PART C -Decision under Ap pe a l The d ecision u nder app e al i s the Ministry of Social D (the Ministry) recons ideration deci sion dated June 30, 2014 which h eligible for income assistance because h e fai led t o employment plan as r equired b y Sec t ion 9(1) of the Employment and Assistance Ac t o d e monstrate rea s onable e fforts to p a rti cipate in his employ P ART D -Rele vant L egis lation E mp lo yment and Ass i stance Act (EAA ) Section 9 EAA T003(10/06/01) evelopment and Social I n novation el d that the ap pellant wa s n ot co mp l y with the terms and condit ions of his t (EA A) by f ai l i n g m e nt -related program as per 9( 4).
PART E -Summary of Facts The evidence before the Ministry at the time of reconsideration consisted of: : o An Employment Plan (EP) signed by the appellant and dated May 29, 2014. The terms of the EP include that the appellant: o Will attend appointments with the Employment Program of British Columbia (EPBC) contractor; o Will participate in EPBC programming regularly and as directed by the EPBC contractor; o Will work with the EPBC to address any issues that may impact his employability; o Will complete all tasks assigned including any activities that may be set out in an action plan; o Will notify the EPBC contractor if unable to attend a session or when he starts or ends any employment; o By signing, acknowledges that if he fails to comply with the conditions of the EP or ceases, except for medical reasons to participate in the program, he will be ineligible for assistance. • A record of contacts between the Ministry and the appellant, and with the provider of the EPBC: o May 29, 2014 -An EPBC referral was provided; o June 2, 2014 -The appellant did not attend a scheduled Group Orientation session and did not phone or voice message to cancel or reschedule; o June 2, 2014 -An EPBC worker phoned the appellant who stated he was very busy that day and forgot; he told the worker that had another appointment the next morning at 9:00. The worker advised the appellant that he needs to attend that appointment and be in full compliance with the program by June 20, 2014 or assistance will be denied; o June 20, 2014 -An EPBC worker reviewed the appellant's file and found that it was still closed and had not been re-opened; thus he had not contacted EPBC or rescheduled any appointment since he had last spoken to the Ministry. • A letter from the Ministry dated June 25, 2014 informing the appellant that as he had not followed through with the requirements of EP he is not eligible for income assistance. The appellant provided the following reasons for his Request for Reconsideration: • He is very serious about finding gainful employment; • He is very sorry for not attending the EPBC meeting; • Ever since he realized his company was not answering his requests for employment his life has been spiraling out of control at the same time [he] was trying to get on "S.A."; • He was trying to save his apartment, get his son out on his own after looking after his son's room and board; • He was trying to force the company he worked with for 8 ½ years to employ him; • He knows he can find a job by the end of July whether it be a seasonal or preferably a year round job; • If he cannot pay his rent he will be livinq out of "social assistance paid room at the homeless EAAT 003( 10/06/01)
s he l ter fo r a long time"; • He has applied for all kinds of jobs, seasonal and year round employme • He is ap plying fo r any job but in t he end he will have to deal with Employ ment Insuran ce or • H e i s having a t oug h time ea t in g, sle eping or concentrating w search for employment very ha rd ; • If he l oses his apartment finding another is next to i o He will sign and closel y comply with all his expec • He hasn't been on Social Assistance in years a now he would like to take some of these courses through the EPBC pro Ad m i ssibility of New I nformation The app e llant filed a Notice of Appeal which was recei Trib unal on J u l y 1 0, 2 014. I n the Not ice of A p peal, d " Being a perso n wh o ha s not had any exp er i ence in b between begging for [his] j ob and going to So cial Assist was employed with had a l egal r espo nsibi l i t y since [ not fi r ed. In panic h e lo s t tra c k o f day s and [is] agg res The panel d e t ermined t h e add itio na l d ocumentar y evidence that admissi ble under s. 22(4) of the E AA as b e i ng i n supp r ec onsideration as i t pr ovides mor e d etails on his situa the mi nis t e r a t the time of re c onside ration . EMT003(10/06/01) n t; be l ooki n g fo r a yea r round j ob so he wouldn't Social Assistance; hich he feels is m aki n g any mpos si b le; tations; nd didn't r ealize how crucial t he E P BC was; vi der. ved by the Employmen t an d A ssistance Ap pea l ated July 10, 2014 t he appella nt s ta tes tha t e ing unem p l oyed for ma ny y e a rs , [ h e] was tor n ance. [ He] ho ne s tly th oug h t the company [he ] h e] was no t at f au lt w ith the c ompan y and was sively see kin g a ny and a l l employ ment ." is p art of the Notice o f Appeal w as ort o f t h e infor m a t i on b e fore t h e M inister a t t io n and esse ntia l ly t h is inf ormatio n was bef or e
PART F -Reasons for Panel Decision The iss ue u nder a ppeal i s whethe r the Ministry's reconsideration decision which found the a ppellant inel igible for fu r ther in come a ssistan c e due t o non-com pliance with his empl oy me nt pla n pursua n t t o sectio n 9 of the EAA was reasonabl y supported by the evidence or a reasonabl e application of the legis la t ion i n t he appellant's circumstances. T he relevant l e g is la ti o n is a s f ollo w s: Employment pla n 9 (1) For a family un i t to be el i gibl e for income assistance or hardship assistance, each applicant or re ci pient in the famil y unit, when required to do so by the mini ster, must (a ) enter into an empl o yment plan, a nd (b} com ply with t he conditions in th e employment plan. ( 2) A de p e nde nt y ou th, whe n r e quired to d o so by the m inis te r , must (a ) ent e r into an emp lo ym e nt plan, an d ( b ) co mply with the con ditions in the employ men t pl an. ( 3) The min is ter may specif y the cond it ion s in a n em pl o yment pl an inc l uding, wi thout l i mitat i on, a condi tion requi r i n g the appli c a nt, re cipient or dependent youth to participate in a sp e cifi c employ m en t -relate d p rogram t hat, in the m inis t er' s opi nion, w i ll assist the a pplicant , rec i pient or dependent y o uth to (a) fin d em p loyme n t, or (b} become more empl o y abl e . (4) If an e mp loyment pl an i ncl u des a c ondition re q ui r i ng a n ap plicant, a rec ip ient or a dep enden t youth to part icipat e in a sp e cific em p lo y m ent-relate d progra m , t hat co nd i t i on is not me t if t he p e rson (a ) fai ls to demonstrat e r ea so na ble eff o rts to particip ate in t he p ro g ram, or (b} cease s , exce p t for me d i cal r eason s, to pa rticip at e in t h e pro g ram. (5) If a dependent youth fa il s to comply with subsection (2), the minister may reduce the amount of income ass i stance or hardship assistan c e p r ovided to or for the family unit by the prescribed amount for the prescribed period. (6 ) T h e m inister may amend, sus p end or ca nc el a n employment pl an. ( 7) A dec i s i on under this section (a) requir ing a person to enter into an employment plan, (b) amending , suspending or cancelling an employment plan, or (c) specifying t he conditions of an emplo yment plan is final and conclusive and is not open to review by a court on any ground or to appeal under section 17 (3) [reconsideration and appeal rights]. The Aooellant's Position EAA T003(10/06/01)
The appellant reported that he is very serious about finding gainful employment and is very sorry for not attending EPBC meetings. He said his life has been "spiraling out of control" and he is having a difficult time eating, sleeping or concentrating which he feels is making his employment search more difficult. He stated that he is seeking any kind of seasonal and year round employment. He also stated that as long as he has to deal with Social Assistance he will closely comply with all the expectations. He argued that he needed assistance to pay his rent and that if he was denied, he could become homeless and it would also impact his son. He did not realize how crucial the EPBC was and now would like to take some of the courses offered. The Ministry's Position The Ministry's position is that the appellant entered into an EP dated May 29, 2014 and by signing his EP, confirmed that he read, understood and agreed to the requirements of attendance and compliance with the conditions in the EP as well as the consequences for non-compliance. The appellant was scheduled for a group orientation on June 2, 2014 and did not attend. He did not phone and inform the program that he was not attending nor did he contact them to reschedule. He was given a second chance and advised that he needed to attend the group orientation and be in full compliance with the conditions in the EP by June 20, 2014 or he would be denied income assistance for non-compliance. On June 20, 2014, an EPBC worker reviewed the file and found that the appellant had not followed through as required. The Ministry argued that although the appellant was aware of the conditions outlined in his EP and the requirement to comply with those conditions as per Section 9(1) of the EAA, he did not demonstrate reasonable efforts to participate in the employment-related program as per Section 9(4) of the EAA and thus, is not eligible for income assistance. The Panel's Decision In determining the reasonableness of the Ministry's decision, the panel finds that the appellant entered into an EP on May 29, 2014 and by signing the EP, was aware of the terms and conditions of eligibility. These conditions include that he participate in the EPBC program as directed by the EPBC contractor; attend scheduled sessions and if unable to attend advise EPBC; and complete all assigned tasks and activities. In this case, the panel finds the appellant missed his Group Orientation without notifying the program provider, he did not reconnect with EPBC and did not attend any session prior to the deadline date of June 20, 2014 after having been given a second chance to meet the attendance requirement in order to maintain his eligibility status. EAA T003(10/06/01)
The appellant did not provide any evidence to show that there were medical reasons that prevented his attendance at any of the scheduled sessions. The panel finds that the Ministry reasonably determined that the appellant failed to demonstrate reasonable efforts to participate in the employment program as per Section 9(4)(a) of the EAA; that there is no evidence that he ceased to participate in the program for medical reasons as per Section 9(4)(b), and accordingly, that he is not eligible for assistance as per Section 9(1) of the EAA. Thus, the panel finds that the Ministry's decision to deny the appellant income assistance due to the failure to comply with the conditions of his EP was a reasonable application of the legislation and reasonably supported by the evidence. Therefore, the panel confirmf:! the Ministry's decision. EAA T003( 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.