PART C – Decision under Appeal
The
decision
under
appeal
is
the
Ministry
of
Social
Development
and
Social
Innovation’s
(the
Ministry) reconsideration decision made under section 57(1) of the Employment and Assistance for
Persons with Disabilities Regulation and dated June 24, 2016, that denied the appellant’s request for
a crisis supplement for clothing for the month of March, 2016, on the grounds that while the Appellant
satisfied the criterion of having no alternate resources available with which to meet his need, he did
not show that the crisis supplement was for an unexpected need or an unexpected expense, did not
show that failure to meet the expense will result in imminent danger to the Appellant’s physical health
or removal of a child under the Child, Family and Community Service Act, and that the Appellant had
already received the maximum $100 allowable for a clothing crisis supplement within the 12 calendar
months preceding the date of the Appellant’s application for the crisis supplement.
PART D – Relevant Legislation
Employment and Assistance for Persons With Disabilities Regulation (EAPDWR), Section 57(1), (2),
(3), (4)
PART E – Summary of Facts
Nature of the Appellant’s Application
The
Appellant
applied
for
a
crisis
supplement
for
clothing,
which
was
denied.
The
Appellant
requested reconsideration of the denial.
Evidence at the Time of Reconsideration
The evidence before the Ministry at the time of Reconsideration consisted of:
A.
A Statement that the Appellant receives disability assistance as a single person
B.
Facts
Set
Out
in
the
“Decision
to
be
Reconsidered”
Part
of
the
Request
for
Reconsideration dated June 2, 2016:
The Appellant’s request for a crisis supplement was denied as it did not meet all eligibility
criteria
On March 30, 2016 the Appellant requested a crisis supplement for clothing on the grounds of
loss of weight
The Appellant said he had no clothing that fit
The Appellant said he had accessed “community resources”, but did not say specifically which
ones or for what.
The Appellant had received a crisis supplement of $100 in November 2015
That the Appellant was notified of the crisis supplement denial on June 2, 2016.
C.
Appellant’s
Additional
Statements
Set
Out
in
the
“Reason
For
Request
for
Reconsideration” Part of the Request for Reconsideration dated June 2, 2016:
That the Appellant’s shoes were an orthotics product not to be “use” as a crisis grant
The $100.00 crisis grant request is different from orthotics
A $100 clothing grant is needed
The Appellant has shoes but no clothing
PART F – Reasons for Panel Decision
ISSUE
The issue is whether the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation’s (the Ministry)
reconsideration decision made under section 57(1) of the Employment and Assistance for Persons
with Disabilities Regulation (EAPWDR) and dated June 24, 2016, that denied the appellant’s request
for a crisis supplement for clothing for the month of March, 2016, on the grounds that while the
Appellant satisfied the criterion of having no alternate resources available with which to meet his
need, he did not show that the crisis supplement was for an unexpected need or an unexpected
expense, and did not show that failure to meet the expense will result in imminent danger to the
Appellant’s physical health or removal of a child under the Child, Family and Community Service Act,
and that the
Appellant had already received the maximum
$100 allowable for a clothing crisis
supplement within 12 calendar months preceding his application for the crisis supplement,
was
reasonably supported by the evidence or was a reasonable application of the legislation in the
circumstances of the Appellant.
RELEVANT LEGISLATION
Crisis supplement
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.
(2)
A crisis supplement
may
be provided only for the calendar month in
which the application or request for
the
supplement is made.
(3) …..
(4) A crisis supplement provided for food, shelter or clothing is subject to the following limitations:
(a) .….
(b) .….
(c) if for clothing, the amount that may be provided must not exceed the smaller of
(i) $100 for each person in the family unit in the 12 calendar month period preceding the date of
application for the crisis supplement, and
(ii) $400 for the family unit in the 12 calendar month period preceding the date of application for the crisis
supplement.
JURISDICTION
The panel’s jurisdiction to hear the Appeal is pursuant to section 19(1)(a) of the Employment and
Assistance Act.
The Appellant did not attend this hearing. Confirmation was received from Canada Post that the
Appellant received the Notice of Hearing on August 11, 2016.
No representative of the Ministry attended this hearing. There was facsimile confirmation that the
Ministry received the Notice of Hearing on August 9, 2016.
The hearing was scheduled for 9:00 am, and the Panel waited 10 minutes until 9:40 am; when neither
party attended, pursuant to the authority of section 86(b) Employment and Assistance Regulation the
Panel proceeded to deliberate and decide the issue.
General Scheme of the Legislation
The general scheme of
Section 57 of the
EAPWDR is that an individual may receive a crisis
supplement if three criteria are met. The first is that the Minister may provide a supplement if it is
required to meet an unexpected expense or to obtain an item unexpectedly needed (section 57(1)(a)
EAPWDR). The second is that the person is unable to meet the expense or obtain the item because
there are no resources available to the family (section 57(1)(a) EAPWDR). The third is that the
Minister must consider that failure to meet the expense or obtain the item will result in either imminent
danger to the person’s physical health or removal of a child under the Child, Family and Community
Service Act (section 57(1)(b) EAPWDR ).
Further, under section 57(4)(c)(i) EAPWDR a person may only receive a maximum of $100 clothing
crisis grant in any 12 month period.
Analysis
Section 57(1)(a) EAPWDR – Unexpected Expense
The first part of the sub-section requires the Appellant to show that the clothing expense for which he
seeks a supplement is unexpected.
Appellant’s Position
At reconsideration, the Appellant’s position was that he had lost weight, but he did not provide any
information as to whether or not the weight loss was unexpected or any other evidence about his
weight loss. He stated in his Notice of Appeal that “Orthotix” shoes should be separate from the
clothing fund, and that he was in need of clothing.
Ministry’s Position
Further, the Appellant’s need for clothing was because he had lost weight, and while the Ministry
accepted that the Appellant had lost weight there was no information before the reconsideration
officer
about
the
circumstances
surrounding
the
weight
loss,
and
that
there
was
insufficient
information to find that the Appellant’s weight loss was unexpected.
Panel Finding
The panel finds that there was no information before the reconsideration officer to indicate whether or
not the Appellant’s weight loss and thus his need for a clothing supplement was or was not an
unexpected expense or an expense necessary to obtain an item unexpectedly needed. There was no
information about orthotics shoes either from the Appellant or the Ministry except for the unexplained
statements set out in Part E and in the Notice of Appeal.
The panel finds therefore that the Ministry’s determination at reconsideration that the Appellant had
no unexpected expense or to obtain an item unexpectedly needed was a reasonable application of
the first criterion of section 57(1)(a) of the EAPWDR in the circumstances of the Appellant and was
reasonably supported by the evidence.
Section 57(1)(b) EAPWDR – Failing to Meet an Unexpected Expense Will Result in Imminent
Danger to Physical Health or Removal of a Child
Appellant’s Position
The Appellant provided no information at reconsideration concerning how, if at all, his physical health
would be affected, let alone if it would result in imminent danger to his physical health, if the clothing
supplement was not granted.
The Appellant provided no information as to how a failure to provide him with a clothing supplement
would result in removal of a child under the Child, Family and Community Service Act.
Ministry’s Position
The Ministry’s position at reconsideration was that although the Appellant had lost a significant
amount of weight, he had not provided information as to how failure to obtain clothing would result in
imminent danger to his physical health.
Although the reconsideration decision noted that there is a second criterion contained in section
57(1)(b) EAPWDR which provides that the supplement may be provided if failure to obtain the item or
meet the expense will result in removal of a child under the Child, Family and Community Service
Act, the reconsideration decision did not address the issue further, and specifically did not deal with
evidence of or lack of evidence supporting this criterion.
Panel Finding
The panel notes that, although mentioned in the reconsideration decision, there was never an issue
with respect to a removal of a child to the second sub-section of Section 57(1)(b) dealing with the
removal of a child under the Child, Family and Community Service Act does not arise.
The panel finds that the Ministry was reasonable when it determined at reconsideration that the
Appellant had not shown that his health would be in imminent danger if the clothing supplement was
not
granted,
and
was
therefore
a
reasonable
application
of
Section
57(1)(b)
EAPWDR
in
the
circumstances of the Appellant.
Section 57(4)(c)(i) - Maximum $100 Clothing Crisis Grant in a 12 Month Period
Appellant’s Position
The Appellant did not address this criterion.
Ministry’s Position
In November 2015, the Appellant had received a clothing grant of $100.00, the maximum allowable in
the 12 calendar month period preceding the date of application for the crisis supplement, and under
EAPWDR Section 4(c)(i) was not eligible for another clothing grant until December 2016.
Panel Finding
The panel finds that the Ministry was reasonable when it determined at reconsideration that the
Appellant had received the maximum allowable clothing grant of $100 within the preceding 12 months
and was therefore not eligible for a crisis supplement for clothing and would not be eligible until
December, 2016.
Conclusion
The panel finds that the Ministry’s decision in denying the Appellant a crisis supplement for clothing
was
a
reasonable
application
of
the
evidence
in
reasonably supported by the evidence.
The panel confirms the Ministry decision and the Appellant is not successful in his appeal.
the
circumstances
of
the
Appellant
and
was
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.