PART C – Decision under Appeal
The
decision
under
appeal
is
the
Ministry
of
Social
Development
and
Social
Innovation’s
(the
Ministry) reconsideration decision made under section 65 and Schedule F of the Employment and
Assistance Regulation and dated November 16, 2016, that denied the appellant’s request for a Burial
or Cremation Supplement for her daughter’s funeral expenses on the grounds that the Ministry was
not satisfied that the daughter’s estate did not have the resources to cover necessary funeral costs.
PART D – Relevant Legislation
Employment and Assistance Regulation (EAR), Section 65
Employment and Assistance Regulation (EAR), Schedule F
PART E – Summary of Facts
Nature of the Appellant’s Application
The Appellant, mother of a deceased adult, applied for funeral expenses for the cost of a funeral and
burial of her daughter, which was denied. The Appellant applied for the denial to be reconsidered,
and her request was denied at Reconsideration.
The Appellant originally requested an oral hearing and later changed so as to request a written
hearing.
Evidence at the Time of Reconsideration
The evidence before the Ministry at time of Reconsideration consisted of:
1.The Reconsideration Decision dated November 16, 2016;
2.The Appellant’s Request for reconsideration dated November 3, 2016, which stated:
(a) that the Appellant was the single mother of a 19-year-old who suddenly died in
September 2016
and is the mother of two other children
(b) that the appellant was told by a funeral company and a cemetery that as the daughter was
receiving persons with disability benefits, the daughter was entitled to financial assistance for
funeral expenses;
(c) that the Appellant went to a Ministry office on two occasions, and subsequently received a
telephone call. The Appellant told the Ministry worker that the daughter had $7,776.68 in her
bank account and she says that the Ministry worker told her that financial assistance was
available for funeral expenses because the daughter had less than $25,000 in her bank
account,
and upon the worker’s request, faxed two month’s worth of bank statements to the Ministry
worker;
(d) after an exchange of telephone calls between the funeral company, the cemetery, and the
Ministry, the appellant was told by a Ministry worker because her daughter had $7000 in her
bank account, there was no entitlement to financial assistance. The Appellant said that she and
the ministry agreed that he Appellant would pay by credit card and hand in the receipts to the
Ministry later
(e) the appellant said that the funeral cost $6247.32 and the burial cost $12,484.50, and provided
receipts from both the funeral company and the cemetery for those amounts
(f) that at the daughter’s death, she had $7,776.68 in her bank account, from which the Appellant
deducted $3,555 rent as a lump-sum payment at the end of each year, which rent was payable
to the Appellant as the daughter resided with the Appellant, and deducted a further $4,348
as a caregiver expenses, which was paid to 4 individuals, one of whom was the deceased
daughter’s father. The Appellant provided copies of the cheques and various bank statements.
Evidence Provided on Appeal
Appellant
The Appellant provided a written submission consisting of:
An email from the Ministry to the Appellant asking for further banking information and advising
the Appellant to “lean on” the funeral director concerning a Ministry funded burial
An email with a series of statements from the Ministry and from the Appellant to the effect that
the Ministry was not satisfied that $3,555.00 taken from the daughter’s account was required
to pay rent to the Appellant for the past nine months instead of using that money to pay for the
funeral, that it was agreed by the Appellant and her daughter that when the daughter turned an
adult she would start paying $395.00 per month since she is receiving disability income, but
there was no rent contract provided by the Appellant
The Ministry’s response that there was not enough information to establish that $4,048.00 paid
for caregivers was an outstanding debt that the daughter was expected to recover from her
own expenses
The Appellant’s statement to the Ministry that the daughter had enough money of her own to
pay for her own caregivers, was stable enough to be discharged from hospital but was at risk
of complications and that the Appellant could not be caregiver for her daughter because she
works and has obligations to other children, and that as the daughter was an adult and had
disability income she was responsible for her own caregiver expenses
The Appellant’s assertion that certain information was missing from the Ministry’s summary of
facts, that being a telephone call from the Ministry when the Appellant asked about financial
assistance towards the funeral, told the Ministry of the $7,776.68 in the daughter’s account
and was assured that because the bank account was less than $25,000.00 there was an
entitlement for financial assistance towards funeral expenses
the Appellant gave the funeral home and the cemetery contacts names and phone numbers
for them to call but there was no call from the Ministry to the funeral home or cemetery
the Appellant called the Ministry again and spoke with the Ministry worker and was told that
there
was
no
entitlement
to
financial
assistance,
that
the
Ministry
normally
pays
funeral
providers directly based on a preapproved amount, that the Ministry agreed with the Appellant
that the Appellant would pay via credit card and hand in all the receipts after, and they would
be reviewed and the Appellant would be informed of the Ministry’s decision and that this
occurred less than 48 hours before the service the Appellant was told that if no payment was
made by the end of that day that the memorial service would not happen. It is noted that there
is no documentary evidence from the Ministry as to any agreement to have the Appellant pay
via credit card and then review the receipts, nor was there any documentary evidence from the
Ministry to the effect that the Ministry told the Appellant that if there was less than $25,000.00
the Appellant’s daughter’s account there would be financial assistance.
Ministry
The Ministry relied on the reconsideration summary.
PART F – Reasons for Panel Decision
Issue
The issue is whether the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation’s (the Ministry)
reconsideration decision made under section 65 and Schedule F of the Employment and Assistance
Regulation (EAR) and dated November 16, 2016, that denied the Appellant’s request for funeral and
burial
expenses
for
her
adult
daughter
was
reasonably
supported
by
the
evidence
or
was
a
reasonable application of the legislation in the circumstances of the Appellant.
Relevant Legislation
Burial or cremation supplements
65 (1) In this section:
“funeral costs” means the costs of the following items, as set out in Schedule F:
(a)…..
(b) services of a funeral provider, as defined in the Cremation, Interment and Funeral Services Act;
(c) cremation or burial of a deceased person’s body or remains, including the cost of a casket or urn;
“responsible person”, with respect to a deceased person, means,
(a) a spouse of the person,
(b) in the case of a minor, a parent of the person, or
(c) in the case of a person sponsored to immigrate to Canada under the Immigration Act (Canada) or the Immigration and
Refugee Protection Act (Canada), a sponsor or co-sponsor of the person, if the undertaking given or co-signed by the sponsor
is still in effect.
(2) If neither the estate of a deceased person nor any responsible person has the resources available to pay any of the following costs
when payable, the minister may provide a supplement for those costs in the circumstances specified:
(a) necessary funeral costs, if
(i) the person died in British Columbia, and
(ii) the burial or cremation is to take place or has taken place in British Columbia;
(b)…..
(c)…..
(d)…..
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), funeral costs, and interprovincial transportation and extraprovincial transportation costs are
necessary if the minister determines that
(a) the item or service in relation to which a supplement is requested is a necessary item or service, and
(b) the item or service is or was appropriate.
(c) Repealed. [B.C. Reg. 63/2010, s. 3 (c).]
(3.1) The amount of a supplement payable under subsection (2) is,
(a) in respect of a funeral provider’s fee for services, an amount that is, in the opinion of the minister, the lowest reasonable
cost,
(b) in respect of a particular item or service that is a funeral cost, other than a service included in a funeral provider’s fee for
services,
(i) the cost for the item or service set out in Schedule F, or
(ii) if there is no cost set out for the item or service in Schedule F, the cost that is, in the opinion of the minister, the
lowest reasonable cost for that item or service, and
(c)…..
(4) The amount of a supplement paid under this section is a debt due to the government and may be recovered by it from the
deceased’s estate.
Schedule F
Burial and Cremation Costs
(section 65)
Burial and cremation supplement
1 A supplement that is paid under section 65 of the regulation may include the following amounts:
(a) an amount for a funeral provider's fee for services;
(b)…..
(c) in respect of a burial, an amount for the costs set out in section 4 of this Schedule;
(d)…..
Funeral provider's fee for services
2 The services provided in respect of a funeral provider's fee for services must include:
(a) …..
(b) completion and filing of the registration of death;
(c) obtaining a burial or cremation permit;
(d) co-ordination with a crematorium and cemetery;
(e) all professional and staff services;
(f) preparation of a deceased person's body for burial or cremation, including basic sanitary care and casketing;
(g) use of the funeral provider's facilities and equipment, including a preparation room, refrigeration and parking and service
areas;
(h) other items or services incidental to or provided as part of any of the services described in paragraphs (a) to (g), as agreed
by the funeral services provider and the responsible person.
3.....
Costs of burial
4 (1) A supplement payable in respect of a burial may include an amount for the following costs:
(a) the cost of a burial plot in British Columbia;
(b) grave opening and closing fees;
(c) if a grave liner, hermetically sealed rigid container, plastic body pouch or outer grave box or liner is required by the
cemetery, the cost of the liner, container, pouch or box;
(d) the cost of a casket, in an amount representing the sum of the following:
(i) the actual factory invoice price of a HP #2 cloth-covered casket or an equivalent or, in the case of over-sized
remains, a casket for over-sized remains;
(ii) a merchandising mark-up of up to 20%;
(iii) the cost of freight to the funeral home.
(2) A lower cost casket may be used at the request of a responsible person.
(3)…..
Costs of cremation
5…..
General Scheme of the Legislation
The general scheme of Section 65 and Schedule F of the EAR is that by section 65(2) EAR the
Minister may provide a supplement for necessary funeral costs, which include burial costs and the
cost of a casket, if
(a) the estate of the deceased has no resources with which to pay those costs , or
(b) a “responsible person” has no resources with which to pay those costs, or
(c) there is no “responsible person”
so long as the person died in British Columbia and the burial is to take place or has taken place in
British Columbia.
Ministry’s Position
The ministry’s position was that as the appellant’s deceased daughter was not a minor at the time of
her death, the ministry must be satisfied that her state did not have resources to cover the necessary
funeral costs. The ministry said that because the daughter had $7,768.68 in her account at the time
the funeral services bill was payable and because the ministry was not satisfied that the $3,555 rent
paid to the Appellant for her daughter’s rent for the past nine months was justified, and that there is
not enough information provided to establish that the $4,048 paid for caregivers was an outstanding
debt which the daughter was expected to cover from her own resources. The ministry also was not
satisfied that the approximately $18,000 funeral service and burial costs were “necessary funeral
costs”, and is not satisfied that amount was the lowest reasonable cost to meet the immediate need.
Appellant’s Position
The Appellant’s position was that her daughter owed her, the Appellant, nine months’ rent of $3,555,
and owed caregivers another $4,048, and thus there was no money in her daughter’s account to pay
for the funeral and burial. She also said a Ministry worker told her that her daughter could have up to
$25,000 in her account and if she had less than that there was an entitlement to funeral costs.
Analysis
EAR Section 65(2)(a)
This sub-section provides that necessary funeral costs may be paid by the minister when the person
died in British Columbia, the burial or cremation is to take place or has taken
place in British
Columbia, and neither the estate nor any responsible person has resources available to pay for those
costs. “Funeral costs” are defined as funeral provider services and cremation or burial as a set out in
Schedule “F” of the EAR.
Panel Finding
If the ministry is required to pay funeral costs, it must be under section 65(2)(a) of the EAR, which
provides that the minister may provide a supplement for necessary funeral costs, if the person died
and
was
buried
or
cremated
in
British
Columbia
and
if
neither the
deceased’s
estate
nor
any
responsible person has resources available to pay. Section 65 EAR defines a “responsible person” as
a spouse or in the case of a minor, that person’s parent. Whether or not there was a “responsible
person” is not an issue because the Appellant’s a daughter was not a minor as she was age 19 at the
time of her death, and there was no evidence she had a spouse. The fact that the Appellant’s
daughter died and was buried in British Columbia was not an issue. The issue is whether or not the
daughter’s estate had resources available with which to pay her funeral costs.
The panel observes that there was no documentary evidence of any rental agreement between the
daughter and her mother, the Appellant, there was no Will in evidence, that the daughter’s father
signed some of the documents, and there was no documentary evidence of whether the daughter
was in need of caregiver services, nor any evidence of whether the caregivers were professional
caregivers, or were friends and family, except that one of the caregivers was the daughter’s father
and that there was no written agreement as to the cost of caregiver services. The daughter died in
September 2016, at which time she had $7,768.68 in her account. The evidence presented by the
appellant shows that one caregiver was paid by cheque September 21, 2016 and the other three
were
paid
by
cheque
September
22,
2016,
almost
two
weeks
after
the
daughter’s
death.
The
Appellant’s evidence showed that she withdrew the same amount as the rent, $3,555, from her
daughter’s account, a week after the daughter’s death.
The panel finds that at the time of death there was $7,776.68 in the appellant’s daughter’s bank
account and no evidence to show that the rent or caregiver expenses paid after the date of death took
precedence
over
the
obligation
to
pay
for
the
funeral
costs.
The
panel
finds
that
the
Ministry
reasonably determined that at the time the Appellant’s daughter died, there were resources available
from her estate with which to pay necessary funeral costs.
EAR Section 65(3.1)(a) & (b)
Section 65(3.1) (a) and (b) of the EAR requires that the funeral provider’s service fees and the costs
of various items set out in Schedule F be the lowest reasonable cost.
Panel Finding
The only evidence of cost were the bills submitted by the Appellant, which exceeded $18,000. There
was no evidence that the Appellant had obtained quotations for different types of funeral service,
caskets, or burial services. The Appellant simply provided the bills she paid for the specific vault,
memorial plaque, grave marker, and other items, which she chose without determining if there were
different items or services available at different costs. The Appellant provided no evidence of what the
cost would be, for example, of caskets, vaults, grave markers, or different funeral services, other than
as she purchased.
At reconsideration the Ministry observed that a supplement is normally $2,500-$7,000 depending on
various circumstances, and said that the money paid by the Appellant was far in excess of the cost of
the most economical necessary burial costs.
The panel finds that the Ministry reasonably determined that the Appellant did not arrange the funeral
and burial at the lowest reasonable cost.
Conclusion
The panel finds that the ministry was reasonable when it determined at reconsideration that it was not
satisfied that the estate did not have the resources available to cover the necessary funeral costs,
because
the
Appellant’s
daughter’s
account
in
fact
had
resources
available
with
which
to
pay
necessary funeral costs and that the Ministry was reasonable when it determined that the amount
paid by the Appellant was not the lowest reasonable cost.
The panel confirms the ministry’s decision and 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.