II I APPEAL# PART C Decision under A ,)peal The decision under appeal is tl~e Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation's (the ministry) decision dated Nave ,~ber 26, 2014 in which the ministry determined that the appellant did not have a right of reconsideration as she had not delivered her Request for Reconsideration (RFR) within the 20 business days re~uired by section 71 of the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Regulation (EA:PWDR). I II PART D Relevant Legislation Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act (EAPWDA), section 16 Employment and Assistance fi 1 >r Persbns with Disabilities Regulation (EAPWDR), section 71 I I
I APPEAL# PART E -Summar of Facts, The evidence before the ministr at the time of reconsideration consisted of: 1) The appellant's RFR dated t1ovem9er 20, 2014 which states that her doctor has added additional information to the application which the appellant asked the ministry to consider; 2) Letter from the ministry to tht appel ant dated August 7, 2014 and Persons with Disability (PWD) Designation Decision Summary dated July 8, 2014; 3) A PWD application compris~ of a Self-report (SR) signed by the appellant on March 27, 2014; a Physician Report (PR) and an f ssessbr Report (AR) both dated March 10, 2014; and 4) Consult reports from the appellant's specialist dated March 14 and April 8, 2013. In the Notice of Appeal the ap fellant Jates that there was confusion because the ministry sent her an approval letter and then denie her P\{VD application after that, so her appeal was late. The appellant states that her doctor added in new information to the original application that she wants the tribunal to consider. Admissibility of New Evidence At the hearing the appellant, through her interpreter, provided additional oral testimony regarding the reason that her RFR was delivered latb. The appellant states that the ministry sent her one letter approving her PWD applicatio~, and t~en she received another letter denying her PWD application. The appellant states that she vyent to the ministry office, told the ministry representative that she was struggling because of her ownJhealth bonditions, her husband's health condition requiring hospitalization and looking aft~r five crildren and that the ministry representative advised her that she could submit her RFR after th deadline for delivery. The appellant's evidence is that she then 1 attended the ministry office on November 4, 2014 and was advised that her file had been closed on October 31, 2014. The appellant's husband was witness at the hearing. His evidence was that the ministry's initial acceptance and then denial of !the apr?ellant's PWD application caused a lot of confusion and with all the difficulties he and the app~llant were having the ministry should accept that it was their error that caused their problems. The aJpellant's husband said that he wished someone would come to their house and look them in the ey sand see how hard it is for them. The panel admitted the oral te. timony into evidence as it was in support of the information before the ministry at the time of reconsi eration in accordance with section 22(4) of the Employment and Assistance Act. In particular, t e oral testimony provided additional information regarding the appellant's delay in submitting the RFR. The ministry representative co firmed that the ministry had initially sent the appellant a letter approving her PWD applicatio on July 14, 2014 but upon realizing the error sent the appellant a letter dated August 7, 2014 co recting the decision. The ministry then provided the appellant with a RFR package on August 15, 2014 and due to the confusion, they extended the time for the appellant to provide the RFR until Octob 1 er 30, 2014 but the RFR was not submitted until November 20, 2014. The ministr re resentative st ted that the a ellant could submit a new PWD a lication.
II I APPEAL# PART F Reasons for Panel Decision The issue on the appeal is whether the ministry's determination that the appellant had no right of reconsideration was a reasonalDle application of the applicable legislation in the circumstances of the appellant. The applicable legislation is as follows: EAPWDA section 16 -Recom ideration and appeal rights, is as follows: 16 ( 1) Subject to section 17, a person may request the minister to reconsider any of the following decisions made under this Act: (a) a decision that results in ~ refusal to provide disability assistance, hardship assistance or a supplement to or for someon I in the person's family unit; (b) a decision that results in · discontinuance of disability assistance or a supplement provided to or for someone in the person's family unit; ( c) a decision that results in ] reduction of disability assistance or a supplement provided to or for someone in the person's f~ mily unit; ( d) a decision in respect of tr e amount of a supplement provided to or for someone in the person's family unit if that an1ount is less than the lesser of (i) the maximum amount of the supplement under the regulations, and (ii) the cost of the least expensive and appropriate manner of providing the supplement; ( e) a decision respecting the ~onditions of an employment plan under section 9 [employment plan). (2) A request under subsection (1) must be made, and the decision reconsidered, within the time limits and in accordancE with any rules specified by regulation. (3) Subject to a regulation under subsection (5) and to sections 9 (7) [employment plan], 17 and 18 (2) [overpayments], ~ person who is dissatisfied with the outcome of a request for a reconsideration under subsection (1) (a) to (d) may appeal the decision that is the outcome of the request to the tribunal. 11 ( 4) A right of appeal given ur1der subsection (3) is subject to the time limits and other requirements set out in the E 1 mployment and Assistance Act and the regulations under that Act. (5) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may designate by regulation (a) categories of supplemend that are not appealable to the tribunal, and (b) circumstances in which a J6ecision to refuse to provide disability assistance, hardship assistance or a supplement is not appealable to the tribunal. EAPWDR section 71 How Jo request a reconsideration of a decision, is as follows: I 71 (1) A person who wishes fhe minister to reconsider a decision referred to in section 16 (1) [reconsideration and appeal rights] of the Act must deliver a request for reconsideration in the form specified by the minister to the ministry office where the person is applying for or receiving assistance. (2) A request under subsecti . 1 n (1) must be delivered within I
I APPEAL# 20 business days after the date the person is notified of the decision referred to in section 16 (1) of the Act and may be deliver~d by (a) leaving with an employee in the ministry office, or (b) being received through th~ mail at that office. The panel notes that its jurisdicfion in this appeal is limited to determining whether the ministry's decision that they could not pr9vide a reconsideration decision was reasonable and does not include a review of the evidence with r spect to the appellant's PWD application. The appellant's position is that because of the ministry error in approving then denying her PWD application, the ministry advise! that she could submit her RFR late. The appellant states that because of her health situation her husband's health condition and struggles with their five children, two of which are twins and two of which are disabled, in addition to the fact that she could not drive are extenuating circumstances !n which the ministry should consider her RFR. The ministry's position is that a ~hough there was a ministry error initially advising the appellant that she was approved for PWD de~ignation, they corrected the error by letter dated August 7, 2014. The ministry provided the appellantla RFR package on August 15, 2014 and extended the time for her to 1 provide the RFR until October 30, 2014 but the appellant did not submit the RFR until November 20, 2014. The ministry's position i. that the RFR package clearly outlines the appellant's responsibilities in submitting a RFR and the de~dlines that are important. The ministry's position is that as they extended the timeline for the af pellant to provide the RFR and she still did not submit it by October 30, 2014, the ministry cannot rmake available a reconsideration of this matter and no reconsideration was conducted. I Panel Decision The panel finds that although t e ministry made an error in initially advising the appellant that she was approved for PWD design · tion when in fact she was not, the ministry sent the appellant a corrected letter on August 7, 2 1: 14 advising the appellant that her application for PWD designation was denied. The panel finds that the minist y provided the appellant with a RFR package on August 15, 2014 and extended the deadline for her t6 submit the RFR until October 30, 2014 but that the appellant failed to submit the RFR until Novemb9 1 it 20, 2014. Although the appellant's health condition, her husband's health condition and their famil~ situation with five children, two of which are disabled, makes the appellant's circumstances diffi~ult, the appellant did not communicate with the ministry between I August 15 and the November 19, 2014. As section 71 of the EAPWDR states that a RFR must be delivered within 20 business d1ys after the date the appellant was notified of the decision, the I appellant did not submit her R ' R within the legislated timelines, or the extended deadline provided by the ministry. Section 16(3) of the EAPWDA provides that, subject to certain exceptions, a person who is dissatisfied with the "outcome 1 f a request for reconsideration under subsection (1)(a) to (d) may appeal the decision that is the :outcome of the request to the tribunal." In this case, the ministry's determination that there was np right of reconsideration was the "outcome" of the appellant's re uest. The anel finds that ~~e ministr 's determination that the a ellant did not have a ri ht to
Ii I APPEAL# I reconsideration is a reasonable application of the applicable enactment in the appellant's circumstances under section 24(1 )(b) of the EAA for the reasons outlined above. In view of this finding, the panel confirms under section 24(2) of the EAA the ministry's decision that there is no right to reconsideration. It follows th~t the appellant is not entitled to have the request for reconsideration proceed to reconsideration. /I Conclusion ;J As the ministry's decision whic~ determined that they could not provide a reconsideration decision was a reasonable application OJ the applicable legislation in the circumstances of the appellant, the panel confirms the ministry's defision.
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.