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 March 20, 2015 in which the ministry determined that the
appellant was not eligible for $120 of the $350 she requested as a clothing supplement available to
persons living in specified special care facilities because she did not satisfy the ministry that she had
no funds available from her comforts allowance or other available resources as required by Section
50 (1) of the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Regulation (EAPWDR), and
because she failed to satisfy the ministry that she needed to replace all of the items specified in her
request.
PART D – Relevant Legislation
Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Regulation (EAPWDR) Sections 1, 50 (1)
APPEAL #
PART E – Summary of Facts
The appellant is a recipient of disability assistance and resides in a special care facility. The evidence
before the ministry at the time of reconsideration included:
•
appellant’s request for reconsideration received by the ministry March 16, 2015 to which was
appended:
o
handwritten note from the appellant asking the ministry to come to her care facility to
see what clothing she needs and confirming that she purchased 2 pairs of pyjamas, 2
tops, a jacket, underwear, a winter coat and winter boots, but she still requires $120 to
purchase shoes, runners, pants and tops;
o
March 1, 2013 letter to the ministry from the care facility director stating that the
appellant resides in the care facility, receives only a monthly $95 comforts allowance
and needs a clothing allowance;
o
appellant’s bank activity statement for the period January 3 – February 28, 2013;
o
adult care clothing allowance request in the prescribed form dated May 30, 2014 for
clothing items totaling $350;
o
appellant’s bank activity statement for the period February 25 – April 30, 2014 showing
monthly deposits of $95 comforts allowance and quarterly GST rebate of $105.16;
o
adult care clothing allowance request in the prescribed form dated November 2014 for
clothing items totaling $350, itemized as follows:
winter jacket $70
winter boots $60
socks $15
underwear $15
4 shirts/sweaters @ $20 = $80
4 pairs of pants @ $20 = $80
In her Notice of Appeal dated March 30, 2015 the appellant stated that in March she asked for $350
for clothing. She walks everywhere and goes through shoes and clothes but received only $230, and
she does not understand why ten other residents received $350 whose circumstances are no
different. She added that she has a social worker to assist her with shopping, and can hand in
receipts if needed.
At the hearing the special care facility client service facilitator (“D”) testified that she takes the
appellant shopping and that the appellant does not shop recklessly. D added that the appellant
requires all of her $95 comforts allowance and her GST rebate ($105) received quarterly,
approximately $35 per month) to buy hygiene items, some medication and to attend eye
appointments. Because she walks everywhere she needs to replace her shoes more frequently than
others.
The panel finds that the oral evidence of the appellant is admissible as evidence in support of the
information before the ministry at the time of reconsideration under EAA Section 22 (4) because it
supports the appellant’s statement in her request for reconsideration that she still requires shoes,
runners, pants and tops.
The panel also finds that the oral evidence of D is not admissible as evidence in support of the
information before the ministry at the time of reconsideration under EAA Section 22 (4) because it
introduced new evidence that was not before the ministry at reconsideration concerning:
APPEAL #
•
details of the appellant’s use of her comforts allowance and other available resources;
•
the appellant’s need for frequent footwear replacement because she walks everywhere .
The ministry relied on its reconsideration decision, which found that:
•
on November 20, 2014 the ministry received the appellant’s request for an adult care clothing
allowance;
•
on January 28, 2015 the appellant called the ministry about her request and advised that she
was unable to utilize community resources due to health and mobility issues;
•
on February 26, 2015 the ministry determined that the appellant was eligible for an adult care
clothing allowance of $230 pursuant to EAPWDR Section 50 (1) as a person in a specified
adult care facility but did not did not satisfy the ministry that she required the additional $120
she requested for clothing for the following reasons:
•
she did not provide information to demonstrate that she no longer had the pants, tops and
shoes that she had purchased over the past 2 years;
•
items of the same type generally last more than 2 years;
•
she did not satisfy the ministry that she had insufficient resources available from her $95
monthly comforts allowance and $35 monthly GST rebate to purchase the clothing, or that
her $42.11 monthly cable television bill was an essential monthly expenditure.
At the hearing the ministry representative stated that the adult care clothing allowance is a
discretionary supplement that is normally paid to eligible recipients twice each year, usually in the fall
and spring, to a maximum of $700 per year. He added that $700 is the amount consistently paid to
eligible recipients living in adult care facilities where clothing is not provided by the facility, but stated
that there is no general policy and that the worker tries to make a reasonable decision that complies
with the legislation.
The panel finds that the oral evidence of the ministry representative is not admissible under EAA
Section 22 (4) as evidence in support of the information before the ministry at the time of
reconsideration because it was not relevant to or corroborative of the information upon which the
reconsideration officer made her decision.
APPEAL #
PART F – Reasons for Panel Decision
The issue under appeal is the reasonableness of the ministry decision of March 20, 2015 in which the
ministry determined that the appellant was not eligible for $120 of the $350 she requested as a
clothing supplement available to persons living in specified special care facilities because she did not
satisfy the ministry that she had no funds available from her comforts allowance or other available
resources as required by Section 50 (1) of the Employment and Assistance for Persons with
Disabilities Regulation (EAPWDR), and because she failed to satisfy the ministry that she needed to
replace all of the items specified in her request.
The relevant legislation is as follows:
EAPWDR:
Definitions
1
(1) In this regulation:
"special care facility" means a facility that is a licensed community care facility under
the Community Care and Assisted Living Act or a specialized adult residential care setting
approved by the minister under subsection (3);
Clothing supplement for people in specified special care facilities
50 (1) The minister may provide a supplement, for the purchase of necessary clothing, to a
person with disabilities who is eligible for disability assistance and receives accommodation
and care in a special care facility if
(a) clothing is not provided in the facility,
(b) there are no funds available from the recipient's comforts allowance to
purchase the clothing, and
(c) there are no resources available to the recipient's family unit to pay for
the clothing.
The appellant argues that all of the items of clothing totaling $350 that she requested on November
20, 2015 were necessary items and that she is unable to pay for them from her $95 monthly comforts
allowance and has no other resources. She adds that she walks everywhere and must replace her
footwear frequently. She also argues that all but one of the other residents of her care facility
received the usual $350 semi-annual clothing allowance and she does not think it is fair that her
allowance should be reduced by $120.
The ministry argues that the appellant was not eligible for $120 of the $350 special care facility
clothing allowance she requested in November 2014 because:
1.
she failed to satisfy the ministry that her purchases were necessary because she no longer
had the pants, tops and shoes that she had purchased over the past 2 years and that items of
the same type generally last more than 2 years;
2.
she did not satisfy the ministry that she had no funds available from her comforts allowance or
APPEAL #
other available resources as required by EAPWDR Section 50 (1) because she failed to
explain how she had spent the money she had withdrawn from her account and failed to show
that her $42.11 monthly cable television bill is an essential expenditure.
Panel Decision
EAPWDR Section 50(1) states that the ministry may provide a supplement for the purchase of
necessary clothing to an eligible recipient of disability assistance living in a special care facility if
1.
the clothing is necessary;
2.
there are no funds available in the recipient’s comfort allowance;
3. the recipient has no other available resources.
The amount of a supplement paid by the ministry under Section 50 (1) is within the discretion of the
ministry.
In the reconsideration decision the ministry dealt with (2) the availability of comforts allowance funds
and (3) other available resources as one determination.
1.
Necessary Clothing
The appellant received $200 from the ministry in 2013 to purchase pants, tops and runners and $210
in spring 2014 for runners, sandals, 4 shirts, and 2 pairs of pants. In November 2014 she again
requested pants totaling $80 (4 pairs at $20 each) and shirts/sweaters totaling $80 (4 at $20 each),
but did not provide information to demonstrate that she had worn out or no longer had the similar
items that she had purchased with her two previous clothing supplements. In her January 28, 2015
call to the ministry she told a ministry worker that she had health and mobility issues but in her Notice
of Appeal the appellant stated that she needed to replace her footwear frequently because she
walked everywhere. This contradictory statement made by the appellant in her Notice of Appeal was
not before the ministry at reconsideration.
The panel therefore finds that on the evidence before the ministry at reconsideration the ministry
reasonably determined that the appellant did not provide sufficient information to satisfy the ministry
that she required all of the items she requested in her November 2014 clothing allowance request.
2 and 3. No Comforts Allowance Funds or Other Resources Available
The appellant receives $95 per month comforts allowance and approximately $35 per month GST
rebate. Her bank account statement for the period February 25 – April 30, 2014 shows that she pays
a $4 monthly bank fee and $42.11 for cable TV. This leaves available funds of approximately $83 per
month which amounts to almost $500 over a six month period. Although it is reasonable for a care
facility resident to spend some money on clothing, transportation and entertainment the appellant has
provided no information to explain why she is unable to use any of these available funds for the
purchase of clothing.
In conclusion the panel finds that the ministry decision to declare the appellant ineligible for $120 of
the $350 special care facility clothing allowance she requested in November 2014 because she did
not satisfy the ministry that her requested clothing purchases were necessary and that she had no
resources available from her comforts allowance or from other resources was a reasonable
application of the applicable enactment in the appellant’s circumstances, and confirms the 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.