PART C – Decision under Appeal
The decision under appeal is the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation (“ministry”)
reconsideration decision dated July 18, 2016 in which the ministry found the appellant ineligible for
disability assistance (“DA”) for July 2016 because the appellant received financial assistance from
another province in excess of her DA rate as calculated under section 9 and Schedules A and B of
the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Regulation (“EAPWDR”). The ministry
found that financial assistance from another province meets the definition of unearned income under
section 1 of the EAPWDR and that no exclusions apply under Schedule B.
PART D – Relevant Legislation
Employment and Assistance Regulation - EAPWDR - sections 1, 9, and 24, Schedule A sections 1, 2
and 4, and Schedule B sections 1, 3, 6 and 7
PART E – Summary of Facts
The evidence before the ministry at reconsideration consisted of the following:
1.
A Request for Reconsideration (“RFR”) signed by the appellant on July 13, 2016 with attached
submission providing the following information:
The appellant is designated as a Person with Disabilities (“PWD”) under the Employment and
Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act.
On May 28, 2016, she gave notice to her landlord, at her address in another province
(“Province A”), indicating that she would be vacating the residence at the end of June 2016.
On or around this date, she also informed the income assistance program in Province A that
she would be moving to British Columbia (“BC”) by the end of June 2016.
The appellant arrived in BC on June 21, 2016, and on June 24th she applied for DA for the
month of July 2016.
On June 28, 2016, the income assistance program in Province A deposited $248.94 to the
appellant’s bank account for July assistance. On or around this date, the program in Province
A also paid $750 to the appellant’s former landlord in that province.
On July 5, 2016, Province A confirmed that the appellant’s July assistance of $998.94 had
been issued on June 28, 2016.
The ministry made its original decision on July 11, 2016, determining that the appellant was
ineligible for DA for July 2016 due to “excess income”: $248.94 support allowance and $750
shelter costs.
2.
Information from the ministry record indicating the appellant stated she was not aware that
Province A had deposited July support to her bank account and issued the shelter funds directly to
her previous landlord on June 28, 2016. Once she became aware of these circumstances she
informed the ministry that “shelter funds had been issued directly to her old landlord who would not
return the funds.”
3.
A ministry Integrated Case Management Decision Report dated July 11, 2016 indicating that the
appellant is designated as a PWD; her net income is unearned income in the amount of $998.94; she
has zero earned income; and the pro-rated rate of DA for her first month of eligibility is $479.99
comprised of a support allowance (no shelter funds).
Additional submissions
In her Notice of Appeal dated July 21, 2016, the appellant indicated that she has an advocate. She
attended the hearing with the advocate who provided argument on her behalf. The panel will consider
the arguments of both parties in Part F - Reasons for Panel Decision.
The advocate stated that the facts are not in dispute: the appellant returned to BC on June 21, 2016
and acknowledges that she received $248.94 support from Province A, and that $750 was paid to her
former landlord but she is not sure of the date. The advocate stated that they found out a few days
ago that Province A is demanding repayment of the assistance the appellant received at the end of
June and her GST and other tax credits will be clawed back as repayment.
In response to questions, the appellant explained that when she spoke to her case worker in Province
A, the worker said that the landlord was to return the cheque, “just in case any money went out
before the system got updated.” The appellant believes the worker may have sent a letter to the
landlord. She also reports that instead of returning the cheque to Province A, the landlord cashed it
and re-rented the home before July 1, 2016.
The ministry reviewed the reconsideration decision and explained, in response to questions, that
when a person moves from another province and applies for income assistance it is common practice
for the ministry to determine whether the applicant received assistance from the other jurisdiction as
well as funds from other sources. In order to determine income and asset, the ministry obtains
information from the applicant and from the other jurisdiction and the ministry is looking at the receipt
of funds and not whether the file in the other jurisdiction was closed.
With the exception of the information on the repayment of assistance to Province A, the panel finds
that the oral testimony corroborates the information in the reconsideration record by providing
additional detail regarding the amounts paid by Province A, the appellant’s notice that she was
moving, and the ministry’s process in determining an applicant’s income and assets. The panel
therefore admits that testimony under section 22(4)(b) of the Employment and Assistance Act (“EAA”)
as evidence in support of the information and records that were before the minister at the time the
decision being appealed was made.
The panel finds that the evidence on the repayment requirement is new information that does not
substantiate or corroborate the information that was before the minister regarding the assistance that
was paid by Province A. Accordingly, the panel does not admit the repayment information as it does
meet the test for admissibility of evidence under section 22(4)(b) of the EAA.
PART F – Reasons for Panel Decision
The issue to be decided is whether the ministry’s reconsideration decision of July 18, 2016 was
reasonably supported by the evidence or was a reasonable application of the applicable enactment in
the circumstances of the appellant. The ministry determined the appellant was not eligible for DA for
July 2016 because she received financial assistance from another province in excess of her DA rate
pursuant to section 9 and Schedules A and B of the EAPWDR, and that assistance is considered
unearned income under section 1 of the Regulation.
The relevant sections of the legislation are as follows:
Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Regulation
Definitions
1(1) In this regulation:
"unearned income" means
"unearned income" means any income that is not earned income, and includes, without limitation,
money or value received from any of the following:
(i) financial assistance provided under the Employment and Assistance Act or provided by another
province or jurisdiction;
Limits on Income
9 (2) A family unit is not eligible for disability assistance if the net income of the family unit
determined under Schedule B equals or exceeds the amount of disability assistance determined
under Schedule A for a family unit matching that family unit.
Amount of disability assistance
24 Disability assistance may be provided to or for a family unit, for a calendar month, in an amount
that is not more than
(a) the amount determined under Schedule A, minus
(b) the family unit's net income determined under Schedule B.
Schedule A Disability Assistance Rates
Maximum amount of disability assistance before deduction of net income
1 (1) Subject to this section and section 3 and 6 to 10 of this Schedule, the amount of disability
assistance referred to in section 24(a) [amount of disability assistance] of this regulation is the sum of
(a) the monthly support allowance under section 2 of this Schedule for a family unit matching the
family unit of the applicant or recipient, plus
(b) the shelter allowance calculated under sections 4 and 5 of this Schedule.
Monthly support allowance
2 (1) A monthly support allowance for the purpose of section 1 (a) is the sum of
(a) the amount set out in Column 3 of the following table for a family unit described in Column 1 of an
applicant or a recipient described in Column 2, plus
(b) the amount calculated in accordance with subsections (2) to (4) for each dependent child in the
family unit.
Amount of
Item
Family unit composition
Age or status of applicant or recipient
support
Sole applicant/recipient and
1
Applicant/recipient is under 65 years of age
$531.42
no dependent children
Monthly shelter allowance
4 (2) The monthly shelter allowance for a family unit to which section 14.2 of the Act does not apply is
the smaller of
(a) the family unit’s actual shelter costs, and
(b) the maximum set out in the following table for the applicable family size:
Item
Family Unit Size
Maximum Monthly Shelter
1
1 person
$375
Schedule B Net Income Calculation
Deduction and Exemption Rules
1 When calculating the net income of a family unit for the purposes of section 24 (b) [amount of
disability assistance] of this regulation,
(a) the following are exempt from income:
(i) any income earned by a dependent child attending school on a full-time basis;
(ii) the basic family care rate paid in respect of a child in care;
(iii) Repealed. [B.C. Reg. 48/2010, Sch. 1, s. 2 (c).]
(iv) a family bonus, except the portion treated as unearned income under section 10 (1) of this
Schedule;
(v) the basic child tax benefit;
(vi) a goods and services tax credit under the Income Tax Act (Canada);
(vii) a tax credit under section 8 [refundable sales tax credit], 8.1 [low income climate action tax
credit] or 8.2 [BC harmonized sales tax credit] of theIncome Tax Act (British Columbia);
(viii) individual redress payments granted by the government of Canada to a person of Japanese
ancestry;
(ix) individual payments granted by the government of Canada under the Extraordinary Assistance
Plan to a person infected by the human immunodeficiency virus;
(x) individual payments granted by the government of British Columbia to a person infected by the
human immunodeficiency virus or to the surviving spouse or dependent children of that person;
(xi) individual payments granted by the government of Canada under the Extraordinary Assistance
Plan to thalidomide victims;
(xii) money that is
(A) paid or payable to a person if the money is awarded to the person by an adjudicative panel in
respect of claims of abuse at Jericho Hill School for the Deaf and drawn from a lump sum settlement
paid by the government of British Columbia, or
(B) paid or payable to or for a person if the payment is in accordance with the settlement agreement
approved by the Supreme Court in Action No. C980463, Vancouver Registry;
(xiii) the BC earned income benefit;
(xiv) money paid or payable under the 1986-1990 Hepatitis C Settlement Agreement made June 15,
1999, except money paid or payable under section 4.02 or 6.01 of Schedule A or of Schedule B of
that agreement;
(xv) a rent subsidy provided by the provincial government, or by a council, board, society or
governmental agency that administers rent subsidies from the provincial government;
(xvi) Repealed. [B.C. Reg. 197/2012, Sch. 2, s. 11 (a).]
(xvii) money paid or payable to a person in settlement of a claim of abuse at an Indian residential
school, except money paid or payable as income replacement in the settlement;
(xviii) post adoption assistance payments provided under section 28 (1) or 30.1 of the Adoption
Regulation, B.C. Reg. 291/96;
(xix) a rebate of energy or fuel tax provided by the government of Canada, the government of British
Columbia, or an agency of either government;
(xx) money paid by the government of British Columbia, under a written agreement, to a person with
disabilities or to a trustee for the benefit of a person with disabilities to enable the person with
disabilities to live in the community instead of in an institution;
(xxi) Repealed. [B.C. Reg. 85/2012, Sch. 2, s. 7.]
(xxii) payments granted by the government of British Columbia under section 8 [agreement with
child's kin and others] of the Child, Family and Community Service Act;
(xxiii) payments granted by the government of British Columbia under the Ministry of Children and
Family Development's At Home Program;
(xxiv) Repealed. [B.C. Reg. 85/2012, Sch. 2, s. 7.]
(xxv) payments granted by the government of British Columbia under an agreement referred to in
section 93 (1) (g) (ii) of the Child, Family and Community Service Act, for contributions to the support
of a child;
(xxvi) a loan that is
(A) not greater than the amount contemplated by the recipient's business plan, accepted by the
minister under section 70.1 of this regulation, and
(B) received and used for the purposes set out in the business plan;
(xxvii) payments granted by the government of British Columbia under the Ministry of Children and
Family Development's
(A) Autism Funding: Under Age 6 Program, or
(B) Autism Funding: Ages 6 — 18 Program;
(xxviii) Repealed. [B.C. Reg. 148/2015, App. 2, s. 1 (a).]
(xxix) payments made by a health authority or a contractor of a health authority to a recipient, who is
a "person with a mental disorder" as defined in section 1 of the Mental Health Act, for the purpose of
supporting the recipient in participating in a volunteer program or in a mental health or addictions
rehabilitation program;
(xxx) a refund provided under Plan I as established under the Drug Plans Regulation;
(xxxi) payments provided by Community Living BC to assist with travel expenses for a recipient in the
family unit to attend a self-help skills program, or a supported work placement program, approved by
Community Living BC;
(xxxii) a Universal Child Care Benefit provided under the Universal Child Care Benefit Act (Canada);
(xxxiii) money paid by the government of Canada, under a settlement agreement, to persons who
contracted Hepatitis C by receiving blood or blood products in Canada prior to 1986 or after July 1,
1990, except money paid under that agreement as income replacement;
(xxxiv) money withdrawn from a registered disability savings plan;
(xxxv) a working income tax benefit provided under the Income Tax Act (Canada);
(xxxvi) Repealed. [B.C. Reg. 180/2010, s. 2 (b).]
(xxxvii) the climate action dividend under section 13.02 of the Income Tax Act;
(xxxviii) money paid or payable to a person under the Criminal Injury Compensation Act as
compensation for non-pecuniary loss or damage for pain, suffering mental or emotional trauma,
humiliation or inconvenience that occurred when the person was under 19 years of age;
(xxxix) money that is paid or payable to or for a person if the payment is in accordance with the
settlement agreement approved by the Supreme Court in Action No. S024338, Vancouver Registry;
(xl) payments granted by the government of British Columbia under the Ministry of Children and
Family Development's Family Support Services program;
(xli) payments granted by the government of British Columbia under the Ministry of Children and
Family Development's Supported Child Development program;
(xlii) payments granted by the government of British Columbia under the Ministry of Children and
Family Development's Aboriginal Supported Child Development program;
(xliii) money paid or payable from a fund that is established by the government of British Columbia,
the government of Canada and the City of Vancouver in relation to recommendation 3.2 of the final
report of the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry;
(xliv) payments granted by the government of British Columbia under the Temporary Education
Support for Parents program;
(xlv) a BC early childhood tax benefit;
(xlvi) child support;
(xlvii) orphan's benefits under the Canada Pension Plan Act (Canada);
(xlviii) money or other value received, by will or as the result of intestacy, from the estate of a
deceased person;
(xlix) gifts;
(l) education and training allowances, grants, bursaries or scholarships, other than student financial
assistance;
(li) money withdrawn from a registered education savings plan;
(lii) compensation paid or payable under section 17 [compensation in fatal cases] or 18 [addition to
payments] of the Workers Compensation Act to a dependant, as defined in section 1 of that Act, who
is a child, as defined in section 17 of that Act,
(b) any amount garnished, attached, seized, deducted or set off from income is considered to be
income, except the deductions permitted under sections 2 and 6,
(c) all earned income must be included, except the deductions permitted under section 2 and any
earned income exempted under sections 3 and 4, and
(d) all unearned income must be included, except the deductions permitted under section 6 and any
income exempted under sections 7 and 8.
Annual exemption - qualifying income
3 (1) In this section:
"qualifying income" means
(a) earned income, except the deductions permitted under section 2, and
(b) unearned income that is compensation paid under section 29 or 30 of the Workers Compensation
Act;
(2) For the purposes of section 1 (c) and (d), the lesser of the following amounts is exempt income of
a family unit for a qualifying month:
(a) the qualifying income of the family unit for the qualifying month;
(b) the exemption limit of the family unit for the qualifying month calculated in accordance with
subsection (3).
Deductions from unearned income
6 The only deductions permitted from unearned income are the following:
(a) any income tax deducted at source from employment insurance benefits;
(b) essential operating costs of renting self-contained suites.
Exemptions — unearned income
7 (1) The following unearned income is exempt:
(a) the portion of interest from a mortgage on, or agreement for sale of, the family unit's previous
place of residence if the interest is required for the amount owing on the purchase or rental of the
family unit's current place of residence;
(b) $50 of each monthly Federal Department of Veterans Affairs benefits paid to any person in the
family unit;
(c) a criminal injury compensation award or other award, except the amount that would cause the
family unit's assets to exceed, at the time the award is received, the limit applicable under section 10
[asset limits] of this regulation;(d) a payment made from a trust to or on behalf of a person referred to
in section 12 (1) [assets held in trust for person with disabilities] of this regulation if the payment is
applied exclusively to or used exclusively for
(i) disability-related costs,
(ii) the acquisition of a family unit's place of residence,
(iii) a registered education savings plan, or
(iv) a registered disability savings plan;
(d.1) subject to subsection (2), a structured settlement annuity payment…
(d.2) money expended by a person referred to in section 12.1 (2) [temporary exemption of assets for
person with disabilities or person receiving special care].
(d.3) any of the following if applied exclusively to or used exclusively for disability-related costs to
promote independence:
(e) the portion of Canada Pension Plan Benefits that is calculated by…
(f) a tax refund.
Analysis
Appellant’s position
At the hearing, the appellant clarified that she is not contesting the ministry’s treatment of the July
support funds from Province A as she acknowledges receiving the funds in her bank account at the
end of June 2016. She agrees that the support allowance meets the definition of unearned income
under the Regulation and there are no deductions that can exempt it from being considered in the
calculation of her income. At issue is the $750 rent that was paid directly to her former landlord. The
appellant argues that this allowance from Province A does not meet the definition of unearned
income in section 1 of the EAPWDR. She is requesting that the ministry issue her support of $282.48
[the balance of her DA for July 2016 after deducting the support allowance she received from
Province A].
In her RFR, the appellant submits that the legislation “clearly emphasizes language around amounts
received as actually received at numerous points in the Regulation.” She argues that for the purpose
of calculating benefits under the EAPWDR, “the minister has no legislated authority to deem rent paid
to a landlord in another province for a non-current residence as income or value received.” At the
hearing, the advocate argued that the ministry unreasonably applied section 1 of the Regulation in
light of the facts. The advocate notes that $750 rent was paid directly to the landlord and not to the
appellant and, therefore, the rent paid by Province A cannot be considered as money or value
received and hence does not meet the definition of unearned income under section 1(1) of the
EAPWDR.
The advocate read the definition of value from Black’s Law Dictionary, 2
nd
edition which distinguishes
value in use versus value in exchange. He argued that this definition captures the plain meaning of
value and the appellant received no value in use as she was not resident in Province A and could not
benefit from the funds, nor did she receive any value in exchange as she had no control over the
payment of the funds to her former landlord. The advocate also read an excerpt from the ministry’s
policy manual for frontline workers which states that staff “translate BC income assistance legislation,
regulations, and policies into practice.” The advocate argues that the role of the ministry and purpose
and intent of the legislation is to “address basic needs as a last resort program” and that the
ministry’s determination that the rent allowance is unearned income is based on their opinion [as
stated on page 2 of the reconsideration decision, In the opinion of the minister…] rather than common
sense statutory interpretation.
The advocate submits that the ministry’s decision has put a great deal of strain on the appellant. The
appellant elaborated on the impact of “losing July benefits from both Province A and BC”, funds that
she needs in order to pay for her medications. In addition, she was on the streets, had to stay
wherever she could and face being kicked out, and has been subjected to “vile and disgusting things
that she should never have to live through.” She further submits that the ministry’s decision is unfair
because she received nothing from Province A now that they are clawing back the assistance that
was paid.
Ministry’s position
In the reconsideration decision, the ministry argues that even though the appellant did not receive the
rent allowance directly from Province A, she did “receive a value for the funds” that were issued as
her shelter allowance and consequently the funds are considered to have been received pursuant to
section 1(1) of the Regulation. The ministry notes that section 1(1)(i) of the EAPWDR defines
financial assistance provided by another jurisdiction as unearned income. The ministry submits that
the funds issued by Province A are therefore treated as such. The ministry further submits that the
amount of income received from Province A is $998.94 (support and shelter allowances) and as this
amount exceeds the BC support allowance of $531.42, the appellant is not eligible for July 2016 DA.
When asked at the hearing, what value does the ministry think the appellant received, the ministry
stated that “the rent money was sent to the landlord on the appellant’s behalf and that is why she
received a value.” While the ministry empathizes with the appellant’s circumstances and “feels bad
for the situation”, the ministry submits that it can only go by what the legislation says and there is no
discretion or “wiggle room” in the Regulation to not treat financial assistance from another province as
unearned income. The ministry argues that the decision is supported by the legislation, stating that
“no interpretation is needed because the Regulation is clear in section 1(1)(i) that unearned income
includes, without limitation, financial assistance provided by another province.” The ministry added
that it does not have the authority to rewrite the legislation to change the definition of unearned
income.
Panel’s decision
The panel was split in its decision, with two members finding that the ministry’s reconsideration
decision was a reasonable application of the EAPWDR, and one panel member finding that the
ministry unreasonably determined that the rent money from Province A meets the definition of
unearned income in section 1 of the Regulation. The following is the Reasons for Decision on behalf
of the panel majority. The dissenting opinion is attached as a separate document.
The panel notes that notwithstanding the new information that Province A is requiring repayment of
assistance [which was not before the minister at reconsideration], the appellant does not dispute that
she received unearned income of $248.49 from Province A. The ministry, in its decision, accepts the
appellant’s acknowledgement that she received those funds. The panel’s primary focus will be on the
ministry’s treatment of the $750 rent allowance in light of the information that was before the minister
when it made the reconsideration decision.
Under sections 1(1) and 1(1)(i) of the EAPWDR, unearned income “includes, without limitation,
money or value received” from various sources including “(i) financial assistance provided…by
another province or jurisdiction.” The evidence before the minister at the reconsideration is that
Province A confirmed on July 5, 2016 that the appellant’s July 2016 assistance of $998.94 ($248.94
support plus $750 shelter) had been issued on June 28, 2016. In the reconsideration decision, the
ministry states that the appellant informed the ministry that the shelter funds had been issued directly
to her former landlord who would not return the funds.
The appellant argues that the rent allowance should not be treated as unearned income because she
did not receive a value as described in section 1(1) of the EAPWDR. She wonders how can she
receive a value from the shelter allowance when she was not living in the residence to benefit from
the rent that was paid on her behalf? She argues that the ministry’s role is to “translate” legislation
and policies rather than impose its opinion. Despite these arguments, the panel cannot find that the
ministry’s decision is unreasonable based on the evidence before it. The panel notes that there is a
conflict of fact regarding the notification the appellant submits she gave to Province A regarding her
move. The appellant stated at the hearing that she gave notice to her landlord that she was moving
on May 28, 2016 and informed Province A “on or around the same date.” She is therefore submitting
that Province A issued her IA despite her notifying them that she was moving. However, the
appellant did not have any records of the notice she gave to the landlord or to Province A, and she
could not confirm the date that she notified Province A.
The ministry’s evidence is that Province A confirmed that the appellant’s July IA had been issued.
The information that Province A gave the ministry does not include any information around
notification. Section 1 of the EAPWDR sets out that unearned income includes either money or value
and, by implication, this wording addresses situations where funds are paid on a client’s behalf rather
than directly to the client. Had there been documents confirming the notification the appellant
submits she gave to Province A, including a copy of the letter she said they sent to her former
landlord, the panel may be justified in finding that the ministry was unreasonable in concluding that
she received value for the shelter allowance that was paid directly to the landlord.
In the appellant’s circumstances, however, the evidence before the minister and the panel does not
confirm that Province A had sufficient notice that she was moving but made an error by issuing IA
anyway. It does not make sense to the panel that Province A would issue IA for July 2016 when the
appellant had given them (as she submits) a full month’s notice that she was moving. While the
panel sympathizes with the unfortunate circumstances the appellant finds herself in without July
assistance from the ministry, there is insufficient evidence to confirm that she did not receive value for
the rent that was issued in accordance with section 1 of the EAPWDR. At the time that the ministry
was interpreting the Regulation, the only confirmation it had from Province A is that the shelter
allowance had been paid on the appellant’s behalf as part of her assistance entitlement and was
therefore intended for her benefit.
While the appellant argues that the ministry’s decision is unfair and has caused her a great deal of
strain, the standard that the panel must use in assessing the decision is that of reasonableness.
Although the decision has unfortunate consequences for the appellant, the panel finds that the
ministry’s application of the EAPWDR is reasonably supported by the facts that were before the
minister at reconsideration. In addition, the panel finds that the ministry reasonably determined the
appellant is not eligible for DA for July 2016 because she had unearned income in excess of her DA
rate and her unearned income cannot be excluded from the net income calculation under the
EAPWDR. Section 9(2) of the EAPWDR states that a family unit is not eligible for DA where their net
income as determined under Schedule B exceeds the assistance rate for their family unit as
determined under Schedule A.
As noted by the ministry, section 24 of the EAPWDR sets out the calculation for the amount of
assistance the client is eligible to receive; i.e., their income as determined under Schedule B is
subtracted from their maximum support/shelter entitlement under Schedule A. Sections 2 and 4 of
Schedule A set the appellant’s maximum entitlement for DA at $906.42 per month ($531.42 support
plus $375 shelter). The ministry notes that as the appellant does not currently have shelter costs, her
DA is limited to the support portion.
Section 1 of Schedule B provides further detail regarding the calculation of net income, listing various
benefits and payments in section 1(a) that are exempt from consideration as income. The panel
notes that financial assistance from another province is not included in this list. Further, as noted by
the ministry, financial assistance from another province is not listed in sections 1, 3, 6, and 7 of
Schedule B as a type of unearned income that may be excluded from the calculation of net income.
On the basis of the calculation set out in these sections and the absence of any exemption or
exclusion for financial assistance provided by another province, the panel finds that the ministry
reasonably determined the appellant is not eligible for DA for the month of July 2016 because her
unearned income of $998.94 exceeds the $531.42 assistance rate for her family unit as set out in
Schedule A. The panel therefore finds that the ministry reasonably applied section 9(2) of the
EAPWDR.
Conclusion
The panel finds that the ministry’s decision finding the appellant ineligible for July 2016 DA because
she had unearned income in excess of her DA entitlement was a reasonable application of the
EAPWDR in the circumstances of the appellant. The panel confirms the ministry’s reconsideration
decision under sections 24(1)(b) and 24(2)(a) of the Employment and Assistance Act.
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.