PAR T C Decision u nder App ea l The deci sion unde r appeal is the de cisio n of the Ministry of Innov ation ( t he ministry) dated 28 May 2014 that denie a m i ni s tr y decision that found that she was not eligible deducted fr o m her disabilit y assistance dating back to 2006. The ministry determine b u s in ess d ay time l i mit to file a Request for Reconsid Employment and Assista n ce for P erso n s with Disabilities Regulation, not op en t o re consideration. P ART D -Rele vant Legi s la tion Emplo y m ent and Assistanc e for Pe rs ons wit h D isabiliti E mp loym e nt and Assis tan c e f o r Pers ons wit h Dis ab EAAT 003(10/06l01) APP EAL I Social Develop ment a nd S ocial d the appell ant's req uest for re consi d eration of for reimbursemen t of the ma intena nce funds d tha t , as the 20 eration had expired, un der section 71 of the the or iginal de ci si o n i s fi nal a nd e s A ct (EA PW D A) , se ct i on 16. i li ti es Re gul ati on ( E AP W DR), sect ion 71 .
PART E -S ummarv o f F a cts Th e informa t i on before the ministry included the followin 1. From the appeal record, the followi ng chronology: • 28 February 2013 -t h e m inistry denied assistance from Se ptemb e r 2006 to November m inist ry s tates that ap pellant and h er tim e. • 12 April 2013- the ap pellant w as provided givin g 1 O May 2 0 1 3 a s the d eadli n e to pack ag e included a n information shee 4 a n d retu rned the for m, a long with all to your Employment and Ass istance t h e mi n i stry decis io n." • 1 O May 201 3 -t he d e adline for subm witho ut it bein g submitted b y t he a p pellant. • 05 Feb ruary 2014-t he appell ant aga Sept ember 20 06 t o N o vemb er 2012 . 0 09 April 20 1 4 -th e ministry d e n ied t his r subm itte d a completed R e qu e st for Rec appe l lan t w as pro vi de d a Re que s t for recon sid e ration . • 05 May 2014- th e mi n is try receive d a time to c ons ul t with a supervisor. • 15 May 2014-th e appellant pr o vide d w as attache d a l e tter fr o m the appe l la below). 2. T he adv oc ate's submi ssion goe s to a rgume nt a s sistanc e f o r unclaimed adult pass-thr oug h children reached 19 years of age, one in 2006 and the other in 2011. The advocate raises issues of administrative fairness, attaching an uncomplete had not been, and should have been, sent to the appellant when her children t of age, advising her of how to complete the Monthly Report to show the amount of maintenance that she passes throug h to an adult chil from her monthly assistance. The app e ll ant' s letter of 27 March 2014 requests full reimburseme maintenance that was deducted from her disability assi November 2012, stating that she only became aware in November 2012 of her ability to have adult pass-through considered in calculat ing to calculate the full amount of the underpayment. I n he r Notice of Appeal, dated 18 J une 2014, th e ap "I was un able to p u rsue reconsideration in a timely manner b anxiety, depression, heart disease, osteoarthritis and degenerative disc disease, I was very ill with bowel disease. I ended up havina a section of mv bowel removed as a result." EMT 003(10/06/01) APPE AL I g: the appellant's request for backdated 20 1 2. I n the 28 May 2014 decision, the advoc at e were advised of thi s d ecision at t hat a R e quest for Reconsideration package , s ubmi t th e r e qu e s t fo r reconsideration. The t then states; "Y ou must c o mplete s e c tion s 3 and relevant docu ments you wi sh to have considere d, O ffi ce within 20 business days of being notified of i tti ng th e R eq u est for Re c o nsidera t io n pa s se d in reque ste d backdated as si stance for the p eriod eq ue s t b eca use the appellant had no t o nsid e ra t ion by the 1 O May 2 013 d e adline . The R econsid e ra t i o n pa c k age re gar ding this denial o f n ote from th e app ella nt requ esting a dditiona l a su bmiss io n pr epa red b y her ad vocate, to whic h nt to t he m i n ist ry date d 27 March 2014 (s ee r eg arding the ap pellant's r equest f or backdated famil y main t en an ce f or the p e rio d si nce her d ministr y form letter that she argues urned 19 years d so that thi s amount will not be deducted n t of the adult pass-through stance from September 2006 to her monthly assistance. She requests the ministry pellant wri tes: ecause o f illne ss. A s w ell as
APPEA I At the hearing, the appellant described how she struggled financially to raise her sons on her limited disability assistance/family maintenance income. When her sons turned 19 and went off to university, she would make sacrifices and send them money or grocery cards to help them out. She was unaware of the adult pass-through program until 2012, when she went to the ministry because of an irregularity in her monthly cheque and was told that if she passed-through the family maintenance amounts to her sons and marked this on her monthly report, these amounts would not be deducted from her monthly cheque. She is seeking reimbursement of the amounts deducted before 2012 so that she can help her sons in their early stages of adulthood. The appellant's advocate stated that the issue here was one of administrative fairness, as the appellant had been denied an opportunity because she had not been properly informed of the adult pass-through program. With regard to missing the 1 0 May 2013 deadline to submit the request for reconsideration, the appellant stated that around that time she was very ill with a bowel condition. This was so severe that she had to undergo surgery in July 2013. She had an advocate at the time who had told her that her case was "unwinnable," but she assumed that the advocate would submit the Request for Reconsideration anyway. Unknown to the appellant, the advocate was also ill and took time off work for a month, not sending in the paperwork. The appellant waited and waited to hear back from the ministry and when no response was forthcoming she reapplied in February 2014. The appellant submitted a letter from her general practitioner (GP) dated 31 July 2014. The GP confirms that the appellant's most disabling condition is chronic anxiety and depression, affecting her motivation, memory and cognitive abilities. The GP confirms that in the summer of 2013 the appellant was required to undergo major bowel surgery for a bowel obstruction. He attached his summary of her medical chart outlining her problems. The ministry representative asked the appellant whether the April 2014 request was substantially the same as that described in the 12 April 2013 Request for Reconsideration package. The appellant's advocate confirmed that this was the case. The ministry stood by its position as set out in the 28 May 2014 decision. The panel finds that the information provided by the appellant in her Notice of Appeal, at the hearing and in the GP's letter that the appellant was ill with a bowel condition around the time of the reconsideration deadline, and the information regarding her then-advocate also being ill around that time, was not before the ministry when it made its decision and is not in support of (i.e. it does not substantiate or corroborate) any information before the ministry when it made its decision. Pursuant to section 22(4) of the Employment and Assistance Act (set out below) the panel therefore does not admit as evidence this information. The panel notes that even if this information had been admitted as evidence, it does not alter the dates at issue (see Part F, Reasons for Panel Decision below). Panels of the tribunal to conduct appeals 22 (4) In a hearing referred to in subsection (3), a panel may admit as evidence only (a) the information and records that were before the minister when the decision being appealed was made, and (b) oral or written testimony in suonort of the information and records referred to in oaraqraph (a). EAA T003(10/06/01)
P A R T F R e a s o n s f o r P a n e l D e c i s i o n T h e i s s u e u n d e r a p p e a l i s w h e t h e r t h e m i n i s t r y w a f o r r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f a m i n i s t r y d e c i s i o n t h a t f o u n t h e m a i n t e n a n c e f u n d s d e d u c t e d f r o m h e r d i s a b i l i t s p e c i f i c a l l y , t h e i s s u e i s w h e t h e r t h e m i n i s t r y d e t e r a n d n o t o p e n t o r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n a s t h e 2 0 b u s i n e s R e c o n s i d e r a t i o n u n d e r s e c t i o n 7 1 o f t h e E A P W D R e v i d e n c e o r i 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 l e g i s T h e a p p l i c a b l e l e g i s l a t i o n i s f r o m t h e E A P W D A : R e c o n s i d e r a t i o n a n d a p p e a l r i g h t s 1 6 ( 1 ) S u b j e c t t o s e c t i o n 1 7 , a p e r s o n m a y r e q u e s m a d e u n d e r t h i s A c t : ( a ) a d e c i s i o n t h a t r e s u l t s i n a r o r a s u p p l e m e n t t o o r f o r s o m e ( b ) a d e c i s i o n t h a t r e s u l t s i n a d p r o v i d e d t o o r f o r s o m e o n e i n t ( c ) a d e c i s i o n t h a t r e s u l t s i n a r t o o r f o r s o m e o n e i n t h e p e r s o n ( d ) a d e c i s i o n i n r e s p e c t o f t h e p e r s o n ' s f a m i l y u n i t i f t h a t a m o ( i ) t h e m a x i m u m a m o u ( i i ) t h e c o s t o f t h e l e a s s u p p l e m e n t ; ( e ) a d e c i s i o n r e s p e c t i n g t h e c o [ e m p l o y m e n t p l a n ] . ( 2 ) A r e q u e s t u n d e r s u b s e c t i o n ( 1 ) m u s t b e m a n d i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h a n y r u l e s s p e c i f i e d b y ( 3 ) S u b j e c t t o a r e g u l a t i o n u n d e r s u b s e c t i o n ( 5 [ o v e r p a y m e n t s ] , a p e r s o n w h o i s d i s s a t i s f i e d w s u b s e c t i o n ( 1 ) ( a ) t o ( d ) m a y a p p e a l t h e d e c i s ( 4 ) A r i g h t o f a p p e a l g i v e n u n d e r s u b s e c t i o n ( 3 o u t i n 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 A c t a n ( 5 ) T h e L i e u t e n a n t G o v e r n o r i n C o u n c i l m a y d ( a ) c a t e g o r i e s o f s u p p l e m e n t s t ( b ) c i r c u m s t a n c e s i n w h i c h a d e a s s i s t a n c e o r a s u p p l e m e n t i s n F r o m t h e E A P W D R : H o w a r e q u e s t t o r e c o n s i d e r a d e c i s i o n i s m a d e 7 1 ( 1 ) A p e r s o n w h o w i s h e s t h e m i n i s t e r t o r e c o [ r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n a n d a p p e a l r i g h t s ] o f t h e A c t m s p e c i f i e d b y t h e m i n i s t e r t o t h e m i n i s t r y o f f i c e w E AA T 0 0 3 ( 1 0 / 0 6 / 0 1 )A P P E A L I s r e a s o n a b l e i n d e n y i n g t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s r e q u e s t d t h a t s h e w a s n o t e l i g i b l e f o r r e i m b u r s e m e n t o f y a s s i s t a n c e d a t i n g b a c k t o 2 0 0 6 . M o r e m i n a t i o n , t h a t t h e o r i g i n a l m i n i s t r y d e c i s i o n i s f i n a l s d a y t i m e l i m i t t o s u b m i t a R e q u e s t f o r h a s e x p i r e d , i s r e a s o n a b l y s u p p o r t e d b y t h e l a t i o n u n d e r t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h e a p p e l l a n t . t t h e m i n i s t e r t o r e c o n s i d e r a n y o f t h e f o l l o w i n g d e c i s i o n s e f u s a l t o p r o v i d e d i s a b i l i t y a s s i s t a n c e , h a r d s h i p a s s i s t a n c e o n e i n t h e p e r s o n ' s f a m i l y u n i t ; i s c o n t i n u a n c e o f d i s a b i l i t y a s s i s t a n c e o r a s u p p l e m e n t h e p e r s o n ' s f a m i l y u n i t ; e d u c t i o n o f d i s a b i l i t y a s s i s t a n c e o r a s u p p l e m e n t p r o v i d e d ' s f a m i l y u n i t ; a m o u n t o f a s u p p l e m e n t p r o v i d e d t o o r f o r s o m e o n e i n t h e u n t i s l e s s t h a n t h e l e s s e r o f n t o f t h e s u p p l e m e n t u n d e r t h e r e g u l a t i o n s , a n d t e x p e n s i v e a n d a p p r o p r i a t e m a n n e r o f p r o v i d i n g t h e n d i t i o n s o f a n e m p l o y m e n t p l a n u n d e r s e c t i o n 9 a d e , a n d t h e d e c i s i o n r e c o n s i d e r e d , w i t h i n t h e t i m e l i m i t s r e g u l a t i o n . ) a n d t o s e c t i o n s 9 ( 7 ) [ e m p l o y m e n t p l a n ] , 1 7 a n d 1 8 ( 2 ) i t h t h e o u t c o m e o f a r e q u e s t f o r a r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n u n d e r i o n t h a t i s t h e o u t c o m e o f t h e r e q u e s t t o t h e t r i b u n a l . ) i s s u b j e c t t o t h e t i m e l i m i t s a n d o t h e r r e q u i r e m e n t s s e t d t h e r e g u l a t i o n s u n d e r t h a t A c t . e s i g n a t e b y r e g u l a t i o n h a t a r e n o t a p p e a l a b l e t o t h e t r i b u n a l , a n d c i s i o n t o r e f u s e t o p r o v i d e d i s a b i l i t y a s s i s t a n c e , h a r d s h i p o t a p p e a l a b l e t o t h e t r i b u n a l . n s i d e r a d e c i s i o n r e f e r r e d t o i n s e c t i o n 1 6 ( 1 ) u s t d e l i v e r a 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 i n t h e f o r m h e r e t h e p e r s o n i s a p p l y i n g f o r o r r e c e i v i n g a s s i s t a n c e .
(2) A request un der s ubsec tion (1) must be deliv is not ified of the decision re f e rre d to in se ct io ( a) leavi n g i t wi t h an em ployee (b) bein g received th r oug h the ma The position o f the m i nist r y is that s ec t i o n 71 o f the EAPWDR re r econsid eration of the min ist ry dec i s i on to de l iv er hi busi nes s da ys after th e date h e o r she w as info rmed a pp ella nt to de l iver he r Re ques t f or Rec o n side ration reimb u r sement o f the mai n tena nc e f u n ds d educt ed 2006 was 1 0 M ay 201 3. That deadlin e passed withou Req uest for Reconsidera tion. Sh e re submit ted her origi req uest w as a gain de nied as the de adl ine for r ec onsider h ad passed. On re consider ati o n of th i s sec ond den limi t pe rmi tte d und er t h e EAPWDR ha d b ee n ex c eeded an c l os ed and n ot s ubj ec t to recon sidera t i on. T h e appel lant' s pos it ion is th at her orig i n al requ est fairness tha t war rant f ull a nd fai r adjudication. Her i of the 10 May 20 13 dea dl ine , a re amp l e re aso ns for fo r ward to reconsi der her request. Pa nel f indings The ap pe ll a nt has acknowle dged that th e 0 5 Apri l 2014 d enied ea rl ier and set o ut in t h e Requ est fo r Re cons 12 Ap ril 201 3. Th e p ane l theref ore f inds that the min Februar y 2 014 requ est as a rec on s ide ration r equ est, months af ter the de adline . The le gis l at i on cle ar l y s ta delivere d to the ministry within 20 busine ss days after the date the pers The le gis la t ion does no t con t a i n a ny pro visi o ns t ha extended in unusual, exceptional or ext enuating circumstances. Th did not su bmit t he Request fo r R econsideration provided i n s tea d resu bmitting her r equest on 05 February 2014. As the 10 May t he 12 April 2013 Re quest for Rec o n s ideration had long since pass m i nistry d e ci sion t o deny h er a reconsideration of the original request is reasonably supported by the evidence. The panel therefore confirms the ministry's decision. EAAT003(10/06/01) AP P E A l _J I L I _ _ _ _ _ __ ___ __ ered within 20 bus i n e s s d ays after th e da le t he p ers on n 1 6 (1) of t he A ct and ma y be deliver ed by i n the m inist r y office, or il at t hat offi c e. qu i res a p erson see k i n g s or her Re ques t for Re co n sideration within 2 0 of the minis try's de cis ion. Th e d e ad li n e f o r the rega rding the denial of her request f o r from h er disabil ity assistance d atin g bac k to t th e appell a nt s u b mit ting the comple ted nal re qu est o n 05 Febr u ar y 201 4. This at io n of the den i a l of th e origina l requ est i al, the ministry stood by i ts pos it ion tha t t h e time d theref ore foun d t h at this m a t ter is in v o lv es im p ortant is sue s of adm inis t ra t ive llne ss, an d tha t of h er a d v o ca te, around the tim e the m inis t r y to wa i ve the deadline and m o v e requ e st i s substanti all y the same a s tha t i d eration pa c kag e provide d to th e appe ll ant on is try was reasonable in con siderin g the 0 5 al beit not on the specifie d form and almost 9 t e s th a t a Reques t for Reco nsider ation must b e on is notified of the decision. t would al lo w the de adline to be wa ived or e evidence is that t he appellant to her by the ministry on 12 April 2013, 20 14 deadline for s ubmitting ed, th e panel f inds that the
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.