PART C – Decision under Appeal
The decision under appeal is the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation
(the “ministry”) Reconsideration Decision dated February 27, 2017. The ministry
determined that the appellant had not met all three criteria for a crisis supplement for
clothing pursuant to section 57 of the Employment and Assistance for Persons with
Disabilities Regulation (EAPWD Regulation). Therefore approval for the crisis
supplement could not be granted..
PART D – Relevant Legislation
Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act (EAPWD), section 5
Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Regulation (EAPWD
Regulation), section 57
PART E – Summary of Facts
This appeal was conducted as a written hearing. The appellant did not provide a
written submission. The ministry indicated their submission would be the
reconsideration summary provided with the Record of Ministry Decision. Accordingly
the panel reviewed the record in detail and found the facts to be as follows:
The appellant is in receipt of disability assistance as a sole recipient. His monthly
assistance was $1,188.42 ($556.42 support, $375 shelter, $205 nutritional supplement
plus $52 transportation support).
The appellant’s CPP benefits of $580.10 are deducted from his assistance each
month. His monthly rent is $424.
In January 2016 the appellant was issued a crisis supplement of $100 to purchase
clothing. He indicated he needed appropriate clothing to attend a funeral, his shoes
had fallen apart and his clothing had been stolen.
On February 14, 2017 the appellant requested a crisis supplement to purchase
clothing. He stated he had gained weight because of medications he began taking
eight months previously and his pants no longer fit. He stated his bank had withdrawn
$246 from his account.
The appellant’s request was denied.
The appellant requested the minister reconsider the decision.
In his Request for Reconsideration form dated February 24, 2017 the appellant
submitted that his physician advised him to purchase oil and cream for his skin. The
appellant also submitted he needed personal hygiene items and a haircut. The
appellant also submitted that the combination of medication and food had caused him
to gain weight and his clothes no longer fit and the bank had taken $246 from his
account. The appellant provided a statement from his bank referring to a withdrawal of
$246 from his account.
PART F – Reasons for Panel Decision
The issue on appeal is whether the ministry correctly determined that the appellant did
not meet the criteria set out in section 57 of the EAPWD Regulation in respect of a
crisis supplement for clothing.
The relevant section of the EAPWD is as follows:
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.
The relevant parts of the EAPWD Regulation is as follows:
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.
[am. B.C. Reg. 13/2003.]
In its Reconsideration Decision the minister noted that the purpose of crisis
supplements is to address unexpected emergency needs to prevent imminent danger
to health and not intended to augment monthly assistance.
The ministry noted that under section 57 (1) of the EAPWD Regulation a crisis
supplement may be provided if all three of the indicated criteria have been met.
The ministry reviewed each of the criteria.
In respect of the need for the item or expense to be unexpected, the ministry noted
that weight gain is a gradual process and the need to replace clothing due to a weight
gain is not an unexpected expense.
The appellant confirmed his bank withdrew $246 from his bank account on December
21, 2016. No details were provided concerning the withdrawal and the ministry was
unable to determine if this was unexpected or a one-time or ongoing event.
In respect of the failure to obtain the item resulting in imminent danger to health, the
ministry noted there was insufficient evidence to support a probability that failure to
obtain additional clothing will place the appellant’s physical health in
imminent/immediate danger.
In respect of the criteria that no alternate resources were available to obtain the item or
meet the expense, the ministry noted that the appellant’s support allowances are
intended to be used for his daily living expenses including clothing. The appellant did
not indicate if he had attempted to access local community resources. His support
allowance is an alternate resource.
The ministry concluded that the appellant did not meet all of the criteria for a crisis
supplement for clothing and was therefore not eligible. His request was denied.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
In order to be eligible for a crisis supplement the appellant must meet the criteria set
out in section 57 in the EAPWD Regulation.
The requested item must be required to meet an unexpected expense, or obtain an
item unexpectedly needed.
The recipient must be unable to meet the expense or obtain the item because there
are no resources available to the family unit; and
The failure to provide the item will result in imminent danger to the recipient’s physical
health.
In his Notice of Appeal, the appellant indicated that he disagreed with the ministry’s
reconsideration decision because “Social services don’t give us money for expenses,
only for food. Like example, medication is not covered by health care, like cleaning
supply for your apartment, like health care things and hygiene supply, and for
emergency. Clothes is emergency.”
The appellant has stated that a combination of medication and food had caused him to
gain weight and his clothes no longer fit.
The appellant has submitted that assistance is provided for emergencies. The
appellant argues that clothes are an emergency.
The applicable legislation provides that the minister may provide a crisis supplement if
certain criteria are met. However, the evidence and the submissions of the appellant
do not indicate that he has met any of the criteria.
The appellant has noted that a combination of medication and food caused him to gain
weight and his clothes no longer fit. Weight gain is a gradual process and the need to
replace clothes is therefore not unexpected nor is the expense unexpected.
There is no evidence that the appellant investigated alternate resources available to
him and no evidence that alternate resources would not have met his needs.
Finally, there is no evidence that failure to meet the expense or obtain the item will
result in imminent danger to the physical health of the appellant.
Although the appellant provided evidence of a withdrawal of funds from his bank
account, there is no evidence as to how this affected the appellant or how it is relevant
to the criteria in the EAPWD Regulation
Accordingly, because all criteria have not been satisfied, the ministry has no legislative
authority to issue a crisis supplement.
The panel finds the ministry decision was reasonably supported by the evidence and is
a reasonable application of the applicable enactment in the circumstances of the
appellant. The panel therefore confirms the Ministry’s Reconsideration Decision and
the appellant’s appeal is denied.
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.