PART C-Decision under Appeal The decision under appeal is the reconsideration decision dated Aug 13, 2014 in which the ministry denied income assistance to the appellant, pursuant to section 9 of the Employment and Assistance Act (EAA), for failing to comply with the conditions of his employment plan. PART D -Relevant Legislation Employment and Assistance Act (EAA) section 9 EAAT003(10/06/01)
PART E -Summarv of Facts The information before the ministry at the time of reconsideration included the following: • An employment plan (EP) signed by the appellant dated September 25, 2013. The agreement ' required the appellant to attend all appointments by the Employment Program of BC (EPBC) contractor, to participate in EPBC programming regularly and as directed by the contractor, and to notify the contractor if he is unable to attend a session. The EP required the appellant to provide, upon request, verification of his compliance with the conditions of his employment related program including proof of work searches, attendance, and participation in the program. • A Request for Reconsideration form dated June 25, 2014 completed by the appellant. In it he writes he spent half of his assistance cheque on a new mobile phone leaving him no funds to take transit, he was without a phone for a period of time and was unable to contact people by phone or email, he was out of the house 2-3 days per week looking for work, he has osteoarthritis, and he was not aware that the EP he signed required him to attend the EPBC program after his initial course was complete. At the hearing the appellant requested an adjournment to allow time for him to receive confirmation that his application for his trade certificate had been submitted in April 2014. The panel asked him why this trade certificate was relevant and he told the panel he was not sure but he thought it would show he is pursuing employment. He then told the panel that he would like to have an advocate present because he feels the outcome of the hearing is important. He said he called an advocate to assist him with an application for Persons With Disabilities and he would like the advocate with him at this hearing as well but he had not made the necessary arrangements. The ministry stated the hearing should proceed in order to expedite a decision in this case. The panel determined that the appellant had sufficient time to consult with an advocate or to arrange to have an advocate present at the hearing. The panel determined that the document confirming he has submitted an application to become trade certified would not be necessary and the panel would accept as fact that he has submitted the application as he claims; therefore the confirmation would not be necessary. The hearing proceeded as scheduled. At the hearing the appellant provided new evidence. He submitted a letter dated April 24, 2014 from his EPBC contactor. The letter states the appellant's case will remain actively managed, he will continue his job search with/at the EPBC contractor office, and he will attend scheduled appointments with the case manager until he reached his goal of full-time employment. The letter notes he has applied for certification as a Heavy Equipment Operator and that his next appointment is scheduled for May 8, 2014. This letter was admitted as evidence as per the Employment and Assistance Act section 22 (4). The panel found that the evidence contained in the document is in support of evidence that was before the ministry at the time of the reconsideration. The letter was accepted because it provides additional information about his involvement with the EPBC contractor during the period of time in question. The ministry had no objections to the letter being accepted. At the hearing the appellant told the panel he began attending the EPBC program shortly after signing the EP on September 25, 2013 and completed a course with them on November 15, 2013. He stated he continued to attend aooointments with the contractor to complete his aoolication for EAAT 003( 10/06/01)
trade certification between November 2013 and April 2014. At the end of April 2014 he submitted his application for trade certification. He told the panel that, after the application was submitted, he stopped going to the program provider's office because he was searching for work and because he didn't know he was supposed to go in anymore. The appellant also told the panel that he continued to attend the contractor office to search for work until the end of May, however, he forgot to login to the office attendance system to track his activities. He said he ceased attending because he had no money for bus fare and he lived 3 miles from the office. He attended an appointment at the contractor's office on May 8 1h . He stated his mobile phone was smashed on June 15, 2014 and he was unable to make calls until he purchased a new phone on July 31, 2014. The appellant continued that he was applying for employment from April to July and he was giving his landlord's phone number to prospective employers when he had no phone and he believed he gave the number to the EPBC contractor as well. The panel asked the appellant about the comment in his Request for Reconsideration form that he has osteoarthritis and whether his condition prevented him from going to the EPBC contractor's office. He told the panel no, his medical condition did not prevent him from going. At the hearing the ministry reviewed the reconsideration decision including the obligations contained in the EP signed by the appellant. The ministry noted the requirement in the EP for the appellant to participate in the EPBC contractor's program regularly and as directed by the contractor. The EPBC contractor contacted the ministry when they had lost contact with the appellant to report him as non compliant. The ministry told the panel that the EPBC contractor did not provide the ministry with an attendance record however the ministry relies on the contractor's assessment that the appellant did not make regular contact as required by his EP. The panel finds as fact: • The appellant signed an EP on September 25, 2013 requiring him to attend all appointments by the EPBC contractor, to participate in EPBC programming regularly and as directed by the contractor, and to notify the contractor if he is unable to attend a session. The EP required the appellant to provide, upon request, verification of his compliance with the conditions of his employment related program including proof of work searches, attendance, and participation in the program. • The appellant worked with the EPBC contractor to submit a trade certification application. His application to the certifying organization was submitted in April 2014 and he is waiting for the results. • The last appointment the appellant attended with the EPBC contractor was May 8, 2014. • The appellant does not have a medical condition that would prevent him from meeting his obligations of the EP. EMT003(10/06/0t)
PART F -Reaso ns for Pan el De cis ion The iss ue under appe a l in t his case is th e r e asonab l enes s of th e mi nist r y' s decision to deny th e a pp e llant inc ome as sista nce, p urs ua nt to sec t ion 9 of the Emp l oym e n t and Ass i s tanc e Act (EAA), for fai ling to c o m ply w i th the cond i ti on s of his em ploymen t p lan. T he mini stry de t e r mined t he appellant did not d emonstr ate reaso nab l e ef forts to participate in th e program an d did not ha ve a medica l re a s on to cea se part icipa t e in th e pro gram. Section 9 of the Emp l oyment an d A s sist anc e Act state s : 9 (1 ) For a f a m ily u nit to be e li gible for i n come a ss ist a nce or ha r d s hip assi stanc e, each app lican t o r rec i pient in the f a mily unit, whe n required to do so by th e min is te r, mus t (a) enter int o a n e mployment pla n, an d ( b) comply wit h t he co ndit ion s i n the em pl o yme nt plan . (2) A depende nt y o ut h, w hen requ i re d to d o so b y the m i nister, must (a) ent er i nto an emplo yment p l an, and ( b ) comply with the con dition s in th e employment plan. (3 ) T he mi n ister ma y s peci f y th e c ond i tions i n an e m p loym e n t plan including, witho u t l imitat i o n, a condition req uir ing the a pplicant, r ecipi e nt or dependent y ou t h to par ticipate in a specifi c employment-r e l ated program that, i n the m in is ter' s o p inio n, w il l a s sist t h e a pp l ica n t, r ecipie nt or de pendent you t h to ( a) find em plo ymen t, or (b) b ecom e more em ployabl e. ( 4) If an employm e n t plan include s a condition req uiring an applicant, a rec ipient or a dependent youth to part ic ipa t e in a specifi c employ ment-rel ated program, that conditi on i s not m et if the per son (a) fails t o de mons trate r eason abl e eff orts t o participa t e in th e p rog ram, or ( b) c e ase s, e x cep t for med i cal r eas on s, to p art ici pate in t he p rogram . The app ellant's argume n t i s that he did demonstrate reason able effo rts to participate in the pro g r am b ut he was not aw are he wa s s uppos e t o a ttend af t e r his t r ade a pp l i ca ti on wa s submi tte d and he d id attend however his a ttendance was no t logged into the EPB C contractor's system. The ministry's arg ume nt is that the appel lant did not demonstrate reasonabl e efforts to participate in the program b y not making c on tact with t he EPBC contracto r after May 8, 2014. In coming to its decision the panel considered the appellant's arguments that he unaware that he needed to participate in any activities at the EPBC office once his application f or tr ade certification was submitted, he had no phone for a period, and that he attended the EPBC contractor's office but did not log his visits. The panel considered t h e ob l ig at io n s listed in the EP the appellant signed on September 25, 2013. The EP required him the participate in EPBC programming regularly and as directed by the contractor, however, he stated he ceased to attend after the May 8 th meeting because he was waiting for a response from his trade certification application and because he was searching for work. The panel finds that the ministry was reasonable to determine that the appellant did not m ake r e a so na b le eff or t s to comply with his EP by going extended periods of time without contacting the contractor to uodate them on his proqress, include the contractor in his search activities, or inform EMT 003( 10/06/01)
t h e c o n t r a c t o r h e w o u l d n o t b e a b l e t o a t t e n d t h e o f p a n e l f i n d s t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s c l a i m , t h a t f o r t h e s i x w e t o p h o n e t h e E P B C c o n t r a c t o r , i s u n r e a s o n a b l e . T h 2 -3 d a y s p e r w e e k t h e r e f o r e i s r e a s o n a b l e t o e x p e c a t t e n d m e e t i n g s a n d p r o v i d e u p d a t e s . T h e p a n e l n o c o n t r a c t o r s t a t e d t h e a p p e l l a n t w o u l d c o n t i n u e h i s j h e w i l l a t t e n d s c h e d u l e d a p p o i n t m e n t s w i t h t h e c a s e m p l o y m e n t h o w e v e r t h e a p p e l l a n t s t a t e d h e c e a s e R e g a r d i n g t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s c l a i m t h a t h e c o n t i n u e d t o 2 0 1 4 b u t f o r g o t t o l o g i n t o t h e a t t e n d a n c e s y s t e m , t t h a t t h e o n u s i s o n t h e a p p e l l a n t t o p r o v i d e c o n f i r m a o n t o a n a t t e n d a n c e s y s t e m w h e n h e w a s a t t h e o f f i c t h e a p p e l l a n t i s t o p r o v i d e , u p o n r e q u e s t , v e r i f i c a t i o e m p l o y m e n t r e l a t e d p r o g r a m i n c l u d i n g p r o o f o f w o r p r o g r a m . T h e p a n e l n o t e s t h a t t h e m i n i s t r y d i d n o t p r o v i d e a n a p p e l l a n t a t t h e E P B C c o n t r a c t o r . A l t h o u g h t h i s e v i d d a t e s t h e a p p e l l a n t a t t e n d e d a s w e l l a s t h e e f f o r t s o f i n d s t h e a p p e l l a n t i s r e s p o n s i b l e t o p r o v i d e e v i d e n c h i s E P a n d t h e r e f o r e t h e p a n e l f i n d s t h e m i n i s t r y w a T h e p a n e l f i n d s t h a t t h e m i n i s t r y r e a s o n a b l y d e t e r m c o n d i t i o n o f h i s e m p l o y m e n t p l a n a n d c e a s e d t o b e b e c a u s e h e f a i l e d 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 p u r s u a n t t o E A A s e c t i o n 9 ( 4 } ( a ) a n d d i d n o t c e a s e t s e c t i o n 9 ( 4 } ( b } . T h e p a n e l f i n d s t h a t t h e m i n i s t r y ' s d e c i s i o n w a s a r e i n 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 a n d c o n f i r m s t E AA T 0 0 3 ( 1 0 / 0 6 / 0 1 )f i c e b e c a u s e h e h a d n o f u n d s f o r t h e b u s . T h e e k s h e w a s w i t h o u t a m o b i l e p h o n e h e w a s u n a b l e e a p p e l l a n t s t a t e s h e w a s a b l e t o s e a r c h f o r w o r k t t h a t h e c o u l d m a k e c o n t a c t w i t h t h e c o n t r a c t o r t o t e s t h e l e t t e r d a t e d A p r i l 2 4 , 2 0 1 4 f r o m t h e E P B C o b s e a r c h w i t h / a t t h e E P B C c o n t r a c t o r o f f i c e a n d e m a n a g e r u n t i l h e r e a c h e d h i s g o a l o f f u l l t i m e d a t t e n d i n g t h e o f f i c e a f t e r M a y 8 , 2 0 1 4 . a t t e n d t h e E P B C c o n t r a c t o r ' s o f f i c e t h r o u g h M a y h e p a n e l f i n d s t h e m i n i s t r y w a s r e a s o n a b l e t o f i n d t i o n o f h i s a t t e n d a n c e a n d t h a t t h e a c t o f l o g g i n g e w a s n o t a n u n r e a s o n a b l e t a s k . T h e E P s t a t e s n o f h i s c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h e c o n d i t i o n s o f h i s k s e a r c h e s , a t t e n d a n c e , a n d p a rt i c i p a t i o n i n t h e y e v i d e n c e r e g a r d i n g t h e a t t e n d a n c e r e c o r d o f t h e e n c e w o u l d h a v e b e e n h e l p f u l i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e f t h e c o n t r a c t o r t o c o n t a c t t h e a p p e l l a n t , t h e p a n e l e t h a t h e 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 s r e a s o n a b l e t o f i n d t h a t h e w a s n o n c o m p l i a n t . i n e d t h e a p p e l l a n t d i d n o t c o m p l y w i t h t h 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 u n d e r s e c t i o n 9 ( 1 ) t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e e m p l o y m e n t p r o g r a m o p a r t i c i p a t e d u e t o a m e d i c a l r e a s o n p u r s u a n t t o a s o n a b l e a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e a p p l i c a b l e e n a c t m e n t h e d e c i s i o n .
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.