� APPEAL# PART C -Decision under Appeal The outcome under appeal is the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation (ministry) decision of July 30 th , 2014 wherein the ministry determined that a reconsideration is not available to the appellant because the appellant did not deliver a completed Request for Reconsideration on the ministry's decision of October 2 nd , 2013 to the ministry within the legislated 20-business day time limit as stated under section 71 (2) Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Regulation (EAPWDR). PART D -Relevant Legislation EAPWDA -section 16 EAPWDR -section 71 EM T003(10/06/01)
P ART E Sum marv o f Fac ts The e vidence before the ministry at t he tim e of r eco nside • 3 pag es of st atemen t of pay m ents disbur sed from • Divorce Judgment i nvo lvin g the ap pell ant orderi • M inis try cas e notes indi cating th e a ppella nt received ma n e ver on her f i le; th at the dep endan t l ived wit h the second ary school ; • Le t ter fr o m m inist r y to appell ant dated May 1 3 th , 201 permi t s maintenance paymen t s to " pass th r o u gh" to your depe nda n t; • Requ e st for R e conside r atio n of ministry's decisi on reques ted the ministry iss ue an und e rpa yme nt fo was no t awa re she coul d p a s s the main te na nce • Requ e st for R e conside r atio n d ated July 1 6 t h , 2 014 w O n Oct o be r 2 nd , 201 3 t h e a p pell ant was informed of t h e appell a nt 's r equest for the ministry to issu e a n un de rpayme from her in com e as sis tanc e . Th e app e llan t request ed a pre pa re d a Req ues t for Rec o n sidera ti o n packa ge. The app and re t urn the pa cka g e to the minist ry of fice by October 3o consid ered the a p pe llant's requ e st ab andoned and cl ose r etur ned th e pack age to th e minis tr y of fice. On Ju ne 20 t h , 2 01 4 the ap pellant re-subm itted the r equ e Th e m inis! � denie d t h e app ellan t's r eq ues t bec ause this was t Oct o be r 2 n , 2013 and the appeal peri o d for that decision e re que sted reconsi derat ion on J u ly 1 6 th , 2014. On Ju ne 23 rd , 2014 the min istry prepared a requ e st for r 20 1 4. O n Ju l y 16 th , 2014 the a ppe l lant s ubmi tted t h e re con mi nist r y on Jul y 3o t h , 201 4. The ministry determined t h e mi nist r y h ad alr eady made a decision on t h i s matt er on O ap peal tha t d ecision by s u bmitting the Req uest for R e c onsidera appellant's request to be abandoned. The appellant attached a memo signed by her dated July 10 she is appealing this decision du e t o an er ror betwee n the BC (BCFMEP) and the ministry. The ap pe lla nt stated the famil income assista n ce and then from her disability incom e assis minis try thought the payments we re for one si bl i ng when they we o f t h e error in a letter fr om th e m i nistry dated May 13 th , 2013 and that it was at this time also that she learned of the "adult pass throug h option" i ncom e exemption legi At the hearin g t he app e lla nt stated that she had more than one dependant but only one Maintenance Ord because the maintenance from her ex-spouse was so far in the arrears that the Employment and Assistance w o r k e r (EAW) advised her to g et anoth e r Order would be futile victim in a motor vehicle accident that resulted in her having a number of health issues which still have an impact on her today. The appellant stated that she did not know tha could be exempt from her income and "passed through" to her depen 2013 letter from her EAW. She stated it was at that time that she reauested the underpavment from the EM T003( 10/06/01) '.AP PEAL# rati on: A pril 200 4 to June 2013 ; ng chil d s upport p a ymen t s o f $500 pe r m on th; i n te n ance s pora dical l y; tha t her depen dant wa s f a t h er; th at t he dependa nt did n ot att end po st 3 s tat ing there is l e gis lat ion within EAPW DR t hat o r p ay, a p ortion o f th e c hild m a in t e nance y ou re c e i ve of Oct ob er 2 nd , 2013 w her ein the appell ant r fa m i ly ma in tenance paymen ts be ca use the app el la n t through to her d epen d ant . ith a lette r dated July 10 th , 201 4 atta ched . mini stry's deci sion, of the sam e da t e, that denied t h e nt of f amily mainten a n ce tha t h a d b e en deducted r econ s ide rati on o f the de c i si on an d the m i nist r y ellant h ad to co mplet e the reconsideration pack age th , 20 13. On Dec embe r 6 th , 20 13 the minis try d the s ervice request a s the appellant had not st for b a c k d a ted ass ist a nce for main t enanc e income. h e sa m e issu e t h e minis try h ad d ecided on xpire d on October 3o t h , 2013. Th e app ellant ag a in e consideratio n pack age wi th a deadline of July 1 st h , si d e ration pa cka ge which wa s r e v iewed by the app ellant was not entitl ed to r econsid e ration a s the c t o be r 2 n d , 2013 a nd si n ce t h e app ellant did n ot tion p a ckage, the ministry considered the th , 2014 to the Notice of Appeal. She stated that Family Mai nt enance E n forcement Program y maintenance payments were deducted from her t a nce cheques in error and that initially the re for anot he r . She stated she became aware slat ion (s et in in Schedule B). er . The appellant stat ed that in 2012 she was a t the mai n t e na n ce p a yme nts she receive d dant until she received the May 13 th •
m i n i s t r y f o r t h e r e t u r n o f t h o s e a s s i s t a n c e f u n d s . T h e a p O c t o b e r 2 n d , 2 0 1 3 d e c i s i o n s h e s t i l l h a d s e v e r a l h e a l t h i s o s h e d i d n ' t c o m p l e t e a n d r e t u r n t h e r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n p b e t t e r a n d i s t r y i n g t o a d d r e s s s o m e o f h e r f o r m e r i s s u e I n r e s p o n s e t o q u e s t i o n s f r o m t h e p a n e l , t h e a p p e l l a n t t m i n i s t r y ' s d e c i s i o n i n O c t o b e r 2 0 1 3 a n d r e q u e s t i n g a r e u p t h e R e c o n s i d e r a t i o n p a c k a g e . S h e t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e s h e w a s i l l a t t h e t i m e . T h e p a n e l f i n d s t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s o r a l t e s t i m o n y d o e s c o n r e c o r d t h a t w a s b e f o r e t h e m i n i s t r y a t t h e t i m e t h e r e c o n e v i d e n c e i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h s e c t i o n 2 2 ( 4 ) E A A . T h e m i n i s t r y r e l i e d o n i t s r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n d e c i s i o n a n d p T h e p a n e l m a k e s t h e f o l l o w i n g f i n d i n g s o f f a c t : 1 . T h e m i n i s t r y ' s d e c i s i o n o n t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s r e q u e s p a y m e n t s t h a t w e r e d e d u c t e d f r o m h e r i n c o m e a 2 . T h e r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n p a c k a g e f o r t h e m i n i s t r y ' s d d e l i v e r e d t o t h e m i n i s t r y o f f i c e b y O c t o b e r 3 0 1 \ 2 3 . T h e r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n p a c k a g e f o r t h e O c t o b e r 2 n d 4 . O n J u n e 2 0 1 \ 2 0 1 4 t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s r e s u b m i t t e d m a i n t e n a n c e i n c o m e ; 5 . O n J u l y 1 6 1 \ 2 0 1 4 t h e a p p e l l a n t s u b m i t t e d a R e q J u l y 3 0 t h , 2 0 1 4 . E AA T 0 0 3 ( 1 0 / 0 6 / 0 1 ): A P P E A L # p e l l a n t s t a t e d t h a t w h e n s h e r e c e i v e d t h e m i n i s t r y ' s s s u e s a n d d i d n ' t r e a l l y u n d e r s t a n d w h a t w a s h a p p e n i n g a c k a g e . T h e a p p e l l a n t t e s t i f i e d t h a t n o w s h e i s f e e l i n g s . e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e d o e s r e c a l l b e i n g a d v i s e d o f t h e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h a t d e c i s i o n b u t d o e s n ' t r e c a l l p i c k i n g d i d n ' t c o m p l e t e t h e R e c o n s i d e r a t i o n p a c k a g e b e c a u s e t a i n i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t i s i n s u p p o r t o f t h e i n f o r m a t i o n a n d s i d e r a t i o n d e c i s i o n w a s m a d e a n d i s a d m i s s i b l e a s r o v i d e d n o a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n t f o r a n u n d e r p a y m e n t o f f a m i l y m a i n t e n a n c e s s i s t a n c e b e n e f i t s w a s m a d e o n O c t o b e r 2 n d , 2 0 1 3 ; e c i s i o n o f O c t o b e r 2 n d , 2 0 1 3 h a d b e t o c o m p l e t e d a n d 0 1 3 ; , 2 0 1 3 d e c i s i o n w a s n o t d e l i v e r e d t o t h e m i n i s t r y o f f i c e ; h e r r e q u e s t f o r b a c k d a t e d d i s a b i l i t y a s s i s t a n c e f o r u e s t f o r R e c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e m i n i s t r y ' s d e c i s i o n o f
j APPl'.=:J\I a PART F -Reasons for Panel Decision The issue under appeal is the reasonableness of ministry's decision of July 30 '" , 2014 wherein the ministry determined that a reconsideration is not available to the appellant because the appellant did not deliver a completed Request for Reconsideration on the ministry's decision of October 2 nd , 2013 to the ministry within the legislated 20-business day time limit as stated under section 71 (2) EAPWDR. The legislation considered: EAPWDA Reconsideration and appeal rights Section 16 (1) Subject to section 17, a person may request the minister to reconsider any of the following decisions made under this Act: (a) a decision that results in a refusal to provide disability assistance, hardship assistance or a supplement to or for someone in the person's family unit; (b) a decision that results in a discontinuance of disability assistance or a supplement provided to or for someone in the person's family unit; (c) a decision that results in a reduction of disability assistance or a supplement provided to or for someone in the person's family unit; (d) a decision in respect of the amount of a supplement provided to or for someone in the person's family unit if that amount is less than the lesser of (i) the maximum amount of the supplement under the regulations, and (ii) the cost of the least expensive and appropriate manner of providing the supplement; (e) a decision respecting the conditions of an employment plan under section 9 [employment plan]. (2) A request under subsection (1) must be made, and the decision reconsidered, within the time limits and in accordance with any rules specified by regulation. (3) Subject to a regulation under subsection (5) and to sections 9 (7) [employment plan], 17 and 18 (2) [overpayments], a person who is dissatisfied with the outcome of a request for a reconsideration under subsection (1) (a) to (d) may appeal the decision that is the outcome of the request to the tribunal. (4) A right of appeal given under subsection (3) is subject to the time limits and other requirements set out in the Employment and Assistance Act and the regulations under that Act. (5) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may designate by regulation (a) categories of supplements that are not appealable to the tribunal, and (b) circumstances in which a decision to refuse to provide disability assistance, hardship assistance or a supplement is not appealable to the tribunal. EAPWDR How a request to reconsider a decision is made Section 71 (1) A person who wishes the minister to reconsider a decision referred to in section 16 (1) [reconsideration and appeal rights] of the Act must deliver a request for reconsideration in the form specified by the minister to the ministry office where the person is applying for or receiving assistance. (2) A request under subsection (1) must be delivered within 20 business days after the date the person is notified of the decision referred to in section 16 (1) of the Act and may be delivered by (a) leaving with an employee in the ministry office, or (b) being received through the mail at that office. The ministry relied on section 71 (2) EAPWDR which states a person who wishes the ministry to reconsider a decision must deliver a request for reconsideration to the ministry within 20 business days after the date the person was notified of the decision. The ministry argued the reconsideration package including the decision of October 3 rd , 2013, which denied the annellant back-dated income exemptions for familv maintenance EAAT 003(10/06/01)
I APPEAL# payments for her adult dependant, was prepared for pick-up at the ministry office and had to be completed and returned to the ministry office by October 30 1 \ 2013. The ministry argued that the appellant did not pick-up the reconsideration package and the ministry considered her request abandoned. The ministry argued the appellant's issue in October 2013 and her issue in June 2014 (request for back-dated income exemption underpayment) is the same, that the ministry made a decision on that issue on October 2 nd , 2013 and the appellant did not appeal that decision. The ministry argued the appellant did not submit a competed Request for Reconsideration on the·ministry's decision of October 2 nd , 2013, as set out in section 71( 2) EAPWDR, and the time frame has lapsed and the ministry has no discretion to vary from the legislated 20-day requirement. The appellant argued that she had several health issues as a result of the motor vehicle accident and she was not well in October 2013 and now is feeling better and trying to address previous matters -underpayment of family maintenance. The evidence before the panel is that on October 2 nd , 2013 the ministry denied the appellant's request for an underpayment of family maintenance payments that were deducted from her income assistance because she did not meet the terms of the maintenance order and therefore the income exemption set out under Schedule B, section 1 (a)(xviii) EAPWDR did not apply in her circumstance. The evidence is that the appellant requested a reconsideration of the ministry's decision, the ministry made up a Reconsideration package for the appellant to pick up at the local ministry office, but the appellant did not pick up the package and the ministry considered the appellant's request abandoned. The appellant does not dispute that she did not complete the reconsideration package and return it to the ministry office by October 30 th , 2013. On June 20 th , 2014 the appellant re-submitted her request for the back-dated income exemptions for family maintenance payments, stating there had been an error made between the ministry and the BCFMEP. The ministry's position is that the appellant is not entitled to reconsideration because the ministry made a decision on this issue on October 2 nd , 2013 which was not appealed by the appellant and the time limits on appeal have lapsed. The appellant's position is that although she did not submit the documentation for reconsideration at that time, she had medical issues and was in poor health and did not comprehend what was happening. The panel finds the issue in the ministry's October 2 nd , 2013 decision and the appellant's request of June 2oth, 2014 are the same and therefore the appellant is not entitled to a reconsideration because the appellant did not deliver a Request for Reconsideration of the October 2 nd , 2013 decision to the local ministry office within the time limits set out in section 71 (2) EAPWDR. The panel accepts that the appellant has a PWD designation and may suffer from multiple medical issues which may have impacted on her ability to file the reconsideration package in October 2013, however, there is no medical evidence before the panel to support the appellant's argument and that she was unable to comply with the requirements of section 71 (2) EAPWDR for health reasons. For this reason, the panel finds there were no undue or unforeseen circumstances that prevented the appellant from complying with section 71 (2) EAPWDR. Therefore, the panel finds that since the appellant did not meet the criteria within section 71( 2) EAPWDR the ministry's decision of July 30 th , 2014 to deny the appellant a Reconsideration was a reasonable application of the applicable enactment in the circumstances of the appellant and confirms the ministry's decision. EAAT003(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.