PART C – Decision under Appeal
The decision under appeal is the Ministry of Social Development (Ministry)’s reconsideration decision
dated November 6, 2015, finding the Appellant is not eligible for persons with persistent multiple
barriers to employment (PPMB) status because he does not meet all the criteria set out in section 2
of the Employment and Assistance Regulation (EAR).
PART D – Relevant Legislation
The relevant legislation is section 2 of the EAR.
PART E – Summary of Facts
The evidence before the ministry at the time of the reconsideration decision consisted of the
following:
1.
A PPMB Medical Report completed on July 21, 2015, by the appellant’s physician which:
a.
Identifies the appellant’s primary medical condition as “anxiety disorder” with an onset
date of “1990s”;
b.
Does not list any secondary medical conditions;
c.
Indicates that the appellant’s medical condition is expected to last for more than 2
years;
d.
Lists a number of antidepressants which the appellant has been prescribed; and
e.
Describes restrictions due to the medical condition as: “unable to handle stress, gets
anxious in crowds, unable to multi-task, hard to focus.”
2.
A PPMB Checklist dated August 13, 2015, which includes an Employability Screen for the
appellant with a score of 14.
3.
A Request for Reconsideration in which the appellant writes: “These are my reasons, I have
mood disorder, Depressed, Fatigue Disorder, Hard to Focus and I cannot Stand For 10
minutes and lack of Prescription.”
The ministry also took into consideration the following:
4.
A PPMB Medical Report completed on September 12, 2014, which:
a.
Identifies the appellant’s primary medical condition as “anxiety disorder” with an onset
date of “1990s”;
b.
Does not list any secondary medical conditions;
c.
Indicates that the appellant’s medical condition is expected to last for more than 2
years;
d.
Lists a number of antidepressants which the appellant has been prescribed; and
e.
Describes restrictions due to the medical condition as: “unable to handle stress, gets
anxious in crowds, unable to multi-task, hard to focus.”
5.
A prescription dated May 9, 2011, which lists the appellant’s medical conditions as: “Psychosis
DOS, Depressed, Mood disorder, Bipolar affective disorder,” and states: “This patient is unable
to work for gainful employment.”
PART F – Reasons for Panel Decision
The issue under appeal is the Ministry’s finding that the Appellant is not eligible to be designated as a
PPMB.
The relevant legislation is section 2 of the EAR:
Persons who have persistent multiple barriers to employment
2 (1) To qualify as a person who has persistent multiple barriers to employment, a person must meet
the requirements set out in
(a) subsection (2), and
(b) subsection (3) or (4).
(2) The person has been a recipient for at least 12 of the immediately preceding 15 calendar months
of one or more of the following:
(a) income assistance or hardship assistance under the Act;
(b) income assistance, hardship assistance or a youth allowance under a former Act;
(c) a disability allowance under the Disability Benefits Program Act;
(d) disability assistance or hardship assistance under the Employment and Assistance for Persons
with Disabilities Act.
(3) The following requirements apply
(a) the minister
(i) has determined that the person scores at least 15 on the employability screen set out in
Schedule E, and
(ii) based on the result of that employability screen, considers that the person has barriers that
seriously impede the person's ability to search for, accept or continue in employment,
(b) the person has a medical condition, other than an addiction, that is confirmed by a medical
practitioner and that,
(i) in the opinion of the medical practitioner,
(A) has continued for at least one year and is likely to continue for at least 2 more years, or
(B) has occurred frequently in the past year and is likely to continue for at least 2 more years, and
(ii) in the opinion of the minister, is a barrier that seriously impedes the person's ability to search for,
accept or continue in employment, and
(c) the person has taken all steps that the minister considers reasonable for the person to overcome
the barriers referred to in paragraph (a).
(4) The person has a medical condition, other than an addiction, that is confirmed by a medical
practitioner and that,
(a) in the opinion of the medical practitioner,
(i) has continued for at least one year and is likely to continue for at least 2 more years, or
(ii) has occurred frequently in the past year and is likely to continue for at least 2 more years, and
(b) in the opinion of the minister, is a barrier that precludes the person from searching for, accepting
or continuing in employment.
The appellant did not attend the hearing. After confirming that the appellant had been served with
notice of the hearing in accordance with section 86(b) of the Employment and Assistance Regulation
the hearing continued without the appellant.
In his appeal submission the appellant simply states: “Medical Condition.”
The ministry’s position is that, in accordance with section 2 of the EAR to qualify as a PPMB the
appellant must meet the requirements set out in subsection 2(2) and either subsection (3) or (4). The
appellant meets the requirements in subsection 2(2) because he has been receiving income
assistance for 12 of the last 15 months. He does not meet the requirements in subsection (3)
because his score on the Employability Screen was less than 15. The appellant does not meet the
requirements under subsection 2(4) because under paragraph 2(4)(b), in the opinion of the ministry,
his medical condition is not “a barrier that precludes the [appellant] from searching for, accepting or
continuing in employment.” The ministry’s opinion is that the medical condition (“anxiety disorder”)
and restrictions (“unable to handle stress, gets anxious in crowds, unable to multi-task, hard to
focus”) described in the PPMB Medical Report dated July 21, 2015, do not preclude the appellant
from “searching for, accepting or continuing in all types of employment, such as work that does not
involve crowds/multi-tasking or in a program that will work with the appellant to overcome his
barriers.”
The ministry considered the appellant’s statement in his Request for Reconsideration that he has
“mood disorder, depressed, fatigue disorder, hard to focus and I cannot stand for 10 minutes and lack
of prescription,” and found that it could not conclude that the appellant suffered from fatigue disorder
or limitations on his ability to stand as these conditions were not corroborated by the PPMB Medical
Report. The panel finds that, in the absence of corroboration by the PPMB Medical Report, it was
reasonable for the ministry to find that it could not determine that the appellant suffers from these
conditions.
The ministry also considered an earlier PPMB Medical Report from 2014 and a prescription for the
appellant dated in 2011. This report is very similar to the appellant’s most recent report. However, the
prescription cites “psychosis DOS” and “bipolar affective disorder” both of which, the ministry notes,
are absent from the PPMB Medical Reports. Whether these medical conditions have changed or are
being effectively treated, the panel finds that it was reasonable for the ministry to find that there is no
current indication that these conditions present a barrier to employment for the appellant.
Unfortunately, as the appellant did not attend the hearing, the panel did not have the opportunity to
inquire further into the current nature of the appellant’s medical conditions. This may have been
helpful in understanding his statement that he also suffers from fatigue disorder and limitations on his
ability to stand for more than 10 minutes at a time, his current condition vis-à-vis his previous
diagnoses of psychosis and bipolar affective disorder and, finally, why he feels that he is unable to
search for, accept or continue in employment.
The ministry representative, on the other hand, was clear that the ministry considers that there are
opportunities available to the appellant both in employment programs and employment his
participation in which is not precluded by his anxiety disorder.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the ministry’s decision that the appellant is not eligible for PPMB
status was a reasonable application of the relevant legislation and confirms the ministry’s decision
pursuant to sections 24(1)(b) and 24(2)(a) of the EAA.
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.