PART C – Decision under Appeal The decision under appeal is the Ministry of Children and Family Development (the Ministry) reconsideration decision dated April 27, 2017, 2017, in which the Ministry determined that the Appellant was not eligible for income assistance due to non-compliance with his employment plan, pursuant to section 9 of the Employment and Assistance Act (EAA). PART D – Relevant Legislation Employment and Assistance Act (EAA) section 9
PART E – Summary of Facts Information before the minister at reconsideration included: - The Appellant’s Employment Plan, signed September 21, 2016, which requires him to meet with an employment contractor, take part in activities as agreed and complete all tasks given to him. If he cannot take part in services or complete steps or finds work, he is to contact the contractor. The Appellant acknowledged by signing the plan that it is a condition of eligibility that he sign and comply with the conditions set out in the plan, that he may be required to provide verification of his compliance with the plan and that if he does not comply with the conditions of the plan, the assistance issued to him will be discontinued. - A copy of a letter to the Appellant from the Ministry, dated September 6, 2016, advising him that his income assistance cheque is being held for an employment plan review. - A copy of an employment service centre appointment reminder slip for September 28, 2016. - A copy of a note stating that “Candidate came for appointment September 21, 2016 at 10:00 AM. He was rescheduled on September 28, 2016 at 11:00 AM” signed by a case manager. - The Appellant’s Request for Reconsideration, signed April 20, 2017, with a note from the Appellant stating that he missed his March 27, 2017 appointment because he forgot to set his clock ahead, and that he was on time for his March 20, 2017 appointment but the worker was not there and the appointment was rescheduled for a week later. At the hearing, the Appellant stated that he missed his March 27, 2017 appointment because he did not change his clock for Daylight Saving Time, and decided to wait until he was contacted. He stated that he had been advised that he must attend that appointment or “that would be it” for income assistance. The Appellant stated that he was advised about previous appointments he had missed. The Appellant stated that in 2016 he told the employment service provider that he would attend culinary school, but he did not attend because the building he was living in had bedbugs, and he applied a second time for training, but he learned of a different culinary course that would be more suitable, and said he would consider taking that one. He stated that someone from that course had said she would contact him, but did not. The Appellant stated that he had decided to apply for disability assistance, but has not done so yet. In response to questions, the Appellant stated that he does not have a telephone. The Appellant stated that he lost his password for “mySS” in November, 2016, and has not been able to use it since. The Appellant stated that he did not contact the Ministry after missing his March 27, 2017 appointment but waited for the Ministry to contact him. The Ministry responded that in September, 2016 the Appellant’s employment plan was reviewed and he was sent to an employment service provider, who advised the Ministry that the Appellant did not attend. On September 21, 2016, the Appellant signed an employment plan. He was told to contact the employment service provider if he missed an appointment for any reason. In March, 2017, the Ministry was advised by the employment service provider that there had been no contact with the Appellant and attempts had been made to reach him in November and January, with no response. On March 2, 2017, a hold was placed on the Appellant’s April income assistance cheque. The Appellant contacted the Ministry on March 23 and advised that he had a medical issue. He was asked to provide documentation, but did not do so. On March 28, 2017, the service provider advised the Ministry that they had had no contact with the Appellant.
PART F – Reasons for Panel Decision The issue in this appeal is the reasonableness of the decision in which in which the Ministry determined that the Appellant was not eligible for income assistance due to non-compliance with his employment plan, pursuant to section 9 of the Employment and Assistance Act (EAA). Legislation EAA Employment plan 9 (1) For a family unit to be eligible for income assistance or hardship assistance, each applicant or recipient in the family unit, when required to do so by the minister, must (a) enter into an employment plan, and (b) comply with the conditions in the employment plan. (2) A dependent youth, when required to do so by the minister, must (a) enter into an employment plan, and (b) comply with the conditions in the employment plan. (3) The minister may specify the conditions in an employment plan including, without limitation, a condition requiring the applicant, recipient or dependent youth to participate in a specific employment-related program that, in the minister's opinion, will assist the applicant, recipient or dependent youth to (a) find employment, or (b) become more employable. (4) If an employment plan includes a condition requiring an applicant, a recipient or a dependent youth to participate in a specific employment-related program, that condition is not met if the person (a) fails to demonstrate reasonable efforts to participate in the program, or (b) ceases, except for medical reasons, to participate in the program. (5) If a dependent youth fails to comply with subsection (2), the minister may reduce the amount of income assistance or hardship assistance provided to or for the family unit by the prescribed amount for the prescribed period. (6) The minister may amend, suspend or cancel an employment plan. (7) A decision under this section (a) requiring a person to enter into an employment plan, (b) amending, suspending or cancelling an employment plan, or (c) specifying the conditions of an employment plan is final and conclusive and is not open to review by a court on any ground or to appeal under section 17 (3) [reconsideration and appeal rights]. The Appellant’s position is that he made efforts to attend appointments in March, 2017, but on one occasion the person he was to meet was not there, and on the second he slept in because his clock was one hour slow. He stated that he had contact with the employment service provider in January, contrary to the report sent to the Ministry, and attempted to enroll in a culinary course, but the contact person did not follow up with him. The Ministry’s position is that the Appellant did not participate adequately in his employment plan, failed to attend the program as directed and did not provide evidence of mitigating circumstances for failing to do so.
Section 9, EAA states that for a family unit to be eligible for income assistance each applicant, when required to do so by the minister, must enter into an employment plan and comply with the conditions in the plan. Under subsection (4) of section9, if an employment plan includes a condition requiring an applicant or recipient to participate in a specific employment-related program, that condition is not met if the person fails to demonstrate reasonable efforts to participate in the program. The Panel recognizes that there may have been communication problems between the Appellant and the Ministry, however the Appellant was, according to information provided to the Ministry, not in contact with them from September, 2016 to, at the earliest, January, 2017. The Panel accepts the Appellant’s assertion that he was in contact with the service provider in January, 2017 with respect to a culinary training course, however no evidence was provided to show whether the Appellant was actually enrolled in a course. The Appellant did not offer any explanation for the lack of contact for the previous three months, nor why he did not inform the service provider or the Ministry of his reasons for failing to attend his appointment on March 28, 2017, although he stated that he had been warned not to miss the appointment. The Appellant stated that he has had medical issues but he has not provided evidence to establish this. Under section 9(1), EAA, the Appellant was required to enter into an employment plan. The Appellant’s employment plan, which he signed in September, 2016, contains a requirement that he comply with the conditions in the plan, including any condition to participate in program activities and that he must call the contractor if he cannot take part. Section 9(4), EAA states that if an employment plan includes a condition requiring a recipient to participate in a specific employment-related program, that condition is not met if the person (a) fails to demonstrate reasonable efforts to participate in the program, or (b) ceases, except for medical reasons, to participate in the program. The employment service provider reported that there was no contact with the Appellant from September, 2016 until March, 2017, and no mitigating reason was provided. Considering the Appellant’s statement that he had intended to enroll in a culinary training program in January, 2017, he stated that did not do so, and no evidence was provided regarding the course. The Panel finds that the Ministry reasonably determined that the Appellant did not demonstrate reasonable efforts to participate in the program. The Panel finds that the Ministry reasonably determined that the Appellant failed to comply with the conditions of his employment plan and that as a result he is not eligible for income assistance pursuant to the provisions of section 9, EAA. The Appellant is not successful on 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.