PART C -Decision under Appeal The decision under appeal is the reconsideration decision of the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation (the "ministry") dated July 24, 2014, in which the ministry found the appellant was not eligible for income assistance for the month of July 2014, per Section 10(2) of the Employment and Assistance Regulation. Specifically the ministry determined that the Family Maintenance Enforcement Payment received by the appellant was not exempt from the income calculation and, therefore, the appellant's net income for May exceeded the amount of income assistance determined for the appellant's family unit under Schedule A of the Regulation. PART D -Relevant Legislation Employment and Assistance Act, (EAA) Sections 1, 2, and 4 Employment and Assistance Regulation (EAR) Sections 10(2), 28, and Schedules A and B EMT003(10/06/01)
P ART E -Summa r y of Facts With the co n sent of both parties, the hearing was condu c E vi d enc e b e f or e the minist ry a t the t ime of R ec o nsideration o The appellant is a sole recipient with Persons with Pe assistan c e with income assistance calculated at $657 Allowance of $375). o Fam ily Main te nanc e P aym e nt Hi st ory (Query), dated 2014 ($75.00 ), Ma y 2 0 , 2014 ( $ 1,010.42), a nd May 26 o Fam ily Maintenance Payment Summary, date d July 11, 2014, Aug 2012 ( $6 9.48), Nov 2 012 ($163.73) , June 2014 ($75.00), payments "D eclared by Client" -Sept 2012 ($ 69.48), ($1 63.73). • From t h e m inistr y sec ti o n of the appel lant's Request o On Jun e 23, 2 01 4 th e mini stry reviewed t he that the ap pellant had recei ved a to tal of fami am o un t in her monthly repor t ca rd. o On Ju ne 2 6 , 2 0 1 4 the appella n t cam e to the m for the m ont h of J uly b ecause th e fami ly mai assi stance det ermin ed un der th e E AR. • In her Requ est f or Rec o nsid er at ion, the appellant stat o When she went t o get he r J une ch e que, ther appel lant got h ome sh e got t he l ett er saying extra mo ne y w as bac kdati ng o f her disab ility fo r almost 3 y ears, she co ul d finall y help her kid husband, she gave the m o n e-hal f of the money. o Wh en the appellant went t o get her Jul y c heque, bec aus e t he e x t ra money w as a Family Maintenance o She has rece i ved a 30-da y no tic e of e victi o The min is try s t ated, via e-mail da t ed A ugust 21, 2014, th reconsideration summary provided in the Record of the M EAA T003(10/06/01) t ed in writing pursuant to section 23(3)(b) i n cludes the fol lowin g: rsis t ent Mu lt iple Ba rriers (PPMB) le v e l of . 92 ( Monthly Support of $282.92 + Month ly Shelter July 11 , 2014, sho wing 3 p ayments o n April 14, ($4 16.90). showin g 4 payments "Sent to Client" -and July 2014 ($1, 427.32) and 4 Oc t 2012 ($69.48) , Nov 2012 ($ 163.73), and Dec for R e c onsider ation, da t e d July 11, 2014 : F a m ily Maintenance Discr epancy Rep ort a n d foun d ly m ainten ance of $ 1,427 but d id not de cla re the i nis try and wa s informed th at sh e was no t eligible n tenance amou nt is mo r e than t he amou nt of in c o me es : e wa s extra money in he r acc o unt. Whe n th e she was acc e pted f o r di sa b ili ty. She tho ught t h e and fi g ured t hat, aft er receiv i n g on ly $ 235 a mont h . B ecause her daughter wa s reconcil ing wit h her she was i nformed th at t h ere w as no cheque Enforc ement Plan depos it. n fro m h er la nd l o r d . a t its submission i n this ma tt e r w i l l be the inistry Decision.
PART F -Reasons for Panel Decision The issue in this appeal is whether the ministry reasonably determined that the appellant was not eligible for income assistance for the month of July, per s.10(2) of the Employment and Assistance Regulation. Specifically the issue is whether the ministry determination that the FMEP payment received by the appellant was not exempt from the income calculation and, therefore, the appellant's net income for May exceeded the amount of income assistance determined for the appellant's family unit under Schedule A of the Regulation was reasonably supported by the evidence or was a reasonable application of the legislation in the circumstances of the appellant.. Relevant Legislation Employment and Assistance Regulation Definitions 1 (1) In this regulation: "unearned income" means any income that is not earned income, and includes, without limitation, money or value received from any of the following: (p) maintenance under a court order, a separation agreement or other agreement; Limits on income 10 (1) For the purposes of the Act and this regulation, "income", in relation to a family unit, includes an amount garnished, attached, seized, deducted or set off from the income of an applicant, a recipient or a dependant. (2) A family unit is not eligible for income assistance if the net income of the family unit determined under Schedule B equals or exceeds the amount of income assistance determined under Schedule A for a family unit matching that family unit. Amount of income assistance 28 Income assistance may be provided to or for a family unit, for a calendar month, in an amount that is not more than (a) the amount determined under Schedule A, minus (b) the family unit's net income determined under Schedule B. Schedule B -Net Income Calculation Deduction and exemption rules 1 When calculating the net income of a family unit for the purposes of section 28 (b) [amount of income assistance] of this regulation, (a) the following are exempt from income: [A list of 42 exemptions relating to dependent children and child support, tax credits, payments to specifically identified groups, BC earned income benefit, rent subsidies, self help suooort, and PharmaCare refunds. None of these exemotions are annficable in the EAA T003(10/06/01)
pr ese nt app eal], I nc luded in the list is: (x xvii) t h a t por t ion p erson with disabil ities maint en ance o rder o (b ) any amount ga rnis hed, att consi d ered t o be income , except t 6 of thi s Schedule, (c) all e arned in c ome must be included, ex s ection 2 a nd any e arned i nc S chedule, a nd ( d) all une ar ne d i ncome m us u n d er sec tion 6 and any i ncome e Schedu le. De d u c tion s fro m un e a rn e d in c o me 6 The onl y deduct i ons per mi tte d from unearne d (a) any incom e ta x dedu ct e d (b) essen tial oper ating c o sts o Exemptions -u n ear ned i ncome 7 (1) Th e follo wi n g unea rned inc ome is exempt: [A list o f 6 e x emptio ns re l ating t o com p ensation or other aw a rds , annuity paymen ts, a p ortion of CP a re applicable in th e present appea/]. The legislation exempts income received from the calculation of net income if it meets any of the crit defined in Schedule B, Section l of the EAR. The legislation also a exempted from the calculation of net income if it meets an S chedule B of the EAR. The ministry's position is that a FMEP payment is unearned income and, since it does not meet any of the exemption criteri a , they must deduct it from the total of the appellant's Monthly Support Allowance and Mont h ly Shelter Allowance. The appellant's position is that she was not aware that the payment was FMEP and assumed that it was disability back payment, which would not be deducted. The appellant did not specify a specific clause under which she felt the payment shou ld be exe m pted. The panel has carefully reviewed the legislation and can find no provision that would provide an exemption or deduction from income for the payment received bv the annellant. E M T 0 03(10/06/01) o f the m aint ena nce paid f o r and p assed o n to a or a p er so n aged 19 or ol d e r under a r agr eem en t fi led with a c ou r t; ache d, sei z e d , deducte d or set o f f from income is h e d edu ctions permitted under sec t ions 2 and cept the de duc tion s p e rmit ted un d e r ome exem pt ed und er s ect i o n s 3 an d 4 of this t b e inclu ded, exce pt t he dedu c ti ons permitted x em p t ed unde r se ctio n s 7 and s of thi s inco me a re the foll owing: at source from e mployme nt insura n ce be n e fits; f renti ng s e lf-con t ained suite s. mor tgage intere st, v e terans bene fits, c r imi nal in ju ry p aym e nt s m ade fro m certain t rusts , struct ured se t tle m e n t P benefits and a tax refund. None o f these e x emptio ns eria l lows unearned inc ome to be d educted or y o f the cri teria defined in Sections 6 or 7 of The panel particularly considered Section 1,
. ' Sub-section xxvii of Schedule B. However, the appellant provided no evidence that would indicate that the daughter was "a person with disabilities or a person aged 19 or older under a maintenance order or agreement filed with a court". Therefore, the panel finds that the ministry reasonably determined that the FMEP payment to the appellant does not meet any of the exemption or deduction criteria listed and the full amount of the payment must be included as unearned income. The legislation requires the ministry to deduct any net income from the maximum income assistance as calculated using Schedule A. The ministry's position is that, because the FMEP payment is greater than the maximum amount of income assistance, no payment for July is due. The appellant argues that she did not know the payment was FMEP until it was too late and she cannot afford to have her July payment eliminated or she could face eviction as a result. The panel finds that the net income resulting from the FMEP payment exceeds the maximum income assistance as calculated using Schedule A. The panel also finds that the onus was on the appellant to determine the source of the additional funds, and the potential impact ou her monthly assistance, before spending the money. The panel notes that the appellant gave her daughter one-half of the payment received. The remaining one-half would still exceed her maximum monthly income assistance. In conclusion, the panel finds the ministry's determination, that the appellant was not eligible for income assistance for the month of July because the appellant's net income for May exceeded the amount of income assistance determined for the appellant's family unit under Schedule A of the EAR, was reasonably supported by the evidence and is a reasonable application of the applicable regulation. The panel therefore confitms the ministty'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.