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 r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n d e m i n i s t r y d e n i e d 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 , A s s i s t a n c e A c t ( E A A ) , f o r f a i l i n g t o c o m p l y w i t h t h e d e t e r m i n e d h e d i d n o t d e m o n s t r a t e r e a s o n a b l e e f f o h e d i d n o t c e a s e t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e e m p l o y m e n t p r 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 EAA T 0 0 3 ( 1 0 / 0 6 / 0 1 )I A P P E A L # c i s i o n d a t e d O c t o b e r 1 7 , 2 0 1 4 i n w h i c h t h e 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 c o n d i t i o n s o f h i s e m p l o y m e n t p l a n . T h e m i n i s t r y 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 l a n a n d t h a t o g r a m d u e t o a m e d i c a l r e a s o n .
APPEAL# I PART E -Summary of Facts The information before the ministry at the time of reconsideration included the following: • An employment plan (EP) signed by the appellant dated June 25, 2014. The agreement required the appellant to make contact with the Employment Program of BC (EPBC) contractor within 5 business days, attend all appointments by the EPBC contractor, complete all assignments, participate in EPBC programming regularly and as directed by the contractor, work with the contractor to address any issues that would impact his employability, and to notify the contractor if he is unable to attend a session. The EP also instructed him to advise the ministry if there is any reason he cannot follow through with the agreement. • A Request for Reconsideration application signed by the appellant dated October 3, 2014. The appellant writes he was staying at the hospital with his girlfriend who was dying of cancer. He writes he was having a hard time but he will get on the Employment Plan now. • An outdated employment plan (EP) signed by the appellant dated February 26, 2014. The agreement required the appellant to make contact with the Employment Program of BC (EPBC) contractor within 5 business days, attend all appointments by the EPBC contractor, complete all assignments, participate in EPBC programming regularly and as directed by the contractor, and to notify the contractor if he is unable to attend a session. The EP also instructed him to advise the ministry if there is any reason he cannot follow through with the agreement. This EP was replaced with the June 25 EP noted above because the appellant moved so he was assigned to a different EPBC contractor closer to his new residence. The appellant submitted two Notice of Appeal documents. One was dated October 31, 2014 and the other November 13, 2014. In his October 31 submission he writes that he disagrees with the ministry's reconsideration decision because he is on drugs and he needs help. In the November 13 submission he writes that he has been under extreme mental stress due to dealing with his girlfriend's cancer as well as trying to get help for his addiction. He adds that he now has a support worker and is getting help. In the Reconsideration Decision the ministry details the contact with the appellant from the date the EP was signed until the date the appellant was found ineligible for assistance. The updated EP was signed on June 25, 2014 because the appellant had moved. The appellant did not attend his intake appointment with the EPBC contractor on July 16 and did not contact the EPBC contractor to reschedule. On July 23 the appellant met with the ministry to discuss his non-compliance. The appellant stated he had been ill for the past two weeks. On July 24 the appellant provided a note that he had an appointment with the EPBC contractor scheduled for August 27 that was later rescheduled for August 29. The appellant did not attend the August 29 appointment and did not contact the EPBC contractor or the ministry. The EPBC contractor rescheduled his intake appointment for September 26 but the appellant arrived two hours late and was not willing to wait for an appointment later that day. On September 26, 2014 the ministry informed the appellant he was ineligible for future assistance due to non-compliance with his EP. At that meeting he showed the ministry a note that the ministry determined to be a forged document. The appellant took the note before the ministry had an opportunity to scan it. EAAT 003(10/06/01)
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 u n d e r a p p e a l i n t h i s c a s e i s t h e r e a s o n a b a p p e l l a n t i n c o m e a s s i s t a n c e , p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 9 f a i l i n g t o c o m p l y w i t h t h e c o n d i t i o n s o f h i s e m p l o y m d i d n o t d e m o n s t r a t e r e a s o n a b l e e ff o rt s t o p a r t i c i p a t e r e a s o n t o c e a s e p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e p r o g r a m . 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 s t 9 ( 1 ) F o r a f a m i l y u n i t t o b e e l i g i b l e f o r i n c o m e a s s i s t a n c e o r h u n i t , w h e n r e q u i r e d t o d o s o b y t h e m i n i s t e r , m u s t ( a ) e n t e r i n t o a n e m p l o y m e n t p l a n , a n d ( b ) c o m p l y w i t h t h e c o n d i t i o n s i n t h e e m p l o y m e n t p l a n . ( 2 ) A d e p e n d e n t y o u t h , w h e n r e q u i r e d t o d o s o b y t h e m ( a ) e n t e r i n t o a n e m p l o y m e n t p l a n , a n d ( b ) c o m p l y w i t h t h e c o n d i t i o n s i n t h e e m p l o y m e n t p l a n . ( 3 ) T h e m i n i s t e r m a y s p e c i f y t h e c o n d i t i o n s i n a n e m p l o t h e a p p l i c a n t , r e c i p i e n t o r d e p e n d e n t y o u t h t o p a r t i c i p a t m i n i s t e r ' s o p i n i o n , w i l l a s s i s t t h e a p p l i c a n t , r e c i p i e n t o r d ( a ) f i n d e m p l o y m e n t , o r ( b ) b e c o m e m o r e e m p l o y a b l e . ( 4 ) I f a n e m p l o y m e n t p l a n i n c l u d e s a c o n d i t i o n r e q u i r i n g p a r t i c i p a t e i n a s p e c i f i c e m p l o y m e n t r e l a t e d p r o g r a m , t h ( a ) f a i l s t o d e m o n s t r a t e r e a s o n a b l e e f f o r t s t o p a rt i c i p a t e t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e p r o g r a m . T h e a p p e l l a n t ' s a r g u m e n t i s t h a t h e d e m o n s t r a t e d r e d u e h i s g i r l f r i e n d ' s i l l n e s s , h e c o u l d n o t m e e t a l l h i s T h e m i n i s t r y ' s a r g u m e n t i s t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t w a s a w d i d n o t d e m o n s t r a t e r e a s o n a b l e e f f o r t s t o c o m p l y w i m a i n t a i n s t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t h a d o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o d i s o b l i g a t i o n s u n d e r t h e E P b u t f a i l e d t o d o s o . I n c o m i n g t o i t s d e c i s i o n t h e p a n e l c o n s i d e r e d t h e a g i r l f r i e n d w h o w a s r e c e i v i n g t r e a t m e n t f o r c a n c e r a n a n d s c h e d u l e d a p p o i n t m e n t s . T h e p a n e l c o n s i d e r e d r e q u i r e m e n t t o c o n t a c t t h e m i n i s t r y i f t h e r e i s a n y r e a T h e e v i d e n c e s h o w s t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t d i d n o t i n f o r m t h e i r m e e t i n g s t h a t h i s g i r l f r i e n d h a d c a n c e r . T h e p a i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t i n f o r m e d t h e E P B C c o n T h e p a n e l c o n s i d e r e d t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s s u b m i s s i o n t o EAA T 0 0 3 ( 1 0 / 0 6 / 0 1 )A P P E A L # l l e n e s s o f t h e m i n i s t r y ' s d e c i s i o n t o d e n y t h e 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 ) , fo r e n t p l a n . T h e m i n i s t ry d e t e r m i n e d t h e a p p e l l a n t i n t h e p r o g r a m a n d d i d n o t h a v e a m e d i c a l a t e s : a r d s h i p a s s i s t a n c e , e a c h a p p l i c a n t o r r e c i p i e n t i n t h e f a m i l y i n i s t e r , m u s t y m e n t p l a n i n c l u d i n g , w i t h o u t l i m i t a t i o n , a c o n d i t i o n r e q u i r i n g e i n a s p e c i f i c e m p l o y m e n t r e l a t e d p r o g r a m t h a t , i n t h e e p e n d e n t y o u t h t o a n a p p l i c a n t , a r e c i p i e n t o r a d e p e n d e n t y o u t h t o a t c o n d i t i o n i s n o t m e t i f t h e p e r s o n i n t h e p r o g r a m , o r ( b ) c e a s e s , e x c e p t f o r m e d i c a l r e a s o n s , a s o n a b l e e f f o r t s t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e p r o g r a m b u t o b l i g a t i o n s u n d e r h i s E P . a r e o f h i s o b l i g a t i o n s l i s t e d i n h i s E P a n d t h a t h e t h t h e c o n d i t i o n s o f h i s E P . T h e m i n i s t r y c u s s a n y r e a s o n h e c o u l d n o t m e e t h i s p p e l l a n t ' s a r g u m e n t s t h a t h e w a s c a r i n g f o r h i s d t h e r e f o r e w a s u n a b l e t o a t t e n d t h e w o r k s h o p s t h e o b l i g a t i o n s o f h i s E P i n c l u d i n g t h e s o n t h a t h e c o u l d n o t c o m p l y w i t h i t s o b l i g a t i o n s . t h e m i n i s t r y o r t h e E P B C c o n t r a c t o r a t a n y o f n e l h a s n o t b e e n p r o v i d e d w i t h e v i d e n c e t r a c t o r o f t h e c h a l l e n g e s h e w a s f a c i n g . t h e m i n i s t ry o n J u l y 2 3 , 2 0 1 4 t h a t h e h a d a
medic al condition tha t p r evented hi m f rom attending his panel notes that the appellant did not pr ovide supporting also no t es that, a t that meet ing, the a pp ellant w a s given a with the EPBC on August 29 a n d that he missed this d The pan e l c onsidered the appellant's submissi on that he panel notes th at when t he a pp ellant met with the minist to discuss a ny reasons that he wou ld not be able to meet provided no evidence to indicate he d iscu ssed his a t he E P required the appellant to work w it h the contrac emplo yab ility . T he panel was provided no eviden ce contractor. The pane l finds that the mini s try reaso nably determined the appel conditions of his employment plan and cea sed to be eligible for (1) bec a use he f a i l e d to dem on s trate r easona ble effor pursuant to E AA s ect i on 9(4)( a) and did not c e ase to particip section 9(4)(b). The p an el f inds that the mi nis try's dec i si on w as a r e in the c ircumstan ces o f the ap pellant and confirms the EAAT 003(10/06/01) AP P E AL# I appointments with the EPBC contractor. The d o cumenta tion from a physician. The panel n oth e r op portunity to attend an appointme n t ate as well. is addicted to drugs and he needs help. The r y to sign h is E P he was giv en t he op portunity the o blig ations of the EP. The panel was ddiction with t he mi nistry. Th e p an el n ote s th at to r to ad dre ss an y issues that woul d impact his t h at the appellant discussed his addiction with the lant did not comply with the income assistance under se ction 9 t to participate in the employ m ent program a t e due to a m edical reaso n pu r s uant to a sonable ap pl i cation o f the ap pli c abl e enact men t deci sio n.
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.