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 e v 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 l y 2 , 2 0 1 4 w h i c h f o u n a s s i s t a n c e f o r h e r l i f e t i m e p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 1 4 o f t h e D i s a b i l i t i e s A c t a s a c o n s e q u e n c e o f b e i n g c o n v i c t e d o f o b t a i n i n g m o n e y u n d e r 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 A s s i s t a n c e A c t b y f r a u d o r f a l s e a n d m i s l e a d i n g r e p r e s 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 f o r P e r s o n s w i t h D i s a b il i t i e A P P E A L # I 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 m i n i s t r y ) d t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t w a s i n e l i g i b l e f o r d i s a b i l i t y 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 a n o f f e n c e u n d e r t h e C r i m i n a l C o d e i n r e l a t i o n t o e f o r P e r s o n s W i t h D i s a b i l i t i e s A c t o r E m p l o y m e n t a n d e n t a t i o n . s A c t ( E A P W D A ) , s e c t i o n 1 4
P ART E -Summarv of Facts A ministry repr esentative did not attend the hearing. The panel confir the date, ti m e and location o f the hearing. Accordingly, under section 86(b) of the E Reg u l ation, the p anel heard th e appeal in the ministr y' s absence. The evidence before the ministry at the t ime o f t h e re co for R e considerati on ("RF R" ) dated Ju ne 26, 2014 wh ich appellant and dated Jun e 25, 2014 ("the RFR Letter"), a letter dated Dece a ppell a nt and prepare d by her form e r lawyer ("the Law Februa ry 12, 201 4. The appe l lan t is a sole recipient of Persons w it h Di s a bilities Februa ry 12, 2014, the appe llant was convict ed in B.C. Provinc $5,00 0.00 cont r ary to section 380(1)(b) of the Cr iminal t hat t h e ap pellant had defr auded t h e Ministry b etw e en June 27, B C E mplo yme n t and A ssistance che qu e th a t was pa yable by a nothe r per son who in t urn provided her w ith the money The a pp ellant was a dv ise d b y a ministry i n vestig ator b y 15(1) and ( 5) of the EAA and as a re s ult of her Fra ud Unde for PWD be nefits and that this s anct ion r e m ai ned in force On June 2 6, 2 01 4, the a ppe llant submitted the RF R and t s t ated a s foll ows: that she had b een on di sab i li ty for years and was 8 ½ month that she was c onv ict ed o f f r a u d of the ministry of incom that she p ied g u i lt y to that of fe nce b ecause she to do bet te r ; that t he ch e q u e in q ue sti on was p ay ab le to a f r iend who at i nstructed t h e ap pellan t t o ca sh i t b u t t h a t the fr i that she is pre par ed to p ay b ack t h e am o u nt in q that she do e s no t d o fraud and t h at she thi n k s t he that she needs her PWD b enefits as she i s preg At the hearing, the appellant stated that she "never does fraud" and that the offence occurred when her roommate was in prison. She stated that she was charged two years later and that she pleaded over with. In response to ques tions f rom the panel, the ap pell a n t sta t hat her fo r me r roomma t e , after being relea sed from prison, denied being a party to the fraud. s ta ted that s he g a ve her former r o ommate's assis tance cheque to anot the mon ey. The a p pellant further stat ed that her former lawyer advised her that she would not be pe d e ni e d P WD benefits and that s he offered to pay b a c k t previous comm unity in Briti s h Columbia because she was led to believe that her PWD benefits, if discontinued the r e , wou ld continue to be pa i d to her if she moved to a different city. Admissibility of Oral E vidence The appellant gave oral evidence at the hea r ing. The panel notes that the appellant gave evidence that was consistent with that in the RFR Letter and did not introduce any new evidence. that the oral evidence of the aooellant is admissible as oral testimonv in suooort of the information and records I APPEAL# med that the mini s try ha d be en not ified of m p loy ment and Assistance n si der at i on d e c ision included the appellant's Request had attached to it a two-page letter prepar ed by the mber 15 , 201 3 add ressed t o the yer Letter'') and the appe l lant's probation order d ated ("PWD " ) be nefits with no dep endants. O n ial Co u rt of the o f fence o f Frau d Under Code. Tha t co n vic tion was in relation to an allega t i on 201 2 an d July 2, 2012 o f $8 86.42 b y s tea ling a t o anot her c lien t of the mi nist ry an d having it c a shed . let ter dat ed April 28, 2 014 that pu rsua nt to se ction r $5,000. 00 co nvicti on, she was no lo n ger e ligi ble fo r her li fe ti me. h e R F R Le tter. In the R F R Let ter, t h e appe l lant s pr egnan t ; e ass i st ance invol v i ng a c heque b eing c ashed; want ed to g et it over wi t h and be cause she w as try i n g t h e materia l time was in ca r cerat ed and who en d la ter d enied invol vem ent ; u estio n ; punish me nt is un fair; and nant an d need s to pay her rent. guilty to ge t it ted that she h as not yet g iven b i rth t o her child and The appellant her person who cashed it and gave her rm anently he amount in question. She sa i d that she lef t h er Therefore, the panel is satisfied
that we re before t h e minist er when the decision being ap Employment and Assistance Act . APPEAL# I peale d w a s made p u rsuant to section 22(4)(b} of the
I APPEAL II PART F -Reasons for Panel Decision The issue on the appeal is whether the ministry's reconsideration decision, which found that the appellant is ineligible for disability assistance for her lifetime as a consequence of her being convicted of an offence under the Criminal Code in relation to obtaining money under the EAPWDA or EAA by fraud or false and misleading representation is reasonable. The relevant section of the EAPWDA is as follows: Consequences for conviction or judgment in relation to Act 14 (1) A family unit that includes a person who is convicted of an offence under the Criminal Code in relation to obtaining money, under this Act or the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act, by fraud or false or misleading representation is subject to the consequence described in subsection (5) for a family unit that matches the person's family unit for the lifetime of the person, beginning with the first calendar month following the date of the conviction. (2) A family unit that includes a person who is convicted of an offence under this Act or the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act is subject to the consequence described in subsection (5) for a family unit that matches the person's family unit, beginning with the first calendar month following the date of conviction, (a) after a first conviction, for a period of 12 consecutive months, (b) after a second conviction, for a period of 24 consecutive months, and (c) after a third conviction, for the lifetime of the person. (3) If (a) [Repealed 2006-22-3.] (b) a court has given judgment in favour of the government in an action for debt against a person for obtaining income assistance, hardship assistance or a supplement under this Act, or disability assistance, hardship assistance or a supplement under the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act, for which he or she was not eligible, unless the income assistance, hardship assistance, disability assistance or supplement was provided to or for the person in error, the minister may declare that the person's family unit is subject to the consequence described in subsection (5) for a family unit that matches the person's family unit for the prescribed period, beginning with the first calendar month following the date of the judgment. (4) The periods prescribed for the purpose of subsection (3) may vary with the number of applicable judgments. (5) If a family unit includes (a) only persons described in subsection (1) or (2), or subsection (3) if the minister has made a declaration under that subsection, the family unit is not eligible for income assistance for the applicable period, and (b) one or more persons described in subsection (1) or (2), or subsection (3) if the minister has made a declaration under that subsection, and at least one other person, the amount of income assistance, hardship assistance or a supplement provided to or for the family unit must be reduced by the prescribed amount for the applicable period. In her Notice of Appeal dated July 9, 2014, the appellant states that she was about to give birth, that she has been on disability for years, she notes her monthly benefit amount and states that she is willing to pay back the ministry. She states that she does not think that it is fair to deny her PWD benefits. The ministry asserts in the Reconsideration Decision that the appellant has been denied disability assistance for her lifetime as a result of her conviction of an offence under the Criminal Code in relation to obtaininQ
m o n e y u n d e r t h e E A P W D A o r t h e E A A b y f r a u d o r f a l s O n D e c e m b e r 4 , 2 0 1 3 , t h e a p p e l l a n t e n t e r e d a g u i l t y p l $ 5 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 c o n t r a r y t o s e c t i o n 3 8 0 ( 1 ) ( b ) o f t h e C r i m i n a l g i v i n g h e r f o r m e r r o o m m a t e ' s B C E m p l o y m e n t a n d A s s c h e q u e a n d g a v e t h e p r o c e e d s t o t h e a p p e l l a n t . T h e a r e f l e c t s h e r g u i l t y p l e a a n d n o t e s h e r c o n v i c t i o n o f t h e o A t t h e h e a r i n g , w h i l e t h e a p p e l l a n t s t a t e d t h a t s h e d i d n o f f e n c e a n d s t a t e d t h a t s h e p i e d g u i l t y a s s h e w a n t e d t o S e c t i o n 1 4 ( 1 ) o f t h e E A P W D A p r o v i d e s t h a t w h e r e a f a u n d e r t h e C ri m i n a l C o d e i n r e l a t i o n t o o b t a i n i n g m o n e y o r m i s l e a d i n g r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , t h a t p e r s o n i s i n e l i g i b l e f o T h e l a n g u a g e u s e d i n t h i s s e c t i o n i s m a n d a t o r y i n n a t u r T h e e v i d e n c e r e f l e c t s t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t w a s c o n v i c t e d o E m p l o y m e n t a n d A s s i s t a n c e b e n e f i t c h e q u e . T h e p a n e 1 4 ( 1 ) o f t h e E A P W D A i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h a t a s a r e s u l t o f a s s i s t a n c e b e n e f i t s f o r h e r l i f e t i m e . C o n c l u s i o n H a v i n g r e v i e w e d a n d c o n s i d e r e d a l l o f t h e e v i d e n c e a n d r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n d e c i s i o n w h i c h d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e a p p h e r f r a u d c o n v i c t i o n w a s a r e a s o n a b l e a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e a p p e l l a n t , a n d t h e r e f o r e c o n f i r m s t h e d e c i s i o n .A P P E A L # I e o r m i s l e a d i n g r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . e a i n B . C . P r o v i n c i a l C o u r t t o a c h a r g e o f F r a u d U n d e r C o d e . T h a t c h a r g e a r o s e a s a r e s u l t o f t h e a p p e l l a n t i s t a n c e b e n e f i t c h e q u e t o a t h i r d p a r t y w h o c a s h e d t h e p p e l l a n t ' s p r o b a t i o n o r d e r d a t e d F e b r u a r y 1 2 , 2 0 1 4 f f e n c e . o t " d o f r a u d , " s h e a d m i t t e d t o h a v i n g c o m m i t t e d t h e " g e t i t o v e r w i t h . " m i l y u n i t i n c l u d e s a p e r s o n c o n v i c t e d o f a n o f f e n c e u n d e r t h e E A P W D A o r t h e E A A , e i t h e r b y f r a u d o r f a l s e r d i s a b i l i t y a s s i s t a n c e b e n e f i t s f o r t h a t p e r s o n ' s l i f e t i m e . e . f f r a u d u n d e r t h e C r i m i n a l C o d e i n r e l a t i o n t o a B . C . l f i n d s t h a t t h e m i n i s t r y r e a s o n a b l y a p p l i e d s e c t i o n t h a t c o n v i c t i o n , t h e a p p e l l a n t i s i n e l i g i b l e f o r d i s a b i l i t y r e l e v a n t l e g i s l a t i o n , t h e p a n e l f i n d s t h a t t h e m i n i s t r y ' s e l l a n t w a s n o t e l i g i b l e f o r P W D b e n e f i t s a s a r e s u l t o f a p p l i c a b l e e n a c t m e n t i n t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h e
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.