APPEAL #
PART C – Decision under Appeal
The decision under appeal is the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation (the
“ministry”) reconsideration decision dated June 9, 2015, wherein the ministry denied the appellant a
crisis supplement for home repairs. The basis for the ministry’s decision was that the appellant
already receives the maximum allowable shelter allowance under Schedule A sections 4(2) and 5(2)
of the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Regulation (EAPWDR);
consequently, additional costs for home repair cannot be included in the amount of shelter allowance.
In addition, the appellant did not satisfy all three statutory criteria for a crisis supplement as set out in
section 57 (1) of the Employment and Assistance Regulation. The ministry held that:
1.
The expense was not unexpected; it is not unexpected that roof repairs will be required in an
older home.
2.
Failure to obtain the item would not result in imminent danger to health; there is insufficient
evidence to support a probability of immediacy that that failure to obtain the requested item will
place the appellant’s health in imminent danger.
3.
It is not established that there are no alternate resources available; there is no indication that
the appellant has attempted to seek alternate resources such as the Residential Assistance
Program or a home equity loan.
PART D – Relevant Legislation
Schedule A sections 4 and 5, and section 57 of the EAPWDR.
APPEAL #
PART E – Summary of Facts
The information before the ministry at the time of reconsideration included the following:
•
The appellant’s Request for Reconsideration, dated June 9, 2015, which included the
appellant’s written submission;
•
A quote from roofing company A dated March 6, 2015, for $5,991.00
•
A quote from roofing company B dated March 17, 2015, for $ 8,990.00.
•
A quote from roofing company C dated April 11, 2015, for $9,611.00.
Assessment of the Evidence
Information in the Request for Reconsideration and the reconsideration decision indicated that:
•
The appellant is a sole recipient of disability assistance.
•
She receives $946.42 monthly ($531.42 for support, $375 for shelter and $40 diet allowance).
•
The appellant’s monthly shelter costs are $613.40.
•
On May 26, 2015 the appellant requested assistance with roof repair costs; she advised the
ministry that her roof was very old and the leaks have been getting worse for some time.
In her reconsideration submission the appellant wrote that:
•
Her roof is in bad shape and in danger of falling in.
•
The water is coming through the light in her bedroom and this is very dangerous.
•
She has been nursing her terminally ill husband for the last several years and home
maintenance was not done because he was incapacitated. He passed away before the end of
the year.
•
Giving 24 hour nursing care to keep her husband at home was exhausting and she had no
ability to deal with home maintenance issues.
•
They had health expenses that prevented any savings.
In her Notice of Appeal dated June 18, 2015, the appellant wrote that:
•
The situation has escalated and water is pouring in and going into the electrical receptacles.
•
The Residential Assistance Program is no longer available.
•
The MLA office informed the appellant that there are no grants available for structural issues.
At the hearing the advocate provided a written submission that included the following information:
•
The appellant purchased her home in 1993.
•
The mortgage is paid off.
•
The appellant has been dealing with shock and grief and a significant drop in household
income after her husband passed away in December 2014.
•
The appellant made inquiries for assistance from friends and relatives but none was available.
•
The appellant looked into government grants and found out that the federal program was
discontinued and the provincial program does not cover structural issues like roofs.
•
The appellant does not get a bank loan because she has no disposable income to repay a
loan; her monthly budget of $887.00 includes property taxes, house insurance, water,
garbage, hydro, telephone, food, car insurance, gas [at the hearing the appellant clarified that
“gas” was for her vehicle], pets and funeral home; her PWD monthly income is $906.42 [the
panel notes that the advocate did not include the appellant’s $40 diet allowance].
APPEAL #
•
Working with the lowest quote of $5991 the appellant would be able to pay the balance of her
roof replacement with the receipt of a crisis supplement.
At the hearing the appellant stated:
•
When she purchased her home in 1993 she was told that the roof was fairly new and there
should be no problems.
•
Tarps were put on the roof 5 years ago and replaced 2 years ago. She believed the tarp would
hold.
•
The home sits on ½ acre in a rural area.
•
She and her husband were living on the lower floor and did not notice the water leakage that
occurred in the upper floor.
•
They were isolated; her husband did not want any people to see his disability and did not
permit any visitors.
In its oral testimony the ministry relied on its reconsideration decision and added the following
information: The ministry has no funds at their disposal for fixing aging homes. Legislation has
changed since 2002. Service clubs, churches and community resources could be approached for
funds.
Admissibility of Additional Information
The panel admitted the appellant’s appeal submission, the advocate’s written submission, and the
appellant’s, advocate’s and ministry’s oral statements in accordance with section 22(4) of the
Employment and Assistance Act, because this information is in support of the information and
records that were before the ministry at reconsideration; specifically, these statements confirmed that
the appellant’s roof was in need of repair, and provided additional details on the appellant’s financial
circumstances and on attempts to obtain funds from alternate resources. The oral statements of the
ministry representative substantially reiterated information that had been before the ministry at
reconsideration.
APPEAL #
PART F – Reasons for Panel Decision
The issue on appeal is the reasonableness of the ministry’s reconsideration decision dated
June 9, 2015, wherein the ministry denied the appellant a crisis supplement for home repairs; the
basis of the ministry’s decision was that the appellant already receives the maximum allowable
shelter allowance under Schedule A sections 4(2) and 5(2) of the Employment and Assistance for
Persons with Disabilities Regulation (EAPWDR); consequently, additional costs for home repair
cannot be included in the amount of shelter allowance.
In addition, the ministry found that the appellant did not satisfy all three statutory criteria as set out in
section 57(1) of the EAPWDR. The ministry held that:
1.
The expense was not unexpected; it is not unexpected that roof repairs will be required in an
older home.
2.
Failure to obtain the item would not result in imminent danger to health; there is insufficient
evidence to support a probability of immediacy that that failure to obtain the requested item will
place the appellant’s health in imminent danger.
3.
It is not established that there are no alternate resources available; there is no indication that
the appellant has attempted to seek alternate resources such as the Residential Assistance
Program or a home equity loan etc.
The relevant legislation is as follows:
Crisis supplement
57 (1) The minister may provide a crisis supplement to or for a family unit that is eligible for
disability 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.
APPEAL #
…
(4) A crisis supplement provided for food, shelter or clothing is subject to the following
limitations:
…
(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;
…
(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.
* * *
Schedule A
Monthly shelter allowance
4 …
(2) The monthly shelter allowance for a family unit to which section 14.2 of the Act
does not apply is the smaller of
(a) the family unit's actual shelter costs, and
(b) the maximum set out in the following table for the applicable family
size:
APPEAL #
Column 1
Column 2
Item
Family Unit Size Maximum Monthly Shelter
1
1 person
$375
…
How actual shelter costs are calculated
5 …
(2) When calculating the actual monthly shelter costs of a family unit, only the
following items are included:
(a) rent for the family unit's place of residence;
(b) mortgage payments on the family unit's place of residence, if owned
by a person in the family unit;
(c) a house insurance premium for the family unit's place of residence if
owned by a person in the family unit;
(d) property taxes for the family unit's place of residence if owned by a
person in the family unit;
(e) utility costs;
(f) the actual cost of maintenance and repairs for the family unit's place
of residence if owned by a person in the family unit and if these costs
have received the minister's prior approval.
…
Unexpected
The appellant argues that it was unexpected that her roof deteriorated so rapidly. The roof had been
tarped for several years and there was no indication that the roof would deteriorate so fast. She and
her husband were living on the lower floor and did not notice the water leakage that occurred in the
upper floor, it came as a surprise.
The ministry’s position is that pursuant to section 57(1)(a) of the EAPWDR the expense was not
unexpected because it is not unexpected that roof repairs will be required in an older home. Although
the appellant’s situation is difficult, it is reasonable to expect that an old roof needs replacing due to
APPEAL #
normal wear and tear. There are provisions for home repairs under Schedule A section 5(2) with
specific limitations ($375 per month in the appellant’s case). It is not appropriate to utilize a crisis
supplement to circumvent the limitations established under Schedule A section 5(2). The ministry
argues that the intent of a crisis supplement is not to provide assistance or a supplement that is
prohibited or limited by regulatory direction.
Panel Decision
Section 57(1)(a) specifies that the crisis supplement must be for an “unexpected expense” or to
obtain an item “unexpectedly needed”. While the appellant argues that her roof deteriorated faster
than she had expected, she has provided no evidence as to why paying for roof repairs is an
“unexpected expense”. The panel finds that repairs for the appellant’s roof are not unexpected as her
roof is old and covered with tarps for the past 5 years. Therefore the panel finds that the ministry was
reasonable in concluding that the appellant has not satisfied the legislative criterion that the expense
for home repairs was “unexpected”.
No Resources
The appellant’s position is that she has no resources available because her PWD income only covers
her living expenses, and, as she has no disposable income, she does not qualify for a bank loan.
Ongoing health expenses prevented her from saving any money. She has made inquiries at her
MLA’s office but there are no government programs in place to assist her with roof repairs.
She does not recall the ministry suggesting other resources like service clubs, churches and
community resources. Because she lived in very isolated circumstances she had no outside contacts
that could provide information on alternate resources.
The ministry argues that crisis supplements are not intended to circumvent the shelter allowance
limits set out in Schedule A. It argues further that the appellant has not established that there are no
alternate resources available to her; there is no indication that the appellant has attempted to seek
alternate resources such as the Residential Assistance Program, a home equity loan or other
resources.
Panel Decision
The panel finds that there is insufficient evidence that the appellant has exhausted all resources that
were available to her. While the appellant reports she does not qualify for a bank loan due to lack of
disposable income, she does not provide information or bank records on why she was refused a
home equity loan on her mortgage free property. It is not clear how living in isolated circumstances
prevented the appellant from inquiring about alternate resources like service clubs, churches and
community resources.
Based on the foregoing, the panel finds that the ministry reasonably concluded that the appellant has
not satisfied the legislative criterion that she has no resources available pursuant to section 57(1)(a) .
APPEAL #
Imminent Danger to Physical Health
The appellant argues that her roof is a safety hazard and her health is in danger because the roof is
about to fall in, and water is getting into electrical receptacles.
The minister’s position is that while the appellant’s situation is a difficult one there is insufficient
evidence to support a probability of immediacy that pursuant to section 57(1)(b)(i) failure to obtain
funds for roof repairs will place the appellant’s health in imminent danger.
Panel Decision
In the panel’s view the word “imminent” connotes a degree of immediacy that has not been
demonstrated in the appellant’s circumstances. There is no evidence that failure to obtain the
requested crisis supplement will put the appellant’s physical health in imminent danger. The panel
notes that the appellant has not provided any information from a physician regarding imminent
danger to physical health.
Accordingly, the panel finds that the ministry was reasonable in determining that the appellant has not
satisfied the legislative criterion related to “imminent danger to physical health” in accordance with
section 59(1)(b)(i).
Conclusion
Since the criteria in EAPWDR section 57 have not been satisfied, the panel finds that the ministry’s
decision to deny the appellant a crisis supplement for shelter was reasonably supported by the
evidence and a reasonable application of the applicable enactment in the circumstances of the
appellant. The ministry’s decision is confirmed.
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.