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 August 11, 2016, which held that the appellant did not qualify
as a person with persistent multiple barriers to employment (PPMB) under section 2 of the
Employment and Assistance Regulation (EAR).
The ministry determined that the appellant met the requirement of subsection (2) as he has been in
receipt of income assistance for 12 of the immediately preceding 15 calendar months and that his
application would be assessed under (4) rather than subsection (3) based on his employability screen
score of 14. The ministry was satisfied that the requirement of subsection (4)(a) was met as a
medical practitioner has confirmed that the appellant has a medical condition, other than addiction,
that has continued for at least one year and is likely to continue for at least 2 more years.
However, the ministry determined that the requirement of subsection (4)(b) was not met as it was not
satisfied that the appellant’s medical conditions preclude him from searching for, accepting or
continuing in employment.
PART D – Relevant Legislation
EAR, section 2
PART E – Summary of Facts
The appellant has been in receipt of income assistance as a PPMB and applied for renewal of his
PPMB qualification. The appellant’s employability screen score is 14.
In support of his re-application for PPMB, the appellant provided a “Medical Report – Persons with
Persistent Multiple Barriers” (Medical Report) dated March 11, 2016, completed by a medical
practitioner. The primary medical condition is L2-L3 disc herniation and lumbar spinal stenosis is the
secondary medical condition. Treatments are described as “pain relief Tylenol #3” and “mobility” with
the respective outcomes described as “to decrease pain to allow mobility” and “to keep mobile
ultimately which helps with pain in long term.” The duration of the appellant’s medical conditions are
described as “life time.” The medical conditions are reported to be episodic in nature with the
frequency of the episodes described as “some days will be worse than others” and that “all days will
have pain.” No response is provided where asked to describe the nature of any restrictions specific to
the diagnosed medical conditions.
At reconsideration, the appellant submitted a July 20, 2016 questionnaire which was prepared and
signed by an advocate and was completed by an unidentified person. As the ministry notes, the
handwriting is different from that of the medical practitioner who completed the Medical Report. In the
questionnaire, the appellant is reported as having restrictions to employment including: no repetitive
use of his hands; lifting limit of less than 25 lbs. with no repetition; drops even light items due to lack
of grip and strength in both hands; severe arthritis in both hands; carpal tunnel in the right hand;
limited to sitting less than 30 minutes and standing less than 60 minutes due to daily back pain; no
repetitive bending, reaching, twisting etc. due to daily back pain; and, drowsiness, feeling impaired
from daily pain medication. The unknown author adds that “conditions are deemed permanent.”
Also before the ministry were medical reports and doctor’s notes submitted in support of the
appellant’s previous PPMB applications. These reports and notes are from 2012 through 2014 and
provide information from the same medical practitioner who completed the current Medical Report
respecting the appellant’s lower back pain. All of the previous medical reports identify restrictions
relating to the appellant’s back pain. The most recent medical report dated April 11, 2014, indicates
that the medical conditions are not episodic and describes the resulting restrictions as “Back pain,
unable to stand, sit, bend, twist, lift, climb, kneel, pull or push without pain.”
On appeal, in his Notice of Appeal, the appellant writes that his condition has gotten considerably
worse since the initial acceptance for multiple barriers assistance.
No additional submissions were provided by the ministry or the appellant on appeal.
PART F – Reasons for Panel Decision
Issue under appeal
The issue under appeal is whether the ministry’s reconsideration decision which held that the
appellant did not qualify for PPMB because he had not met the requirement of section 2(4)(b) of the
EAR that his medical condition precludes him from employment is reasonably supported by the
evidence or a reasonable application of the legislation in the appellant’s circumstances.
Relevant Legislation – section 2 of 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’s position is that he re-qualifies for PPMB as his condition has considerably worsened
since he was initially accepted for PPMB and that the doctor cannot feel the appellant’s pain or
disability in his daily living.
Ministry’s position
The ministry notes that when assessing eligibility for PMMB under section 2(4)(b) of the EAR it
expands on the common interpretation of “precludes” which is to make impossible or prevent from
happening, in keeping with the context of the PPMB program, it considers a medical condition to
preclude a person from searching for, accepting or continuing in employment when, as a result of the
medical condition, a person is unable to participate in any type of employment for any length of time
except in a supported or sheltered type work environment.
The ministry notes that while past information from the medical practitioner described restrictions
arising from the appellant’s medical conditions, no restrictions are reported in the current Medical
Report. Additionally, while restrictions are identified in the questionnaire, the author of the
questionnaire is unknown. Based on the documents submitted, the ministry finds that the appellant’s
medical conditions do not preclude him from searching for, accepting or continuing in employment.
Panel Decision
Section 2 of the EAR sets out the requirements for PPMB qualification. The requirements of
subsection (2) must be met as must the requirements of either subsection (3) or (4). The
requirements of subsection (3) apply where an applicant has an employability screen score of at least
15, otherwise, the requirements of subsection (4) apply.
In the appellant’s case, the ministry determined that the requirements of subsection (2) were met and
that the appellant’s application must be assessed under subsection (4) based on his employability
screen score of 14. That the appellant’s employability screen score is 14 is not in dispute and
accordingly, the requirements of subsection (4) apply in the appellant’s circumstances. The
requirements of subsection (4)(a), specifically that the appellant has a medical condition, other than
addiction, that in the opinion of a medical practitioner has continued for at least one year and is likely
to continue for at least two more years, were found to have been met. The only basis for denial was
the requirement of subsection (4)(b) that the ministry be of the opinion that the medical conditions
confirmed by the medical practitioner are a barrier that precludes the appellant from searching for,
accepting or continuing in employment.
Ministry policy with respect to the PPMB qualification is that a qualified individual’s medical condition
is to be reviewed every two years, at which time a re-applicant is required to submit a new medical
report in which a medical practitioner provides updated information. The current medical information
before the ministry in support of the appellant’s re-application for PPMB qualification was the Medical
Report dated March 11, 2016, in which the medical practitioner has not provided any information
where asked to identify restrictions arising from the appellant’s medical conditions. When describing
the prescribed treatment and outcomes, the medical practitioner reports that the appellant has daily
pain, with some days being worse than others, and that he requires pain medication to allow mobility,
but this information does not describe what impact the appellant’s daily pain has on his daily
functioning or ability to work, or how often the days of worse pain occur. Although the medical
practitioner indicated that the prognosis is “life time now”, the impact of the medical conditions on the
appellant’s functioning may change as various treatments are explored and result in improvements to
the associated restrictions. The current treatments, as set out in the Medical Report, include pain
relief medication “to allow mobility” as well as “mobility,” to “…keep mobile, ultimately which helps
with pain in the long run.”
While, as the ministry notes, the same medical practitioner had indicated restrictions in the
documents provided in support of the appellant’s previous PPMB applications, given that two years
have passed since the last medical assessment, it is reasonable to require current information
respecting restrictions even if the diagnosed medical conditions remain the same. It is unknown
whether the lack of restrictions represents an oversight on the part of the medical practitioner or
reflects a changed assessment. While the appellant reports that his condition has worsened since he
was originally approved as a PPMB, he has not elaborated by describing his current restrictions,
writing in his Notice of Appeal that the doctor cannot feel his pain and he finds daily living difficult, and
the medical practitioner now describes the medical conditions as episodic whereas in 2014 he
indicated they were not episodic. Unfortunately, no additional information from the medical
practitioner was provided at reconsideration to provide clarification. While the questionnaire was
provided at reconsideration, given that it is unknown who completed the questionnaire and as the
questionnaire identifies some restrictions that do not relate to either the primary or secondary medical
conditions diagnosed by the medical practitioner, the panel finds that ministry has reasonably placed
little weight on the information in the questionnaire.
Based on the available information respecting the appellant’s current medical condition, the panel
finds that the ministry reasonably concluded that it could not be determined that the appellant’s
medical conditions are a barrier that preclude him from searching for, accepting or continuing in
employment as required by section 2(2)(b) of the EAR to re-qualify for PPMB status.
As the reconsideration decision was reasonably supported by the evidence, the panel confirms the
decision. The appellant is not successful on 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.