I APPEA PART C-Decision under Appeal The Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation (the ministry) reconsideration decision dated 24 July 2014 determined that the appellant was not eligible for continued income assistance because he failed to demonstrate reasonable efforts to comply with the conditions of his Employment Plan (EP) as required under section 9 of the Employment and Assistance Act by failing to attend scheduled appointments and workshops. PART D -Relevant Legislation Employment and Assistance Act (EAA), section 9. EM T003( 10/06/01 )
P A RT E S u mmarv of Facts The follo wing evidence wa s befo re the ministry at the ti • The appe l lant is a n employab le recipient of assistance w e An E P dated 19 Sept em b er 2013, signed by the appel conditi on s that he accep t e d: o Wil l at tend a works hop with the Employment Program of BC (EPBC) contrac 24 Sept ember 201 3 a t 9:00am. o As a c o n dition of conti nued el igibilit y for assistance, regularl y and as directed by the EPBC con o Will work w ith th e EPBC cont ractor t o addr and will c omplet e all tasks assigned including any activities plan. o Will notify the co n tractor [n ame an d phone number] if h e start s or ends any empl o ym e nt . o H e u nder s tands that if he fai l s to co mp l y for assis tanc e. o H e w i ll d ecl a re all income a nd report any review a p poin tment s as requi re d. • O n 11 Fe b ruary 2014 t h e min i stry rece i ved a n ote c losed as the y ha d n ot he ard f rom the app ellan t • A 1 -pag e l etter from the mi nistry to the app ell ant i ndi cate he had no t compl i e d with h is E P and to cont a pp oi n tmen t . • On 2 1 February 2014, the a p pell ant cal led the m with the co nt ractor for 6 March 2 0 14 at 9 :30 am an a p poin tme n t. • O n 26 Marc h 201 4 , the ap pell ant w ent to t he mini made c on tact wit h t h e EPBC c o ntrac t or bu t had m that if h e mi ss ed anot h er a ppo intm e n t, he would no • On 1 6 June 2 014, the co ntractor confirmed to the ministry his EP as he had not attended an appointment. • A 1-page letter from the ministry to the appellant dated 16 June 2014 indicating he had not followed through on the conditions of his EP to atten workshops. He was asked to contact the ministry's office by 20 June 2014 and if he did not make c on t act by then, his assistance might be delayed. • On 26 Ju ne 201 4, t he appellant went to the ministry's office and stated he had received a nd that he had no mitigating circumstances for n was advised he was not eligible f or in c ome assistance. • In his request for reconsideration dated 27 June 2014, the appellant indicated the last ap pointment he missed w as b e cause he h a d att ended missed the previous appointments because he was living in a rural area where buses don't run often. In his No tice of Appeal dated 29 July 2014, he stated that becaus he was penalized for havina bad orqanizational skills and not keepinq records of iob search and for EAAT 003(10/06/01) I A P PEAL me of reconsiderat ion: i th a dependent employable spouse. lant the ne x t d ay w ith t he following to r on Tue s d ay wil l participa te i n E PBC programming tractor. ess any issues that may i m p a ct his employa bility that may be s et out in an a ction una ble to at tend a se ssi on or when wit h the condi tions of h is EP , h e wi ll be ine ligi ble changes t o the m inist r y a nd will a t tend all m inistry f r om t h e con trac tor to the e ffe ct that his f i le was si nc e 8 Oc tob er 2013 . dat e d 11 F ebruar y 2 0 14 st ating that th eir re co rds act the contractor to sche du le an inist r y t o indi c at e h e ha d made an appointm e n t d that he plan ned on att e nd ing th i s stry 's office and it w as conf irmed that he had i sse d a workshop . The app ella nt was adv ised lo nge r b e eligible for incom e assis t ance. t hat the a ppe llant had not compli e d with d and participat e in ongoing programs a nd the letter ot att ending app ointments a nd workshops. He the mini s try's offi ce on 26 March 2014. He e he was l o oki ng for employment,
I APPEAL missing appointments to attend the ministry's office. With his Notice of Appeal the appellant included: e An undated, unsigned letter from the appellant indicated that he did not believe he was entirely non-compliant with his EP. He has been looking for employment, handing out resumes and going to construction sites but he is not an organized person and was not used to keeping a list of those activities on paper. He really wanted to work but he just does things differently from what the contractor wants him to do. o A 5-page document detailing the appellant's job search activities between 6 and 29 July 2014 as follows: o 1 entry for each of July 9, 10, 11, 12, 17 (went to the contractor's office for job search on computers), 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25 and 26. o 2 entries for each of July 6, 8 and 27. o 3 entries for 18 July. o 28 July: He indicated he sat at home waiting for ministry's call. o 29 July: He wrote: "Again wasting my time coming to MSD office for check issues that are not real issues. Because I have always been looking for work just haven't been writing them down until now." At the hearing, the appellant testified that on 1 March 2014 he moved from a rural area where there was little bus service to the adjacent community where there was better bus services and a contractor's office. On 26· March 2014, he had an appointment scheduled with the contractor but he contacted the ministry to find out what had happened with his cheque and was told to go to the ministry's office and he called the contractor to let them know. He testified he went to the ministry's office in the city and they contacted the contractor to confirm that he could not attend his appointment with them that day and it should be re-scheduled. He then went back to the contractor's office within a couple of weeks to re-schedule his appointment but was told that his file was closed. He could not remember the date but thought it was before 17 April. He testified that he did not miss any appointment or workshop between 26 March and 17 April. He said he had previously gone to the contractor's office about every 2 weeks after he had moved to the community to discuss his job searches. Finally, he testified that since then he has been looking for employment despite that he was not receiving income assistance anymore. The ministry testified that it did not have the contractor's log on file or in the Appeal Record, and did not know what appointments or workshops the appellant had missed. The ministry confirmed that at the meeting on 26 March, a worker called the contractor to indicate the appellant was at the ministry's office and the appointment should be re-scheduled and advised the appellant that if he missed one more appointment or workshop he would cease to be eligible for income assistance. On 16 June 2014, the ministry was advised that there was a note in the contractor's file dated 17 April 2014 stating the appellant's file had been closed but no indication at what actual date it had been closed. The panel determined the additional oral and documentary evidence was admissible under s. 22 (4) of the EAA as it was in support of the records before the minister at reconsideration, providing more information as to what happened during the timeframe of the appellant's EP. However, the panel finds that no weight can be given to the documentary evidence provided by the appellant -the job search activities in July 2014 -as it was not relevant to the issue of the compliance with the EA since it had already been terminated and was not related to any missed appointment or workshop. EMT 003(10/06/01)
I APPEAL In the absence of any evidence from the contractor or the ministry -no appointment or workshop log was made available to the panel -the panel finds the appellant did attend to the contractor's office after the ministry's appointment of 26 March 2014 on one occasion on or before 17 April 2014 to re schedule his appointment but was told that his file was closed. EAAT 003(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 ' s d e c o n t i n u e d i n c o m e a s s i s t a n c e b e c a u s e h e f a i l e d t o c o n d i t i o n s o f h i s E P a s r e q u i r e d u n d e r s e c t i o n 9 o f a p p o i n t m e n t s a n d w o r k s h o p s , w a s a r e a s o n a b l e a p s u p p o r t e d b y t h e e v i d e n c e . 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 n t h i s m a t t e r i s s . 9 o f t h e 9 ( 1 ) F o r a f a m i l y u n i t t o b e e l i g i b l e f o r i n c o m e a s s i r e c i p i e n t i n t h e f a m i l y u n i t , w h e n r e q u i r e d t o d o s o b ( a ) e n t e r i n t o a n e m p l o y m e n t p l a n , a n d ( b ) c o m p l y w i t h t h e c o n d i t i o n s i n t h e e m p l o y m e n t p ( 3 ) T h e m i n i s t e r m a y s p e c i f y t h e c o n d i t i o n s i n a n e m c o n d i t i o n r e q u i r i n g t h e a p p l i c a n t , r e c i p i e n t o r d e p e n r e l a t e d p r o g r a m t h a t , i n t h e m i n i s t e r ' s o p i n i o n , w i l l a t o ( a ) f i n d e m p l o y m e n t , o r ( b ) b e c o m e m o r e e m p l o y a b l e . ( 4 ) I f a n e m p l o y m e n t p l a n i n c l u d e s a c o n d i t i o n r e q u y o u t h t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n a s p e c i f i c e m p l o y m e n t r e l a t e d ( a ) f a i l s t o d e m o n s t r a t e r e a s o n a b l e e f f o r t s t o p a r t i c i ( b ) c e a s e s , e x c e p t f o r m e d i c a l r e a s o n s , t o p a r t i c i p a ( 6 ) T h e m i n i s t e r m a y a m e n d , s u s p e n d o r c a n c e l a n ( 7 ) A d e c i s i o n u n d e r t h i s s e c t i o n ( a ) r e q u i r i n g a p e r s o n t o e n t e r i n t o a n e m p l o y m e n t p ( b ) a m e n d i n g , s u s p e n d i n g o r c a n c e l l i n g a n e m p l o y m ( c ) s p e c i f y i n g t h e c o 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 i s f i n a l a n d c o n c l u s i v e a n d i s n o t o p e n t o r e v i e w b y s e c t i o n 1 7 ( 3 ) [ 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 ]. T h e m i n i s t r y a r g u e d t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t h a d n o t b e e n s i n c e O c t o b e r 2 0 1 3 u n t i l F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 4 w h e n h e w a c o n t r a c t o r . T h e a p p e l l a n t w a s g i v e n a n o t h e r c h a n c e a p p o i n t m e n t s b u t f a i l e d t o d o s o a n d t h e r e f o r e h a d n a n d c e a s e d t o b e e l i g i b l e f o r i n c o m e a s s i s t a n c e . T h e a p p e l l a n t a r g u e d t h a t i n i t i a l l y h e c o u l d n o t a t t e n h e w a s l i v i n g i n a r u r a l a r e a b u t t h a t o n c e h e m o v e d a p p o i n t m e n t s a n d h e m i s s e d h i s a p p o i n t m e n t o n 2 6 m i n i s t r y ' s o f f i c e o n a n u n r e l a t e d m a t t e r r e g a r d i n g c o n t r a c t o r t o l e t t h e m k n o w h e w o u l d m i s s t h a t a p p o o f f i c e a n d a t t h e m i n i s t r v , t h e v a l s o c o n t a c t e d t h e c o E AA T 0 0 3 ( 1 0 / 0 6 / 0 1 )I A P P E A L 7 c i s i o n t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t w a s n o t e l i g i b l e f o r d e m o n s t r a t e r e a s o n a b l e e f f o r t s t o c o m p l y w i t h t h e t h e E A A b y f a i l i n g t o a t t e n d t h e s c h e d u l e d p l i c a t i o n o f t h e l e g i s l a t i o n o r r e a s o n a b l y E A A : s t a n c e o r h a r d s h i p a s s i s t a n c e , e a c h a p p l i c a n t o r y t h e m i n i s t e r , m u s t l a n . . . p l o y m e n t p l a n i n c l u d i n g , w i t h o u t l i m i t a t i o n , a d e n t y o u t h t o p a rt i c i p a t e i n a s p e c i f i c e m p l o y m e n t s s i s t t h e a p p l i c a n t , r e c i p i e n t o r d e p e n d e n t y o u t h i r i n g a n a p p l i c a n t , a r e c i p i e n t o r a d e p e n d e n t p r o g r a m , t h a t c o n d i t i o n i s n o t m e t i f t h e p e r s o n p a t e i n t h e p r o g r a m , o r t e i n t h e p r o g r a m . . . e m p l o y m e n t p l a n . l a n , e n t p l a n , o r a c o u r t o n a n y g r o u n d o r t o a p p e a l u n d e r i n c o n t a c t w i t h t h e c o n t r a c t o r a c c o r d i n g t o h i s E P s a d v i s e d t o s c h e d u l e a p p o i n t m e n t s w i t h t h e o n 2 6 M a r c h 2 0 1 4 t o r e s c h e d u l e h i s o t m a d e r e a s o n a b l e e f f o r t s t o c o m p l y w i t h h i s E P d a l l t h e a p p o i n t m e n t s a n d w o r k s h o p s b e c a u s e t o t h e c o m m u n i t y h e a t t e n d e d t o h i s M a r c h 2 0 1 4 b e c a u s e h e w a s t o l d t o g o t o t h e c h e q u e d e p o s i t . H e a r g u e d t h a t h e h a d c a l l e d t h e i n t m e n t b e c a u s e h e w a s g o i n g t o t h e m i n i s t r y ' s n t r a c t o r t o r e s c h e d u l e t h e a o o o i n t m e n t . H e
I APPEAl further argued he went to the contractor's office in his community but instead of re-scheduling his appointment, they simply told him his file was closed. He argued that given his circumstances, he made reasonable efforts to comply with his EP and attend appointments and workshops but that he was precluded when he learned that his file was closed. The panel notes that the evidence shows that on 26 March 2014, the ministry indicated to the appellant that he was given another chance at complying fully with his EP but that if he missed another appointment or workshop he would not be eligible for income assistance. Yet, the panel finds that when the appellant went to the contractor's office, on or before 17 April 2014, he was denied the option of re-scheduling his appointment but was instead told his file was closed. The ministry argued that the appellant had missed an appointment or workshop between 26 March and 17 April 2014 but was unable to offer any particulars as to what appointment or workshop that was nor when this was alleged to have happened. The panel notes that there might have been a misunderstanding or miscommunication between the ministry and the contractor but finds that the evidence is that the ministry was not able to show that the appellant was not making reasonable efforts to attend his appointments and comply with his EP while it was the contractor that decided to close his file without giving any particulars as to why it did so. Thus, the panel finds the ministry unreasonably determined the appellant had not made reasonable efforts to comply with his EP under s. 9 (4)(a) of the EAA while the ministry had given the appellant an opportunity to comply with it. The panel finds the ministry's decision was not reasonably supported by the evidence and rescinds the decision. Therefore, the ministry's decision is overturned in favour of the appellant. EAAT 003( 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.