PART C – Decision under Appeal The decision under appeal is the September 14, 2015 decision of the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation (the Ministry) in which the Ministry determined the Appellant was not eligible for a reconsideration decision because his request for reconsideration was not submitted within the legislative deadline of 20 business days from being informed of the original decision as specified under Section 17 of the Employment and Assistance Act and Section 79 of the Employment and Assistance Regulation. PART D – Relevant Legislation Employment and Assistance Act (EAA), Section 17 Employment and Assistance Regulation (EAR) , Section 79
PART E – Summary of Facts The evidence before the Ministry at the time of reconsideration included the following: ● A Ministry letter dated June 24, 2015 informing the Appellant that his application for Persons with Disabilities (PWD) designation was denied. ● A Ministry PWD Designation Denial Decision Summary. ● The Appellant’s application for PWD designation dated February 18, 2015. ● A daily living activities for PWD form and pain chart completed by the Appellant dated March 5, 2015. The timeline from the Ministry files are: On June 24, 2015 the Ministry denied the Appellant’s request for PWD and informed the Appellant of that decision on July 9, 2015. On July 13, 2013 the Ministry prepared a reconsideration package for the Appellant. On August 25, 2015 the Appellant advised the Ministry that he had taken the package to an advocate near the beginning of August 2015 and had thought they sent it in but had found out otherwise. The Appellant advised the Ministry he still wished to pursue a reconsideration decision outside the timelines. On August 31, 2015 the Appellant submitted his request for reconsideration to the Ministry. On September 9, 2015 the Ministry contacted the advocate for additional information. None was available and the Ministry received no response prior to completing the reconsideration decision. In the notice of appeal, dated September 20, 2015 the Appellant writes his disability can last 2 days to 4 to 5 weeks and gives details of when he needs help. The Appellant also submitted a letter from his landlady dated September 21, 2015 which details how she has helped him over the past 6 years and her impressions of his failing health. At the hearing the Appellant stated once he received the reconsideration package from the Ministry he took it in immediately to the advocacy office and left it there. It was his understanding that his advocate would have forwarded it, once complete, to the Ministry. When he found out that the request for reconsideration was not received by the Ministry, he contacted the advocacy office and was told that the advocate was recommending that he should reapply for PWD designation instead of requesting a reconsideration decision. The Appellant did not want to reapply. He states both he and his doctor get tired of the paperwork and he finds it hard to understand. He said he had trusted the advocate to submit the request for reconsideration and when it did not happen, he did it himself, knowing that it was outside the allotted time limit. Upon questioning, the Appellant could not remember the specific date he met with the advocate to drop off and discuss the reconsideration package or when he eventually confirmed with the advocacy office that they had not acted on the request for reconsideration package. At the hearing the Ministry noted that on the appellant signature page of the request for reconsideration application there are relevant dates. In this case, they are: Date requestor informed of decision: July 9, 2015. Date requestor must submit form by: August 7, 2015.
Date (signed by the Appellant): August 29, 2015. The Ministry stated the request for reconsideration application package also includes a brochure to explain the process, that it is the applicant’s responsibility to follow up the application process and in this case, the Ministry didn’t hear from the Appellant.
PART F – Reasons for Panel Decision The issue on this appeal is whether the Ministry reasonably determined the Appellant was not eligible for a reconsideration decision because his request for reconsideration was not submitted within the legislative deadline of 20 business days from being informed of the original decision as specified under Section 17 of the EAA and Section 79 of the EAR. The following legislation applies to this appeal: EAA Section 17 (1) Subject to section 18, a person may request the minister to reconsider any of the following decisions made under this Act: (a) a decision that results in a refusal to provide income assistance, hardship assistance or a supplement to or for someone in the person's family unit; (b) a decision that results in a discontinuance of income assistance or a supplement provided to or for someone in the person's family unit; (c) a decision that results in a reduction of income assistance or a supplement provided to or for someone in the person's family unit; (d) a decision in respect of the amount of a supplement provided to or for someone in the person's family unit if that amount is less than the lesser of (i) the maximum amount of the supplement under the regulations, and (ii) the cost of the least expensive and appropriate manner of providing the supplement; (e) a decision respecting the conditions of an employment plan under section 9 [employment plan]. (2) A request under subsection (1) must be made, and the decision reconsidered, within the time limits and in accordance with any rules specified by regulation. (3) Subject to a regulation under subsection (5) and to sections 9 (7) [employment plan], 18 and 27 (2) [overpayments], a person who is dissatisfied with the outcome of a request for a reconsideration under subsection (1) (a) to (d) may appeal the decision that is the outcome of the request to the tribunal. (4) A right of appeal given under subsection (3) is subject to the time limits and other requirements set out in this Act and the regulations. EAR Section 79 (1) A person who wishes the minister to reconsider a decision referred to in section 17 (1) of the Act must deliver a request for reconsideration in the form specified by the minister to the ministry office where the person is applying for or receiving assistance.
(2) A request under subsection (1) must be delivered within 20 business days after the date the person is notified of the decision referred to in section 17 (1) of the Act and may be delivered by (a) leaving it with an employee in the ministry office, or (b) being received through the mail at that office. The Appellant‘s argument in his notice for appeal refers to his eligibility for PWD designation. However, this eligibility is not the issue in this decision therefore the Panel will not consider the argument contained in the notice for appeal in its decision. The Appellant argues he trusted the advocate to forward his request for reconsideration and that they didn’t do what he had expected them to do. The Ministry argues the Appellant was aware of the relevant dates within the request for reconsideration package and did not follow up on the package within the time line of those dates. The Appellant was informed of the decision on July 9, 2015 and given a request for reconsideration package on July 13, 2015 that specified the request must be submitted to the Ministry by August 7, 2015. Subsequently he did not contact the Ministry regarding the request until August 25, 2015, then signed the request for reconsideration on August 29, 2015 and submitted the request on August 31, 2015. The Panel finds the request for reconsideration was not submitted within 20 business days of being notified of the decision to deny PWD designation as required by Section 79 of the EAR. Accordingly, the Panel finds the Ministry‘s determination that the Appellant was not eligible for a reconsideration decision because his request was not delivered within the legislative deadline of 20 business days from being informed of the original decision. The Panel 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.