PART C – Decision under Appeal
The decision under appeal is the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation (ministry)’s
reconsideration decision dated November 22, 2016, finding the appellant is not eligible to receive a
crisis supplement for a furniture loan payment because he does not meet all of the three legislated
criteria found in section 57 of the EAPWDR, specifically, that failure to provide the crisis supplement
will result in imminent danger to the physical health of anyone in the family unit, or the removal of a
child under the Child, Family and Community Services Act (CFCSA).
PART D – Relevant Legislation
The relevant legislation is section 57 of the EAPWDR.
PART E – Summary of Facts
The appellant was not in attendance at the hearing. The panel confirmed that the appellant did
receive the Notice of Hearing on December 9, 2016 so the hearing proceeded under section 86 (b) of
the Employment and Assistance Regulation.
The appellant is in receipt of disability assistance as a single person.
The evidence before the ministry at reconsideration consisted of a written statement by the appellant
dated November 9, 2016 detailing his situation, which was:
he believes it will be harmful to a child because he will be set back on paying monthly
payments to his child for food, clothing and recreation;
he was getting ready to move out on his own with his child;
he will have no place to sit and for entertainment and to sleep;
he was told that his furniture payment had gone through and then a week later was told it
hadn’t. In the meantime he had spent all the money;
he is usually up to date with payments;
he would like help with a bed and cooking ware;
he is behind on his rent and about to get evicted;
he had been working but got laid off without notice which set him back
he is behind on his rent and is in debt
The reconsideration decision is summarized as follows:
November 3, 2016 the appellant requested assistance to pay a monthly bill owing to a
business for the loan of a bed, futon and home theatre. The amount owing was $337.50 and
the minister determined the appellant was not eligible for a crisis supplement for a furniture
loan payment.
The minister is satisfied that the appellant had an unexpected expense for the furniture loan
payment as he had been told the payment went through and then a week later was told it
didn’t.
The minister is satisfied that there are no resources available to meet the expense as the
appellant is behind on rent, is in debt and his family is on fixed income, nor are there any
community resources that assist with loan payments.
The minister is not satisfied that failure to meet the furniture loan payment will result in
imminent danger to a child’s or the appellant’s physical health, or the removal of a child under
the Child, Family and Community Services Act (CFCSA).
In his Notice of Appeal dated November 29, 2016 the appellant noted he disagreed with the decision
“because it’s under could harm a child”.
PART F – Reasons for Panel Decision
The issue under appeal is the reasonableness of the ministry’s decision finding the appellant is not
eligible to receive a crisis supplement for a furniture loan payment because his request does not meet
all of the three legislated criteria found in section 57 of the EAPWDR, specifically, that failure to
provide the crisis supplement will result in imminent danger to the physical health of anyone in the
family unit, or the removal of a child under the CFCSA.
The relevant legislation is section 57 of the 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.
The appellant was not in attendance at the hearing, so the panel reviewed all information provided by
the appellant in the hearing package, specifically the written note dated November 9, 2016 and his
statement in the Notice of Appeal.
The Appellant’s Position
The appellant’s position is that he owes a monthly furniture payment of $300, which he is now
overdue on because he had been told the payment had come out of his account so he spent all the
money. This will leave him with no bed, futon or entertainment system if they are repossessed. His
argument is that it will cause harm to a child because if he pays the loan payment it will set him back
on paying monthly payments to his child for food, clothing and recreation.
The appellant had been getting ready for the future to move out with his child, and his mother who is
fostering the appellant’s sister’s children will have no place to sit or for entertainment, or for the
appellant to sleep. The appellant is behind on his rent, about to be evicted and is in debt for about
$2,000. The appellant usually works but was unexpectedly laid off without notice.
The Ministry’s Position
The ministry’s position is that paying a loan for furniture, resulting in the fact that he was unable to
pay other debts such as child support, cannot be considered to be imminent danger or life
threatening. The ministry representative advised that there is no child on the appellant’s file, nor any
indication there has been a request to add a child to the file, so there is no imminent danger of
removal of a child under the CFCSA.
The ministry agrees that the appellant meets the unexpected expense and no other resources
requirements of the legislation, but they do not believe there is imminent danger or a life threatening
situation by not paying a furniture loan payment nor is there any indication a child is about to removed
from his care.
The reconsideration officer noted that the appellant’s argument of failure to meet child support
payment will result in harm to his child is not equivalent to the crisis legislation. They argue that the
legislation considers only if failure to meet the furniture loan payment will result in imminent danger or
the removal of a child.
The ministry representative noted that if the appellant had been at the hearing he would have made a
suggestion of perhaps returning some of the furniture but keeping the bed, which would reduce his
payment.
The Panel’s Analysis
When considering the EAPWDR section 57 there are specific requirements that must be met:
Unexpected Expense
The ministry found in its reconsideration decision that the appellant met this requirement so that is not
in question in this appeal.
Alternate Resources
The ministry found in its reconsideration decision that the appellant met this requirement so that it is
not in question in this appeal.
Imminent Danger to Physical Health or Removal of a Child under CFCSA:
In regards to the legislative requirement 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, the panel finds no evidence
that demonstrates that the appellant’s physical health is in imminent danger if he does not make a
furniture loan payment. As the appellant receives disability assistance as a single person, the panel
finds that, devoid of evidence to the contrary, the family unit to consist of the appellant without
dependents.
In regards to the appellant’s argument, which is, if he were to make the furniture loan payment that he
would then not be able to pay child support which could result in harm to a child, the panel does not
consider this to be an indication of imminent danger to his physical health as is required by the
legislation.
The panel finds no evidence that there is a child, in his care, who is facing removal under the CFCSA.
Therefore the panel finds that the requirement of an imminent danger to the physical health of anyone
in the family unit or the removal of a child under CFCSA has not been met.
Conclusion
Accordingly, the panel finds that the Ministry’s decision to deny the appellant a crisis supplement for a
furniture loan payment was a reasonable application of the relevant legislation and 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.