PART C – Decision under Appeal
The decision under appeal is the reconsideration decision of the Ministry of Social Development and
Social Innovation (the “ministry”) dated February 22, 2016 that determined that the appellant did not
qualify for the Persons with Persistent Multiple Barriers to Employment (PPMB) designation under
section 2 of the Employment and Assistance Regulation (EAR). Specifically, the ministry determined
that the appellant has an employability screen score of less than 15 and the documentation provided
by the appellant is not sufficient to establish that he has a medical condition that preludes him from
searching for, accepting and maintaining employment
PART D – Relevant Legislation
EAR section 2
PART E – Summary of Facts
The documentary evidence before the ministry at reconsideration included the following:
1.
A prescription for the appellant dated January 15, 2016 for Synthroid (Levothyroxine Sodium).
2.
A Medical Report – Persons with Persistent Multiple Barriers for the appellant dated April 23,
2015 that states that the appellant’s primary medical condition is anxiety/depression with an
onset of 1972/3. The report also indicates that the appellant has been prescribed Remeron
which has resulted in an improvement in the appellant’s condition. In addition, the report
indicates that the appellant’s condition has existed for more than one year (onset 1972/73) and
is expected to last 2 years or more, but the appellant has no physical restrictions and is not
episodic in nature.
3.
An undated Employability Screen for the appellant that records a total score of 12.
4.
The appellant’s Request for Reconsideration dated and signed by the appellant on February
17, 2016 that states the reasons for requesting reconsideration are outlined in a letter from the
appellant dated February 2, 2016. In that letter, the appellant states that he had written to the
ministry in November 2015 to inquire about the status of his PPMB application and why his
medical report did not indicate that he was diagnosed with hypothyroidism in 2014. He notes
that this is a serious medical condition that can lead to premature death. The appellant also
suggests that his failing health could be due to PTSD flaring up again. He complains that at the
building where he lives tenants are allowed to disrupt his sleep at least 50% of the days of the
month which negatively impacts his health and mood. Finally, he notes that the employability
screen is in error since his level of education is higher than shown on the screen.
The appellant’s Notice of Appeal was signed and dated by the appellant on March 2, 2016 and states
the reasons for requesting reconsideration are outlined in a letter from the appellant dated February
27, 2016. In that letter, the appellant notes that the ministry has confirmed that he has a thyroid
condition. He plans to ask the ministry to fund additional lab tests related to his thyroid disorder. He
indicates that he has recently experienced homelessness and bouts of PTSD. He reports that he has
a long-term issue with his left knee that causes pain and may require a knee replacement. He also
thinks that he may have arthritis in his back and left knee. Finally, he notes that the medications he
has been taking for depression make him very drowsy and may contribute to his thyroid condition.
In the Reconsideration Decision the ministry states that the appellant is currently a sole recipient of
income assistance and has been in receipt of assistance for at least 12 of the past 15 months.
PART F – Reasons for Panel Decision
The issue in this appeal is whether the ministry’s decision that determined that the appellant was not
eligible to qualify for PPMB designation because he did not meet the criteria outlined in section 2 of
the EAR was reasonably supported by the evidence or was a reasonable application of the applicable
enactment in the circumstances of the appellant. In particular, was the ministry reasonable in
determining that the appellant has an employability screen score of less than 15 and in the ministry
opinion, the appellant’s medical condition does not preclude him from searching for, accepting, and
maintaining employment.
The relevant legislation is as follows:
From 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.
Appellant’s Position
The appellant argues that he has a thyroid condition and PTSD and suffers from sleep deficit due to
frequent noise from tenants at the building where he lives and pain in his left knee. Consequently, he
argues that he is unable to search for, accept and maintain employment. He also notes that the
Employability Screen does not record his actual educational level.
Ministry Position
The ministry argues that the appellant has an employability screen score of less than 15 and
accordingly, to qualify for PPMB designation his medical condition must preclude him from searching
for, accepting, and maintaining employment. The ministry notes that the appellant’s physician reports
that his primary conditions are anxiety and depression but that he has no physical restrictions and
has improved with the use of the antidepressant Remeron. The ministry also notes that the
appellant’s physician did not report that the appellant suffers from PTSD and reported that the
appellant’s condition is not episodic and has improved with treatment. The ministry reports that the
appellant’s physician did not identify that the appellant has a thyroid condition but the ministry
acknowledges that the appellant is being treated with a thyroid hormone. The ministry states that the
appellant’s physician provides no details about the appellant’s mental restrictions or the severity of
his condition. Consequently, the ministry cannot conclude that his condition is severe enough to
preclude him from searching for, accepting, or maintaining employment. Finally, the ministry notes
that the appellant’s employability screen score would be less than 15 even if the appellant was
assigned credit for a higher level of education.
Panel Decision
The appellant reports that the employability screen does not record the correct score for his level of
education. He does not specify what his level of education is but he suggests it is higher that that
reported. The panel notes that the employability screen reported that the appellant’s level of
education is “High school/GED” which scores 0 points. Even if the appellant has earned a “Post-
secondary program – degree or diploma” he would receive only one additional point on the
employability score and would consequently still fall short of a total score of 15. Accordingly, the
panel concluded that the ministry reasonably determined that the appellant has an employability
score of less than 15 and to qualify for PPMB designation the appellant would need to satisfy the
requirements of section 2(4) of the EAR. This section specifies that the appellant must have a
medical condition, other than an addiction, that is confirmed by a medical practitioner which has
continued for at least 1 year and is likely to continue for at least 2 more years, and which in the
opinion of the minister, is a barrier that precludes the person from searching for, accepting or
continuing in employment.
The appellant reports several medical conditions including hypothyroidism, PTSD, arthritis in his back
and left knee and depression, as well as sleep deficits. The panel notes that the only medical
evidence submitted by the appellant is the Medical Report – Persons with Persistent Multiple Barriers
dated April 23, 2015. In that report the doctor has listed anxiety/depression as the appellant’s primary
medical condition and has mentioned no other medical conditions. More significantly, in the section of
the report that invites comment regarding the nature of any restrictions specific to the appellant’s
medical condition(s), the doctor has written “No physical restrictions.” The panel also notes that the
appellant failed to specify what restrictions he believes result from his medical conditions and how
they constitute a barrier to his searching for, accepting or continuing in employment. Consequently,
the panel concluded that the ministry reasonably determined that the appellant does not satisfy the
requirements of section 2(4) of the EAR and accordingly is not eligible for the PPMB designation.
Conclusion
Having reviewed and considered all of the evidence and the relevant legislation, the panel finds that
the ministry’s determination that the appellant was not eligible for PPMB designation was a
reasonable application of the applicable enactment in the circumstances of the appellant.
The panel therefore confirms the ministry’s reconsideration 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.