I APPEAL# PART C -Decision under Appeal The appellant appeals the September 1 �, 2014 reconsideration decision of the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation (Mi� iistry), in which the Ministry denied her disability assistance for the month of September 2014 under section 9(2) of the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Regulation (EAPWDR), � on the basis that she had unearned income (as defined in section 1 (1 )(g) of the EAPWDR) , which esulted in net income in excess of the rate of disability assistance for which she is eligible undE r Schedule A of the EAPWDR. PART D -Relevant Legislation Employment and Assistance for Persom with Disabilities Regulation (EAPWDR) sections 1, 9, 24, 29 Schedule A , sections 1, 2 and 4, and Schedule B, sections 1, 6 and 7. EAAT 003(10/06/01)
APPEAL# I PART E -Summary of Facts The information before the Ministry at rE consideration included the appellant's request for reconsideration dated September 9, 20 4, as well as copies of the history of the appellant's spouse's bank account from February 2 through, uly 31, 2014, showing deposits from "Canada EI/AE'' of $856 on July 8 and 22, 2014. The appellant is a designated person w ith disabilities. She said she has received disability assistance for about 5 or 6 years. The · ppellant's family unit is 2 persons as the appellant's spouse also receives disability assistance and t � ey have lived together for a couple of years. The appellant and her spouse (the family unit) receive $1,499.06 in disability assistance per month ($570 for shelter, $949.06 support, less a $20 rep yment). The appellant's spouse testified as a witness at the hearing of the appeal. � I n July 2014, the appellant's spouse rec ived federal employment insurance ("El") payments in the amount of $1712.00 (two El payments of $856 each). The appellant and her spouse said that they were never told by anyone at the Ministi or at the El office that they had to report to the Ministry the amount of El that the appellant's spousl received. They said that they understood that El and the Ministry work together and that the Mini ' try would know that the appellant's spouse had received El and adjust their disability assistance. Tey remembered filling out a form at a Ministry or El office about the way that the El and their disa � , ility assistance would work together. The appellant and her spouse reported to the Ministry in Augu t 2014 that her spouse was receiving a small amount of income for some temporary work. The c ppellant and her spouse thought that the El payments were exempt from deduction from their disabi ity assistance. The Ministry denied the appellant disabi ity assistance f o r the month of September 2014 on the basis that her family unit had received unearn �d income -$1712 in her spouse's El payments -in July 2014, which is over and above the amol!l_nt of disability assistance for which the appellant's family unit is eligible. The Ministry notes that as a 1 >erson receiving disability assistance, the appellant is required to report any change in income (meaning any increase or decrease in the amount of income received) by the 5 th day of the month fol owing the month income is received, regardless of the period the payment represents. The Ministry n Jtes that El payments are unearned income under the legislation. The income is then included in the calculation of the amount of income at the earliest opportunity, which in this case, is Septernber 2014 (the month following the month- August-the income was reported). EAAT 003(10/06/01)
APPEAL# I PART F -Reasons for Panel Decisi m The issue on this appeal is the reasonaoleness of the Ministry's decision to deny the appellant disability assistance for September 201 � under s. 9(2) of the EAPWDR, on the basis that she received unearned income ($1712 in her spouse's El payments) in the month of July 2014 which exceeds the amount of disability assista nee for her family unit under Schedule A of the EAPWDR. Legislation -all references are to the seictions of the EAPWDR. Definitions 1 (1) In this regulation: "unearned income" means any income hat is not earned income, and includes, without limitation, money or value received from any 01 the following: (g) employment insurance; Limits on income 9 .... (2) A family unit is not eligible for :lisability assistance if the net income of the family unit determined under Schedule B equals or exceeds the amount of disability assistance determined under Schedule,\ f o r a family unit matching that family unit. Amount of disability assistance 24 Disability assistance may be providE d to or for a family unit, for a calendar month, in an amount that is not more than (a) the amount determined under p chedule A, minus (b) the family unit's net income determined under Schedule B. Monthly reporting requirement : 29 For the purposes of section 11 (1) (a) [reporting obligations] of the Act, (a) the report must be submitted by he 5 th day of the calendar month following the calendar month in which there is a changej that is listed on paragraph (b), and (b) the information required is all of t e following, as requested in the monthly report f o rm prescribed under the Forms Reg f l ation: (i) ... (ii) change in income receive , , by the family unit and the source of that income; Under s. 1 of Schedule A of the EAPW[ R, the maximum amount of disability assistance before deduction of net income referred to in s. 24(a) is the sum of the monthly support allowance under s. 2 of Schedule A plus the shelter allowance calculated under s. 4 and s. 5 of Schedule A. Section 1 of Schedule B of the EAPWDR sets out d9iduction and exemption rules when calculating the net income of a family unit for the purposes of s. 24(b). Section 6 of Schedule B provides that the only deductions from unearned income are any income tax deducted at source from employment insurance benefits and essential operating costs of renting belf-contained suites. Section 7 of Schedule B sets out exemptions to unearned income. EAAT 003( 10/06/01)
! APPEAL# Appellant's position The appellant and her spouse agree thct he received $1712 in El payments in July 2014. The appellant and her spouse told the panel that no one at the Ministry explained to them that they were required to report the El received to the Ministry- they understood that the Ministry and El "work together" and that the Ministry would knpw that the appellant's spouse received El and adjust their disability assistance for them. The app,llant and her spouse said that their disability assistance is directly deposited to their accounts. Thf appellant and her spouse argued that no one at the El office or at the Ministry office explained that El payments are considered unearned income which they must report to the Ministry, and this is why thEpy did not realize that they had to report the El payments to the Ministry. The appellant and her spouse say that they shouldn't be denied the September 2014 disability assistance because they didn' know they had to report the El payments. Ministry's position The Ministry notes thats. 1 of the EAPV1/DR defines "unearned income" as any income that is not earned income, and includes, without lirpitation, money or value received from employment insurance. The Ministry also says that Bl payments are not included as a type of unearned income that may be exempt under sections 1, 6land 7 of Schedule B of the EAPWDR. The Ministry notes that s. 24 of the EAPWDR provides that the �mount of monthly disability assistance is determined by deducting the amount of income calcula[ed under Schedule B from the amount of shelter and support allowances calculated under Schedule t· The Ministry noted that, as stipulated under s. 29 of the EAPWDR, the total El payments the farl(lily unit received in July 2014 was to be reported to the Ministry by August 5, 2014, and affecteq the September 2014 disability assistance. The Ministry determined that under s. 24 of the EAP�DR, the $1,712.00 in El payments the appellant's spouse received in July 2014 must be deducted s l l _from the family unit's September 2014 disability assistance and, as the $1712.00 in El payments is 1 over the $1499.06 disability assistance for which the family unit is eligible, the Ministry determined he was ineligible for September 2014 disability assistance. Panel's decision The appellant does not dispute that her i pouse received $1,712.00 in El payments in July 2014 and does not dispute that the exemptions s t out in the legislation (sections 1, 6 and 7 of the EAPWDR) do not apply to them. The panel finds t at the Ministry's determination that the appellant's family unit received unearned income -$1712.00 i � El payments in July 2014 -is reasonable based on the undisputed evidence. ·· 1 Section 29 of the EAPWDR requires th � appellant to report income received and the source of that income by the 5 th day of the calendar m?nth following the calendar month in which it was received. In this case, by August 5, 2014, the appell , nt had to report the $1712.00 El payments her spouse received in July 2014. The appellant dpes not dispute that the $1712 El payments exceed the amount of monthly disability assistance for which her family unit is eligible. Accordingly, the panel finds that the Ministry's determination thrt the appellant is not entitled to disability assistance for the month of September 2014 under sectio� 9(2) of the EAPWDR because she and her spouse received unearned income of $1712 in El paymern _ ts in July 2014 is reasonable based on the evidence and is a reasonable application of the legislation in the appellant's circumstances. The panel therefore confirms the reconsideration decision. EAAT 003(1 0/06/01)
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.