I APPEAL# PART C -Decision under Appeal The decision under appeal is the Ministry's reconsideration decision dated October 22, 2014, which held that the Appellant was denied a crisis supplement for utilities for wood under the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Regulation Section 57 because the firewood was not an unexpected expense or unexpectedly needed, because the Appellant did not provide information on additional resources, and because the Appellant had not demonstrated an imminent danger to his physical health at the time of the reconsideration decision. PART D -Relevant Legislation Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Regulation (EAPWDR) Section 57 EAAT 003(10/06/01)
APPEAL# I PART E -Summary of Facts The Appellant's representative did not call in when the hearing started. As the Appellant expressed a desire to have a representative join in the hearing, the panel chair contacted the tribunal office in order to contact the representative. The representative was contacted, but was unable to join the hearing at that time. The Appellant decided to proceed with the hearing alone. The evidence before the Minister at reconsideration was the following: • A request form for Non-local Medical Transportation Assistance dated April 23, 2014, for travel to another city for medical treatment. • A cheque allowance summary for a cheque issued on August 29, 2014 in the amount of $194.00 for medical transporation and food. • A cheque allowance summary for a cheque issued on September 5, 2014 in the amount of $229.20 for medical transportation and food. • A cheque allowance summary for a cheque issued on September 23, 2014 in the amount of $395.00 for medical transportation shelter. • A cheque allowance summary for a cheque issued on September 23, 2014 in the amount of $174.85 for medical transportation shelter. • A cheque allowance summary for a cheque issued on September 23, 2014 in the amount of $171.35 for medical transportation shelter. • Employment and Assistance Request for Reconsideration Section 3, dated October 9, 2014, in which the Appellant states that he had knee replacement surgery on September 8, 2014 and has since been recovering in his home town. He has other people to help him, but they are unable to do much and the Appellant is in no shape to get firewood. Even before his surgery, he was unable to get firewood. In addition, because of ongoing medical appointments, the Appellant has had to spend more money that he received from the Ministry for medical expenses and therefore has no money for groceries. • A cheque allowance summary for a cheque issued for the month of October indicating a total allowance for support and shelter of $904.42. At the hearing, the Appellant provided evidence that he is living in a house rented from his father that is heated by firewood and an oil stove. It is inexpensive accommodation compared to anything else that he can find in town. The Appellant states that he is on medication and that he is stressed out because he is very cold in the house at the current time; the Appellant referred to a doctor's note that indicated that he should not be under stress while recovering from surgery. The Appellant stressed that keeping fed, warm, and housed is impossible on his current income and that he has no firewood. Trips to town to see the doctor and his other expenses are more than he can afford. The Appellant says that he has downsized everything that he can. Friends have been helping him, but he doesn't know anyone who can afford to keep getting him wood and doing things for him. The Appellant priced out a cord of wood at $130-$150; a cord will keep the house warm for approximately one month. The panel determined that the additional oral evidence was admissible under section 22(4) of the Employment and Assistance Act as it was in support of the records before the Minister at reconsideration. The panel finds that the Appellant is a sole recipient of income assistance with Persons with Disabilities designation. The Appellant has lived in his current residence since last winter, a house EAAT 003(10/06/01)
APPEAL# I that is heated with wood and oil. The Appellant has had serious knee issues since spring 2014 that led to surgery out of the Appellant's local area in the fall of 2014. EAAT 003(10/06/01)
APPEAL#' I PART F -Reasons for Panel Decision The issue to be decided is whether the Ministry's reconsideration decision to deny a crisis supplement for utilities for firewood under the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Regulation Section 57 (1)(a) because the firewood was not an unexpected expense or unexpectedly needed, because the Appellant did not provide information on additional resources, and (b) because the Appellant had not demonstrated an imminent danger to his physical health is reasonably supported by the evidence or a reasonable application of the legislation in the circumstances of the Appellant. The legislation provides the following: Crisis supplement 57 (1) The minister may provide a crisis supplement to or for a family unit that is eligible for disability assistance or hardship assistance if (a) the family unit or a person in the family unit requires the supplement to meet an unexpected expense or obtain an item unexpectedly needed and is unable to meet the expense or obtain the item because there are no resources available to the family unit, and (b) the minister considers that failure to meet the expense or obtain the item will result in (i) imminent danger to the physical health of any person in the family unit, or (ii) removal of a child under the Child, Family and Community Service Act. (2) A crisis supplement may be provided only for the calendar month in which the application or request for the supplement is made. (3) A crisis supplement may not be provided for the purpose of obtaining (a) a supplement described in Schedule C, or (b) any other health care goods or services. (4) A crisis supplement provided for food, shelter or clothing is subject to the following limitations: (a) if for food, the maximum amount that may be provided in a calendar month is $20 for each person in the family unit, (b) if for shelter, the maximum amount that may be provided in a calendar month is the smaller of (i) the family unit's actual shelter cost, and (ii) the maximum set out in section 4 of Schedule A or Table 2 of Schedule D, as applicable, for a family unit that matches the family unit, and (c) if for clothing, the amount that may be provided must not exceed the smaller of (i) $100 for each person in the family unit in the 12 calendar month period preceding the date of application for the crisis supplement, and (ii) $400 for the family unit in the 12 calendar month period preceding the date of application for the crisis supplement. (5) The cumulative amount of crisis supplements that may be provided to or for a family unit in a year must not exceed the amount calculated under subsection (6). (6) In the calendar month in which the application or request for the supplement is made, the amount under subsection (5) is calculated by multiplying by 2 the maximum amount of disability assistance or hardship assistance that may be provided for the month under Schedule A or Schedule D to a family unit that matches the family unit. (7) Despite subsection (4) (b) or (5) or both, a crisis supplement may be provided to or for a family unit for the following: (a) fuel for heating; (b) fuel for cooking meals; EAAT 003(10/06/01)
(c ) wa te r ; (d) hydr o . (BC Re g . 1 3/2003) The Minist r y argu es that w i n ter h ea t is n o t an unexpec Ap pel lant cou ld have bu dgeted t o bu y w ood for heat i Appel lan t did re c e i v e a cr is is supplement f or f irewoo a gain this year . A l t hough the Mi nistry acknow ledges e x pe n s es for trea tment out of to wn , t h e Ministry argue inco me t o c over th ose ex p e nses . The M inis try a ls o argue inf orm ation to confirm tha t he doe s not ha v e a savin fr iends or comm unit y res ou r ces t hat can provide help Ministry is n o t s at is f i ed that wo od is the so le s o urce o A ppe llant a lso h as a n oil stove, and t heref ore th e A t o p h ysi c al health i f the supp lemen t is n ot obtained at The Appe l la nt ar gues that hi s knee, b oth bef ore a nd aft t o hea t his h o u se. He arg ues that al though h e saw his speci c ouple of weeks n o tice befo re his sur gery i n the fall and argues that his i ncome is insu ffi cient t o co ver h is me i s c u r rentl y v ery cold i n his house as wi nte r tem p erat f ri e nds do he lp him, bu t cann ot afford to do muc h mor the h o u se over the n ext few weeks . The pan el f i nds that t he Mi nistry's dete r m in ation that firewoo sect ion 57( 1) (a) of the EAPWDR was reasonably suppo in his curr en t re si de nce s ince la st winter , and he receive Be cause h e has al r eady s p en t one wi nt e r season in the mont h s to s a ve, the pan el fi nds t h at t he cost of firew exp ense. Th e p a nel finds tha t the M i ni s try's de term i nation that the App are no other resourc es available under section 57(1) (a) of the EAPWDR was supported by the evidence. The Appellant received addit from the Ministry, and he is c u r rentl y receiving som workers. Although the panel notes that this help may not be available for an extended period of time, the Minist ry was not unreasonable is determining that the Appellant re s o u r ces we re available. Finall y , the panel find s that the Mi nistry' s determinat there was imminent danger to his physical health under section 57 (1) (b) of the EAP reasonably supported by the evidence. Although the weather at the time of the hearing was well below freezing, the Appellant did say that the oil stove was present and Ministry's argument that failure to assist the Appellant with funds for firewood would not result in imminent danger at the time of the reconsideration decision was reasonable at the time of reconsideration. EAAT 003(10/06/01) I APPEAL# ted exp en se . The Ministry argues th a t th e n the sp r i ng and s umm e r mo nths . A l though the d last wint e r, he is not g uara nteed a supple ment that the A p pe l lant h a d additional medical s t hat th e Ap pel lant was g iven addi t i o nal s t hat the App e llant has giv en no gs acc ount, or ot h er resources suc h as famil y , or of f s e t the co st of firewo od . In addition, t h e f h e at in th e Ap pellant's res i de n ce as t h e p pe l lant did not de m onstrat e an imm inen t danger the time of the re c onsid erat i o n decision. e r su rgery, do es not all o w h im to get firewood alist in the spri ng of 2 014, he h ad only a i t was t h e r ef o re unex p ecte d . The App e llant d ical ex p ense s , h i s livi ng c osts, and fir e w ood. He u res are cu r rently wel l belo w fr e ezing . H is e . He i s ve ry co ncerned ab out ho w he will heat d i s n ot a n unexpected exp ense under rted by the evid en c e. Th e Ap pellant h as l ived d a crisis supplement for f i re wood last yea r . hous e a nd had the spri ng an d summer ood to heat hi s h om e was not a n unex p ected ell ant has not dem onst rated th a t ther e also r easona bly io n al income to cover medical expenses e l imited supp or t from frien ds and community had not demonstrated no oth e r i on that the Appellant has n o t de m onstrate d that WDR wa s working , therefore the
I APPEAL# Because the Appellant must meet all three criteria under section 57 listed above in order to receive a crisis supplement, the panel finds that the Ministry's decision was a reasonable application of section 57 of the EAPWDR in the circumstances of the Appellant and therefore confirms the Ministry's reconsideration 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.