PART C – Decision under Appeal
The decision under appeal is the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation (the
“ministry”) reconsideration decision of May 24, 2016 wherein the ministry denied the appellant a crisis
supplement for clothing because the appellant did not satisfy all three statutory criteria set out in
section 59(1) of the Employment and Assistance Regulation (EAR). The ministry was satisfied that
the appellant’s need for clothing was unexpected but held that:
1.
there were alternate resources available to the family unit, and
2.
failure to meet the expense would not result in imminent danger to physical health.
PART D – Relevant Legislation
EAR, section 59
PART E – Summary of Facts
The evidence before the ministry at the time of reconsideration:
Request for Reconsideration dated May 12, 2016.
On May 3, 2016 the appellant contacted the ministry to request a crisis supplement for clothing. The
ministry requested additional information which was not provided by the appellant and her file was
closed.
On May 9, 2016 the appellant again requested a crisis supplement for clothing. The appellant stated
that all her belongings were stolen from her previous residence when it was broken into one month
ago. The ministry worker (EAW) asked about alternate resources and the appellant replied that she
had been to a couple of resource centers. When the EAW asked about possible danger to her health
if crisis supplement was not provided and she replied, “none”. The appellant provided the EAW with a
police file number to reference.
On May 10, 2016 the EAW reviewed the appellant’s request. The appellant did not provide any
additional information than what was provided previously. The ministry denied the appellant’s request
for a crisis supplement for clothing because she had not explored the many resources in the
community to obtain clothing and because she had not indicated that she was in imminent danger
from a lack of clothing.
At the hearing the appellant stated the place she was living had been burglarized several times which
resulted in her clothing, identification, rent money, dishes and other personal items being stolen. She
provided the EAW with police file numbers. The appellant stated that she does not have any family
close by that she can reach out to for assistance and her only child resides with her brother in
another community. The appellant stated that she had tried other community agencies to find clothes
and while some were able to provide her clothes some did not have anything that she needed or they
did not provide free clothing. She stated she wanted and needed new shoes and undergarments. The
appellant stated that she needed clothing that would improve her appearance or improve her self-
esteem so she could apply for a job. The appellant stated she was not going to die because she did
not have clothing but she wanted to buy some new things because it would improve her mental
health and well-being which is also important and it is important to her on how she presents herself
and on how see is seen in the community.
The panel found the appellant’s testimony provided information that was in support of the information
and record that was before the ministry at reconsideration and accordingly and has admitted this
information in accordance with s. 22(4) of the Employment and Assistance Act.
The ministry relied on the facts stated in the Reconsideration decision.
PART F – Reasons for Panel Decision
The issue under appeal is whether the Ministry’s reconsideration of May 24, 2016 which determined
that the appellant was not eligible for a crisis supplement for clothing under section 59 EAR because
she did not meet all the legislated criteria set out in section 59 EAR is reasonably supported by the
evidence or is a reasonable application of the legislation in the circumstances of the appellant. The
ministry was satisfied that the supplement was needed to meet an unexpected expense or obtain an
item that was unexpectedly needed, however;
The ministry was not satisfied that:
a)
she did not have resources available to the family unit; and
b)
failure by the Ministry to meet the expense or obtain the item will result in imminent danger
to the physical health of any person in the family unit, or
c)
will result in the removal of a child under the Child, Family and Community
Service Act.
The legislation considered: EAR
Crisis supplement
Section 59
(1) The minister may provide a crisis supplement to or for a family unit that is eligible for income 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.
Alternate Resources
The ministry’s position is that the appellant lives in a large community where there are many
resources available for people to obtain free clothing. The ministry argued there were other
community resources available that the appellant could have attended in an attempt to replace her
clothing and the ministry should be considered her last resort.
The Appellant argued that she had attended a few locations and either they did not have what she
wanted or they sold the clothes rather than give them away.
The evidence before the panel is that the appellant lives in a community with a number of community
resources and the appellant did not exhaust all her available resources in an attempt to replace her
stolen clothes. The appellant testified that she wanted new clothes or was being selective in her
choice of clothing as she was looking for clothes that would improve her self-esteem or how she
presented herself in the community when she was seeking employment.
Panel Decision
Therefore, the panel finds that the ministry reasonably determined that the appellant has not satisfied
the legislative criterion that she had no resources available to acquire clothing.
Imminent Danger to Physical Health and Threat of Removal of Child
The ministry argued the appellant did not provide any information that her physical health would be in
imminent danger if she did not get the crisis supplement to obtain clothing. The ministry also argued
the appellant is a single recipient of income assistance whose child is not living at home with her.
The appellant argued that her mental health is as important as anything. She did not argue that her
physical health was in danger because she needed clothing.
Panel Decision
The panel finds there is no evidence to support that the appellant’s physical health was in imminent
danger because of her need for clothing. The evidence is that the appellant’s only child lives in
another community and does not reside with the appellant, and the panel finds there was no threat
that her child would be removed if she was not eligible for a crisis supplement for clothing.
The panel finds the ministry was reasonable in determining that the appellant has not satisfied the
legislative criterion related to “imminent danger to physical health” or the “removal of a child under the
Child, Family and Community Service Act”.
Conclusion
Since the Ministry reasonably determined that all 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
clothing was reasonably supported by the evidence. 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.