PART C -Decision under Appeal The decision under appeal is the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation's (the ministry) reconsideration decision dated July 22, 2014 which held that the appellant was not eligible for a crisis supplement for utilities because he did not meet the following criteria required by section 57 of the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Regulation (EAPWDR): a) the family unit or a person in the family unit requires the supplement to meet an unexpected expense or obtain an item unexpectedly needed and is unable to meet the expense or obtain the item because there are no resources available to the family unit, and (b) the minister considers that failure to meet the expense or obtain the item will result in (i) imminent danger to the physical health of any person in the family unit, or (ii) removal of a child under the Child, Family and Community Service Act. PART D -Relevant Legislation Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Regulation (EAPWDR) -section 57 EAA T003(10/06/01)
PART E -Summary of Facts With the consent of both parties, the hearing was conducted as a written hearing pursuant to section 22(3)(b) of the Employment and Assistance Act. The information the ministry had in its records: • The appellant is eligible for disability assistance with a dependent spouse with Persons with Disabilities (PWD) designation with one dependent child; • The appellant receives $794.56 support, $660.00 shelter allowance minus a $20.00 repayment for a total of $1,434.56 disability assistance each month; plus a $186.75 BC Family Bonus/National Child Benefit and a $120.50 Child Tax Benefit for an additional amount of $307.25 each month; • On March 25, 2014 the appellant confirmed that as of April 1, 2014 he had secured new accommodation with a rent of $850.00 a month and utilities were not included. He requested that the ministry cancel his monthly direct payments of $100.00 to the gas utility; • On June 9, 2014, the appellant submitted to the ministry a notice of disconnection from the gas utility, Fortis BC, indicating $334.98 was due by June 13, 2014 to avoid disconnection; • The ministry confirmed with Fortis that there was an outstanding balance of $294.56 from the appellant's previous address; • The appellant was set with a new equal payment plan amount of $36.00 for the new address and he agreed to pay $70.00 a month to pay off the arrears; • The appellant failed to pay the May and June payments and as a result was required to pay $334.98 to avoid disconnection; • On June 10, 2014, the ministry advised the appellant that his request for a crisis supplement for utilities to pay his Fortis bill was denied. The evidence before the ministry at the time of reconsideration consisted of: 1) The appellant's Request for Reconsideration (RFR) dated July 9, 2014 in which the appellant states that the balance of his previous gas utility bill was prorated and paid directly by the Ministry; gas is required at his new address as it is an essential service for heat and hot water; that the family unit has not reached the annual limit for emergency funds; he cannot afford to cover the arrears from the gas bill at their old address; they had no idea that the house they previously lived in would be sold and therefore they could not plan for the increase cost of gas. 2) A copy of the disconnection notice from Fortis B.C. dated June 2, 2014 that states the amount overdue is $334.98 and must be paid by June 13, 2014 or the service will be disconnected. 3) A copy of the ministry's Shelter Information form dated March 3, 2014 which states the appellant's portion of the rental amount is $850.00; a security deposit is required; the appellant's portion of the security deposit is $425.00; utilities are not included in the rental rate and there are two adults and two children at the address. In his Notice of Appeal (NOA), dated July 25, 2014 the appellant stated: • He cannot afford to pay the utility bill; • The family unit has not received the maximum for the year; • The bill is from before the move and is for hot water and heat. The Panel makes the following finding of facts: 1. The appellant is eligible for disability assistance totaling $1,434.56 each month plus an additional $307.25 for a total of $1,741.81 per month. 2. The appellant did not pay $334.98 to the gas company. 3. The appellant received a disconnection notice dated June 2, 2014. 4. The appellant provided no information about his resources except that his rent is $850.00 a month. 5. The annellant provided no information about anv danqer to the health of anvone in his familv unit. EAAT 003(10/06/01)
PART F -Re asons f or P ane l Decisi on T he iss ue i n this a ppe al is whether t h e mi nistry's reconsi fo r a c ri si s suppl ement for util iti es becaus e h e did not me wa s rea sonabl y suppor ted by the evidence or w as a reaso circum sta nces . The r e levant legisl at ion is a s f ollow s: Crisis supplem e n t 57 (1) The m i n i ste r may p rovid e a crisi s s upple m e nt to as si sta n ce or h ards h ip as sistance if (a) the famil y uni t o r a perso n i n t h e f amil y unit req u i res ob t a in an item un expect ed ly nee ded and is un a ble to me no resourc e s avail abl e to the famil y u nit, a n d (b ) th e m in ister con si d ers t h at failure to meet the expen se (i) imminent danger to the ph y si c a l hea lt h o f any person in the famil ( ii) remo v al of a child under the Child, F amily and C om m T he ministr y' s posit io n is that the a ppell ant's r equir ement bill a nd t o pay it on t i me was n ot a n unexpe cte d e x pense h a v e the re sources to pay the bill, and that f a ilure t o pay phys ical healt h o f anyone in the famil y or t he remo val of a Service Act . T he a p pe llan t argue d t hat the b al ance of the old b ill was canno t af ford t o pay t h e out stan d in g b a la nce. The appe ll h eat and ho t water a nd he ha s not rea ched his annu al limit for argu ed t ha t he cou l d no t ha v e plann ed fo r his move be ca kn ow this would h app e n . Pan e l Deci sion Section 57of the EAPWDR directs that a crisis supplement may be provided to a family unit who is eligible for d isa b ility as sist ance to pay f or a n unexpe cted expe nse or they have no oth er a ccess to resources and failure t o meet imminent danger to the physical health of any per son in the family unit or removal of a child under the Child, Fam ily and Commun i ty S e rv ice Act. The Panel finds that the appellan t knew tha t he had to pay from his previous residence. He request ed that the ministry discontinue the direct monthly payments to Fortis and submitted a form indicating that the utiliti es were n ot i he now has u t il ity payments at t his residence. Th e r e fo re, utilities w ere n o t inclu ded in the r e nt and his agreem ent t o amount to be p aid e ach month toward s the balance owing, indicates that the utility bill was not an unexpected expense. Therefore, the panel finds that the ministry reasonably determined that the appellant did not satisfy this requirement in section 57(1)(a). While the appellant argued that he could not afford to pay the gas bill, he provided no evidence to indicate that he does not have sufficient funds from his monthly assistance, or that he has exhausted all other sources to assist him in oavina the utilitv bill or anv information about what other exnenses he mav have. Therefore the EMT 003(10/06/01) dera tion d ec i sion wh ic h fo und the a ppe lla n t i n e li gibl e et the r eq uirements unde r secti on 57 of the EA PWDR nab le app lica tion o f the legis lat ion in th e app ell ant' s or for a fa mil y un i t that is eligible for disab il ity th e suppl ement to mee t an u n ex p e cted expe nse or et the ex pe nse or ob tai n the item b ecause th e re are or ob t ain the it em will r esul t in y unit, or un ity Servi c e Act. t o pay the agre ed mon t hly amount on his gas utilit y , the appella n t did not demon s trat e that h e did not t h e bill would result i n immin e n t danger t o th e child u nder the Ch ild , Famil y a n d C om munity p a id di rect ly by the ministr y to Fo r ti s and that he ant st ates t ha t gas i s req uired a t his new ad dres s for cri sis sup pl ements. Fu r ther , the a pp e lla n t use his p r evious res idence w as sold a nd he did not o btai n an it em unexpect e dly n e eded and for which t he expense or o b t ain the item will re sult in $70 per month to satisfy his outstanding gas bill n cluded i n the r e nt at the new residence. He knew the Panel fin ds that t he appell an t' s kn ow l ed ge that t he new pa yment plan with Fort is which inclu de d an
panel finds that the ministry reasonably determined that the appellant did not satisfy this requirement in section 57 (1 )(a). The appellant provided no evidence that indicated failure to pay the Fortis bill to avoid disconnection could result in imminent danger to the physical health of any person in the family unit or removal of a child under the Child, Family and Community Service Act. Therefore, the panel finds that the ministry reasonably determined that appellant did not satisfy this requirement in section 57(1)(b). For these reasons, the panel finds that the ministry's decision to deny the appellant a crisis supplement to pay for utilities pursuant to section 57 of the EAPWDR is a reasonable application of the legislation. The ministry's decision is confirmed. The appellant is not successful in his appeal. EMT 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.