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 r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n d e c i s i o n In n o v a t i o n ( t h e " m i n i s t r y " ) d a t e d J u n e 2 4 , 2 0 1 4 , i n w h i c c r i t e r i a t o r e c e i v e a c r i s i s s u p p l e m e n t f o r u t i l i t i e s a s s e t o 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 R e g u l a t i o n ( E A P W D R ) . S p t o p a y a u t i l i t y b i l l a m o u n t i s n o t a n u n e x p e c t e d e x p e n s e u n e x p e c t e d l y n e e d e d . T h e m i n i s t r y a l s o d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t d i d n o t h a v e t h e r e s o u r c e s a v a i l a b l e t o m e e t m i n i s t r y w a s s a t i s f i e d t h a t n o n p a y m e n t o f t h e u t i l i t y a m o h e a l t h a s s e t o u t i n s . 5 7 ( l ) ( b ) ( i ) . P A R T D R e l e v a n t L e g i s l a t i o n S e c t i o n 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 P e r s o n s S e c t i o n 5 7 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 P e r s o n s E M T 0 0 3 ( 1 0 / 0 6 / 0 1 )I A P P E A L o f t h e M i n i s t r y o f S o c i a l D e v e l o p m e n t a n d S o c i a l h t h e m i n i s t r y f o u n d t h e a p p e l l a n t d i d n o t m e e t t h e u t i n s e c t i o n 5 7 ( 1 ) 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 e c i f i c a l l y t h e m i n i s t r y d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e r e q u i r e m e n t a n d t h a t u t i l i t y c o s t s a r e n o t a n i t e m t h a t i s n o f i n a n c i a l e v i d e n c e w a s p r e s e n t e d t o c o n f i r m t h a t t h e e x p e n s e a s s e t o u t u n d e r s . 5 7 ( l ) ( a ) . H o w e v e r , t h e u n t m a y r e s u l t i n i m m i n e n t d a n g e r t o h e r p h y s i c a l w i t h D i s a b i l i t i e s A c t ( E A P W D A ) w i t h D i s a b i l i t i e s R e g u l a t i o n ( E A P W D R )
PART E -Summ arv o f F acts Evide n ce b e f ore the ministry at the ti m e of Reconsideration includes the follow • Copie s of the appellant's electric bills date d: • Septem ber 4, 2013, with a due dat e of Sep t e mber $2 1 9.51 a p ayment of $7 6.00 m ade August 28, 2013, a $143. 51 an Ad j u stment to Equa l Paymen t Pl a total balance owing of $248.66 . • October 4, 2013, with a due da t e of Octob e r 30, 2 prev io u s bill of $248.66 a n Adjustme nt to EPP o balance owin g of $3 5 5.3 8 . • F e brnary 5, 2014, with a due d ate o f F e b r uary 28, $580. 69 a payment of$ 50.00 made January 31, 2014 $ 5 30 .69 an Adjustment t o E P P o f $7.96, EPP A $641. 6 5. • M ay 8 , 201 4 , with a du e date of June 3, 201 4 , payment of $ 5 0.0 0 made April 3 0 , 2 0 14, a balan Adjustment to EPP of $ 10 . 74, EP P A mou n t D o J u n e 9 , 20 14, with a d ue date of July 3 , 2014, showin payment of $5 0. 0 0 m ade Ma y 29, 2 014, a bal Ad jus tmen t t o EPP o f$11.70 , EP P Amount Due o E ach e lectric bill contai ns a st ate ment "Y our pay Equal P ay me nt Plan if p ay me nt is not r eceive o A cop y of a No tic e of Disconnec t ion s ent to the appe balance of $977.7 6 and reques tin g im m e di ate p aym been m ade the l e tte r provid es a tol l free n umber for the appe anangements to ma k e p ay me n t i n fu l l • A cop y of a second Notic e of D i s c o n ne c tion sen t balan ce of $897 . 80. If a payment has not bee n m app e l lant to cont a ct t h e ut il it y b y no late r than Mo payment in f ul l • The app ellant ' s Request for Reconsid e ra tion s igned writes that she was confused and thought her payments were enough but did not know she wa the full amount of the equal payment. She reports that she now has a mental health worker helping her to u nderstand wh a t to do nex t . She is also working on ge obsessive behaviour and anxiety make her decision making difficult. In conclusion, she reports that the amount owing is far beyond he r i nc o m e . After the ministry Reconsideration Decision and prior to the hearing the appellant submitted the follo • In her Notice of Appeal signed by the appellant July 9, 2014, she reports that welfare stopped paying her bill when she started getting CPP and the bill mounted up and, because of her mental illness, she was not used to paying bills. She also states that she is providing her bank statements from Januar July 2014, show i n g that she d o es n o t ha ve the funds lo reported that she will be sending a letter from a medical specialist to her physician where it stales she must use a CPAP every night because of a medical condition and will therefore require electricity. appellant requested that her ap pe a l he aring be in writin EAAT003(10/06/01) APPEAi I ing: 27, 2 0 13, showing a p revious statement amount of b alanc e outst anding from a p revious b i l l of n (EPP) of$ 2.15, EPP Amount Due $103.0 0 wit h a 01 3, show ing a balance outstandi ng from a f $3.72, E P P Amount D u e $103.00 with a total 2 01 4, s h owing a previou s statement amount o f , a balance outs tanding from a pre vio us bill of mount Due $103.00 with a tot a l balance owing of showing a prev i ous statement amount of $ 7 66. 3 2 a ce o uts tand ing from a p reviou s bill of $716.32 an ue $ 1 03.00 wit h a to tal balanc e o wing of $83 0 .06 . g a p revious st a t ement am oun t of $ 83 0 .06 a ance ou t stand ing fr om a p reviou s bill of $ 780.0 6 an $ 186. 00 with a to tal ba lance o w ing of $ 9 7 7.7 6 . m ent is o v e r du e a nd you ma y be r emo ved fr om t he d im m ediately" llan t June 13, 2014, showing an o uts tanding e nt to avoid disco n nec tion. I f a payment has n ot llant to con t act the utility to m ake to t h e appe llant Jun e 18, 201 4 , showin g a n outs tan di n g a de the lett er provi des a t oll free number for the nday Ju n e 23, 20 14, to ma ke ar range ment s to make by the appellant June 19, 2014. In section 3, she s to pay tti ng her heat fixed . She reports t hat her wi n g: y 2014, to pay the ful l amount of the bill. She has also The g .
APPEA I • The appellant's bank statements for: o January 2014, show: total credits of $1122.18, debits of $1119.37 and a balance of $7.13 January 31, 2014; • February 2014, shows total credits of $1009.17, debits of $819.47 and a balance of $182.57 February 28, 2014; • March 2014, shows total credits of $1341.97, debits of $1484.06 and a balance of $40.48 March 31, 2014; • April 2014, shows total credits of $1115.83, total debits of $1152.29 and a balance of $4.02 April 30. 2014; • May 2014, shows total credits of $1084.17, total debits of $986.66 and a balance of $101.53 May 30, 2014; • June 2014, shows total credits of $1009.17, total debits of $1071.87 and a balance of $38.83 June 30, 2014; July 4, 2014 to July 7, 2014, shows total credits of $123.89, total debits of $102.52 and a balance of $60.20 July 7, 2014. • In a letter from one of the appellant's physician's to another, dated March 17, 2014, the physician reports among other things that the appellant has "pulmonary hypertension, which I think relates at least in part to the sleep disorder, and she admits she is not utilizing the CPA P on a regular basis. I have asked her to return to the use of CPAP, and if she is struggling with the use of CPAP, she may have to be reviewed by the respfratory company, to determine whether she has an adequate interface". • A Release of Information form EAAT0004 -10/06/01 signed by the appellant July 24, 2014, and faxed to the Tribunal Office July 25, 2014, granting permission to have documents about her appeal sent to her advocate. • A 4 page document faxed to the Tribunal Office by the appellant's advocate dated August 11, 2014, which contained the following: • A note written by the appellant dated August 11, 2014, in which she: • Reported that she received her Notice of Appeal July 15, 2014. • Repmts that she is submitting a "Photocopy of Statement from Welfare, showing it is now only $105.92. • States that "$186.00 is now deductions for my equal payment plan to Fortis BC. This shows that this can be done, when I was told many times it could NOT be done for me. After many years of having my rent and hydro paid for me by Welfare, this all stopped when I received my first cheque from CPP. I have never had to look after paying bills even when married." • Addresses E.A.P.W.D. regulation number 57(l)(a) stating" There are no resources available, see bank statements previously sent. It was unexpected because of my mental illness O.C.D. see letter from my Case Manager at Mental Health." • A copy of a letter dated July 28, 2014, from Mental Health & Substance Use, at the appellant's request and addressed, "To Whom it May Concern", confirming that the appellant suffers from agoraphobia and Social Phobia and, in addition, presents with some OCD traits. • A Notice of Deposit to the appellant elated July 23, 2014, showing an amount of $186.00 under "other clecluctions", and a total cheque amount of $105.92. The ministry stated, via e-mail that this matter will be the reconsideration summary provided in the Record of the Ministry Decision. The panel admitted all of the appellant's written submissions and attached documents under s. 22( 4) of the EAA EAAT 003(10/06/01)
as th ey we re fou nd to be i n su pport of t he re c or d s be fore b e cause it hel ped th e pa n el t o determi n e w ha t f inanci al resourc cla r i ty r egar di ng h er m edic al condit ions . Th e mini s try did n F indings of Fa ct : • T he a ppel lant is a sole r ecipie nt o f disab ility a ss istance for ut i liti e s . • The m i nis tr y p ai d th e a ppell ants b ills and ded ucted s t a rt ed to receive CP P, at which time th e appella • The a ppel lant has been di agnos ed a s h aving pu lmo agora phobi a and S ocial Pho bia and , in addi tion, present • Th e a ppellan t's elect ricity b il l s indi ca t e an EPP amoun mon th in pa yme nts , resu lt i n g in the balan ce owin $977.76 o n J une 9, 20 1 4. • T h e appellan t hasrece ived two discon nect not i ces showing an ou tsta n d ing bal ance of $977.76 a n d the sec o utstanding bala n ce of $ 8 97. 80. • The appel lant' s ban k stat e ments sh o win g J anuary to $ 13 41. 9 7 per month a nd e x p endi t ures ran ging m i n i m um monthly bal ances r angin g f rom ($7 . 13 ) EAAT 003(10/06/01 )APPEAi I th e m i n i ster at rec o ns id erati on and p art i c ularly es w e re a v a il a bl e to t he appell ant and t o p r o vi d e ot ob j ect. and is e l i gib l e to app ly f or a c risis su pplem ent them from he r dis ab i lity benefits u n ti l the appellant n t became respon sible for pay in g he r o wn b ills. nar-y hyp ertension by a ph y s ici a n, a s le ep dis o r d e r, s with so m e OC D tra its. t of $103. 00 per m o nth, bu t only $5 0. 00 per g i n cr easi n g from $ 2 48.66 in Se p te mbe r 2013 t o fro m Fort i s B C, the first da ted J u ne 13 , 2014, ond, d ated June 18, 20 14, sh o wi ng an to J une 201 4 , s how an income rangin g fro m $1009.2 1 from$ 819. 4 7 t o $148 4 .0 6 p e r m onth, re s ulting i n t o $ 1 0 0.28 .
PART F -Rea so n s f or P anel Deci sio n Th e issue in th is app eal is w h e the r th e m i n i stry' s d eterm ination cr i si s su p pl e me nt on the b a si s that s he did not meet t he criteria r e aso n ab le app lica t i o n of the leg islat io n or reas onably support det er m ined that t h e reqni rement to pay a n tility bil l amount a r e not an item t h at i s unexpe ctedl y nee ded . T h e mi nist ry presente d to confir m tha t the app ellant did not have the re s.57( l)(a). How ever, the minis try was sa tisfied that n on-pay dan ger t o her ph ysical h e a lth a s set out in s .57( l)( b ) (i) . In a r riv ing a t t hei r de ci sion th e m i n i str y relied up on t h e f Emplo ymen t and Assistan c e for Per so ns w ith Disab il ities Act Disability as sist a nce and supplem ents 5 S ubject to t he r egu lations, the minister ma y pro vide eligi bl e fo r i t. Employment an d Assistance f o r Pers ons ,vi th D is a bi liti e s Re g ulat Cri sis sup pleme n t 57 (I) The minis t e r m a y prov ide a crisi s supplement to o r fo r a f a s si s tance if (a) the f am i ly unit or a p er s on in th e e xpense or obtain an it em un e xpe c tedly nee be ca us e t here are no res ources available to th (b) th e min is te r con si d ers t hat fail u r (i) imm in ent d anger to t he (ii) removal of a child u nder Th e minis t ry ' s positi on is that the requirement t o pay a util that uti li ty c os ts a re not an i tem une xpe ct e d l y neede d. T h was present e d to confi rm that the app el lant did not have the resources ava under s.57(l)(a). In its Reconsideration D ec i s i on the m inistry argue d the a th e cri teria s e t o n t is s.57 of the EAPDR bec a u se although the a payment on her bill each month would prevent her electricity from being disconnected, her monthly EPP a m onnt was not an unexpected expe nse. As a result of not paying the full amount of her EPP each month the amount owing continued to grow and Fortis BC continued noting the outstanding balance on the appellant's monthly b ill s and that her payments were overd u e . Therefor eventually F orti s B C would disconnect the appe l lant's electricit ba lanc e. In addition the ministry argued that no docume nta demonstrating that she did not have the financial resou rces reasons she has not met the criteria set out s.57(l)(a) of the E payment of the utility amount may resull in imminent danger to her physical health as set out in s.57(1)(b) The aooellant's position is that, orior to her receiving CPP, the ministry paid her rent and her Fortis bill. EAA T003(10/06/0I) I AP PEAi th at t he app e llant is not eligib l e to receiv e a set out i s sec t ion 57(1) ofEAPWDR wa s a ed by the ev idence . Spe cific all y th e minis try wa s not a n un e x pected e x pense and that u tili ty co s ts a lso det ermined t hat n o finan cial ev idence wa s sourc e s av aila b l e t o m eet the expe ns e as s e t out u nd er men t of the ut ility am o u n t m a y resu l t in imm i n ent ollowi n g: disab i lity assis tan ce or a su pplement to o r for a fa mily unit that is ion amil y un it that is el igibl e for disabil it y as sis t a nc e or har d ship fa mily u n i t r equires the sup plemen t t o meet an u nexpe c ted d ed a nd is unab le to meet t he ex pense o r obta in the item e family u nit, and e to m ee t the expen s e or ob t a in the ite m w ill resu lt in p h ysical health of an y person i n t he fam i ly unit, or the C hild, Fami l y and Commu nity Se,vice Ac t. ity bi ll amount was not a n unex p e ct e d expe ns e and e m i nistry a l s o de t er mined that no fi n ancial evi den ce ilabl e to mee t the expense as set out ppe lla nt's request for a crisis supplement does not meet ppellant argned t h a t she th ought ma ki ng a e, the ministry argued, it was not une xpected that y, as she had not been paying off her outstanding l evid ence w as pre sented by th e appe llant to pay her el ectricity bill on her own and for these APWDR. The min istry did acknowledge that no n ( i). As a
APPEAi I result of the appellant's mental illness she was not used to paying bills and did not understand that she was required to make the full payment on her EPP each month. The appellant also argued that she had never had to look after paying bills, even when married, and that the need to pay her Fortis BC bill in full was unexpected because of her mental illness and O.C.D traits. She also argued that she does not have the financial resources required to pay her Fortis BC bill and provided 7 months of bank statements (January to July 2014) demonstrating that she does not have the financial resources to pay off her Fortis BC bill. The appellant also argued in her Notice of Appeal that, per the letter from one of her physicians, she has a sleep disorder and is required to use a CP AP machine and that failure to use this machine would pose an imminent risk to her physical health. The legislation requires that the expense must be unexpected or to obtain an item unexpectedly needed. The panel finds that the ministry paid the appellant's bills until she started getting CPP and that the appellant has been diagnosed as having a sleep disorder by her physician and Agoraphobia and Social Phobia with some OCD traits, by her CM, Mental Health & Substance Use. However, neither the physician's letters nor any other evidence presented directly supports the appellant's argument that she was unable to manage her bills due to any of her diagnosed medical conditions. The appellant argued that she was confused and thought her payments were enough and did not know she was to pay the full amount of the EPP each month. However the panel finds that the appellant's Fortis BC statements provided for the months 6f September and October 2013, and for February, May and June 2014, clearly show the amount of the previous statement, the amount of the payment made; the balance outstanding from a previous bill, the amount of the EPP adjustment and the total amount due. Furthermore, the panel finds that as the amount due steadily increased from a low of $248.66 in September 2013, to a high of$977.76 in June 2014, the ministry reasonably determined that it would not be unexpected that Fortis BC would eventually disconnect the appellant's electricity because she had not been paying her outstanding balance. For these reasons, the panel finds that the ministry reasonably determined that the crisis .· · supplement requested was not required to meet an unexpected expense or to obtain an item unexpectedly needed as set out above ins 57(1) of the EAPWDR. The legislation requires that the minister considers the failure to meet the expense or obtain the item will result in imminent danger to the physical health of any person in the family unit. The panel finds that while the appellant argued in her Notice of Appeal that she requires electricity in order to use her CPAP machine, an argument that is supported by her physicians letter of March l 7, 2014, no documental evidence was presented detailing the severity of the appellant's sleep disorder, or any other medical condition she has which might be affected should her electricity be disconnected. For these reasons, the panel finds that the ministry reasonably determined failure to meet the expense or obtain the item may result in imminent danger to the physical health of any person in the family unit. However, in order to meet the requirement, the ministry must be satisfied that failure to meet the expense or obtain the item will result in imminent danger to the physical health of any person in the family unit. In conclusion the panel finds the ministry's determination that the appellant did not meet all of the requirements set out above ins. 57(l)(a) to be eligible for a crisis supplement was reasonably supported by the evidence and is a reasonable application of the applicable Regulation. The panel therefore confirms the ministry's decision. EAA T003(10/06/01)
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.