Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction

PART C – Decision under Appeal The decision under appeal is the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation (“Ministry”) reconsideration decision dated September 9, 2016 in which the Ministry denied the Appellant’s request for a crisis supplement to pay for a survey of his boat for insurance purposes. The Ministry found that the Appellant`s request did not meet the legislative criteria set out in section 57 of the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Regulation. Specifically, the Ministry found that the Appellant did not meet the criteria that the supplement is required to meet an unexpected expense or obtain an item unexpectedly needed, that there are no resources available to the family unit to meet the expense or obtain the item and that failure 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 the removal of a child under the Child. Family and Community Service Act. PART D – Relevant Legislation Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act (EAPWDA) section 5 Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Regulation (EAPWDR) section 57

PART E – Summary of Facts Information before the minister at reconsideration included: - A copy of a letter to the Appellant from a financial institution dated February 19, 2016, stating that the insurance policy for his boat will expire on November2, 2016, and that he requires an out-of-water survey prior to renewal. - The Appellant’s Crisis Supplement Request Form, dated July 11, 2016. - A copy of a Service Canada confirmation of Canada Pension Plan (CPP) Disability Benefits paid to the Appellant for the month of July in the amount of $872.64. - A copy of an offer to renew the Appellant’s insurance on his boat, dated October 19, 2015, with a reminder that a new out-of-water survey is required no later than June 1, 2016.. - A copy of a moorage agreement in the Appellant’s name, start date April 1, 2016, signed by the Appellant March 11, 2016, with a clause requiring insurance on the vessel. - The Appellant’s Request for Reconsideration, signed September 25, 2016, attached to which were the above documents, with a note stating that his poor health and limited mobility situation requires that he stay living aboard at the marina, making the hull survey a necessity, rather than at anchor. Shore power is a necessity to keep a healthy environment aboard, as he has weak lungs and is prone to bronchitis in winter and his hernia minimizes his mobility. At the hearing, the Appellant’s witness gave oral evidence that the Appellant has had serious medical problems for some time, and that she personally has taken him to the emergency ward. She stated that the Appellant has persistent medical problems that him cause pain and he has problems eating. The Appellant stated that he has been sick since November, 2015, and he has found it impossible to save any money due to the need to pay for a special diet and over the counter medications. The Appellant stated that he was too ill to work, and he could not accumulate the money to pay for the survey. The Appellant stated that he was unaware that he could apply for supplements from the Ministry to assist with these expenses. In response to questions from the Panel, the Appellant stated that the boat survey is required every five years. The Appellant stated that he would not be able to live on his boat if he had to be at anchor, without shore power to heat his boat, as he is prone to bronchitis in cold weather.. The ministry stood by its position at reconsideration. The Ministry responded that the Appellant appears to have had several months to save the money needed to pay for the survey, and that he is in receipt of CPP disability payments and GST rebates. The Ministry referred to the date of the letter from the Appellant’s insurer reminding him of the need for a survey; therefore the expense was not unexpected. The Ministry stated that there is no evidence that there will be imminent danger to the Appellant’s health if he cannot meet the requested expense. Admissibility of additional information: The ministry did not object to the new information provided by the appellant and his witness at the hearing. The panel finds this information is in support of the information provided by the appellant in his note attached to his Request for Reconsideration, as it tends to corroborate his statement that he has been in poor health and is prone to bronchitis in the winter months. The Panel admitted this information as evidence under section 22(4) of the Employment and Assistance Act.

PART F – Reasons for Panel Decision The issue in this appeal is the reasonableness of the decision in which the Ministry denied the Appellant’s request for a crisis supplement to pay for a survey of his boat for insurance purposes. The Ministry found that the Appellant`s request did not meet the legislative criteria set out in section 57 of the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Regulation. Specifically, the Ministry found that the Appellant did not meet the requirements that the supplement is required to meet an unexpected expense or obtain an item unexpectedly needed, that there are no resources available to the family unit to meet the expense or obtain the item and that failure 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 the removal of a child under the Child. Family and Community Service Act. Legislation EAPWDA 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. EAPWDR 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) A crisis supplement may not be provided for the purpose of obtaining (a) a supplement described in Schedule C, or (b) any other health care goods or services. (4) A crisis supplement provided for food, shelter or clothing is subject to the following limitations: (a) if for food, the maximum amount that may be provided in a calendar month is $20 for each person in the family unit; (b) if for shelter, the maximum amount that may be provided in a calendar month is the smaller of (i) the family unit's actual shelter cost, and (ii) the maximum set out in section 4 of Schedule A or Table 2 of Schedule D, as applicable, for a family unit that matches the family unit; (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. (5) The cumulative amount of crisis supplements that may be provided to or for a family unit in a year must not exceed the amount calculated under subsection (6). (6) In the calendar month in which the application or request for the supplement is made, the amount under subsection (5) is calculated by multiplying by 2 the maximum amount of disability assistance or hardship assistance that may be provided for the month under Schedule A or Schedule D to a family unit that matches the family unit. (7) Despite subsection (4) (b) or (5) or both, a crisis supplement may be provided to or for a family unit for the following: (a) fuel for heating; (b) fuel for cooking meals; (c) water; (d) hydro. Unexpected expense: Appellant’s position: The Appellant’s position is that although the need for the out-of-water survey of his boat was known, his inability to pay for the survey due to medical expenses was unexpected. Ministry position: The Ministry argued that the Appellant was notified of the insurance requirements several months ago, therefore the expense was not unexpected. The Panel notes that the first notification of the requirement for an out-of-water boat survey of the Appellant’s boat was in a letter to the Appellant dated October 19, 2015. The Appellant argued that he was unable to save the necessary funds due to an unexpected medical situation and the resulting diet and medical expenses. The legislation is clear: the minister is authorized to provide the supplement to meet only an unexpected expense or obtain an item unexpectedly needed. This is not the same as covering an expected expense that the applicant is unexpectedly unable to meet. The Panel finds that the Ministry reasonably determined that the boat survey expense was not unexpected, and the Appellant’s request did not meet this requirement under s.57(1)(a), EAPWDR. Resources available: Appellant’s position: The Appellant argued that he did not have the resources to pay for the survey as a result of having to pay for his medical expenses and the diet he required. Ministry position: The Ministry’s position is that the Appellant has had time to save for the expense, considering the timing of his CPP payments and his disability assistance.

The Panel accepts the Appellant’s oral evidence and that of his witness concerning his health problems and the expenses he incurred as a result. However, as the ministry argued, the Appellant did not provide any information to the Ministry to demonstrate that he did not have the resources available or that he had attempted to access any alternative sources of funding. The Panel finds that the Ministry reasonably determined that the Appellant did not meet this requirement under s.57(1)(a), EAPWDR. Imminent danger to physical health: Appellant’s position: With respect to imminent danger to his health, the Appellant argued that he is not healthy enough to be at anchor where he would be at risk of bronchitis and other illnesses. Ministry position: The Ministry argued that no evidence has been provided to show that there would be imminent danger to his health if the expense is not met. The Appellant argued that he is not healthy enough to be at anchor without a connection to shore power; however, other than the Appellant’s and witness’s oral evidence at the hearing, there was no information from a medical professional available to the Ministry that would confirm that living aboard at anchor would pose an imminent risk to the appellant’s health and safety. The information provided did not establish what effects living at anchor would have on the Appellant’s health. The Panel finds that the Ministry reasonably determined that the Appellant did not meet the requirement under s.57(1), EAPWDR that failure to meet the expense of a boat survey would result in imminent danger to the Appellant’s physical health. Based on the evidence, the Panel finds that the Ministry reasonably determined that the Appellant did not meet the legislative requirements for approval of a crisis supplement to pay for a survey of his boat. The Panel therefore confirms the Ministry decision. The Appellant is not successful on appeal.