PART C – Decision under Appeal The decision under appeal is the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation (“Ministry”) reconsideration decision dated September 14, 2015 which held that the Appellant is not eligible for a crisis supplement for clothing pursuant to the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Regulation (“EAPWDR”). The Ministry determined that his request for the crisis supplement does not meet three criteria in EAPWDR section 57: 1. The Appellant requires the crisis supplement to meet an unexpected need or obtain an item unexpectedly needed [subsection 57(1)(a)]; and 2. He is unable to meet the expense or obtain the item because there are no resources available [subsection 57(1)(a)]; and 3. Failure to meet the expense or obtain the clothing items will result in imminent danger to his physical health [subsection 57(1)(b)]. PART D – Relevant Legislation Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act – EAPWDA – Section 5 Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Regulation - EAPWDR - section 57
PART E – Summary of Facts The evidence before the Ministry at reconsideration consisted of: 1. A Request for Reconsideration signed by the Appellant on July 24, 2015 in which he stated: He requires a rain-proof, warm winter coat. He just started a treatment for his medical condition, Hepatitis C, which will last until the end of December 2015. He feels the cold since he has been on the medication. He explained to the Ministry that he received a credit card and bought things he requires including clothing and appliances. The medication affects his immune system and he does not want to get colds or flu. 2. Information from the Ministry’s record stating that: The Appellant is a single recipient of disability assistance. He receives assistance of approximately $1,200 per month less his veteran’s pension of approximately $488. On August 13, 2015 the Appellant contacted the Ministry to request a crisis supplement for clothing, indicating that it will be getting cold again and he does not have a jacket. He referred to the request as his “annual clothing allowance”. The Appellant stated that there were no exceptional circumstances and he had not sought other resources. He indicated that his medical treatment can lower immune function and result in an increase in colds. He further indicated that he purchased other required clothing items on his credit card and is repaying his credit card debt. Additional Submissions Subsequent to his Request for Reconsideration, the Appellant submitted a Notice of Appeal dated September 18, 2015 stating that he requires a good coat to keep him warm and dry as he has to attend a health clinic twice daily. His medication causes reactions, as his blood is much thinner and he really feels the cold. He also reports weight change due to the drugs, plus he is broke. Oral testimony The Ministry relied on the reconsideration record and did not introduce any new evidence except to state that it does not consider credit card funds as resources. The Appellant attended the hearing with an advocate. In his oral submission and responses to questions he provided the following information: His income will change in November due to his pension. He used his credit card to the max. to refurbish his home because he doesn’t know what his resources will be come November. He paid $400 on his credit card debt and did not have money for a coat. He has jeans and pants but he needs a coat to go to the medical clinic as his treatment makes him very cold, he has icicles under his nose.
His medication changed in September. He stopped taking his old medication because it gave him a reaction and made his condition worse. His doctor started him on a new drug as soon as one became available. He does not have a car and has to walk 16 blocks every day and take transit to get to and from the clinic. The treatment is mandatory and requires him to go to the clinic twice a day, every week, 52 weeks a year. Both of his knees need replacing as well and he has pain in his legs. He does not currently have a coat, only a hoodie or light jacket and he was not on the new medication when he purchased the items for his house. He does not have time to go around to community resources as he has to go to the clinic twice a day. The Ministry objected to the testimony regarding the Appellant’s new treatment, noting that although he started the treatment in September it was not before the Ministry as of the September 14, 2015 reconsideration decision. The panel finds that all of the statements are in support of the information and records that were before the Ministry at reconsideration. The information on symptoms and treatments provides additional detail about his medical condition which is noted in the reconsideration record. The details about his credit card payment and capacity to access community clothing resources substantiates the information on resources. The panel admits the statements under section 22(4)(b) of the Employment and Assistance Act as evidence in support of the information and records that were before the Ministry at the time the decision being appealed was made.
PART F – Reasons for Panel Decision The issue to be decided is whether the Ministry’s reconsideration decision of September 14, 2015 which held that the Appellant is not eligible for a crisis supplement for clothing because his request does not meet all of the criteria in EAPWDR section 57 was reasonably supported by the evidence or was a reasonable application of the applicable enactment in the circumstances of the Appellant. The Ministry determined that the Appellant’s request did not meet the criteria for an unexpected need and a lack of resources to meet the need as required by subsection 57(1)(a), and that imminent danger to physical health was also not met pursuant to subsection 57(1)(b). The legislation sets out the following eligibility criteria:: EAPWDR Crisis supplement: Pursuant to section 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. The panel notes that all of the criteria must be met in order for the Ministry to authorize a crisis supplement. The Ministry noted that the Appellant is a recipient of disability assistance. He therefore meets the criterion of being eligible for assistance pursuant to section 57(1). The panel notes that there is no “annual clothing allowance” available under the legislation. The panel provides the following analysis for the three criteria the Ministry determined were not met: Subsection 57(1)(a): Crisis supplement required to meet an unexpected expense or obtain an item unexpectedly needed Appellant’s position In his testimony the Appellant argued that his need for a coat is unexpected because he was put on a new medication and did not know how he was going to react. He was not expecting it to make him feel chilled and bothered by cold weather. He understands about rain and cold but he was just put on this medication, has not had time to adjust to it, and has no adequate coat. Ministry’s position The Ministry argued that it is not unexpected to need warmer clothing as the weather gets colder. At the hearing, the Ministry argued that the legislation around crisis supplements “is not about the weather, or changes in his treatment, or transportation to the clinic”. He requested the crisis
supplement in August; he is aware of the weather, and the requirement for a coat is not unexpected. Panel decision The panel finds that the Ministry reasonably determined that the “unexpected need” criterion was not met. At the time of the request for the crisis supplement, the Ministry noted that the Appellant indicated “no exceptional circumstances” and that the weather “will be getting cold again”. The Appellant stated in his Request for Reconsideration that he started a medication that makes him feel cold. He provided no information on whether that treatment was unexpected. While his new treatment was clearly unexpected due to the change in his medication, he was already feeling chills on his previous medication and, therefore, the need for a coat was not unexpected. The panel finds that the Ministry reasonably determined that the Appellant’s need for a crisis clothing supplement was not unexpected as required under EAPWDR subsection 57(1)(a). Subsection 57(1)(a): Unable to meet the expense or obtain the item because there are no resources available to the family unit Appellant’s position The Appellant argued that he has no resources available to purchase a coat because he has credit card debt and “not a lot of extra money to spend”. He refurbished his home in anticipation of a change of income and possible knee surgery, and he made a $400 payment to reduce his credit card debt. At the hearing, he stated that he lives according to meager means and even if he made more money he would still be in debt. He argued that he has no time to access community resources because his days are consumed by his treatments and getting to and from the clinic. The advocate argued that the decision is unjust and the Appellant “does deserve a clothing allowance” because he “doesn’t abuse the system, do drugs/alcohol, or spend his money improperly on inappropriate items.” Further, he served for his country “and they should be providing service back”. The Appellant added that all of the work and time the Ministry expends in denying him is seen as more important than the clothing voucher. He submits that the Ministry’s mandate is wrong; “people can’t get by on the funds they get”. Ministry’s position The Ministry argued that the Appellant has resources in the form of his Ministry assistance, approximately $800 per month, which is intended to be used for daily needs such as clothing. He was issued full support allowances and “that you chose to use these funds for other purposes does not change the fact that you were provided assistance for those needs.” The Ministry argued that the monthly assistance he received was an “alternate resource” for his clothing expenses and he did not indicate any attempts to explore other alternate resources. At the hearing, the Ministry argued that the $400 the Appellant used to finance his credit card debt could have been put toward a coat. His household purchases are not an issue for the Ministry; he received Ministry funds, spent $400 on his debt, and made no attempt to contact veterans’ groups or charities for assistance.
Panel decision The panel finds that the Ministry reasonably determined the Appellant did not demonstrate a lack of resources to obtain a coat. The panel acknowledges the Appellant’s argument that he deserves the crisis supplement because he served his country and doesn’t abuse the system, and that the Ministry’s process in denying him is “prejudiced”. However, the only criteria at issue under subsection 57(1)(a) is whether he had alternate resources available for clothing. The evidence is that the Appellant received disability assistance intended to cover living expenses including the cost of clothing. Further, he made a $400 credit card payment and though he indicated he obtained other clothing as well as items for his home, there is no evidence that he budgeted any of his funds toward a coat. The Appellant testified that he did not attempt to access community resources because he is unable to due to his new treatment consuming his days. This is inconsistent with the Ministry's evidence that he made no attempt to access community resources, with no reason given. Further, he was able to refurbish his home on credit so it is unclear why he could not also seek out free or low cost clothing. The panel therefore gives little weight to his reason of having no time to look for a coat at community resources. The panel finds that the Ministry reasonably found that he had not accessed alternate resources either by allocating some of his support funds for a coat or exploring other alternate resources. Accordingly, the panel finds that the Ministry reasonably determined that the “no resources” criterion in EAPWDR subsection 57(1)(a) was not met. Subsection 57(1)(b): Failure to meet the expense or obtain the item will result in imminent danger to physical health Appellant’s position In his reconsideration and appeal submissions, the Appellant argued that he requires a warm, weatherproof coat because his medication makes him feel the cold. His blood is much thinner and his weight has changed. His immune system is also affected and he does not want to get colds or flu. At the hearing, the advocate highlighted the Appellant's cold chills from the medication, arguing that if he can't get to the clinic safely and warmly he could end up in the hospital in a worsened condition. Ministry’s position In the reconsideration decision, the Ministry argued that the possibility of catching a cold in the future due to decreased immunity does not prove that the Appellant faces an imminent danger to health if he does not obtain a coat. At the hearing, the Ministry added that the legislative requirement is "not about his medication" and while the Ministry has compassion in light of the Appellant’s medical issues, imminent danger to his physical health was not established.
Panel decision The panel finds that the Ministry reasonably determined that the possibility of catching a cold and the effects of his treatment do not prove that the Appellant’s health is in imminent danger if he does not obtain a coat. The panel notes that the concerns about colds and flu and possible hospitalization are speculative. Further, the record contains no information from the Appellant's doctor or treatment clinic regarding his sensitivity to cold or his compromised immune system and there is no medical confirmation that the failure to obtain a coat will result in imminent danger to his physical health. While the Appellant reported that he is cold to the extent of “icicles under his nose” when he doesn’t have an adequate coat, he has provided no confirmation of any “imminent danger” for which the dictionary definition is, “impending/ soon to happen”. The panel therefore finds that the Ministry reasonably determined the criterion of “imminent danger to physical health” under EAPWDR subsection 57(1)(b) was not met. Conclusion The panel confirms the Ministry’s reconsideration decision that denied the Appellant’s request for a crisis supplement for clothing, finding that the Ministry determination that all of the criteria in EAPWDR section 57 were not met was reasonably supported by the evidence.
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.