PART C – Decision under Appeal The decision under appeal is the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation’s (ministry) reconsideration decision dated August 8, 2016 which held that the appellant was not eligible for a crisis supplement for furniture pursuant to Section 5 of the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act (EAPWDA) and Section 57 (1) of the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Regulation (EAPWDR). The ministry determined that the appellant failed to establish that, pursuant to section 57 (1) (a) of the EAPWDR, a crisis supplement for furniture (a pillow-top bed) was necessary: to meet an unexpected expense or obtain an item that was unexpectedly needed; and that she did not have other resources to meet her need for a pillow-top mattress; The ministry did determine that pursuant to section 57 (1)(b) of the EAPWDR, failure to meet the expense of a pillow-top mattress would result in imminent danger to the appellant’s physical health. PART D – Relevant Legislation Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Regulation – EAPWDR- Section 57 (1) Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act – EAPWDA- Section 5
PART E – Summary of Facts The evidence before the ministry at the time of reconsideration included: Prescription from the appellant’s GP, signed and dated July 25, 2016, for a pillow-top mattress; and Request for Reconsideration (RFR), signed and dated July 25, 2016 which states in part that: alternative resources for a pillow-top mattress were explored but local charities did not have available; due to medical conditions she is unable to sleep on regular mattresses. The pillow top mattresses are the only ones soft enough to lie on her side; She is unable to walk any distance. She has spinal stenosis, herniated discs and a severed hip. She enclosed a doctor’s note for the type of bed she needs; she did not request a hospital bed but rather the worker suggested it; the ministry did provide a bed in the past; there is imminent risk to her health without a pillow-top mattress; and She cannot sleep on anything other than the pillow top mattress without it causing pain and sleepless nights. Evidence On Appeal A Notice of Appeal (NOA), signed and dated August 19, 2016, which states in part that she requires a pillow-top mattress due to her medical conditions and that she meets the legislative criteria for a crisis supplement for a pillow-top mattress because: She was taken by ambulance to emergency at the hospital and underwent emergency surgery. She had a severe bone infection and it “ate away” at her hip bone and, after surgery, she was in hospital for 6 to 7 weeks. While she was in hospital, she was evicted from her home; She paid people from a charitable organization to clean and pack her things and put them in storage; At that time, a lady from the charitable organization offered her a room and she also had a place for her to store her belongings; she tried to get a pillow-top mattress from local charities but there were any available and she asked friends for help and no one wanted to give her money. She does not have family or friends to turn to for money to purchase one; The lady had a nice home and from what she could see of the shed from the back deck, it looked like it was in good shape; She was wheelchair bound since she left the hospital and was unable to go out to where her belongings were stored. She trusted that her belongings were safe; She was evicted from the lady’s house and there was no housing available in her community. She was in a bad situation, staying in a trailer with no hydro or bathroom or cooking facilities, and her daughter told her there was suitable place for her, if she could get to her daughter’s community the next day; When her brother went to retrieve her belongings from the lady’s shed, he confirmed that her bed was moldy and smelled of mildew and parts of it were wet; She has used hospital beds before, when in hospital, and it was so uncomfortable that they had her propped up with many pillows and had her on painkillers; her doctor has told her that she specifically needs a pillow-top bed and has provided a prescription for one; and
She described her pain and experience from sleeping on non-pillow-top mattresses and a regular mattress with a “foam top” on the mattress. The only bed that she has found relief from the pain due to her medical conditions is the pillow top mattress; and The bed the lady let her use was not good for her back so she tried a “foam-top” and she regrets using it because it was not good for her. She was only able to sleep by lying on her right side, which caused arthritis in her upper arm and shoulder. Evidence At the Hearing At the hearing the appellant reiterated what was stated in her NOA and added; While she was in the hospital, she paid people from a charitable organization to move her belongings; The lady is a care aid and there was no reason for her to suspect that she would put her belongings in an unsafe place. The lady works 16 hours a day and was not available to discuss things; She thought the lady would not handle her things any differently than she would handle her own things; The lady’s house is in a nice area of town and the house was clean and was well-maintained. When she looked, the shed was not “some run-down shack.”; if she was to sleep on a non-pillow-top bed she may have to take painkillers and this will affect her sobriety; she’ll be having hip surgery very soon and will need a suitable bed when she out of the hospital; charities cannot guarantee the type of bed that will be available and they charge $200 to deliver a mattress and she cannot afford that. She is on disability and she cannot afford to buy a foam top and pay $200 for delivery; she trusted the people who stored her belongs and had no reason to inspect the shed but does not know if they wrapped up her mattress in plastic while in storage from October to June. She could not get out to the shed so she did not know exactly how the mattress was being stored; and The wheelchair she was using at the time was not good for going outside. She could get to her doctor appointments, if she was driven. At the hearing the ministry relied on its reconsideration decision. Admissibility of Additional Information The panel found that the NOA provided additional detail or disclosed information that was in support of the information addressed in the reconsideration. Accordingly, the panel has admitted this additional information as being in support of information and records that were before the ministry at the time of reconsideration, in accordance with s. 22(4) of the Employment and Assistance Act.
PART F – Reasons for Panel Decision The issue at appeal is whether the ministry’s decision that the appellant failed to establish that her need for a crisis supplement for furniture was an unexpected expense or was unexpectedly needed and that the expense could not have been met by other resources as required by Section 57 (1) (a) of the EAPWDR was reasonably supported by the evidence or was a reasonable application of the applicable enactment in the circumstances of the appellant. Section 5 of EAPWDA provides as follows: Disability assistance and supplements 5 Subject to the regulations, the minister may provide disability assistance or a supplement to or for a family unit that is eligible for it. Section 57 of EAPWDR provides as follows: 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. The Appellant’s Position The appellant’s position is that she has arthritis, no hip on one side of her body and the ministry accepted that failure to obtain the pillow top bed will result in imminent danger to her physical health. The appellant argues she cannot sleep on regular mattress or a regular mattress with a foam top or in a hospital bed without triggering pain. Her doctor prescribed a pillow-top mattress and therefore she needs a crisis supplement for a pillow-top mattress. She argues that she could not foresee that her previous pillow-top mattress would get ruined while in storage so the mattress is unexpectedly needed. Finally, she argues that she did explore alternative resources but was unable to secure a pillow-top mattress. The Ministry’s Position The ministry’s position is that it is not unexpected that a mattress would be damaged by moisture if it is stored in a shed. The ministry also argues that it is not unexpected that a mattress will need to be replaced if it was left behind when the appellant moved. Finally, the ministry argues that appellant has not exhausted all other resources such as the use of a hospital bed, using a foam topper on a regular mattress or obtaining a bed from local charities.
The Panel’s Decision Section 57 (1) (a) of the EAPWDR states that the minister may provide a crisis supplement to or for a family unit that is eligible for disability assistance or hardship assistance if the family unit or 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 ministry considers the failure to meet the expense or obtain the item will result in imminent danger to the physical health of a member of the family unit. In the case of the appellant, the ministry determined that an imminent danger to the physical health of the appellant will result if she cannot obtain a pillow-top mattress. As evidence, the appellant has also provided a prescription from her doctor that specifies that she needs a pillow-top mattress. Unexpected Need or Expense Majority Panel Decision The appellant stated that she left her previous pillow-top mattress behind when she relocated and that it suffered moisture damage in the shed in which she had it stored. Section 57(1) of the EAPWDR states that a crisis supplement can be issued to meet an unexpectedly expense or obtain an item unexpectedly needed. The majority of the panel notes that it is reasonable to conclude that a mattress is an item that would be needed when one chooses to relocate and that the appellant has failed to demonstrate otherwise. The majority of the panel also notes that it is not unexpected that a mattress would suffer moisture damage when stored in a shed during the winter months and the appellant is unsure if any precautions were taken to protect the mattress. Therefore the majority of the panel finds that a mattress is not an item that is unexpectedly needed or an unexpected expense. The majority of the panel finds that the ministry reasonably determined that the appellant failed to establish that her need for a pillow-top mattress was an unexpected need or that it was unexpectedly needed pursuant to section 57(1) of the EAPWDR. Dissenting view According to Section 57 of the EAPWDR, a crisis supplement may be provided by the ministry to obtain an item unexpectedly needed. The appellant had a mattress that met her needs until she was hospitalized on an emergency basis for 6 to 7 weeks, at which time she was evicted from her home and had to find a place for her belongings. The appellant stated that while still in hospital, she paid for people from a charitable organization that she trusted to pack and store her belongings, including her mattress. The appellant paid for her belongings to be stored safely. The appellant stated that she trusted that the lady was storing the appellant’s belongings with the care that she would use for her own belongings. The appellant stated at the hearing that she did not realize that her belongings had been put in a shed at the lady’s property until she was discharged from the hospital. The appellant stated that when she got to the lady’s home, she observed that the home was clean and well-maintained. Since she was in a wheelchair that was not good for going outside, the appellant viewed the shed from the back deck of the home and she thought the shed “looked in good shape”, that it was not “some run-down shack.” The appellant also stated at the hearing that she would have retrieved her mattress and used it at the lady’s house, but the room she had been given was very small and she knew her mattress would not fit. The dissenting view is that the appellant had paid people to properly store her belongings when she was not in a position to do so herself and
she also made reasonable efforts to check that her belongings were being stored in a safe location and, therefore, the ministry is unreasonable to conclude that that it is not unexpected that a mattress would be damaged by moisture if it is stored in a shed. Availability of Resources The appellant stated that she tried to obtain a free pillow-top mattress from two local charities and that she asked friends but they did not want to give her any money and she does not have any family or friends to depend on. She has also stated that she tried to use a foam topper on a regular mattress but found that she was only able to sleep by lying on her right side, which caused arthritis in her upper arm and shoulder. Furthermore, the panel notes that the ministry has already conceded that there is imminent danger to the appellant’s health if she does not obtain a pillow-top mattress. The ministry suggested that the appellant could pursue the option of requesting a hospital bed, but the appellant stated that she has used a hospital bed before, when in hospital, and it was so uncomfortable that they had her propped up with many pillows and had her on painkillers. The appellant stated that she is no longer taking pain killers and, if she has to start taking them again, this will affect her sobriety; her doctor has specifically stated to her that she needs a pillow-top bed for her medical condition and gave her a prescription for one. As a result, the appellant has limited options to obtain a mattress within the community and has demonstrated that she tried other resources. The panel finds that the ministry was not reasonable to determine that the appellant failed established that other resources were not available to meet her need for a pillow-top mattress pursuant to section 57(1) of the EAPWDR. Conclusion The panel finds that the evidence establishes that the ministry was reasonable in its determination that all of the criteria set out in Section 57 (1) of the EAPWDR have not been met by the appellant. As a result the panel finds that the ministry’s decision to deny the appellant’s request for a crisis supplement for a pillow-top mattress was a reasonable application of the legislation and was reasonably supported by the evidence. The panel confirms the ministry’s reconsideration decision. The appellant is not successful in her appeal.
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.