PART C – Decision under Appeal
The decision under appeal is the reconsideration decision of the Ministry of Social Development and
Social Innovation (the ministry) dated 20 April 2017, which denied the appellant designation as a
person with disabilities (PWD). The ministry determined that the appellant did not meet all of the
required criteria for PWD designation as set out in the Employment and Assistance for Persons with
Disabilities Act, section 2.
Specifically, the ministry determined that the information provided did not establish that the appellant
has a severe mental or severe physical impairment; the appellant’s severe mental or physical
impairment, in the opinion of a prescribed professional, directly and significantly restricts her ability to
perform daily living activities (DLA) either continuously or periodically for extended periods; and as a
result of those restrictions, she requires help to perform those activities.
The ministry found that the information provided did establish that the appellant has reached 18 years
of age and her impairment, in the opinion of a medical practitioner, is likely to continue for at least 2
years.
PART D – Relevant Legislation
Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act (EAPWDA) – section 2
Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Regulation (EAPWDR) – section 2
PART E – Summary of Facts
The evidence before the ministry at reconsideration consisted of the following:
1.
The appellant’s PWD Designation Application, which contained:
A Medical Report (MR) dated 12 December 2016, completed by the appellant’s general
practitioner (GP) who has known the appellant for 4 years and seen her 2-10 times in the
past 12 months.
An Assessor Report (AR) dated 12 January 2017, completed by a GP “locuming” (the
locum) for the appellant’s GP who has known the appellant for 1 day and has not seen
her previously in the past 12 months.
A Self Report (SR) dated 11 December 2016, completed by the appellant.
2.
A 3-page Reconsideration Submission dated 3 April 2017, which consisted of a series of
statements prepared by the appellant’s advocate to which the appellant’s GP was asked to
indicate his agreement or disagreement and provide comments. The statements relate to
the appellant’s medical conditions, treatments and the impacts of a March 17, 2017 stroke
on the appellant’s ability to function.
In the MR, the GP diagnoses the medical conditions related to the appellant’s impairment as:
CVA – onset May 2013
Psoriasis – onset unspecified
A. fib/ablation and pacemaker – onset November 2016
The panel will first summarize the evidence from the MR, AR, and SR as it relates to the PWD
criteria at issue in this appeal.
Severity of mental impairment
MR:
The GP indicates that the appellant has no deficits with cognitive and emotional function and
provides no comment.
The GP indicates no restrictions to social functioning.
AR:
The locum has not completed an assessment of impacts to cognitive and emotional and social
functioning.
As to speaking, the locum indicates that the appellant’s ability is satisfactory and provides the
comment: “TIA affects speech, has been slurred in past.”
SR:
The appellant does not indicate that she has a mental impairment.
Severity of physical impairment
MR:
Under Health History, the GP writes:
“This patient presents with severe obesity that causes her to be greatly impaired as far as
her walking is concerned. CVA: no focal nervous signs apart from one small partial
[illegible]. NIDDM: diet controlled. OA both knees: TKR bilat. Psoriasis: lesions all over body,
not optimally controlled. Previous CCF and A. fib.: this has been well controlled after
ablation with pacemaker insertion.”
The GP indicates that the appellant is 165.1 cm tall and weighs 132 kgs.
For functional skills, the GP indicates that the appellant can walk 1-2 blocks unaided on a flat
surface, climb 5+ steps unaided, lift 2 to 7 kg. (5 to 15 lbs.), and there is no limitation on her ability
to remain seated.
The GP indicates that the appellant is not restricted with the following DLA: personal self care,
meal preparation, management of medications, basic housework, daily shopping, mobility inside
of the home, use of transportation, and management of finances.
The GP indicates that the appellant is continuously restricted with the DLA of mobility outside of
the home. The GP provides the following comments in relation to the degree of restriction: “the
patient states that she cannot walk more than 1-2 blocks and has to rest several times.”
AR:
Under Mental or Physical Impairment, the locum writes:
“CVA, Psoriasis, A. fib., pacemaker (Ablation for A. fib.)”
The locum indicates that the appellant is independent in the DLA of walking indoors and standing.
The locum indicates that the appellant takes significantly longer with walking indoors, but does not
describe how much longer.
The locum indicates that the appellant requires continuous assistance or is unable to perform the
following DLA: walking outdoors (takes significantly longer, unable to walk 2 blocks), climbing
stairs (uses assistive device, takes significantly longer, needs hand rail), lifting (unable 15
pounds), carrying and holding (unable 15 pounds).
SR:
The appellant writes: “I am limited due to a heart condition. I have A-fibrillation. I have a
pacemaker and have had AV node ablation and 2 cardio version. I cannot stand or walk for any
extended period and deal with nausea when looking down. In 2011 I had a stroke, 2012 “[illegible]
carotid artery”. 2013 – two knee replacement which do help me when walking.” She writes she
cannot lift and suffers from unsteadiness, exhaustion and sleep apnea.
Ability to perform DLA
General
PR:
The GP indicates that the appellant has not been prescribed any medications that interfere with
her ability to perform DLA.
The GP indicates that the appellant has no difficulties with communications.
The GP indicates that the appellant’s impairment directly restricts her ability to perform DLA. He
assesses the appellant’s mobility outside the home as being restricted on a continuous basis
mobility. He indicates that the appellant is not restricted for all other DLA.
The GP indicates no restrictions to social functioning and has not provided any comment in the
corresponding section of the form.
AR:
The locum assesses the appellant’s ability to communicate as good for reading, writing and
hearing, and satisfactory for speaking (TIA affects speech, has been slurred in past.).
The locum indicates that the appellant is independent with waking indoors and standing and
requires continuous assistance with, or is unable to perform, walking outdoors (unable to walk 2
blocks), climbing stairs (needs handrail), lifting (unable 15 pounds), carrying and holding.
Section 2(1)(a) DLA
Prepare own meals
PR:
The GP indicates that the appellant is not restricted in relation to meal preparation.
AR:
The locum indicates that the appellant is independent in the meals activities of food preparation,
cooking and safe storage of food but requires continuous assistance with meal planning (does not
plan meals, relies on toast often).
Manage personal finances
PR:
The GP indicates that the appellant is not restricted in relation to management of personal
finances.
AR:
The locum indicates that the appellant is independent in all of the activities related to the category
of pay rent and bills.
Shop for personal needs
PR:
The GP indicates that the appellant is not restricted in relation to daily shopping.
AR:
The locum indicates that the appellant is independent in making appropriate choices and paying
for purchases, but requires continuous assistance carrying purchases home (15 pounds
maximum). The locum indicates that the appellant requires an assistive device and takes
significantly longer going to and from stores (will use cart/scooter in store) and requires an
assistive device for reading prices and labels (eye glasses).
Use public or personal transportation facilities
PR:
The GP indicates that the appellant is not restricted in relation to use of transportation.
AR:
The locum indicates that the appellant is independent in getting in and out of a vehicle. The use of
public transit DLA are marked N/A (not applicable).
Perform housework to maintain the person's place of residence
PR:
The GP indicates that the appellant is not restricted in relation to basic housework.
AR:
The locum indicates that the appellant is independent with laundry (difficulty carrying laundry
basket). The locum indicates that the appellant is continuously restricted with basic housekeeping
(drops things/ needs assistance with housekeeping. Cannot keep up.).
Move about indoors and outdoors
PR:
The GP indicates that the appellant is able to walk 1-2 blocks unaided on a flat surface, can climb
5+ steps unaided, can lift 5 to 15 lbs., and has no restrictions in the ability to remain seated.
The GP also indicates that the appellant is not restricted with mobility inside of the home and is
continuously restricted with mobility outside of the home.
AR:
The locum indicates that the appellant is independent in the DLA of waking indoors and standing.
The locum indicates that the appellant takes significantly longer with walking indoors, but does not
describe how much longer.
The locum indicates that the appellant requires continuous assistance or is unable to perform the
following DLA: walking outdoors (takes significantly longer, unable to walk 2 blocks), climbing
stairs (uses assistive device, takes significantly longer, needs hand rail), lifting (unable 15
pounds), carrying and holding (unable 15 pounds).
Perform personal hygiene and self-care
PR:
The GP indicates that the appellant is not restricted with personal self-care.
AR:
The locum indicates that the appellant is independent in the following personal care DLA:
grooming, bathing, toileting, feeding self, regulating diet (pre-diabetic diet), transfers (on/off chair).
The locum indicates that the appellant uses as assistive device and takes significantly longer with
dressing (has to sit to get dressed/put shoes one. Bending causes dizzy spells).
The locum indicates that the appellant takes significantly longer with transfers in/out of bed (Bed
too high. Needs new bed.).
Manage personal medication
PR:
The GP indicates that the appellant is not restricted in her management of medications.
AR:
The locum indicates that the appellant is independent in all medications activities, which includes
filling/refilling prescriptions, taking as directed and safe handling and storage.
Section 2(1)(b) DLA
The following DLA are applicable to a person who has a severe mental impairment:
Make decisions about personal activities, care or finances
PR:
The GP indicates that the appellant has no restrictions with communication, social functioning,
management of finances and medications.
AR:
The sections of the AR relating to cognitive and emotional functioning and social functioning have
not been completed.
The locum indicates that the appellant is independent in all of the activities related to the category
of pay rent and bills.
The locum indicates that the appellant is independent in all medications activities, which includes
filling/refilling prescriptions, taking as directed and safe handling and storage.
Relate to, communicate or interact with others effectively
The GP indicates no problems with communication and no restrictions to social functioning.
AR:
The locum indicates the appellant’s ability to communicate is good for reading, writing and
hearing, and satisfactory for speaking (TIA affects speech, has been slurred in past).
Help Required
PR:
The GP indicates that the appellant does not require any aids or prostheses.
The GP does not indicate assistance needed with DLA.
AR:
The locum indicates that appellant receives help from friends for DLA (can get friends to move
heavy objects [illegible]).
The locum has not completed the section of the AR dealing with assistive devices.
The locum indicates that the appellant does not have an assistance animal.
Reconsideration Submission
In the reconsideration submission, the appellant’s GP has been asked to indicate agreement or
disagreement with several statements, with an opportunity to provide comments. The GP has
indicated agreement with all of the following statements and has not provided any comments:
The appellant suffered a stroke on March 17, 2017.
The appellant is only able to walk 3 steps with the use of a walker and another person
holding her up. She states that she has to rely on the use of a wheelchair for any mobility.
The appellant states she has lost the use of her right arm.
The appellant states she is able to lift 15 pounds with her left arm and nothing with her right
arm.
The appellant states she is unable to even sit up on her own at this time.
The appellant states that her speech is affected since the March 17
th
stroke and is
currently working with a speech therapist.
The appellant states that due to her serious limitations due to her recent stroke she is
unable to do the following daily living activities:
o
Dressing
o
Grooming
o
Bathing
o
Toileting
o
Feeding self (food has to be cut up for her)
o
Getting in and out of bed
o
Getting on and off a chair
o
Laundry
o
Basic Housekeeping
o
Going to and from stores
o
Meal prep/cooking/planning
o
Banking
o
Getting in and out of a vehicle
o
Refilling prescriptions
o
All activities of daily living
The appellant is currently staying at [omitted] General Hospital. She has been there since
March 17, 2017.
The appellant states she is currently waiting to be placed in a rehabilitation facility.
The appellant states she has been told that her recovery at this time will be at least several
months.
Notice of Appeal
In her Notice of Appeal, dated 21 April 2017, the appellant gives as Reasons for Appeal: “does
not think, due to recent severe stroke, would be able to work in 2 or more years. Lifelong
impairments resulting from this stroke.”
Appellant Submission
Prior to the hearing a 25-page submission, dated May 10, 2017, was submitted on the appellant’s
behalf. Included in this submission are the following documents:
Discharge Summary from hospital relating to the appellant’s hospital stay for the March
17, 2017 stroke.
History and Physical dated April 13, 2017, relating to the appellant’s transfer to a High
Intensity Rehab Facility at another hospital following discharge after the March 2017
stroke.
Physiotherapy Initial Assessment completed April 18-20, 2017.
Occupational Therapy Initial Assessment dated April 18, 2017.
Consultation Report dated April 18, 2017.
Physician Progress Notes with several entries beginning April 14, 2017 and ending May
9, 2017.
The hearing
At the hearing, the appellant and her advocate explained that the appellant, who is right handed,
cannot use her right arm and leg due to the stroke she suffered in March 2017. She is unable to
have a bath, toilet, wash hands, sit, or stand without assistance because of balance issues, and
she cannot drive. She is making some progress in her recovery but this is very slow. The
appellant describes herself as having her faculties intact but requiring significant physical
assistance on a continuous basis. Following her stroke, the appellant spent the first several
weeks in hospital and is now in a rehabilitation facility on a full time basis. The appellant believes
that she will require significant help when and if she is able to return to her home. The appellant
explained that she has always worked physical jobs and was previously a farmer and agriculture
consultant, which involved significant travel across Canada. This is not something she expects
she will be able to resume, as she is currently unable to walk, drive or write.
The appellant’s advocate explained that there is an expectation and hope for improvement in the
appellant’s condition, but that a full and complete recovery where the appellant is independently
able to resume her former activities is not certain. The advocate explained that the current goal
the appellant is working towards is to be able to sit in a wheelchair for 4 hours; she still requires
physical assistance from another person to roll over, move from lying to sitting and sitting to
standing. The appellant’s only ambulation is in a wheelchair indoors on flat surfaces. She cannot
work.
The ministry relied on its reconsideration decision.
Admissibility of new information
The ministry made no objection to the admission of the information provided in the Appellant
Submission or at the hearing
The panel finds that the information provided at the hearing and in the Appellant Submission is in
support of the information and records before the ministry at reconsideration. Specifically, the new
information provided by the appellant expands on the treatment and impacts of the March 2017
stroke and tends to substantiate or corroborate the information that was before the minister at
reconsideration. The panel therefore admits 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 whether the ministry decision that determined that the appellant did not
meet three of the five statutory requirements of Section 2 of the EAPWDA for designation as a person
with disabilities (PWD) is reasonably supported by the evidence or is a reasonable application of the
legislation in the circumstances of the appellant.
Specifically, the ministry determined that the information provided did not establish that:
the appellant has a severe mental or severe physical impairment;
the appellant’s severe mental or physical impairment, in the opinion of a prescribed
professional, directly and significantly restricts her ability to perform daily living activities (DLA)
either continuously or periodically for extended periods; and
as a result of those restrictions, she requires help to perform those activities.
The ministry determined that the appellant satisfied the other 2 criteria: she has reached 18 years of
age; and her impairment in the opinion of a medical practitioner is likely to continue for at least 2
years.
Legislation
The following sections of the EAPWDA applies to this appeal:
2 (1) In this section:
"assistive device" means a device designed to enable a person to perform a daily living activity that,
because of a severe mental or physical impairment, the person is unable to perform;
"daily living activity" has the prescribed meaning;
"prescribed professional" has the prescribed meaning.
(2) The minister may designate a person who has reached 18 years of age as a person with disabilities for the
purposes of this Act if the minister is satisfied that the person is in a prescribed class of persons or that the
person has a severe mental or physical impairment that
(a) in the opinion of a medical practitioner or nurse practitioner is likely to continue for at least 2 years, and
(b) in the opinion of a prescribed professional
(i) directly and significantly restricts the person's to perform daily living activities either
(A) continuously, or
(B) periodically for extended periods, and
(ii) as a result of those restrictions, the person requires help to perform those activities.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2),
(a) a person who has a severe mental impairment includes a person with a mental disorder,
and
(b) a person requires help in relation to a daily living activity if, in order to perform it, the person
requires
(i) an assistive device,
(ii) the significant help or supervision of another person, or
(iii) the services of an assistance animal.
The following sections of the EAPWDR applies to this appeal:
2 (1) For the purposes of the Act and this regulation, "daily living activities",
(a) in relation to a person who has a severe physical impairment or a severe mental impairment,
means the following activities:
(i) prepare own meals;
(ii) manage personal finances;
(iii) shop for personal needs;
(iv) use public or personal transportation facilities;
(v) perform housework to maintain the person's place of residence in acceptable sanitary
condition;
(vi) move about indoors and outdoors;
(vii) perform personal hygiene and self care;
(viii) manage personal medication, and
(b) in relation to a person who has a severe mental impairment, includes the following activities:
(i) make decisions about personal activities, care or finances;
(ii) relate to, communicate or interact with others effectively.
(2) For the purposes of the Act, "prescribed professional" means a person who is
(a) authorized under an enactment to practise the profession of
(i) medical practitioner,
(ii) registered psychologist,
(iii) registered nurse or registered psychiatric nurse,
(iv) occupational therapist,
(v) physical therapist,
(vi) social worker,
(vii) chiropractor, or
(viii) nurse practitioner, or
(b) acting in the course of the person's employment as a school psychologist by
(i) an authority, as that term is defined in section 1 (1) of the Independent School Act, or
(ii) a board or a francophone education authority, as those terms are defined in section 1
(1) of the School Act,
if qualifications in psychology are a condition of such employment.
Duration
The EAPWDA permits the minister to designate a person as a person with disabilities if the minister is
satisfied that the person is in a prescribed class of persons or that the person has a severe mental or
physical impairment that in the opinion of a medical practitioner or nurse practitioner is likely to
continue for at least 2 years. The panel notes that the ministry determined that this criterion was
satisfied by the information provided in the PWD application.
However, the ministry also determined in its reconsideration decision that it was not satisfied that the
information provided in the Reconsideration Submission established that the appellant’s current
physical impairment is likely to last for at least two years. As a result, the ministry completed its
reconsideration decision based on the information provided in the PWD application, because it
determined that there was no information to support that the appellant will not recover back to where
she was when the PWD assessments were completed.
The panel notes that the information provided in the Reconsideration Submission is that the
appellant’s recovery from the March 2017 stroke is at least several months. The appellant’s advocate
argued that recovery in this context does not necessarily mean that the appellant will make a full and
complete recovery. The ministry acknowledged that the appellant’s prognosis is somewhat unknown
at this time because only a short time has passed since the stroke. However, the ministry argued that
the legislation clearly requires an opinion from a medical practitioner or nurse practitioner that the
impairment is likely to continue for at least two years and this has not been provided. The panel finds
that there is no opinion from a medical practitioner or nurse practitioner stating that the appellant’s
current impairment is likely to last for at least 2 years. As such, the panel concludes that the ministry’s
determination was reasonable.
Severity of impairment
The legislation requires that for PWD designation, the minister must be “satisfied” that the person has
a severe mental or physical impairment. The legislation makes it clear that the determination of
severity is at the discretion of the minister, taking into account all of the evidence, including that of the
appellant. However, the legislation is clear that the fundamental basis for the analysis is the evidence
from a prescribed professional. Diagnosis of a serious medical condition or the identification of mental
or physical deficits does not in itself determine severity of impairment. An “impairment” is more than a
diagnosed medical condition. An impairment is a medical condition that results in restrictions to a
person’s ability to function independently, appropriately, effectively or for a reasonable duration. To
assess the severity of impairment one must consider the nature of the impairment and the degree of
impact on daily functioning.
Severity of mental impairment
In the reconsideration decision, the ministry found that it was not satisfied that the information
provided is evidence of a severe mental impairment. The panel notes that the appellant does not
indicate in her SR that she suffers from a severe mental impairment. Further, the GP indicates in the
MR that appellant has no deficits with cognitive and emotional function and no restrictions to social
functioning. The locum has not completed an assessment of impacts to cognitive and emotional and
social functioning in the AR.
The panel finds that the ministry reasonably concluded that there was not enough evidence to
establish a severe mental impairment.
Severity of physical impairment
In the reconsideration decision, the ministry found that it was not satisfied that the information
provided establishes a severe physical impairment. The panel considers that the MR, AR and SR
report that the appellant has several health concerns including severe obesity, diet controlled
diabetes, previous stroke, psoriasis, bilateral knee replacements and arthritis, and previous
congestive cardiac failure and atrial fibrillation controlled by pacemaker insertion. The appellant also
indicates that she suffers from nausea, unsteadiness, exhaustion and sleep apnea.
The GP indicates that the appellant is not restricted for most DLA, including personal self care, meal
preparation, management of medications, basic housework, daily shopping, mobility inside of the
home, use of transportation, and management of finances. In contrast, the locum indicates that the
appellant is independent in the DLA of walking indoors and standing and indicates that the appellant
takes significantly longer with walking indoors, but does not describe how much longer.
The GP indicates that the appellant is continuously restricted with the DLA of mobility outside of the
home. The locum indicates that the appellant requires continuous assistance or is unable to perform
the following DLA: walking outdoors (takes significantly longer, unable to walk 2 blocks), climbing
stairs (uses assistive device, takes significantly longer, needs hand rail), lifting (unable 15 pounds),
carrying and holding (unable 15 pounds). The locum does not indicate how much longer the appellant
requires with these DLA. The appellant reports in the SR that she cannot stand for extended periods,
cannot walk for [incomplete] and cannot lift.
The panel notes that there appear to be some differences in the information provided by the GP and
the locum. However, despite these differences, the panel finds that the ministry reasonably concluded
that the information provided in the PWD application did not establish a severe physical impairment.
Direct and significant restrictions in the ability to perform DLA
At issue is the degree of restriction in the appellant's ability to perform the DLA listed in section
2(1)(a) and (b) of the EAPWDR applicable to a person with a severe mental or physical impairment.
The panel notes that, according to the legislation, the direct and significant restriction in the ability to
perform DLA must be the result of a severe impairment, a criterion not established in this appeal. In
the reconsideration decision, the ministry found that the information provided did not establish that
the appellant has a severe physical or mental impairment. The panel has determined that the ministry
was reasonable in determining that the information provided did not establish a severe mental
impairment. The panel has also determined that the ministry was reasonable in determining that the
information provided did not establish a severe physical impairment.
The legislation – section 2(2)(b)(i) of the EAPWDA – requires the minister to assess direct and
significant restrictions of DLA in consideration of the opinion of a prescribed professional, in this case
the appellant’s GP and the locum. The legislative language makes it clear that a prescribed
professional’s evidence is fundamental to the ministry’s determination as to whether it is “satisfied.”
And for the minister to be “satisfied,” it is reasonable for the ministry to expect that a prescribed
professional provides a clear picture of the degree to which the ability to perform DLA is restricted in
order for the ministry to determine whether the restrictions are “significant.”
In the reconsideration decision, the ministry found that while it is reasonable to expect the appellant
to encounter some restrictions considering her medical history, the information provided did not
establish that the appellant’s ability to manage DLA is significantly restricted either continuously or
periodically for extended periods of time. In the reconsideration decision, the ministry reviewed the
information provided by the GP in the MR and the locum in the AR. The ministry notes that the GP
indicates continuous assistance with mobility outside of the home and the locum indicates continuous
assistance with basic housekeeping, carrying purchases home and meal planning. The ministry also
notes that the locum indicates that the appellant requires significantly longer dressing, transferring
in/out of bed and going to and from stores. The panel notes the inconsistencies in the MR and AR
with respect to the appellant’s ability to perform DLA. The GP indicates that the appellant is not
restricted in relation to basic housekeeping and shopping. The panel finds that the only DLA that the
GP and locum agree is restricted is mobility outside of the home. Further, with respect to those DLA
that the locum indicates take significantly longer there is no information to indicate how much longer
the appellant would require. The panel also notes that the information provided in the Physiotherapy
Initial Assessment and the Occupational Therapy Initial Assessment indicate that the appellant was
independent in her DLA prior to the March 2017 stroke.
The panel notes that DLA (the “social functioning” DLA) listed in section 2(1)(b) of the EAPWDR
applicable to a person with a severe mental impairment (make decisions about personal activities,
care or finances and relate to, communicate or interact with others effectively) have been assessed
by the GP in the MR as unrestricted. The locum has indicated in the AR that the appellant had no
difficulties with communications and in the AR, assesses her ability to communicate as good for
reading, writing and hearing, and satisfactory for speaking. The sections of the AR relating to
assessment of impacts to the appellant’s cognitive, emotional and social functioning have not been
completed.
The panel finds that the ministry was reasonable in concluding that there is not enough evidence to
establish that, in the opinion of a prescribed professional, the appellant’s ability to perform DLA were
directly and continuously restricted continuously or periodically for extended periods.
Help required
Section 2(2)(b)(ii) of the EAPWDA requires that, as a result of being directly and significantly
restricted in the ability to perform DLA either continuously or periodically for extended periods, a
person must also require help to perform those activities. The establishment of direct and significant
restrictions under section 2(2)(b)(i) is a precondition of meeting the need for help criterion. Help is
defined in subsection (3) as the requirement for an assistive device, significant help or supervision of
another person, or the services of an assistance animal in order to perform a DLA.
In the reconsideration decision, the ministry held that, as it has not been established that DLA are
significantly restricted, it cannot be determined that help is required. The panel notes that while the
appellant may benefit from help from friends, the ministry reasonably determined that direct and
significant restrictions in the appellant’s ability to perform DLA have not been established. As such,
the panel finds that the ministry reasonably concluded that under section 2(2)(b)(ii) of the EAPWDA it
cannot be determined that the appellant requires help to perform DLA.
Conclusion
After reviewing all of the information and applicable legislation, the panel finds that the ministry’s
reconsideration decision, which determined that the appellant was not eligible for PWD designation,
was reasonably supported by the evidence and a reasonable application of the legislation in the
circumstances of the appellant. The panel therefore confirms the ministry’s decision. 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.