APPEAL
PART C – Decision under Appeal
The Decision under Appeal is the Ministry’s Reconsideration Decision, dated April 21 2015, which
denied the Appellant funding to attend her own criminal court trial in another province. The Ministry
determined that the Appellant was not eligible for a crisis supplement under sec. 57 or 59 of the
Employment and Assistance Regulation. The legislation only allowed transportation costs under sec.
57(2)(f) and (g), for hearings related to a child protection proceeding under the Child, Family and
Community Service Act (“CFCSA”) or in relation to maintenance rights assigned to the ministry; or,
under sec. 59, for an unexpected need or expense where failure to obtain the supplement would
result in removal of a child under the CFCSA. As the appellant did not fit these criterions she was not
eligible for the supplement.
PART D – Relevant Legislation
EAR
Employment and Assistance Regulation – Sections 57 & 59
APPEAL
PART E – Summary of Facts
BACKGROUND
The appellant requested the ministry provide her with travel expenses so that she could attend her
criminal trial in another province. She included a letter from her lawyer confirming the trial and the
time frame her attendance was necessary; a copy of material from greyhound bus for the cost of
travel; information on the costs of hotel rooms; and an estimate of meal costs. The letter from the
lawyer stated that one of the subjects of the matter was her child whom the lawyer “understood was
apprehended as a result of this allegation.” The request was denied. The ministry advised they had
no legislative authority to provide transportation to court hearings unless it involved child protection
proceedings under B.C.’s CFCSA. As the matter was not a child protection hearing under the
CFCSA the ministry could not issue these funds
The appellant requested reconsideration from the ministry. She advised that she had to be at court,
although the specifics could not be fully revealed. She indicated she had been assaulted by her ex-
boyfriend and her child had been apprehended for two months. She advised that it had been alleged
she assaulted a police officer when she was just protecting her child. She once again requested
transportation, meals and accommodation for five days.
The Reconsideration Decision determined that the ministry could only authorize assistance or a
supplement as set out in the EAR and that there was no legislative authority for a supplement for
travel expenses to attend a criminal court hearing. The EAR only allows transportation costs under
sec. 58(2)(f) and 58(2)(g), for
hearings related to a child protection proceeding under the CFCSA or in
relation to maintenance rights assigned to the ministry; and, under sec. 59, for an unexpected need
or expense where failure to obtain the supplement would result in removal of the child under the
CFCSA. The ministry determined the appellant was not eligible to receive the requested supplement.
The panel notes the decision incorrectly cited sec. 58; the correct sections are 57(2)(f) & (g).
The appellant appealed the Reconsideration Decision to the Tribunal. She stated, among other
things, that her child was initially apprehended but returned in late December 2013. This was after an
October 2013 incident with her ex-boyfriend where the police arrived and accepted the version of her
boyfriend and his nephew. Upon arrest she panicked and is alleged to have assaulted a police
officer. She stated the regulations contain a provision for transportation for a recipient who has an
outstanding warrant for arrest. She is requesting transportation expenses to avoid an unnecessary
warrant for her arrest.
HEARING
The Appellant gave evidence at the hearing where she stated she was not aware that her ex was
using drugs and she was in an abusive relationship that she was getting ready to leave. She did not
believe that she was guilty of the offence and the police had acted inappropriately towards her. Since
the events she had returned to BC, where she had lived most of her life. Her child was also now in
BC in foster care. Her criminal trial had also been adjourned once previously about 7-8 months prior
due to a medical issue of the appellant’s. The appellant re-iterated her position in the Notice of
Appeal that if she did not get to the other province a warrant would be issued for her and she wished
funding to avoid this.
APPEAL
The ministry re-iterated the Reconsideration Decision and stated there is no legislative authority to
allow such a supplement for the appellant. In relation to a supplement for outstanding warrants the
ministry advised there is such legislation but that this applied only where there was an outstanding
warrant and it resulted in a one-way repayable bus ticket to the jurisdiction where the warrant
originated.
APPEAL
PART F – Reasons for Panel Decision
The issue is whether the Ministry reasonably determined the Appellant was not eligible for a
supplement to travel to another province to attend her criminal trial.
EMPLOYMENT AND ASSISTANCE REGULATION
Supplements for moving, transportation and living costs
57 (1) In this section:
"living cost" means the cost of accommodation and meals;
"moving cost" means the cost of moving a family unit and its personal effects from one place to
another;
"transportation cost" means the cost of travelling from one place to another.
(2) Subject to subsections (3) and (4), the minister may provide a supplement to or for a family unit
that is eligible for income assistance, other than as a transient under section 10 of Schedule A, or
hardship assistance to assist with one or more of the following:
…
(f) transportation costs and living costs required to attend a hearing relating to a child
protection proceeding under the Child, Family and Community Service Act
, if a recipient is
given notice of the hearing and is a party to the proceeding;
(g) transportation costs, living costs, child care costs and fees resulting from
(i)
the required attendance of a recipient in the family unit at a hearing, or
(ii) other requirements a recipient in the family unit must fulfil
in connection with the exercise of a maintenance right assigned to the minister under
section 20 [categories that must assign maintenance rights].
(3) A family unit is eligible for a supplement under this section only if
(a) there are no resources available to the family unit to cover the costs for which the supplement
may be provided, and
(b) a recipient in the family unit receives the minister's approval before incurring those costs.
(4) A supplement may be provided under this section only to assist with
(a) the cost of the least expensive appropriate mode of moving or transportation, and
(b) in the case of a supplement under subsection (2) (f) or (g), the least expensive appropriate
living costs.
APPEAL
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
.
Sec. 57(2)(f) & (g) allow the minster to provide a supplement, to an eligible family unit, for
transportation costs and living costs required to attend a hearing relating to a child protection
proceeding under the CFCSA, and for transportation costs and living costs resulting from the required
attendance of a recipient in the family unit at a hearing, or other requirements a recipient in the family
unit must fulfil, in connection with the exercise of a maintenance right assigned to the minister under
section 20.
Sec. 59(1) allows the minister to provide a crisis supplement to an eligible person if the person
requires the supplement to meet an unexpected expense or obtain an item unexpectedly needed, is
unable to meet the expense or obtain the item because there are no resources available to the family
unit, and the minister considers that failure to meet the expense or obtain the item will result in
imminent danger to the physical health of the person or the removal of a child under the CFCSA.
The Appellant is eligible to apply for these supplements as she is currently a single recipient on
Income Assistance. In relation to Sec. 57 and Sec. 59 the issue is whether the appellant is attending
a child protection hearing, a child is at risk or removal, or a hearing regarding maintenance rights
assigned to the minister is occurring. The ministry determined that as the appellant was requesting
the supplement to attend her own criminal charges in another province that the request did not fall
under the British Columbia’s CFCSA.
The evidence of the appellant is clear; this request is not for transportation costs and living costs
required to attend a hearing relating to a child protection proceeding under the CFCSA and it is not for
transportation costs and living costs resulting from the required attendance at a hearing, or other
requirement the appellant must fulfil, in connection with the exercise of a maintenance right assigned
to the minister under section 20 of the EAR. It is so she can attend court to face a criminal allegation.
The legislation is clear such a request does not fall under sections 57 and the appellant cannot bring
herself within the requirements of sec. 57 of the EAR.
It is also clear from the appellant’s evidence that the requested supplement is not to meet an
unexpected expense where the failure to meet the expense will result in the removal of a child under
APPEAL
the CFCSA. There is no removal of a child happening; the child is already in foster care in BC. As
such, the appellant does not fall under the requirements of sec. 59 of the EAR.
The panel finds that the Ministry’s decision was reasonable in determining that the appellant did not
qualify for the supplement under either sec. 57 and 59 of the EAR. The panel finds that the decision
by the ministry was reasonable based on the legislation and all the evidence and confirms the
decision. The Appellant is not successful in this appeal.
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.