APPEAL# I PART C -Decision under Appeal The decision being appealed is the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation (the "ministry") October 9, 2014 reconsideration decision wherein the ministry denied disability assistance to the Appellant because she owns an asset with a value of more than $5,000.00 which is in excess of the asset limit allowed under Section 10(2) of the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Regulation (EAPWDR). PART D -Relevant Legislation EAPDWR Sections 1, 10(1) and 10(2).
APPEAL# I PART E -Summary of Facts With the consent of both parties, the hearing was conducted as a written hearing pursuant to Section 22(3)(b) of the Employment and Assistance Act. The evidence before the ministry at reconsideration consisted of the following: 1. Information from its files that the Appellant was a recipient with a Persons with Disabilities (PWD) designation. As of February 2014 when her son turned 19 years of age, she no longer had dependants, and was then considered a single person with a PWD designation. As of March 2014 the ministry no longer provided benefits to the Appellant. 2. A document confirming the Appellant's ownership of her primary vehicle since October 27, 2011. 3. A vehicle insurance document from ICBC effective August 2, 2013 insuring a stored vehicle. The declared value of the vehicle, a specialty car, was $110,000.00, and the Appellant was listed as the insured party. 4. A February 28, 2011 formal appraisal of the Appellant's specialty car, in its current condition, at between $95,000.00 and $110,000.00. (Appraisal 1) Body work to repair sandblasting was estimated between $27,000.00 and $30,000.00. The mechanical condition was described as 'as new', the interior was described as 'as new', the glass was described as good, the body was described as being in excellent condition, and the paint was described as new. 5. A November 15, 2013 email providing a second appraisal of the specialty car outlining its current value as between 5,000.00 and $6,000.00. The car could be brought up to par with other comparable specialty cars, but needed work estimated between $30,000.00 and $40,000.00. (Appraisal 2) 6. An undated Craiqslist 'for sale' ad of the specialty car at $80,000.00. 7. An Auto Trader 2014 'for sale' ad listing the specialty car at $80,000.00. 8. A 2014 Kijiji 'for sale' ad listing the specialty car at $80,000.00. 9. A 2014 posting in Gyos, free classifieds, listing the specialty car for sale at $80,000.00. 10. The Appellant's September 10, 2014 request for reconsideration was accepted and her submissions are summarized within the reconsideration decision. The Appellant stated that she inherited her specialty car from her father's estate and had to pay her sisters $5,000.00 each for storage fees, and did not receive the vehicle until 2000. On October 20, 2014 a Notice of Appeal was received outlining that the specialty car was incorrectly valued at $110,000.00 and that the Appellant has two other appraisals listing the value of the vehicle at $5,000.00 and $12,000.00. Current estimates of mechanical repairs were at $58,610.00. The Appellant obtained legal counsel to represent her on this matter. On November 4, 2014 legal counsel provided submissions to the Tribunal. This included the following new documents: 1. An October 5, 2014 estimate (Appraisal 3) indicating a present value of $8,000.00 for the specialty car, and repairs estimated at $58,610.00 plus taxes. 2. An October 18, 2014 certificate of appraisal (Appraisal 4) of the specialty car at $12,000.00. The certificate confirmed that in reaching this estimate, the inspector utilized standard industry methods in assessing current market conditions, and personally inspected the vehicle. 3. 3 receipts reflecting payments concerning the specialty car in the amounts of $470.00, $1,300.00, and $2,000.00 for the 2012 calendar year. and,
APPEAL# I 4. A written submission on behalf of the appellant. The ministry did not object to the admissibility of the new written evidence. The panel determined that the written evidence was admissible under S. 22(4) of the Employment and Assistance Act, as it is in support of the information and records before the ministry at reconsideration, in particular, the valuation of the specialty car. The written submission was considered by the panel as argument on behalf of the appellant. By way of email dated November 10, 2014, the ministry confirmed that its submission in this matter is the reconsideration summary provided in the Record of Ministry Decision.
P A R T F R e a s o n s f o r P a n e l D e c i s i o n T h e i s s u e i n t h i s a p p e a l i s w h e t h e r t h e m i n i s t r y ' s r e h e l d t h a t t h e A p p e l l a n t w a s n o t e n t i t l e d t o d i s a b i l i t y v a l u e o f m o r e t h a n $ 5 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 w h i c h i s i n e x c e s s o f E A P W D R w a s r e a s o n a b l y s u p p o r t e d b y t h e e v i d e n e n a c t m e n t i n t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h e A p p e l l a n t . T t h e A p p e l l a n t w a s n o t u s e d f o r h e r d a y t o d a y t r a n s e x e m p t a s s e t ; w a s v a l u e d a t m o r e t h a n $ 5 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 ; d i s a b i l i t y a s s i s t a n c e a s p e r S e c t i o n 1 0 ( 2 ) ( a ) o f t h e o f m o r e t h a n $ 5 , 0 0 0 . T h e f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n s o f t h e E A P W D R a p p l y t o t h e D e f i n i t i o n s 1 ( 1 ) I n t h i s r e g u l a t i o n : " a s s e t " m e a n s ( a ) e q u i t y i n a n y r e a l o r p e r s o n a l p r o p e rt y t h a t c ( b ) a b e n e f i c i a l i n t e r e s t i n r e a l o r p e r s o n a l p r o p e ( c ) c a s h a s s e t s ; A s s e t l i m i t s 1 0 ( 1 ) T h e f o l l o w i n g a s s e t s a r e e x e m p t f o r t h e p u r p o ( a ) c l o t h i n g a n d n e c e s s a ry h o u s e h o l d e q u i p m e n ( b ) o n e m o t o r v e h i c l e g e n e r a l l y u s e d f o r d a y t o d 1 0 ( 2 ) A f a m i l y u n i t i s n o t e l i g i b l e f o r d i s a b i l i t y a s s i s t ( a ) a s o l e a p p l i c a n t o r s o l e r e c i p i e n t h a s n o d e p o f m o r e t h a n $ 5 , 0 0 0 . . . P a r t i e s ' p o s i t i o n s T h e A p p e l l a n t a g r e e s t h a t t h e s p e c i a l t y c a r i s n o t a o f t h e v e h i c l e i n i t s p r e s e n t c o n d i t i o n i s b e t w e e n $ 5 t h a t w i t h h o l d i n g h e r b e n e f i t s b e c a u s e o f a n a s s e t w m a n d a t o r y l i m i t i m p o s e s a n u n d u e h a r d s h i p o n t h e t h e a m o u n t i n q u e s t i o n . T h e m i n i s t r y ' s p o s i t i o n i s t h a t t h e A p p e l l a n t i s n o t e 1 0 ( 2 ) ( a ) o f t h e E A P W D R b e c a u s e s h e h a s a n a s s e T h e P a n e l ' s F i n d i n g s a n d C o n c l u s i o n T h e A p p e l l a n t d o e s n o t d i s p u t e t h a t s h e i s t h e s o l e E A P W D R S e c t i o n 1 ( 1 ) , i n p a r t i c u l a r p e r s o n a l p r o p e b e c o n v e r t e d i n t o c a s h . T h e A p p e l l a n t a c k n o w l e d g u n d e r t h e E A P W D R S e c t i o n 1 0 ( 1 ) ( b ) , a s t h e A p p e l t r a n s p o r t a t i o n n e e d s .A P P E A L # I c o n s i d e r a t i o n d e c i s i o n o f O c t o b e r 9 , 2 0 1 4 , w h i c h a s s i s t a n c e b e c a u s e s h e o w n s a n a s s e t w i t h a t h e a s s e t l i m i t a l l o w e d u n d e r S e c t i o n 1 0 ( 2 ) o f t h e c e o r a r e a s o n a b l e a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e a p p l i c a b l e h e m i n i s t r y f o u n d t h a t t h e s p e c i a l t y c a r o w n e d b y p o r t a t i o n n e e d s , a n d w a s a c c o r d i n g l y n o t a n a n d a s a r e s u l t t h e A p p e l l a n t w a s n o t e l i g i b l e f o r E A P W D R b e c a u s e s h e h a d a n a s s e t w i t h a v a l u e A p p e l l a n t ' s c i r c u m s t a n c e s i n t h i s a p p e a l . a n b e c o n v e r t e d t o c a s h rt y h e l d i n t r u s t , o r s e s o f s u b s e c t i o n ( 2 ) ; t ; a y t r a n s p o rt a t i o n n e e d s ; a n c e i f a n y o f t h e f o l l o w i n g a p p l y : e n d e n t c h i l d r e n a n d h a s a s s e t s w i t h a t o t a l v a l u e n e x e m p t a s s e t , a n d s u b m i t s t h a t t h e a c t u a l v a l u e , 0 0 0 . 0 0 a n d $ 8 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 . T h e A p p e l l a n t s u b m i t s h i c h i s v a l u e d ( a t m a x i m u m ) $ 3 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 o v e r t h e A p p e l l a n t w h i c h i s s e v e r e a n d o u t o f p r o p o r t i o n t o l i g i b l e f o r d i s a b i l i t y a s s i s t a n c e a s p e r s e c t i o n t w i t h a v a l u e o f m o r e t h a n $ 5 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 . o w n e r o f a n a s s e t w i t h i n t h e m e a n i n g o f t h e r t y d e s c r i b e d h e r e i n a s a s p e c i a l t y c a r , w h i c h c a n e d t h a t t h e s p e c i a l t y c a r i s n o t a n e x e m p t a s s e t l a n t u s e s a n o t h e r v e h i c l e f o r h e r d a y t o d a y
Th e panel finds that the mi nistry r easonabl y de termine $5,000.00. All but one of the appraisals submitt e d into evidence support a excess of $5,00 0 .0 0 regard less of any completed , outstanding or re and the Appellant lis te d the v ehicle for sale in at bet ween $95,000 . 00 a n d $110,00 0 . 00, while Ap praisal between $5,000.00 and $6,00 0. 00 . Both ne w a ppraisals g reat er than $5,000.00, although signi f icantly lower than Appra li st of out s t anding work to be d o ne on the specialty c $ 8, 000.00. Appraisal 4 confirmed that in reachi ng the estimat standard industry method s in asses sing current market c vehi c le. Although the Appell a n t argued that she would attempt to sell the vehicle "in price range within the nex t 90 days ", ther e wa s n o additional e had a ttempted to se l l th e vehi cle at any time f o r less th ministry r ea s onably determ in ed that a preponde rance sp e c i al t y car in ex ces s of $ 5,0 00 .00. O n ce this determinati on w as m ade, t h e min i st ry was req the App ell a n t 's circu m s t an ces . The E APWDR Sec ti The p anel fin d s that t he ministry re a sonably dete rm ass i s tan c e bec ause her as sets exc eed the allowable w ith n o d ep e n d ent childr e n, in keep i ng wi th the EAPWOR Hav ing considered a ll o f the ev i denc e and t he legislati t he pa nel f ind s t h at the minist ry deci sion was re asona min istry's reconsi derati on decis ion .APPEAL # I d that the specialty car is valued in excess of minimum valu e of the specialty car in c ommende d repairs to the ve hicle 2014 at $80,000. A ppraisal 1 was the highest 2 was the lowest, suggesting a value c o m pleted in 201 4 c on fi r m estimates i sa l 1. A ppraisal 3 , which incl u d ed a ar , valued the ve hi cle in its' current condition at e of $12 , 000.00, the insp e c tor uti lized onditi ons, and pers onally in spe cted the an app r o pr i ate vidence provided that the A p pellant an $80,000. The panel c oncludes t hat t h e o f e viden c e su pp orts a v aluatio n o f the uired to app ly the app ro p ri ate l eg isl a ti on i n on 10 ( 2) is mandatory l e gislation. i ned t hat the ap pe l lant i s n ot e lig ible for disability limit of $ 5, 00 0 .00 , and s he is a s ole rec i p ient S ec t ion 10(2 ). on ap plicabl e to t he Appella nt' s ci r c umstances, b ly sup port ed b y the ev ide nc e an d co nf ir m s the
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.