APPEAL #
PART C – Decision under Appeal
The decision under appeal is the reconsideration decision dated June 8, 2015 in which the ministry
denied the appellant a crisis supplement for clothing because the request did not meet the criteria in
the Employment and Assistance Regulation (EAR) Section 59. The legislation requires that the need
for a crisis supplement be unexpected, that the person not have the resources available, and that
failure to provide the supplement would result in imminent danger to his or his family members’
physical health or the removal of a child under the Child, Family and Community Services Act. In the
reconsideration decision the ministry determined the appellant’s request did not meet these three
criteria.
PART D – Relevant Legislation
Employment and Assistance Regulation section 59.
APPEAL #
PART E – Summary of Facts
The information before the ministry at the time of reconsideration included the following:
•
A Request For Reconsideration form undated, completed by the appellant. In the form the
appellant writes he received a $50 crisis supplement for clothing in a previous month that he
used to purchase clothes. He writes that while at the hospital his clothes, shoes, and
medications were stolen from this car. He adds that, as a diabetic, he requires proper footwear
and socks and despite attempts to replace his lost items, he hasn’t been able to obtain new
footwear. He wrote that he is afraid his health is getting worse, especially his feet.
In the Notice of Appeal dated June 16, 2015 the appellant wrote that his footwear and socks are
imperative because he is a type 2 diabetic and that he will have a note from his doctor.
At the hearing the appellant explained to the panel that his doctor has told him he needs to change
his socks daily in order to maintain proper foot hygiene and prevent infection. Regarding the theft
from his car, he said that he could not have claimed the loss of his clothes on his auto insurance
because his car did not have theft coverage and even if it did the deductible would have been $300.
He left his belongings in the back seat of the car and did not hide them because he didn’t expect
anyone would steal used clothing and shoes. He is not sure how the thieves gained entry to the car
since he couldn’t see signs of forced entry, however he maintains he locked the car. When he
reported the break-in to the police they asked what was stolen, and when he told them it was clothing
and medication, they did not attend to investigate or provide him with a police file number. He told the
panel that the Medical Services Plan replaced his stolen medications.
He said he received a letter from his doctor that he dropped off at the ministry office sometime
between June 16
th
and the hearing date but he did not bring a copy of the letter to the hearing. He did
not submit the doctor’s letter as evidence to the Employment and Assistance Appeal Tribunal. He told
the panel that the letter confirmed he is a diabetic, requires proper footwear, and that he needs to
maintain his foot hygiene to prevent infections. The ministry told the panel that there is no record of
the letter being delivered to the local ministry office. The appellant also told the panel that his doctor
has recommended he only use new socks versus used socks from a thrift shop. He said that due to a
past injury, his feet are different sizes and he requires “proper” footwear but he does not require
custom made shoes or orthotics. In the past he has been able to find appropriate shoes at local
department stores but not at local thrift shops.
The appellant told the panel that he receives less money from CPP than the ministry claims in the
reconsideration decision. In the decision the ministry writes the appellant receives $180.18 in income
assistance from the ministry and $464.82 from CPP, however, the appellant explained that he has an
outstanding debt to the Canadian Revenue Agency (CRA) so half of his CPP amount is garnisheed
leaving him a CPP income of only $232.41 per month.
At the hearing the ministry told the panel the appellant has been approved for other crisis
supplements this year including $375 in March for shelter, $375 in April for shelter, $20 in May for
food, $50 in May for clothes, and $20 in June for food for a total of $840 year to date adding that his
annual maximum for crisis supplements is $1220. The ministry told the panel that 9 days after the
appellant received a $50 crisis supplement for clothing he submitted a new request for a $50 crisis
supplement for clothing. The ministry continued that it is understandable that claiming lost clothing on
his vehicle insurance may not be possible, however, the appellant should have taken more care when
APPEAL #
parking his car by better securing his belongings such as placing them in a locked trunk or taking his
clothes with him.
Regarding the appellant’s CPP income being reduced to $232.41, the ministry explained that the
legislation requires that when calculating the amount of income assistance the appellant is entitled to,
the ministry must use the gross amount of CPP he receives, in this case $464.82. The appellant has
an arrangement with the CRA to repay a debt resulting in a reduction of his CPP income by half until
the CRA debt has been repaid, however, the ministry calculates his income assistance based on the
full $464.82.
APPEAL #
PART F – Reasons for Panel Decision
The issue in this case is the reasonableness of the ministry’s decision that the appellant does not
qualify for a crisis supplement for clothing because his need does not meet the criteria set out in the
EAR Section 59. The legislation requires that the need for a crisis supplement be unexpected, that
the person not have the resources available, and that failure to provide the supplement would result
in imminent danger to his or his family members’ physical health or the removal of a child under the
Child, Family and Community Services Act. In the reconsideration decision the ministry determined
the appellant’s request did not meet these three criteria.
The Legislation
Employment and Assistance Regulation (EAR) section 59
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,
(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.
Arguments of the Parties
It is the ministry’s position that the appellant’s request for a crisis supplement does not meet the
criteria as set out in EAR section 59 (1) requiring that the need for the supplement be unexpected,
that there are no other resources available, and that the failure to meet the need would result in
imminent danger to the health of the person/family unit or cause the removal of a child from the
home. The ministry argues that because the appellant did not make reasonable efforts to secure his
belongings having the items stolen from his car could not have been unexpected. The ministry
APPEAL #
maintains that there is insufficient evidence to support that his health is in imminent danger if he fails
to obtain new shoes. The ministry argues that the appellant has alternate resources to purchase the
shoes because he receives a monthly support allowance that is intended to pay for day-to-day items
such as shoes and car insurance.
It is the position of the appellant that the theft of his shoes and clothes was unexpected since his car
was locked. He argues that, because of his diabetes, without properly fitted shoes he is at risk of foot
infections creating a danger to his health. He argues that, because his monthly CPP income has
been reduced by half, he does not have enough money to replace the shoes and that he has tried to
find shoes at local thrift shops but he can not find shoes that fit properly and does not have theft
insurance.
Panel Decision and Reasons
Regarding EAR s59 (1)(a), the criterion that the funds are to be for an unexpected expense, the
ministry determined the theft of his clothes, shoes, and medication was not unexpected because the
items were insufficiently secured. The appellant told the panel that he locked his car but he left the
items in the backseat because he didn’t expect them to be stolen. The panel considered that the
items, including new shoes and medications, were in plain view of the backseat of the car. Although
anticipating the particular time that a theft from a vehicle will occur is not possible, it is reasonable to
assume that items such as medications and new shoes are likely to be a target of theft if seen by a
thief. The panel cannot determine if the items were in fact unsecured or how the thief gained entry to
the vehicle as the appellant testified he locked the vehicle but he found no sign of forced entry.
However, the panel finds that since the items were left in plain view it is reasonable that they could
have been a target for a thief. For this reason, the panel finds the ministry was reasonable when it
found that insufficiently secured belongings are subject to being stolen and therefore the appellant’s
need to replace his stolen shoes and clothes cannot be considered an unexpected need.
Regarding the ministry’s determination that the appellant has alternate resources available to obtain
the items, the ministry determined that the appellant’s monthly support allowance is intended for day-
to-day items such as shoes and clothing. The appellant told the panel his CPP is garnisheed so he
receives less money each month than is shown in the reconsideration decision and he cannot find
shoes that fit at the thrift store. The panel con
sidered the appellant’s testimony that he doesn’t require
custom shoes but only store bought shoes that fit properly. It is not known how many thrift stores he
visited but it is reasonable to expect the selection to vary at these stores. The appellant told the panel
his doctor recommends he buy new shoes only; however, he has not provided any documentation to
support this recommendation. The panel considered the appellant’s argument that his CPP income is
garnisheed leaving him with little money to purchase personal items. The panel finds the ministry was
reasonable to calculate the appellant’s monthly support payments based on the gross amount of his
CPP income. The panel finds the ministry was reasonable to determine the appellant has alternate
resources available to obtain the items.
Regarding the ministry’s determination that the appellant does not face imminent danger to his or his
family’s health if he fails to obtain the requested items the panel considered that the ministry’s
argument that the appellant has not provided sufficient evidence to support his argument that he is
susceptible to infections without proper fitting shoes nor has he provided sufficient evidence to
support that the possible infections present an imminent danger to his health. The appellant told the
panel he had a letter from his doctor but he did not provide a copy to the panel for consideration.
APPEAL #
Without this information from the appellant’s doctor the urgency his medical condition cannot be
determined. The panel finds the ministry was reasonable to determine that the appellant does not
face imminent danger to his or his family’s health if he fails to obtain his new shoes or clothing.
The panel finds that the ministry’s decision was a reasonable application of the legislation in the
circumstances of the appellant and 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.