PART C -Decisio n under App eal The decision under a p pea l i s the Ministry of So cial D evelopment reconsidera tion deci sion of July 10 th , 20 14 whe rein t he m incom e assistance as set out in section 9(1 ) (b) Employment comply with the con d i tions stated in h is Employme nt Plan (EP) as he to part icipate in the program and did not cease to participate in the s e ction 9(4) EAA . PART D -Re le v ant Leg i slatio n S ec tion 9, E AA EAA T003(10/06/01) I APPEAL# and S ocial Inn ovation (the "mini str y ") inistry dete r mi ned t he a p pellan t was not e l igib le f or a nd Assistance Act ( E AA) be cause he d id no t fa i l ed to d e monstrate rea s ona b le e f fo r t s p ro g ram fo r medical reasons as s et out i n
PART E -Summarv of Facts W ith the c onsent of the appellant the ministry had an o bserver attend the The evidence bef o re the ministr y at the time of reconsidera • Cheque stub #539 showing a cheque was issued to the appe • Payroll deductions online calculator in ap pellant's • Payrol l deductions online cal culator i n a p pellant' Ju n e 3o t h, 2 014 f or 11 h o u r s work; • 3 pages of trackin g information provi ded by Employment Program fi l e; • EP sign ed by the appellant on January 23 rd , 2013 and ends o O n January 23 rd , 2013 the app ellant signed an EP referri c o n d i tion o f eligibility for i nco me a s si s ta nce th a t he c omply with Spe c i fic ally , in hi s EP, he agr e ed to: • Att end th e EPBC to att end an orien t a ti on s essi on • Attend an d p a rtici p a t e in EPBC as direc t ed by t he E • W ill wo rk with the EP BC contractor t o a ddres s a ny i • Comple te a ll t a sk s assigned i ncl uding any ac t ivities • W ill no ti fy the contra ctor if h e i s una ble t o atte n d a se • T hat h e will submit h is Ac t i on Plan to th e m in is try • Will p a rtici p a te with EPB C sub-c on tractors s h o ul d a • T hat he will decla r e a ll in c ome and report an y ch On J une 1 6 th , 2014 th e mini str y r eceived communi cation c lo sed du e to n on-pa r ticipat ion and /or no n -complia nce and 2014. The following is the tracking i nformat ion on C o mmunic a tion O ccurred at Telephone to C lient W e d Dec 11 201 3 10:11am Telephone to C lient Mon Dec 23 201 3 1: 47p Telephone to Client T hu J a n 02 2014 1 : 13pm Teleph one from Client Wed Jan 08 20 1 4 11: 24 Tele phone from Client Wed Jan 08 2014 11 :46 Telephone to Client Thu Jan 23 2014 3 : 4 Mail to Clien t Fri Feb 142014 9:08am T eleph on e t o C lien t Mon Mar 03 2014 4:22pm Telep h o ne to Client Tues Mar 25 2014 4:19pm Te lephone to Clie nt Wed Apr 02 2014 1 Telephone to Client M on May 5 2014 10:53am Mail to Client Mon Jun 02 2014 9:56am Calendar Start Time 301 Thu Nov 21 201312:00pm 301 Thu Nov 21 2013 1 :00pm 301 Thu Dec 19 2013 1: 00pm Name Tue Mar 04 2:00pm 301 Thu Apr 03 1: 00pm EAA T003(10/06/01) I APPEAL# he a r in g . ti on : llant on May 31 st , 2014 for $190. 82 ; name indicates he earned $194.4 8 fo r 11 hours w o r k; s na me i ndicates the ap pellant earned $194.48 on of BC ( E P BC) from the appellan t' s st n J a nuary 1 , 2015 ; ng him to EPBC a nd acknowledging that it i s a the conditions se t out in his EP. ; PBC contrac t or; ssues t hat may imp act hi s em ploy a bi lity ; that ma y be set out i n hi s a c t ion p l an , and ssio n or wh e n h e st a rts or s tops a ny e mploy ment; w ithin 30 d ay s of sig ning his EP; referral to any programs be deemed suitable; a nges to the mini st r y . from E PBC advi sing th a t the a p pe lla nt 's fi le is n o w t hat he last att ende d th e p rogram o n Apr i l 3 rd , t he app ellant' s fil e : Occurr e d w ith Re sult L ef t mess a g e m L e ft message Lef t message am Answered am Answered 1pm Left Message Left Message Answered Left Mes sage 0 : 18am Answered Left message C ompli ance l etter Status/Outcome Attended Attended No-show OVDC-attended Attended
I APPEAL# On June 25 1 ", 2014 the appellant attended the ministry office concerning his July 2014 benefits and discussed his non-compliance/attendance at EPBC. The appellant advised the Employment and Assistance worker (EAW) that he had worked in April and June of 2014, was updating his resume and out pounding the pavement looking for employment. The EAW advised the appellant that his work in April and June did not constitute full-time work and because he had not provided any mitigating circumstances for his non-compliance with his EP that he was denied further income assistance. On July 19 th , 2014 the contractor was contacted for further information. EPBC indicated that the appellant was expected to attend the program every two weeks, conduct an independent active job search, and no job search records had been submitted to-date. EPBC indicated that on the summary provided (above) to the ministry the entries with numbers, i.e. 301 were workshops and the entries with names were with a case manager or administrative. In the Reconsideration Decision the Reconsideration officer noted that the EP indicated that the appellant needed to provide a copy of his Action Plan and confirmation of attending workshops with his monthly stub, however, a review of the file shows no record of that being tracked by the ministry as compliance with his EP was being monitored based on negative reporting by the program only which was not received until June 2014. In the Notice of Appeal the appellant stated that he has had a long ongoing battle with severe depression and deteriorating eyesight making it very hard to be social, that his up and down mood swings are taking its toll. One minute happy, work ready, the next crying depressed and thinking about my life and how I can keep on going. I have made an appointment to see my doctor to get my prescription and find out why my depression is getting worse and why my eyesight is rapidly going blurry. I still have to pay my mom back for paying the rent to stop an eviction but the landlord is still going to evict me. I have a computer and I am on two different job search programs. I check all job sites every day and upgrade my res (? resume) to the job description with cover letter to suit. My severe depression and outbreak and allergic reactions to people make it difficult to find a job and leave my house anymore. It's getting worse, no money, no food, rent is paid (payed) for now. Please let me back to the program so I can find steady work. The panel finds that since the appellant had not advised the ministry of his medical condition at the time of reconsideration, the statements in the appellant's Notice of Appeal that relate to his medical condition can't be said to be "in support" of information and records that were before the ministry, and therefore are not admissible. The panel finds that the information that relates to his activities in searching for a job, i.e. searching on the computer, updating his resume, etc is information in support of the information and records that were before the minister when the decision being appealed was made and is admissible as evidence in accordance with section 22(4) EAA. Before the hearing commenced the appellant presented the following documentation: 1 . A letter dated July 22 nd , 2014 from a medical practitioner (MP), not his family doctor, who provided his diagnosis of the appellant's medical condition and stated that the appellant was not presently fit for employment. The MP stated the appellant was to be reassessed regularly by his family doctor. 2. 4 pages of date stamped notes covering the period of October 28, 2002 to September 3, 2009. These pages are unsigned and untitled. The appellant advised these notes are from his medical file and were made by his family physician. The ministry did not object to the panel receiving these documents for consideration. The panel finds that these two submissions do not contain information in support of the information and records that were before the minister when the decision beinq annealed was made since the aonellant had not EAAT003(10/06/01)
� APPEAL# advised the ministry of his medical condition at the time of reconsideration. Accordingly the panel cannot accept these documents as evidence. At the hearing the appellant read a prepared statement. He stated that "I have not fulfilled my responsibilities with the contractual agreement with ... (the ministry's contractor)." The appellant stated that a family event that occurred a few years ago had significant impact on his life and his activities at that time and he is still trying emotionally to deal with that event. The appellant stated that he has had difficulty understanding and processing the responsibilities that were required of him to be accountable for his participation in the program. The appellant stated that he has been seeing his family doctor for assistance. He stated that "although I have not proved to you that I have been participating by providing documentation of my participation, I have avidly searched out on the internet the available jobs. I have acquired jobs periodically, which shows my determination, to gain employment. I truly desire to have employment which gives me purpose and self esteem; however, my health had been challenged by personal circumstances." In response to questions from the ministry the appellant acknowledged that he did not inform the ministry (EAW) or the EPBC contractor of the family event and· the impact that event was having on him. The appellant also stated that he still did not advise the ministry (EAW) in June 2014 about his medical condition when he was interviewed regarding his non-compliance with his EP. At that time he told the EAW that he was trying to find work, had worked a couple of days but hadn't reported the income because he was told he could earn $200 a month, had gotten upset with EAW and left the office after being told he was being denied assistance. The panel finds the appellant's oral testimony does contain information that is in support of the information and record that was before the ministry at the time the reconsideration decision was made and is admissible as evidence in accordance with section 22(4) EAA. The ministry relied on its reconsideration decision and provided no additional information The panel makes the following findings of fact: 1 . The appellant signed an EP, with conditions, on January 23, 2013 with an end date of January 1, 2015; 2. A condition in the EP was that the appellant would notify the EPBC contractor if he was unable to attend a session or when he started or ended employment; 3. The appellant had not attended EPBC program since April 3, 2014; 4. The appellant did not claim a medical reason for not complying with the conditions in his EP. EAAT 003(10/06/01)
P AR T F -R easons for Panel Deci si o n The iss ue under a ppeal is the rea sonabl en ess o f the minis wh e rein the ministry det ermined the app ellant was not eligible f 9(1) (b) EAA because he d i d not comply wi th the condit ions r e a sonable efforts to participat e in t h e pr o gr am a nd did not cease to partic rea sons as set o ut in section 9 (4) EAA. The l egislation consider ed: Section 9 EAA (1) For a fam i ly unit to be eligible for income assistance or hards Recipi ent in the family unit, when required to do s (a) en ter into an employment plan, and (b) comply with the conditio n s in the employment ( 4 ) I f a n emplo y ment p lan i ncludes a con d ition req uiri partic ipate in a specific emp l oym en t-r elate d program, that conditi (a ) fa i l s to de mo nst r ate rea sonab le eff orts t o (b) cea s e s , ex c ept for med ic al r eason s, to partic The ministry a rgued t ha t the appe llant had s igned an E P p r ogra m t wi ce a mon th, c on d u ct a n active job se ar c h a nd progr am . The mi nistry argued t h e a p pell an t on ly attended the pro re gular efforts by the contractor t o g et him back in to compli T he appella nt argued that his medica l condi tion( s ) had a signi p a rti c i p a tin g in the pro g r am. He argued that he ha d diff i culty bu t does un d e rst a nd now tha t he did n ot fulf il his responsi o ppo r tun ity to particip at e in the progr am again. T h e a ppel off ice is n ot con d ucive for sharing s ensi t i ve and em o tion T h e pan el finds tha t the E P la id out se veral conditions, wh i niti alin g th at ar ea of the EP; that he would a ttend and parti con tra c t or , and, t h at he will con tact th e c o ntr actor if he is The panel finds that the appell ant did not attend the s essio contact the contrac tor to advise that he was not able to attend. The panel finds the evidence does not support that the appellant demonstrated a reasonable effort to participate in the EPBC program by making contact with the contractor or un able to attend t he program. The panel finds the appellant did not disclose to the EAW related program for medical reason s. Therefore, the panel finds the ministry's decision that the appellant did not comply with the conditions in his EP as set out in section 9( 1 )(b) EAA was reasonable and confirms the decision in accordance with section 24(1 )(a) and section 24(2)(a) EAA. EAAT 003( 10/06/01) � APPEAL # try's reconsidera tion de cis ion of July 10 1 , 201 4 or income a s sistance as set out in section stat ed in h i s E P as he f ail ed to de monstrate i p ate in the program f o r medical hip assis tan ce, each app li c ant or o by t h e minister, must plan. ng an a ppl icant, a r eci pient or a depen dent youth to o n i s no t me t i f t h e pe r son p a rt i cip a te in th e pr ogra m, or ipate i n t h e pr og ram. that required that he att end the E P BC cont racto r' s adv ise the con tra c t or if he w a s u n abl e t o att end the gram t w ice since November 2 013 d espite ance with his EP. fica nt imp act on him which pre v e nted him from un d er standin g and proc es sing his re s po nsibil it ie s bi liti es rega rdi n g th e E P a nd w o ul d like the l ant a rgued t h at the en v iron ment within th e ministry al inf or mation . ich the appella nt ackno wle dged h e und erst oo d by c i pate i n EPBC a s direct ed by the m in is tr y unabl e to attend a sess ion. ns sc heduled by t he E PBC cont actor and did not advi sing the ministry that he was that he ceased to participate in t he emp loy ment
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.