A P P E A L t, ' I P A R T C D e c i s i o n u n d e r A p p e a l T h e d e c i s i o n u n d e r a p p e a l i s t h e M i n i s t r y o f S o c i a l D e v e l o p m e n t a n d S o c i a l I n n o v a t i o n ( t h e " m i n i s t r y " ) R e c o n s i d e r a t i o n D e c i s i o n o f A u g u s t 6 , 2 0 1 4 i n w h i c h t h e m i n i s t r y d e n i e d f u r t h e r i n c o m e a s s i s t a n c e t o t h e a p p e l l a n t f o r f a i l u r e t o c o m p l y w i t h t h e t e r m s o f h i s e m p l o y m e n t p l a n p u r s u a n t t o S e c t i o n 9 o f t h e E m p l o y m e n t a n d A s s i s t a n c e A c t ( E A A ) 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 ff o r t s t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n h i s e m p l o y m e n t p r o g r a m . P A R T D R e l e v a n t L e g i s l a t i o n E m p l o y m e n t a n d A s s i s t a n c e A c t ( E A A ) , S e c t i o n 9 E AA T 0 0 3 ( 1 0 / 0 6 / 0 1 )
PART E Summary of Fa cts The ap pel la n t is a si ngle emplo yab le male who w as 20 14. At th e comm encement of the h e aring h e c on that a m i nist ry o bserv e r att en d t h e h ea ring via telephone. T he ev idence b efore the m inistry a t the time o f r ec o • E m p loy m e nt Pla n (EP) si gned by the appe lla a c k n owl ed g ed t hat fa ilure to co mpl y wit h the f or ass istan c e, and agr ee d to ; -repo rt t o his EP contr a ct o r b y Novemb a ttend prog ramm i ng r e gula rly an d as di n o t ify h i s EP contra c to r i f h e was un able n o t ify h i s EP c on tractor i f h e began o r declare all inco me and rep ort a ll c ha nges in i at t en d all ministry review appointments as req • Let ter from the m inistry t o th e appellan t dated March h ad not followed throu g h on the cond i tions of b y March 26 , 20 14, an d a d visi ng t hat fai lur e • Let ter from the minist r y to the a p pe llant dated be cau se he fa i led t o participa te regula rly in hi lo n ger e l igi b le fo r i n c ome as sis tance; • Request for Reconsider a ti on dated July 2 5 , 2014 in a remo te ar ea and w a s unab le to at tend h is last he ha d no funds available fo r g as a nd to pay his cell T he Reconsi deration De cision i s summ ariz ed as follo • the app ellant d i d n ot a tten d his app oint m en t on December 13 h im an d left a mess a g e a sking hi m to reschedule; • the appell a nt did not a tten d his ap pointments to o lat e t o wo r k with hi s EP con tract or on Jan • on Marc h 19, 20 1 4 the E P contractor reported to the ministry; • o n March 1 9, 20 14 the ministry w rote to the a conditions of his EP and requesting that he contact the ministry by March 26, 2014 to discuss this issue; • on July 4, 2014 the appellant did not a ttend h cont ractor to reschedule; • on July 10, 2014 t he ministry wrote to the appellant advisin for inco me assistance b ecause h e had failed to meet the re • the ministry found that the appella nt failed to make reaso He was therefore declared ineligible for income assis conditions of his EP as required by Section 9 of the EAA. I n his Notice of A p peal da ted August 2 6, 2014 th e appellant stated that he di reconsideration decision because he had participated in his EP to the best of his abilities given his finan cial and logistica l situations. EAAT 003(10/06/01) APPEAL #: I in rec eipt o f i nco me assis tance u ntil July 1 0, sent ed to the ministry r epresentat iv e's request nsideratio n c on sist ed of the followin g: nt on N ovembe r 1 8 , 20 13 in which the a p pe llant c ondit io ns of his EP would re nd e r him ine ligi ble er 22, 20 13; r ected, and complete as sig n ed tasks; t o att end; ce ased employme nt; nc o me to th e ministry; and uire d . 19 , 2 0 14 infor min g th e appe lla n t tha t he h i s EP, asking h i m to c on tac t the min istry offic e to do so m a y result in delay of assi stanc e; July 10 , 2014 infor ming the app ellant that s E P a s di rected by his E P c ont r actor he was no whic h the ap pell an t stat ed tha t he lived in appoin tmen t w ith h i s E P c ontract or be c a u se phone bill . w s: , 20 1 3. Th e EP contrac to r called on J an u ary 3 an d Febr uar y 21, 2014, a n d arr ived u a r y 6 a n d Marc h 1 7, 2014; the ap pell an t's non at te nda nce an d l a te arrivals ppellan t adv i s i ng him that he had not met the i s sc he du l ed appointment and did not call the EP g him that h e was no longer eligible quirements of his EP. n a ble efforts to participate in his EP. tan ce due to non -com pliance with the sa greed with the
No add itional documentar y e vid e nce was subm itted at the hearing ex plaine d that he l i ved in a r em o te area appr oximatel H e was no t able to ma ke ou t going calls from h is cell his ce l l p ho ne bil l did n ot ex cee d $2 00 , b ut on ce his bill ex receive cal ls. H e adde d th a t he was a single p arent w each wee k, which ma de it dif ficult f or hi m to get aw ay app oi ntments as directed. He al s o state d that o n numerous sc h e duled l e a rn ing s e s sio n s a t the E P c ont ra cto r's offi int e rne t problems in the EP contract or's o ffi ce. The appe llan t ac kn o wledge d th a t he missed h is D ece c a lled ba ck t o reschedu le. H e had n o recol lection o was u nable to o ffer a rea so n fo r f ai li ng to atten d . He le t t er fr om th e minis t ry in d ic a t ing that he had n ot me if he had co ntac ted the mi nistry as requeste d in t hat let of his E P contractor seven o r eig ht ti m es bet ween D as soon as he refilled hi s c el l pho n e mi n ute s in July The minis try r el ied o n its Reconsiderati on D ecision. t he mi nistry r e present a ti ve e xplaine d that the m inis try chal le ng e s t o completing the condi t i ons of the ir E P , to the a p pe lla nt wa s to provide the opportunit y to re v circum st ances. EAAT 003(10/06/01) I AP PEAL# . At th e hear i ng the a ppel la n t y 20 km awa y from the EP con tractor's of fice. phon e but could receive inco m ing calls a s l o ng c e ede d $200 he was no l onger able t o h o cared for his t hr ee childre n sever al days from h ome in o rd e r to at tend his EP occ a sions he w as un a ble to c omple te his c e because of c ompute r malfun ct i ons and mbe r 13, 201 3 appoi n tment bu t s ta ted that he f the Janu ar y 3, 201 4 mis sed ap pointment a n d also d id not r eca ll r e ceiving t he Ma rch 1 9, 201 4 t the c on dit i ons of his EP , and di d not remember ter. He belie ves tha t he att ended a t the offi ce ecem ber, 2 013 and June, 201 4. H e a d ded that 2014 he contacted his EP worker . In r espo n se t o qu estio n s fro m pane l me mbers realiz es t hat cl ient s ar e often f aced wi th a nd that t h e purp o s e of the M arch 19, 2014 letter i ew and p er ha ps a dapt the EP t o the appellan t's
APPEAL# I PART F -Reasons for Panel Decision The issue under appeal is the reasonableness of the ministry decision of August 6, 2014 in which the ministry denied further income assistance to the appellant for failure to comply with the terms of his employment plan pursuant to Section 9 of the EAA because he failed to demonstrate reasonable efforts to participate in his employment program. The relevant legislation is as follows: EAA: Employment plan 9 (1) For a family unit to be eligible for income assistance or hardship assistance, each applicant or recipient in the family unit, when required to do so by the minister, must (a) enter into an employment plan, and (b) comply with the conditions in the employment plan. (3) The minister may specify the conditions in an employment plan including, without limitation, a condition requiring the applicant, recipient or dependent youth to participate in a specific employment-related program that, in the minister's opinion, will assist the applicant, recipient or dependent youth to (a) find employment, or (b) become more employable. (4) If an employment plan includes a condition requiring an applicant, a recipient or a dependent youth to participate in a specific employment-related program, that condition is not met if the person (a) fails to demonstrate reasonable efforts to participate in the program, or (b) ceases, except for medical reasons, to participate in the program. The appellant argues that he participated in his EP to the best of his abilities given his financial and logistical situations. Due to a shortage of funds he was unable to use his cell phone and consequently he was unable to communicate with the EP contractor or with the ministry. He also could not afford to buy gas in order to drive to the EP contractor's office. On the days when he cared for his children he was unable to leave them unsupervised. He also agues that on numerous occasions he was unable to complete his scheduled learning sessions at the EP contractor's office because of computer malfunctions and internet problems in the office. He believes that he attended as requested on seven or eight occasions between December 2013 and June 2014. In closing, he argues that if he had known that he could modify the conditions of his EP he would have contacted the ministry in March to do so. The ministry argues that the EP stipulated that as a condition of continued eligibility for assistance the appellant agreed to participate in EP programming as directed and to notify the EP contractor when he was unable to attend. The appellant failed to attend as directed on four occasions: December 13, 2013, January 3, February 21, and July 4, 2014, and arrived too late to participate in proqramming on EAAT 003(10/06/01)
I APPEAL# January 6 and March 17, 2014. The ministry also argues that the appellant failed to reply to the March 19, 2014 letter which requested that he contact the ministry to discuss why he did not follow through with his EP. For these reasons the ministry determined that the appellant failed to make reasonable efforts to participate in his EP, and was therefore ineligible for income assistance. Decision of the Panel EAA Section 9 (1) states that a recipient of income assistance must comply with the conditions of the employment plan in order to be eligible for assistance. Subsection (4) specifies that if an employment plan includes a condition requiring a person to participate in a specific employment related program that condition is not met if the person fails to demonstrate reasonable efforts to participate in the program or ceases, except for medical reasons, to participate. The evidence establishes that the appellant failed to attend as directed by his EP contractor on December 13, 2013, January 3, February 21, and July 4, 2014. He also arrived too late to participate in programming on January 6 and March 17, 2014. He failed to notify the EP contractor when he was unable to attend scheduled appointments, and he failed to contact the ministry as requested by March 26, 2014 to discuss why he had not attended as directed. The panel finds that the ministry reasonably determined that the appellant failed to demonstrate reasonable efforts to participate in his EP as required. Because he failed to comply with the conditions of the employment plan he was no longer eligible for income assistance pursuant to EAA Sections 9 (1) and (4). Accordingly this panel finds that the decision of the ministry to deny further income assistance to the appellant for failure to comply with the terms of his employment plan because he failed to demonstrate reasonable efforts to participate in his EP as required was a reasonable application of the applicable enactment in the circumstances of the appellant, and confirms the decision. EAAT 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.