P A R T C D e c i s i o n u n d e r A p p e a l T h e d e c i s i o n u n d e r a p p e a l i s t h e M i n i s t r y o f S o c i a l D " m i n i s t ry " ) r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n d e c i s i o n d a t e d J u n e 2 6 , e l i g i b l e f o r a m o v i n g s u p p l e m e n t p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n P e r s o n s w i t h D i s a b i l i t y A s s i s t a n c e R e g u l a t i o n ( t h e " T h e M i n i s t r y f o u n d t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t h a d r e s o u r c e s a n d w a s n o t e l i g i b l e f o r a m o v i n g s u p p l e m e n t u n d e r P A R T D R e l e v a n t L e g i s l a t i o n T h e M i n i s t ry r e l i e d o n t h e f o l l o w i n g l e g i s l a t i o n i n m a E m p l o y m e n t a n d A s s i s t a n c e f o r P e r s o n s w i t h D i s a b E AA T 0 0 3 ( 1 0 / 0 6 / 0 I )A P P E A I e v e l o p m e n t a n d S o c i a l I n n o v a t i o n ( t h e 2 0 1 4 w h i c h h e l d t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t w a s n o t 5 5 o f t h e E m p l o y m e n t a n d A s s i s t a n c e f o r E A P W D R " ) . a v a i l a b l e t o h e r t o c o v e r t h e c o s t s o f t h e m o v e s e c t i o n 5 5 ( 3 ) ( a ) o f t h e E A P W D R . k i n g t h e i r d e t e r m i n a t i o n : i l i t y R e g u l a t i o n ( t h e " E A P W D R " ) , s e c t i o n 5 5
' �AP_ P_ E_ __P - · -------�) PART E -Summarv of Facts The evidence before the ministry at reconsideration included the following documents: Employment and Assistance Request for Reconsideration (the ""Reconsideration Decision")" dated June 5, 2014 in which the appellant stated the reason for her appeal was that the rent in the new residence is cheaper. The move cost the Appellant $800.00 and that this is a huge financial burden on a single mother with five children. The Reconsideration Decision had the following attached documents: 1. Letter from the Appellant's former landlord to "whom it may concern" dated May 30, 2014 stating the property the Appellant was living in at the time was up for sale and expected to sell during the summer of 2014. 2. Invoice from a moving company dated June 4, 2014 confirming the Appellant paid $800.00 cash to move to the new residence. 3. Letter from the Appellant's former landlord to the ministry with a receipt for the Appellant's damage deposit in the amount of $979.05 and reimbursement for rent overpayment in the amount of $314.52 signed by the Appellant. 4. Application for Tenancy and a Residential Tenancy Agreement undated for the Appellant for the new property. The Appellant's non-subsidized rent is $1,850.00 per month for rent and is paying a security deposit in the amount of $925.00 and a pet damage deposit in the amount of $925.00. The Appellant's Notice of Appeal dated July 3, 2014 stated that the Appellant is a single mother with 5 kids and that she cannot afford most of the things for her kids' needs. The money that she paid for the moving expense took away from the children's needs particularly food related needs. At the hearing, the Appellant provided the following additional oral evidence: 1. The Appellant paid for the moving expense with money she had in savings; and 2. The Appellant paid for her current damage deposit with the refunded damage deposit of her former residence. The Ministry did not submit additional evidence on appeal. The panel finds that the additional evidence provided by the Appellant clarified her situation and was admissible under section 22(4) of the Employment and Assistance Act as it was in support of the records before the Ministry at reconsideration. EAAT 003(10/06/0I)
I APPEi PART F -Reasons for Panel Decision The issue is at appeal is whether the Ministry's decision to deny the Appellant a moving supplement to cover the cost of a moving expense is a reasonable application of the legislation in the circumstances of the Appellant or is a reasonably supported by the evidence. Section 55 of the EAPWDR is the section that addresses supplements for moving, transportation and living costs. Section 55(2)(c) allows the ministry to cover the costs of moving providing the recipient's residential accommodation is being sold, among other things, and notice to vacate has been issued. The ministry relied on section 55(3)(a) to find the Appellant was not eligible for the costs associated with the use of a moving expense having found that the appellant had the resources available to cover the costs associated with the moving expense. Section 55(2)(c) and (3)(a) have been reproduced below: (2) Subject to subsections (3) and (4), the minister may provide a supplement to or for a family unit that is eligible for disability assistance or hardship assistance to assist with one or more of the following: (c) moving costs required to move within a municipality or unincorporated area or to an adjacent municipality or unincorporated area because the family unit's rented residential accommodation is being sold or demolished and a notice to vacate has been given, or has been condemned; (3) A family unit is eligible for a supplement under this section only if (a) there are no resources available to the family unit to cover the costs for which the supplement may be provided, and (b) a recipient in the family unit receives the minister's approval before incurring those costs. The ministry was satisfied that the appellant's residence was being sold and had confirmation from the landlord that the appellant had been given notice to vacate. In determining the Appellant was not eligible for a moving supplement the ministry relied on section 55(3) of the EAPWDR and stated the following: The ministry is not, however, satisfied that you have no resources available to cover your moving costs, as per section 55(3)(a) of the EAPWDR. On June 24, 2014, the ministry contacted your former landlord ... She advised that your damage deposit of $979.05 ($975.05 plus interest) was returned to you on June 5, 2014 and she provided a document wherein you signed acknowledging receipt of the damage deposit. The ministry recognizes this document also states that you were also paid back partial June rent in the amount of $314.52. The ministry recognizes that you paid $800 cash to a [moving company] on June 4, 2014. The ministry therefore considers your returned damage deposit to be an alternate resource available to cover the cost of your move. The ministrv arnued that the appellant had the resources available to her to pav for the costs of her EM T003(10/06/01)
m ovi ng ex pense and p rov i d ed a r e cei pt from th e appella had b een given h er dam age d eposit in the am o unt of rece i pt fr o m a m oving compa n y show ing the appell note d on th e r ece i pt. The ap pellan t did not dis p u t e th at she p a i d for the m expendi tur e has tak e n away fro m h er chil dre n's n eeds, stru gg le t o pr ov i de f o r he r chil dr e n's needs as a r e s The ap pella nt a t th e a ppe a l hea ri n g ga ve ev id e nc e that movin g e xpense came from her s avin g acc ount and us pay her cu rr en t da mag e deposi t. The pa n el acce pt co s ts came fr om the appell ant' s sav i ng s a c count. Th e mi n i s t ry argued th at eve n i f the ap pe l lant paid for did n ot use the damag e d e po sit s h e was s ti ll n ot el igible 55(3)(a ) as her sa v in gs acc ount was a resource available Pan el De cision T he panel ag re es with the mi n i s t ry finding s th at the app c osts . The leg islation is clear th at t he min istr y may p rovide m u nicip a l ity or unincorp orated area or to an a d ja c ent or u uni t's rented r esi denti al accommod ation is be ing sold gi v e n, or has been c ondemne d under section 55(2)(c) B ein g eli g i ble for a mo vi n g s up pl e m e nt, however , is subj t he family unit to cover th e cos ts for which th e suppl reso urc es av ailab le to h e r in h e r sav i ng s ac cou nt the the resources to cover her moving cos t s and is not eligi 55( 2 ) (c) of the EAPWDR. The Panel therefore finds the Minist ry's determination that the appellant was not eligible for a moving suppl e m ent was a reasonable application of the applicable enactment in the circumstanc App ellant and reason a b ly support ed by the evidence a EM T003(10/06/01) APPE AL I nt's former landl or d co nfirming th e appell ant $979 .05 and $31 4.52. The ministry relied o n a ant had p aid h er $800. 00 moving bi ll with cash as oving expense with cas h, but ar gued th at t he part ic ularly foo d, a nd she cont i n u es to ult. the mo ney used to pay for t h e cost o f the e d th e deposit fro m her forme r re sid e n c e to s tha t the m oney relied on to c o v er her m oving the moving co sts from h er sav i ngs ac cou nt and f o r a m oving s upple ment u n der sect ion to her t o co v er t he c osts. ell an t h ad th e re s ou r ce s t o cover he r mo ving movin g cos ts req uired to move within a nincorp orated area b eca use the fami l y o r demolished and a noti c e to vacate ha s been of t he EAPWDR. ect to th e re b ei ng no r eso urc es avai labl e to ement may be pr o vi d e d . As the appe ll a nt had ministry reas ona b ly det e rmined that she had bl e for a m o vin g su p pleme nt u n der s e cti o n e s of the nd confirms the deci s i o n.
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.