APPEAL# I PART C-Decision under Appeal The decision being appealed is the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation (the "ministry") November 3, 2014 reconsideration decision in which the ministry determined that, in accordance with the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Regulation section 1, section 24 and Schedules A and B, the appellant's earned income for July and August 2014 exceeded the exempt amount, and that $267.50 must be deducted from the monthly disability assistance the appellant would otherwise be eligible for in September and October, 2014. PART 0-Relevant Legislation Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Regulation ("EAPWDR") Sections 1, 24, 29, Schedule A and Schedule B. EAAT 003(10/06/01)
PAR T E -Su m mary of F acts Th e min istry ha d the f o llowi n g evidence for i ts r eco n 1. I nforma tion from its rec o r ds tha t : • The appell ant h as Pers on s with Disabil • T he appellant has been recei ving $1,270.56 family u nit l ess h i s spous e's Cana da $1,0 64.09 month ly ass istance until Augus •On Ju l y 24, 20 1 4 th e appellant at ten ded a wa s referr ed for a co mp lianc e review •O n July 28, 2 014 c h e que produc t io n w •On S eptembe r 1 2, 20 14 th e app el lant ap proved to par t icipa t e i n a self-employ •On Septe m b er 16, 20 1 4 cheque pr o d uctio 2. A copy of app e lla n t' s July 2 0 1 4 banking stat ement 18, 2014 . 3 . A land s cap ing s ervice co nt ract date d Apri l 1, 20 c o u n c il me m be rs conf irming the te rms of a one year co in dicating that t h e a ppe l lant w o u ld r ec ei ve $15 $1,267.50 du ring the te r m of th e c o ntrac t. 4 . A dr aft do c u m e nt from the appe l lan t to his worke seeking direct ion on co mplet in g r e quired rep 5 . A co p y o f a do c u me n t entitled SEP acceptan ce a pp e l la n t o n Septe mb e r 12, 2014 , and acc epte 6 . A copy o f a d ocument e nt itled SEP q ue s tio nnaire appell ant on S e p t ember 12, 20 14. 7. A copy of a comm u n icat i on f rom the app ellan 15, 2 0 14 p rovi ding details on de po s its an d withdraw 8. A c opy of th e month l y r e port s igned by th e app ministry th a t he had employment i n come of $1 min istr y. 9. Confir mation of September 2 014 m ont h ly a ssistance 1 0.Confirm at i o n of Octob er 2 014 m ont hl y ass ist 11. The appellant's Octob er 3 , 2014 r eque st for reconsideration su b missi o ns are summ arized within the re co In the ap pel l ant's notice of a ppeal da te stamped Novemb reduce his income as sistance is not reasona b l e or alternat evidence. The ministry did not attend the hearing and, being satisfied the ministry was notified of the date, location and time of the hearing, the hearing proceeded in the absence of the ministry under section 86(b) of the Employment an d A ssistance Re gulation ( At the hearing, the appellant read from a prepared document. statements: approximately 25% of the contract value in dollars must go to purchase things for the benefit of the other party; the money is not under the appellant's control for the use and benefit to the exclusion of others, contrary to the legal definition of received; EAAT 003(10 /06/01) AP PE AL# I side ration decision: iti es s tatus . maxi mum disabi lity rat e for a two per s on Pens ion Plan (CPP) in c ome, for a tot a l of t 2014 . n Elig ibility Re v iew appo i ntm e n t, a n d hi s c a se d ue t o unde clar ed self-employ ment earni ngs. as tu r n ed of f f o r t he a ppellant. c omple ted t he required m inistry forms a nd was men t pro gram ("SEP"). n wa s tu rn back on for the a ppellant. i ndicating a deposit of $1,26 7 . 00 on Jul y 14 s ign e d by t h e appella nt an d two St r ata nt ract f o r prope rt y m ain te n an ce , and ,210. 00 in twelve eq ual mo nthly paymen ts of r a t the minis try se nt on Au g u st 5, 2 014 ortin g d o cume n ts . of t erms a nd b usin ess plan , signed by the d by t h e ministry on th e sam e date. a nd accepta nce o f te rm s signed by the t to his work e r at the ministry sent on Septe mber als to hi s b ankin g acc ou nt . e llan t on S e ptember 17, 2014 advis i n g th e , 267.0 0 si n ce his last d e clar ation to the in the amo u n t o f $ 796.59. anc e i n t h e amoun t of $796 .59. w as a c ce pted an d his nsi deration decision. er 13, 2014 he wrote that the decision to e ly not reasonably supported by the EAR). The document included the f o llowing the ministry failed to a_QQly_ the law of
APPEAL# I possession to the legislation, and failed to apply contract law. The panel finds that this document, containing evidence and a summary of the appellant's argument against the reasonableness of the reconsideration decision, are written submissions in support of the inf o rmation and record that was bef o re the ministry at the time the reconsideration decision was made and therefore is admissible under section 22(4) of the Employment and Assistance Act (EAA). The appellant testified that he takes no issue with the deduction of his spouse's CPP benefits from their monthly assistance total. The appellant testified that he obtained work as a landscape gardener and entered into a contract with a local strata company requiring that he furnish the necessary labour, materials, equipment and supplies to complete his contractual obligations. In response to questions from the panel he confirmed that the money received arising from the contract is deposited into his personal banking account and not kept separately. EAAT 003(1 0/06/01)
APPEAL# I PART F -Reasons for Panel Decision The issue under appeal is whether the ministry's reconsideration decision of November 3, 2014, which held that the appellant's September 2014 assistance must be reduced by $267.50 for his July 2014 earned income and his October 2014 assistance must be reduced by $267.50 for his August 2014 earned income in keeping with section 24, Schedule A, and Schedule B, of the EAPWDR, was reasonably supported by the evidence or was a reasonable application of the applicable enactment in the circumstances of the appellant. The following sections of the EAPWDR apply to the appellant's circumstances in this appeal. Definitions 1(1) in this regulation: Earned income means (a) Any money or value received in exchange for work or the provision of a service ... Amount of disability Assistance 24 Disability Assistance may be provided to or for a family unit, for a calendar month, in an amount that is not more than (a) The amount determined under Schedule A, minus (b) The family's net income determined under Schedule B. Schedule B Net Income Calculation 1 When calculating the net income of a family unit for the purpose of 24(b) [amount of disability assistance] of this regulation, (c) All earned income must be included, except the deductions permitted under section 2 and any income exempted under sections 3, 3.1, and 4 .... Deductions from earned income 2. The only deductions permitted from earned income are the following: (a) any amount deducted at source for (i) income tax, (ii) employment insurance, (iii) medical insurance, (iv) Canada Pension Plan, (v) superannuation, (vii) union dues; Exemption -earned income 3.1 Subjection to subsections (2) and (2.1 ), the amount of earned income calculated under subsection 3 is exempt for a family unit. (3) The exempt amount for a family unit that qualifies under this section is calculated as follows: (a.1) in the case of a family unit that includes two recipients, only one of whom is designated as a person with disabilities, the exempt amount is calculated as the lesser of (i) $1,000.00 and (ii) The family unit's total income in the calendar month of calculation; In the ministry's absence, the November 3, 2014 reconsideration decision will be considered as representing their position. EAAT 003(10/06/01)
APPEAL# I The appellant argues that the ministry's failure to consider all of the terms of his contract with the strata council amounts to a violation of his rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Administrative Tribunals Act, section 44, which applies to the Employment Assistance Tribunal, confirms that the tribunal does not have jurisdiction over constitutional issues, which includes a consideration of the Charter rights of the appellant. The appellant argues that the ministry's absence from the hearing should be considered an abandonment of their position conceding his appeal. Section 86 (b) of the EAR confirms that the panel may hear an appeal in the absence of a party if the party was notified of the hearing. The ministry was provided notice of the hearing on November 19, 2014, and the panel heard the appeal in the absence of the ministry, in keeping with this legislation. The appellant's position is that his contract to provide landscaping services with the strata company provides a monthly gross amount of money -$1,267.00 -from which he must provide materials and supplies, as well as labour, which may be subcontracted. The appellant argues that this monthly gross amount is not earned income as the money is not available for his sole personal use, but must be managed in keeping with the terms of the contract. In the reconsideration decision the ministry stated that the appellant has a contract outlining that the appellant will receive $1,267.50 each month in exchange for work and provisions of services, and this meets the definition of earned income. The ministry wrote that as the small business exemption does not apply to the appellant's July and August 2014 earnings because the appellant wasn't participating in SEP until September 12, 2014, and the $1,000.00 earnings exemption does apply, the appellant's September 2014 assistance must be reduced by $267.50 of his July earned income and his October 2014 assistance must be reduced by $267.50 of his August 2014 earned income. The Panel's Findings and Conclusion Section 24 of the EAPWDR provides that disability assistance may be provided to or for a family unit for a calendar month in an amount that is not more than the amount of assistance determined under Schedule A minus the family unit's net income determined under Schedule B. Under Schedule A, the appellant's family unit is eligible for $1,270.56 a month. Under Schedule B, section 1 (c) confirms that all earned income must be included, except for deductions permitted in section 2 and 3 of Schedule B, EAPWDR. The appellant entered into a contract effective April 1, 2014 to March 31, 2015 in the amount of $15,210.00 which was paid at a monthly rate of $1,267.50. The evidence before the panel is that the appellant received a personal cheque from the Strata in the amount of $1,267.00 in both July and August 2014 as a result of a signed service contract and this cheque was deposited into his personal bank account. The appellant was not participating in a small business program, and the money was deposited directly into his personal banking account in exchange for work and services performed and remained under his full control and discretion. This is supported by the appellant's signed monthly report of employment income equaling $1,267.00 received by the ministry on September 17, 2014. The anel finds that the a ellants earnin s of $1,267.00 in Jul 2014 and $1,267.00 in Au ust 2014 EAAT 003(10/06/01)
was properly c lassifie d as earn ed inc ome. There is no h as any deducti o n s at so ur ce as s et out i n section 2 or r easo nably de t e rmi n ed the fu nds r ec ei v ed from th e S The appe l la nt r eceiv e d $1 , 2 67 .00 in both July and August 20 secti o n 3(3)(a.1) of the E APW D R s ets o ut tha t in a family unit de sig nate d a s a pers on with disabiliti e s, t h e r e c ip i e n exemp ti o n . Th i s was appl i ed to the $1, 267.00 earn ed inc outsid e of t he $1 , 0 00.0 0 exe mption. There fo r e t he p d ete rmine d th at Schedule B sect i on 3(3) ( a.1) was th appe l la nt's c i rc umstances, result i ng i n the ded u ction months of September an d Oc tobe r, 201 4. Th e min istry's dec ision was reas onabl y s u pport ed by th e appli cable ena c tment in the cir cums tances of t he re co nside r ation decision . EAAT 003(10/06/01) APP EAL# I evid ence be fore the panel that the app ell an t sect i on 3 E APWDR a nd t h ere f ore the m i ni stry trat a mus t be conside red as earne d in c o m e . 1 4 as earn ed in come. S ched ule B, with two recipie nt s , o n e of w hom is t of e a rn ed i ncome i s e nt i t le d to a $1 , 00 0.0 0 ome, wi t h a r ema i ning a m ou n t of $2 67.50 a n el f ind s t h at th e mi nist ry reason ably e a pprop riate l e gislati o n to app l y in the of $ 267 .50 in the a p pell ant's a ssi s tan ce for the the e v i den c e and i s a rea sonab le app lica tio n of a p pe ll ant. The p anel confi rms the ministry's
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.