! APPEAL# I PART C Decision under Appeal I The appellant appeals the rE 1 consideation decision of the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation (ministry) dated r ovem~e 1 r 26, 2014, in which the ministry denied her request for a $500 moving supplement on the t asis that the appellant did not meet the required criteria set out in section 57(2) of the Employment an 1A ssistance Regulation (EAR). The ministry determined that the appellant had not provided i iformation showing that she was moving from one location to another 1 within the province to avoid ~n immin 1 ent threat to her physical safety, as required by subs. 57(2)(e) of the EAR. I PART D Relevant Legisl c I i:l r 1 0n I Employment and Assistanc€ !Regulation (EAR) section 57. EAAT 003(10/06/01)
I APPEAL# PART E -Summa The appellant receives mont ly incqme assistance as a single recipient. The information before the inistry at reconsideration included the following documents: • A copy of a ministry s I elter information form dated June 30, 2014 indicating the appellant's portion of rent was $3 0/month rent at a residence she shared with a roommate; • A copy of a ministry s elter information form dated October 19, 2014 indicating the appellant's portion of rent is $400 month (out of a total of $900/month) at the new residence she shares with her roommate, wi a handwritten note that the appellant's roommate pays all utilities, the appellant only pays re t; • A copy of a residentia tenancy agreement (4 pages) signed by the appellant and her roommate on October 9, 2014 for the new residence; • A letter dated Octobe 20, 2014 to the appellant's roommate from BC Housing Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters (SAF ) program requesting a current rent receipt; • A letter from the appe lant's roommate dated October 20, 2014 in which the roommate stated that she is moving/mo ed to a new location in the province for employment, that she is both the appellant's roommate nd primary caregiver and the appellant is moving with her to the new I location. In this letter, he appellant's roommate writes that she thinks it is reasonable to request $500 from the 1 1 inistry for moving the appellant's personal belongings to their new location; • Copies of handwritten submissions from the appellant's roommate (6 pages) discussed below; • A copy of a moving eitimate dated October 22, 2014 indicating that the cost of moving the appellant's belongingslfrom their storage location to the new residence is $2,310.00; • A copy of a moving es~imate (not dated) indicating the cost of moving the appellant's belongings from their ~rorage location to the new residence is $2520.00; and • The appellant's 3-pa~t hand-written submissions on reconsideration dated November 17, 2014 (discussed belol f. In their written submissions !n reco~sideration, the appellant and her roommate indicate that they have been friends for 32 yea js and the appellant moved in with her roommate sometime after the appellant's mother died. Thl roommate indicated that before she moved in with her, the appellant was living in the basement o I a family member's house, but she had no heating, was sleeping on a couch, and was in very poor ~ealth as there was a mold problem and the appellant has COPD. Before they moved to their n ·w location, the appellant paid $300 per month rent to her roommate, 1 who is also on fixed incomei nd has housing assistance through the SAFER program. The roommate moved to the new l1ocation for employment. Both the appellant and her roommate indicate that the appellant's health h s imprdved in their new location as the air is drier (there is no mold and no one in the house smokesJIa nd she is able to get out. At the hearing, the appellant and her roommate repeated to the panel the submissions to the ministry at reconsideration. They tol the panel that the appellant's belongings are being stored at no charge at the home of a friend of thJ roommate close to their previous location. They said that the roommate's friend has offere~ to drive the appellant's belongings to their new location, but has asked for $500 for gas and other e penses. They also told the panel that the appellant is in the process of having another test for her COPD, her health has improved since they moved, but she still has roblems and is connectin I ith services in their new communit . The anel admits the testimon of I EAAT 003(10/06/01)
I APPEAL# the appellant and her roomn 1 ate at the hearing as oral testimony in support of information that was before the ministry when the decision being appealed was made, under section 22(4) of the Employment and AssistancE Act. In its reconsideration decisic r, the ministry noted that the appellant is a sole recipient of income assistance. The ministry notfrd in the reconsideration decision that the appellant did not provide information that she was mo~ing to the new location for confirmed employment (the roommate moved for employment, but the appf llant is not employed), or that she was moving to another province or country, and that the new lomation is not an adjacent municipality to the appellant's former community. The appellant a hd her roommate did not disagree with these findings in the ministry's reconsideration decision. I EAAT003(10/06/01)
I APPEAL# PART F Reasons for P l ei Decision The issue on this appeal is I hethef the ministry's decision to deny the appellant's request for a $500 moving supplement on the I sis that she did not meet the criteria set out in section 57(2) of the EAR is reasonable. The criteria to be applied by rhe ministry on a request for a moving supplement are set out in section 57 of the EAR as follows: (1) In this section: ;,~oving cost" means th I cost of moving a family unit and its personal effects from one place to another; (2) Subject to subsections (,) and (4), the minister may provide a supplement to or for a family unit that is eligible for incom I assistance ... to assist with one or more of the following: (a) Moving costs req ired to[ move anywhere in Canada, if a recipient in the family unit is not working but has rranged confirmed employment that would significantly promote the financial indepen ence of the family unit and the recipient is required to move to begin that employment; I (b) Moving costs req ired to move to another province or country, if the family unit is required to move to impro e its living circumstances; (c) Moving costs req 1 ired to move within a municipality or unincorporated area or to an I adjacent municip lity or unincorporated area because the family unit's rented residential accommodation i being sold or demolished and notice to vacate has been given, or has been condemnedJ I (d) Moving costs req ired to move within a municipality or unincorporated area or to an adjacent municip 1 Iity or unincorporated area if the family unit's shelter costs would be significantly redu 1 ed as a result of the move; (e) Moving costs req ired to move to another area in British Columbia to avoid an imminent threat to the phys 1 lcal saf~ty of any person in the family unit; (f) .... (3) A family unit is eligible f ,Ir a supplement under this section only if (a) There are no res , urces ~vailable to the family unit to cover the costs for which the supplement may , e provided, and I (b) A recipient in the jamily unit receives the minister's approval before incurring those costs. (4) A supplement may be p ovided under this section only to assist with I (a) The cost of the le st expensive appropriate mode of moving or transportation, and (b) ... The appellant's position is t t she needs the $500 moving supplement to pay to move her I belongings from where they re beipg stored at the house of her roommate's friend to her new home in a different town in the pro ince. The appellant agreed that she did not have an estimate from her roommate's friend to provid I the ministry showing that the cost of moving her belongings to their new location would be $500. Th . appellant says that she had to move to her new location so that she could continue to live with h r roomtnate who is also her primary caregiver. The appellant and her roommate argued that if the : ppellalnt had not moved to the new location but had returned to her previous living arrangement [n the basement of a family member's home, her COPD would have become much worse than it ~. her health and well-bein would suffer, and that this constitutes an EAAT 003( 10/06/01)
I APPEAL# imminent threat to her physi fal safety. The ministry stands by its rel onsideration decision which found that the appellant does not meet the legislative criteria under subfl. 57(2) for a moving supplement. The ministry noted that the appellant was not moving for confirme~ employment, so she did not meet the criteria set out in subs. 57(2)(a). I The ministry noted the appe jant was not moving to another province or country, so she did not meet the criteria under subs. 57(21j(b). The ministry determined that because the appellant's rent increased from $300/month to $400/mi~nth with the move, her previous accommodation was not being condemned, sold or demolis ~ed, and the new location was not adjacent to the municipality where she and her roommate had beer living, she did not meet the criteria under subs. 57(2)(c) or (2)(d). At the hearing, the ministry noted t at the pppellant's COPD is a chronic condition, as opposed to a condition that poses an imm nent threat. The ministry found that the appellant had not provided information that she was mo ~ing to ~he new location to avoid an imminent threat to her physical safety, noting at the hearing that the. appellant's doctor had not indicated that the appellant's health was threatened by staying a the previous location, so she did not meet the criteria in subs. 57(2)(e). In order to receive a moving upplement under section 57 of the EAR, an applicant must meet the criteria set out in subs. 57(21-if the applicant does not meet the criteria, the moving supplement will not be provided. The panel riptes that the appellant did not disagree with the ministry's finding that she does not meet the criterja set out in subs. 57(2)(a), (b), (c) or (d). The appellant argues that her health and well-being and h1f COPD have improved by moving with her roommate to the new location, so she should mee,lthe criteria set out in subs. 57(2)(e). However, subs. 57(2)(e) requires that the move for which the ~oving costs are requested must be to avoid an imminent threat to the physical safety of the appellc~nt and the panel notes that the appellant did not provide information that she was moving to avoid an imminent threat to her physical safety, such as information from her doctor regarding her prior liv hg conditions and confirming that these conditions posed an imminent threat to her physical safety. The panel finds that the mini ~try's d~termination that the appellant did not meet the requirement of subs. 57(2)(e) was reasona~ 1 le, as there was no evidence from the appellant before the ministry that she was moving to avoid an l:mminent threat to her physical safety. The panel therefore confirms the ministry's reconsideration def sion. 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.