PART C -Decision under Appeal The decision under appeal is the reconsideration decision of the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation (Ministry) dated July 22, 2014 in which the Ministry determined that the Appellant is not eligible for disability assistance due to having assets in excess of the allowable limit under Section 1 o of the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Regulation (EAPWDR). PART D -Relevant Legislation Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Regulation (EAPWDR) Sections 1, 1 O EAAT003(10/06l01)
PART E -Summary of Facts Information before the Ministry at reconsideration included: Copies of eight money orders payable to the Appellant dated July 15 to December 20, 2013, totaling $19,000. The Appellant's Request for Reconsideration, dated July 3, 2014, with a letter to the Ministry from the Appellant. At the hearing, the Appellant confirmed in his oral evidence that the money orders in question are payable to him, but stated that the money actually belongs to his family and not to him. The Appellant stated that his brother sent the money to him via another person, and it is intended to be used for the education of his brother's children who are in another country. He stated that he did not want this money and it came to him unexpectedly. The Ministry responded that the money orders are payable to the Appellant and he could cash them at any time. The Ministry stated that regardless of who purchased them, they are the Appellant's assets, as defined by the legislation. EAAT 003(10/06/01)
PART F -Reasons for Panel Decision The issue in this appeal is the reasonableness of the Ministry's reconsideration decision dated July 22, 2014 in which the Ministry determined that the Appellant is not eligible for disability assistance due to having assets in excess of the allowable limit under Section 1 0 of the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Regulation (EAPWDR). Legislation EAPWDR Definitions 1 (1) In this regulation: "asset" means (a) equity in any real or personal property that can be converted to cash, (b) a beneficial interest in real or personal property held in trust, or (c) cash assets; "cash assets" in relation to a person, means (a) money in the possession of the person or the person's dependant, (b) money standing to the credit of the person or the dependant with ( i ) a savings institution, or (ii) a third party that must pay it to the person or the dependant on demand, (c) the amount of a money order payable to the person or the dependant, or (d) the amount of an immediately negotiable cheque payable to the person or the dependant; Asset limits 1 O (2) A family unit is not eligible for disability assistance if any of the following apply: (a) a sole applicant or sole recipient has no dependent children and has assets with a total value of more than $5 000; (b) an applicant or recipient has one or more dependants and the family unit has assets with a total value of more than $1 0 000. The Appellant's position is that although the money orders are payable to him, they are not his assets. The Appellant argued that the money orders were given to him. He stated that he was at the bank when the money orders were purchased and that they are to be used for the education of his brother's children. He argued that although he could cash the money orders he will not because the assets belong to his family, not to him. EAAT 003( 10/06/01)
The Ministry ' s p osition is t h at di s abili ty assista nce is an A p pellant h as over $5,000 i n money o rders payable to him makes him inel Minis try not ed t hat the asset limit f o r the Appellant's fam T he Appellant's advoc a t e argued t h at the Panel shoul d noting that he has an appointm ent with a mental health team in the near future. issue of mental capability is outside the issue under appeal a notes that no evi de n c e ha s be en s ubmitted b y eithe r party relating to m ake decisions. The Panel notes tha t the legislation doe s not provide the M asset s in the for m of money orders payable t o a person by virtue of the The Ap pellant's evide n c e confirmed that he was present at the bank when the money orders were purchas an d th a t he also confirmed that h e insi sted on at lea st th cashed by him. The P a nel finds t hat t he Mini str y re aso nably determined that Appellan t are ass ets as defin e d by Section 1, EAPW DR l egisla t e d li mit o f $5,000 for the App ellant' s fami l y unit as The Pan el theref o re con firms t he Min i s tr y 's decis ion as EAAT003(10/06/01) i n c ome and asset tested program, and the fa c t that th e igible for disa bility a ssistan ce. T he ily unit is $5,000. consider the Appel lant's capability to make dec isions, The Minis t ry argued that the nd is c overed by different legis lation. The Panel to the Appellant's m ental stat e or his abil ity i nistry to exercise any discretion with respect to sectio n 1 (1) definition of cash asse ts. ed ree o f them hav ing a note that they co u l d only be t he mone y orders totalling $19,000 p a yable t o t he a nd t hat t he a mount o f th e as sets exceeds t he stat e d i n Section 1 0 , EAP WDR. reasonably s upport e d by the evidenc e.
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.