APPEAL #
PART C – Decision under Appeal
The decision under appeal is the reconsideration decision of the Ministry of Social Development and
Social Innovation (the ministry) dated 16 January 2015 that denied the appellant’s request for a crisis
supplement to cover his rent for January 2015. The ministry determined that, since the appellant was
not eligible for income assistance for January 2015, under section 59 of the Employment and
Assistance Regulation he is not eligible for a crisis supplement for that month.
PART D – Relevant Legislation
Employment and Assistance Regulation (EAR), sections 10, 44 and 59.
APPEAL #
PART E – Summary of Facts
The appellant did not appear at the hearing. After confirming that the appellant was notified of the
hearing, the hearing proceeded in accordance with section 86(b) of the Employment and Assistance
Regulation.
The evidence before the ministry at reconsideration included the following:
1.
From the ministry’s files, as set out in the ministry section of the Request for Reconsideration::
•
The appellant was a sole recipient of income assistance, receiving $235 in monthly
support allowance and $375 in monthly shelter allowance, for a total of $610 per
month. His file was reopened in October 2014.
•
In November 2014 the appellant received a Canada Pension Plan lump sum
payment of $692.16. As CPP is considered unearned income, it is deducted dollar for
dollar from the recipient’s monthly income assistance. As the money was received in
the month of November 2014, it affects his benefits for January 2015. As this income is
greater than his monthly assistance rate, he was not eligible for income assistance for
January 2015. The appellant did not seek a reconsideration of that decision.
•
On 07 January 2015, the appellant applied for a crisis supplement to cover his rent
for January of $400.
2. The appellant's Request for Reconsideration dated 09 January 2015. Under Reasons for
Request, the appellant writes that he applied for income assistance on 15 September 2014. It
was not until 30 October 2014 that his application was approved. He did not receive any
assistance for the month of September 2014 and because of this he owed back rent of $400.
In November he received a CPP benefit and used this to pay off the back rent owing for
September. Because he received the CPP money in November he became ineligible for
assistance for the month of January 2015. He writes that he explained the situation to ministry
staff and was informed that he could apply for a crisis supplement. He goes on to state that on
01 January 2015 he received an eviction notice for failure to pay rent. He provided this notice
to the ministry office. His request for a crisis supplement was denied and he is now appealing
this denial.
Attached to the Request for Reconsideration is a copy of a “10 Day Notice to End Tenancy for
Unpaid Rent or Utilities” signed by the appellant's landlord on 01 January 2015. The Notice
indicates that the appellant has failed to pay rent in the amount of $400 that was due on 01
January 2015.
The appellant's Notice of Appeal is dated 27 January 2015. He writes that he has requested
reconsideration for the excess income decision, and has appealed that decision. He states that
“There are many errors.”
At the hearing, the ministry stood by its position at reconsideration (see also Part F, Reasons for
Panel Decision).
APPEAL #
PART F – Reasons for Panel Decision
The issue in this appeal is whether the ministry’s decision to deny the appellant's request for a crisis
supplement to cover his rent for January 2015, because the appellant was not eligible for income
assistance for January 2015 and under section 59 of the Employment and Assistance Regulation he
is not eligible for a crisis supplement for that month, is reasonably supported by the evidence or is a
reasonable application of the legislation in the circumstances of the appellant.
The applicable legislation is from the EAR:
Limits on income
10 (1) For the purposes of the Act and this regulation, "income", in relation to a family unit, includes an amount
garnished, attached, seized, deducted or set off from the income of an applicant, a recipient or a dependant.
(2) A family unit is not eligible for income assistance if the net income of the family unit determined under
Schedule B equals or exceeds the amount of income assistance determined under Schedule A for a
family unit matching that family unit.
Family units that have excess income
44 The minister may provide hardship assistance to a family unit that is not eligible for income assistance because
the income of the family unit exceeds the limit under section 10 [limits on income] if
(a) the minister considers that undue hardship will otherwise occur,
(b) the applicant provides the type of security specified by the minister for the repayment of
the hardship assistance,
(c) the family unit includes one or more dependent children, and
(d) the income that causes the family unit to be ineligible for income assistance could not, in
the minister's opinion, reasonably be expected to be used to meet the family unit's basic
needs.
Crisis supplement
59 (1) The minister may provide a crisis supplement to or for a family unit that is eligible for income assistance or
hardship assistance if
(a) the family unit or a person in the family unit requires the supplement to meet an
unexpected expense or obtain an item unexpectedly needed and is unable to meet the
expense or obtain the item because there are no resources available to the family unit, and
(b) the minister considers that failure to meet the expense or obtain the item will result in
(i) imminent danger to the physical health of any person in the family unit, or
(ii) removal of a child under the Child, Family and Community Service Act.
(2) A crisis supplement may be provided only for the calendar month in which the application or request for the
supplement is made.
(3) A crisis supplement may not be provided for the purpose of obtaining
(a) a supplement described in Schedule C, or
(b) any other health care goods or services.
(4) A crisis supplement provided for food, shelter or clothing is subject to the following limitations:
(a) if for food, the maximum amount that may be provided in a calendar month is $20 for
each person in the family unit,
APPEAL #
(b) if for shelter, the maximum amount that may be provided in a calendar month is the
smaller of
(i) the family unit's actual shelter cost, and
(ii) the maximum set out in section 4 of Schedule A or Table 2 of Schedule D, as
applicable, for a family unit that matches the family unit;
(c) if for clothing, the amount that may be provided must not exceed the smaller of
(i) $100 for each person in the family unit in the 12 calendar month period
preceding the date of application for the crisis supplement, and
(ii) $400 for the family unit in the 12 calendar month period preceding the date of
application for the crisis supplement.
(5) The cumulative amount of crisis supplements that may be provided to or for a family unit in a year must not
exceed the amount calculated under subsection (6).
(6) In the calendar month in which the application or request for the supplement is made, the amount under
subsection (5) is calculated by multiplying by 2 the maximum amount of income assistance or hardship
assistance that may be provided for the month under Schedule A or Schedule D to a family unit that
matches the family unit.
(7) Despite subsection (4) (b) or (5) or both, a crisis supplement may be provided to or for a family unit for the
following:
(a) fuel for heating;
(b) fuel for cooking meals;
(c) water;
(d) hydro.
In the reconsideration decision, the ministry notes that section 59(1) of the EAR states that the
Minister may provide a crisis supplement to a recipient of income assistance, and section 59(2) states
a crisis supplement may be provided only for the calendar month in which the application or request
for the supplement is made. The appellant requested a crisis supplement in January 2015 for his
January rent. As the appellant was not provided income assistance (shelter and/or support) for
January 2015, it is the position of the ministry that, pursuant to sections 59(1) and (2) of the EAR, the
appellant is not eligible for a crisis supplement for January 2015
At the hearing, the ministry explained that eligibility for income assistance is considered on a month-
to-month basis, with eligibility determined by what is reported in the client’s monthly report. The
appellant was not eligible for income assistance for January 2015 because the income reported by
the 5th of December 2014 report exceeded his monthly assistance rate. His next report, which would
have been submitted before 5th January 2015, would be considered an application for eligibility
renewal, and his assistance for February would have been determined accordingly. The appellant
would not have been eligible for hardship assistance as he is a sole recipient with no dependent
children.
As the appellant did not appear at the hearing, the panel can only infer his position from what he
wrote in his Request for Reconsideration and Notice of Appeal: “There were many errors.” It may be
that he is referring to the delay between when he first applied for income assistance in September
2014 and when his application was approved in late October 2014, giving rise to his being in arrears
in his rent, and to
the treatment of the November lump sum CPP payment as unearned income, being
deducted dollar for dollar from his January assistance, resulting in not being provided assistance for
APPEAL #
that month. Thus it is unreasonable that the ministry did not take into account these factors in denying
his request for a crisis supplement to cover his January 2015 rent.
Panel decision
The panel's decision is strictly limited to the outcome of the appellant's Request for Reconsideration
regarding the denial of his request for a crisis supplement for January 2015 rent. The evidence is that
the appellant was not eligible for income assistance for January 2015. As sections 59(1) and (2) of
the EAR limit eligibility for a crisis supplement to a family unit eligible for income assistance or
hardship assistance (and the appellant would not be eligible for the latter as the appellant is a single
person with no dependent children) and only for the calendar month in which the request for the
supplement is made, the panel finds that the ministry was reasonable in determining that under the
legislation the appellant was not eligible for the requested crisis supplement.
Accordingly, the panel finds that the ministry’s decision to deny the appellant's request for a crisis
supplement for January 2015 rent was a reasonable application of the legislation in the
circumstances of the appellant. The panel therefore confirms the ministry's decision.
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.