PART C – Decision under Appeal
The decision under appeal is the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation’s (the
ministry) reconsideration decision of September 27, 2016 in which the ministry denied a crisis
supplement for clothing as the request does not meet all of the criteria as required in Section 59 of
the Employment and Assistance Regulations (EAR), and because the maximum available crisis
supplement for clothing has been received within the preceding 12 calendar months.
PART D – Relevant Legislation
Employment and Assistance Regulation (EAR), Section 59
PART E – Summary of Facts
This hearing is a written hearing as requested by the Appellant on October 4, 2016.
The appellant is a single person in receipt of income assistance.
The evidence before the ministry at the time of reconsideration consisted of the following:
Appellant requested a clothing supplement to purchase winter clothing on September 7
Appellant had received $100 crisis supplement for clothing in July 2016
Appellant informed Ministry
o
she had left an abusive relationship with only the clothes on her back in July and had
gone to a town in Northern BC.
o
her ex had her clothing but it was unsafe for her to return to get them.
The Ministry accepts that:
fleeing abuse is unexpected and has resulted in an unexpected item of need for winter boots
and a winter coat so therefore criterion #1 has been met
there are no alternate resources available so criterion #2 has been met
As part of the written appeal package, the appellant submitted
A weather report for October 11, showing a temperature of -5C at 8:27am, with the daily high
and overnight low forecast at 6C and -6C respectively
Weather forecasts for the period October 5 – 18 and October 12 - 18 with temperatures
ranging from -5 to +6 with mixed precipitation
For their written submission, the ministry relied on the reconsideration summary provided in the
Ministry Decision.
Admissibility of New Evidence
In determining whether to admit the weather reports, the panel noted that the Reconsideration
Decision was made on September 27, 2016, which was one week prior to the dates of the weather
reports, so therefore the panel determines this to be reasonable evidence in support of the
appellant’s position at the time of reconsideration, which was that the weather was getting cold.
Therefore the panel admitted this evidence under Section 22(4) of the Employment and Assistance
Act.
PART F – Reasons for Panel Decision
The issue under appeal is the reasonableness of the ministry decision of September 27, 2016 in
which the ministry denied a crisis supplement for clothing pursuant to Section 59 of the EAR because
not all required criteria had been met, and because a crisis supplement had already been issued
within the 12 month period.
The relevant legislation is as follows:
Employment and Assistance Regulations
Crisis supplement
59 (1) The minister may provide a crisis supplement to or for a family unit that is eligible for income
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, and
(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.
The Appellant’s position is:
There is no policy or logic that states when winter starts. The appellant is in Northern BC with
snow in the forecast and temperature of 2 degrees. They have submitted weather forecasts
as evidence that it is cold enough in Northern BC and that in appellant’s community people are
wearing winter gear.
It is unreasonable to receive a crisis clothing grant only once in a 12 month period as the
appellant had to obtain clothing in July to wear immediately due to her unexpected
circumstance; that she could not have been reasonably expected to obtain a winter coat and
boots then as those items would have taken up the entire budget rendering her without any
clothing; and that it is not reasonable to find winter items sold seasonally in July.
The Ministry’s position is:
Minister accepts that fleeing abuse is unexpected and has resulted in an unexpected item of
need for winter boots and a winter coat so therefore criterion #1 has been met
Minister accepts that there are no alternate resources available so criterion #2 has been met
Minister is not satisfied that failure to obtain winter boots and winter coat in September will
result in imminent danger to the appellant’s physical health so therefore criterion #3 has not
been met
Crisis supplements provided must not exceed $100 per person in the 12 calendar month
period preceding date of application for crisis. The Appellant received $100 crisis supplement
for clothing in July 2016 so is therefore not eligible for additional crisis funds for clothing prior
to August 2017 per EAR Section 59(4)(c)(i)
Panel Decision
According to Section 59 of the EAR, there are certain criteria that must be met in order to issue a
crisis supplement.
In Section 59(1), the first of the criteria is that the item must be an unexpected expense or an item
unexpectedly needed. The Ministry accepts this criterion has been met. The second is that there
must be no other resources. The Ministry accepts this criterion has been met. The third is that failure
to provide the item will result in imminent danger to the Appellant’s physical health. The Ministry
does not accept this criterion has been met.
The Panel finds that the Ministry’s decision regarding not meeting the third criteria of imminent threat
was unreasonable given the appellant’s location in Northern BC in late September, supported by the
evidence showing a cold temperature range, which could result in imminent danger if outdoors
without appropriate attire.
Section 59(4) sets limitations to the amount of crisis supplement that may be provided for clothing,
which is a maximum of $100 in a 12 month period. The Appellant does not dispute she received $100
in July, 2016 so therefore she has received the maximum allowable crisis clothing supplement for a
12 month period and is not eligible for another until August, 2017.
Having reviewed and considered all of the evidence and relevant legislation, the panel finds that the
ministry’s reconsideration decision, which determined that the appellant was not eligible for a crisis
supplement, is a reasonable application of the legislation and supported by the evidence in the
Appellant’s circumstances. The panel confirms the Ministry’s reconsideration decision.
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.