t o o k a l o t o f c o n v i n c i n g t o g e t a s h e d i d n o t h a v e h i s t o r y . T h e a p p e l l a n t a r g u e s t h a t t h e d e c i s i o n t o c l o s e o f f e n d e d h i s r i g h t t o h a v e a c c e s s t o t h e i n f o r m a t i o n h e A t t h e h e a r i n g t h e m i n i s t r y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e t e s t i f i e d t h a t o f t h e a p p e l l a n t a n d t h a t s u b s e q u e n t l e t t e r s w h i c h w e r e c o n t r a c t o r t o b e p a s s e d o n t o t h e a p p e l l a n t . T h e m i n i s t r f o r m a t t e d a n d t h a t h e c a n n o t m a k e c h a n g e s t o t h e m . H t e l e p h o n e o n A p r i l 1 , 2 0 1 4 ; h o w e v e r , a f t e r t h e c o n v e r s a a p p e l l a n t t h a t h e w o u l d h a v e t o d i s c o n n e c t t h e c a l l . T h e t u r n e d o v e r t o a c o l l e a g u e w h o s u b s e q u e n t l y s e n t t h e a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e a d v i s e d t h e p a n e l t h a t h e d i d n o t k n o w h f r o m t h e 3 r d p a r t y c o n t r a c t o r . T h e m i n i s t r y r e p r e s e n t a t i v b e e n i n c l u d e d w i t h t h e l e t t e r o f A p r i l 2 2 , 2 0 1 4 s p e c i f i c a l o p p o r t u n i t y t o r e q u e s t e x t e n s i o n s o n t h e t i m e l i n e s . T h i s m i n i s t r y ' s l e t t e r s . F i n d i n g s o f F a c t T h e a p p e l l a n t i s a s o l e r e c i p i e n t w i t h P e r s o n s w i t h D i s a E AA T 0 0 3 ( 1 0 / 0 6 / 0 1 )'. A P P E A L # e d t h e v e r i f i c a t i o n h e h a d o r i g i n a l l y r e q u e s t e d . H i s h e h a d r e c e i v e d b e n e f i t s f o r J u n e h o w e v e r n o t y e t f o r b y t h e p a n e l , a f t e r r e c e i v i n g t h e v e r i f i c a t i o n t h a t h e t h a t h a d b e e n r e q u e s t e d , ( t h e a p p e l l a n t w a s r e f e r r e d t o n o t h a v e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n a n d s o m e o f t h e d o c u m e n t s , R e c o r d o f E m p l o y m e n t , S t a t e m e n t s f o r I n v e s t m e n t s e T a x N o t i c e o f A s s e s s m e n t w a s s e n t t o a n o l d y e t p r o v i d e d S t a t e m e n t s f r o m a l l B a n k A c c o u n t s , t h e r e q u i r e d I D ) . H e d i d s u p p l y h i s c h e q u e c a s h i n g h i s f i l e w a s m a d e A p r i l 2 2 , 2 0 1 4 a n d t h e r e f o r e , h a d r e q u e s t e d . a s i g n e d l e t t e r d i d g o o u t o r i g i n a l l y t o a f o r m e r a d d r e s s n o t s i g n e d w e r e e l e c t r o n i c a l l y s e n t t o t h e 3 r d p a r t y y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e s e l e t t e r s a r e e s t a t e d t h a t h e d i d s p e a k w i t h t h e a p p e l l a n t b y t i o n a p p e a r e d t o b e g o i n g n o w h e r e , h e w a r n e d t h e m i n i s t r y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e f i l e w a s p p e l l a n t a s i g n e d l e t t e r o n A p r i l 2 2 , 2 0 1 4 . T h e m i n i s t r y o w l o n g i t t o o k f o r t h e a p p e l l a n t t o r e c e i v e t h e l e t t e r s e h i g h l i g h t e d t h e r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n b r o c h u r e t h a t h a d l y , t h e p a r t t h a t r e f e r s t o t h e a p p e l l a n t h a v i n g t h e s a m e i n f o r m a t i o n w a s a l s o n o t e d t o b e i n t h e b i l i t i e s ( P W D ) d e s i g n a t i o n w i t h n o d e p e n d e n t s .
I APPEAL# PART F -Reasons for Panel Decision The issue whether the ministry's decision which held that the appellant was denied income assistance for failing to provide information under section 1 O of the EAPWDA and section 28 of the EAPWDR is reasonably supported by the evidence or a reasonable application of the applicable legislation in the circumstances of the appellant. Relevant Legislation EAPWDA Information and verification 10 (1) For the purposes of (a) determining whether a person wanting to apply for disability assistance or hardship assistance is eligible to apply for it, (b) determining or auditing eligibility for disability assistance, hardship assistance or a supplement, (c) assessing employability and skills for the purposes of an employment plan, or (d) assessing compliance with the conditions of an employment plan, the minister may do one or more of the following: (e) direct a person referred to in paragraph (a), an applicant or a recipient to supply the minister with infonnation within the time and in the manner specified by the minister; (f) seek verification of any information supplied to the minister by a person referred to in paragraph (a), an applicant or a recipient; (g) direct a person referred to in paragraph (a), an applicant or a recipient to supply verification of any infonnation he or she supplied to the minister. (2) The minister may direct an applicant or a recipient to supply verification of infonnation received by the minister if that information relates to the eligibility of the family unit for disability assistance, hardship assistance or a supplement. (3) Subsection (1) (e) to (g) applies with respect to a dependent youth for a purpose referred to in subsection (1) (c) or (d). (4) If an applicant or a recipient fails to comply with a direction under this section, the minister may declare the 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 assistance or hardship assistance provided to or for the family unit by the prescribed amount for the prescribed period. EAPWDR Consequences of failing to provide information or verification when directed 28 (1) For the purposes of section 10 (4) [information and verification] of the Act, the period for which the minister may declare the family unit ineligible for assistance lasts until the applicant or recipient complies with the direction. (2) For the purposes of section 10 (5) [information and verification] of the Act, (a) the amount by which the minister may reduce the disability assistance or hardship assistance of the dependent youth's family unit is $100 for each calendar month, and (b) the period for which the minister may reduce the disability assistance or hardship assistance of the dependent youth's family unit lasts until the dependent youth complies with the direction. The ministry argues that they had requested information from the appellant for an eligibility review and notwithstanding their repeated requests, the appellant did not submit the following documents: Rent receipts from February 1, 2014 to date. Pay statements for all income for the period of January 1, 2013 to date. Record of employment from all employers during the period of January 1, 2013 to date. Statement for all investments including RRSPs, pension funds and any other assets. Income Tax Notice of Assessment for 2012. As the appellant failed to provide the requested documents, he is not eligible for disability assistance until he has complied with providing all the information requested by the ministry pursuant to section 28(1) of the EAPWD regulation. The appellant argues that he did not receive the verification of authority he had requested for 70 days after he was originally requested to submit personal information, that the decision to close his file was made before he had received the information and the fax he had sent to the Minister, Deoutv Minister and case worker on Mav EAAT003(10/06/01)
'. APPEAL# 9, 2014 had not been responded to, resulting in the appellant feeling discriminated against and disrespected by the ministry. The appellant argues that he cannot understand why it would take so long to get information he was entitled to. Panel's Findings The panel acknowledges the appellant's issue with the ministry's first two letters dated March 12 and 28, 2014 which referred to legislation that he felt did not include him due to his disability designation. The panel also noted the correction in the ministry's subsequent letters of April 10 and April 22, 2014 that reiterated what had been in the previous 2 letters and did refer to the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Legislation. The panel accepts that the ministry would use formatted letters as well as electronic correspondence and mailing particularly in the case of a 3 rd party situation. Each letter offered the appellant an opportunity for an in-person or telephone interview to discuss the information and included a contact phone number. The ministry representative has testified that he did sign the original letter to the appellant however, it had been sent to a former address and that he did speak wit. h the appellant on April 1, 2014 as indicated in the evidence. As for the appellant's request for clarification in terms of the ministry acting on behalf of the minister as well as the explanation of why he was referred to as a family unit; this did not occur until June 4, 2014 after the appellant had faxed both the Minister and Deputy Minister. The panel acknowledges that the clarification sought by the appellant who has disability designation could not have been provided to him before June 4, 2014 and not after the appellant's file was declared closed on May 20 and his disability assistance stopped. The panel also questions the role and responsibilities of the 3 rd party contractor in terms of 'the timing' that the ministry correspondence would have reached the appellant as well as whether they could have assisted in some way with the verification requested by the appellant. The panel finds that while the appellant had received the clarification he sought on June 4, 2014 and subsequently requested a reconsideration of the ministry's decision; that he has not yet supplied the information that was requested of and accessible to him, to the ministry. Although the appellant did previously submit his cheque cashing history to the ministry, he has admitted to the panel that he does not have identification and some of the documents requested do not apply to him specifically; Pay Statements, Record of Employment and Statements for Investments. The appellant admitted that he does not yet have a rent receipt, that his Income Tax Notice of Assessment was sent to an old address and he cannot get another one and that he has not yet provided Statements from all Bank Accounts which he does possess. Section 10 of the EAPWDA and section 28 of the EAPWDR are designed to allow the ministry to conduct eligibility reviews and details the consequences for failure to provide documents. For example, one of consequences being the denial of eligibility for a set period of time or until the recipient complies with the direction. In view of the above, the panel finds that there is sufficient evidence confirming the appellant became fully aware of the need to supply the required documentation no later than June 5, 2014 and did not provide the outstanding requested documentation as required by the ministry. Therefore, the panel finds the ministry's determination that the appellant be denied disability assistance for a failing to provide information was reasonably supported by the evidence and confirms the 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.