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 ry o f S o c i a l m i n i s t r y ) 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 5 , 2 e l i g i b l e f o r i n c o m e a s s i s t a n c e f o r f a i l u r e t o c o m p l y w p l a n a s r e q u i r e d b y s e c t i o n 9 ( 1 ) ( b ) o f t h e E m p l o y m r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n d e c i s i o n a l s o s t a t e s t h a t t h e a p p e l l a p a r t i c i p a t e i n a n e m p l o y m e n t r e l a t e d p r o g r a m a s r e P A R T D R e l e v a n t L e g i s l a t i o n E m p l o y m e n t a n d A s s i s t a n c e A c t ( E A A ) s e c t i o n s 9I A P P E A L # D 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 ' s ( t h e 0 1 4 w h i c h f o u n d t h e a p p e l l a n t c e a s e d t o b e i t h t h e t e r m s a n d c o n d i t i o n s o f h i s e m p l o y m e n t e n t a n d A s s i s t a n c e A c t ( E A A ) . T h e n t f a i l e d t o d e m o n s t r a t e r e a s o n a b l e e f f o r t s t o q u i r e d b y s e c t i o n 9 ( 4 ) o f t h e E A A .
PART E -Summ ary of Facts Th e e vidence before t he mi nistry a t t h e time of reconsideration consis i) Em ployment Plan sign ed by the appellant on August i4 , 20i 3 in which attend with an employment c o n tractor and part i cipate 2) Letter from the ministry to t he appellan t dated Janua expected to comply with the ter ms of the Em ployment 3) Lette r fr o m the ministr y to the appellant da t ed May to participate in the employ m ent program that he is no longe 4) Reque st for Reconsideration in which th e appellant states that he was out of own to att at ten d th re e funerals. H e al s o states tha t he was out of town fo H e st a t e s t hat h e told his lan dlord that he w ould be k n ow tha t he h ad to g o to th e m in is tr y offi ce a nd talk to s received an evi ction n o tic e and h e does not wan t to other places. He al so states t h at h e was i n a motor vehicl att e ndi ng at th e m inist ry of fi c e. He sta te t h at is in p in h ealth he wi ll attend the r e quired jo b search. T he app t h rough t h i s t o u gh ti m e. He state s that h e h as not be ca nnot move in his curr e nt condit ion. In his N ot ice of A ppea l dat ed June 26, 20i 4 t he appella recons i dera t ion decision, because "non -complian ce The appel lant did n ot a t tend th e hea ring. Having c onfir hear ing, the pan el p ro cee d e d wi th the hea r in g pu r suant The mini st ry rel i ed on the recon s id eration d ec i sion and su ev iden ce is that the emplo y me nt pr ogr am adv i sed the ministry appointments and requested his file to be closed but the ministry chose to k speak to the app ellant about the importa nce of comp evidence is that the appellant attended at the ministry office on April 7, 20i4 contact and comply wi th the employment progr am before the m The ministry states that on April i0 , 20i 4 the employment program had scheduled another appointment with the appellant for April 22, 20i4 so they released his cheque. ministry was not ified that t he a p pel lant d i d not attend his appointment and there was no further contact with the em pl oym ent pr o gr am. The m inistry eligible for assistance as he had not complied with the employment plan. I AP PEAL# te d of : the ap pellant agreed to regu l arly in the employment progr a m ; ry 3i, 20i 4 advising the appellant that he is Plan; 30, 20i 4 advisi n g the appellant that as h e fa iled r e ligible for income as sistance; and end to r two funerals and did not get his mail. paying when he got b ack t o town and d i d not omeone. T he a pp ell a nt sta tes that he l ose his pl ace as it i s quit e i ne xpensiv e compared e accident w hich also prevented hi m f r om a in, and can not wa lk ar ound bu t wh e n he is back e lla nt requests tha t th e minist ry hel p him en eatin g we ll becaus e he has no mone y , and nt s t ates tha t he di s agrees with the m i nistry' s wi th emplo yment p l an " . med that the a p pel lant was notified of the to E AR section 8 6(b). bmi tt ed no ne w info rmation. The mini stry's that the ap pellant had m i ssed four eep th e f il e open and lying with the employment plan. The ministry's and was advised to inistry wo uld r elease his A pril chequ e . On May 30, 20i4, the then d etermined that the appellant w a s n o l onger
PART F -Reaso n s for Panel De cision T he iss ue to be determined at appea l is whether the ceas ed to be eligible for income assistance for failure to comply with the terms employment plan as requi red by section 9 of the E AA. The releva n t sections of t he EAA are as follows : Employment plan 9 (1) F or a family unit t o b e elig ib l e for income assi stanc the fa m il y uni t, wh en required to do so b y the mini (a) e n te r into a n emp loyment plan, (b) c om pl y wi th t he co nditions i n (3) T he mini st er may sp e cify the co nditions i n an em re quiri ng t h e appl ica nt, r e c ip ient o r depe nde nt yout t h a t, i n t h e m i ni ster's opinion, wil l assi st the a p plic (a) find e mp loy m e n t, or (b) b eco me m ore em pl o yable. (4) If an employment pla n inclu de s a c onditio n requiri pa rti cipat e in a sp e c if ic em ployment-r el at ed pro gra (a) fails t o dem o nst rate reas onabl ( b) ceases, exc e p t for medica l reasons, t (6) The minister may amend, suspend or cancel an empl (7) A decision under this section (a) requiring a person to enter into an employment plan, (b) amending, suspending or cancelling an employment plan, or (c) sp ecifying the c ond itio n s o f a is final and conclus i v e and is not open to review by a court on any ground or to appeal under sectio [reconsideration and appeal rights]. APPEAL# I minist ry reasonably concluded that the appel l ant a n d c onditions of hi s e or hardship assi stance , each applicant or rec i pi ent i n ster, must and the e mploy ment plan. ploym en t p lan including, wit h o ut lim ita tion , a cond i t ion h to p a rticip a te in a s pecific empl oy ment-relat ed program a nt , recipie n t or de p en den t yo uth to n g an ap pl icant, a recip i ent or a dependen t y ou t h to m, that c onditio n is n o t met if th e per son e eff o rt s to p a rt icip a te in the progr am , o r o participate in the p r ogram. oyment plan. n emp loyment pla n n 17 (3)
I APPEAL# The appellant's evidence as set out in his Request for Reconsideration is that he was out of town to attend funerals and did not know that he received mail from the ministry advising him hat he had to attend and speak to someone at the ministry office. The appellant's position is that because of pain and inability to walk around, his condition prevents him from complying with his employment plan but that he will do so once his health improves. The ministry's position is that by signing the employment plan, the appellant had read, understood and agreed to the requirements of attendance and compliance with the program as well as the consequences of non-compliance. The ministry's position is that if the appellant had communicated with them about the motor vehicle accident and provided some supporting documentation they could have worked with him to arrange another employment plan. However, as the appellant did not communicate with them or comply with the employment plan he was no longer eligible for assistance. Panel Decision The panel finds that the appellant was aware of the conditions of his Employment Plan, including that he was required to contact the employment-related program and attend appointments. The evidence established that the appellant did not attend his scheduled appointments at the employment-related program as required. The panel finds that there is no evidence that the appellant made reasonable efforts to comply with the requirements of his Employment Plan as required by Section 9(4) of the EAA. Although the appellant states he was away and does not have a cell phone the panel finds reasonable the ministry's position that there were other forms of communication such as email or personal attendance available to the appellant but he did not make efforts to participate in the Employment Plan. In addition, the appellant did not take any steps to communicate with the ministry regarding his absences from town, missed appointments, or his motor vehicle accident and did not provide any documentation confirming the accident or his injuries arising from the accident that made him unable to comply with the employment program. Moreover, the appellant missed scheduled employments with the employment contractor prior to the motor vehicle accident. The panel finds that the ministry's decision that the appellant ceased to be eligible for income assistance for failing to comply with the terms and conditions of his Employment Plan as required by Section 9 of the EAA was reasonably supported by the evidence and was a reasonable application of the legislation in the circumstances of the appellant. The panel therefore confirms the ministry's reconsideration decision.
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.