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 57(1) of the Employment and Assistance for
Persons with Disabilities Regulation dated April 24, 2017, that denied the appellant’s request for a
crisis supplement for utilities. The request was denied on the grounds that while the appellant
satisfied the criterion that failure to pay the hydro bill will result in termination of hydro services and
will result in imminent danger to the appellant’s health, the appellant did not satisfy the 2 other criteria
required. Specifically the appellant did not give significant evidence that the need to pay for hydro
was an unexpected need or an unexpected expense, nor did the appellant show that there were no
alternate resources available with which to meet the need.
PART D – Relevant Legislation
Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Regulation (EAPWDR), Section 57(1)
PART E – Summary of Facts
The appellant is a single person in receipt of Employment and Assistance for Persons with
Disabilities benefits.
On February 15, 2017 the appellant contacted the ministry to request assistance with BC Hydro. The
appellant submitted a disconnect notice for total amount owing of $82.25. The appellant had stated
she had tried to contact BC Hydro to negotiate payment. A service request was created for the
consideration of a crisis supplement.
March 7, 2017 a ministry worker attempted to contact the appellant to determine why she was in
need of the funds and whether she had tried to access all available resources. A phone message was
left.
March 13, 2017 the appellant contacted the ministry and explained she had not paid the hydro bill as
she had not been working and couldn’t afford the payment; she had some medical issues and had to
spend funds on doctor appointments and, that she had asked her daughter for help and she had paid
the cable bill.
March 15, 2017 the appellant had contacted the ministry to inquire about her request. She stated her
power would be disconnected on March 17 and the ministry had not contacted hydro. The appellant
had been advised workers had been trying to contact her and confirmed she would be available for a
call any time after 11am.
March 17, 2017 the appellant contacted the ministry to inquire about her request. The appellant
confirmed she had the ability to meet this need with financial assistance from her daughter. The
appellant paid $100 towards her cable bill instead of the hydro.
March 20, 2017 the ministry denied the appellant’s request for a crisis supplement for utilities.
The evidence before the ministry at the time of reconsideration included the following:
BC Hydro final disconnection notice for $82.25
Request for reconsideration dated April 13, 2017
In the appellant’s Request for Reconsideration, she wrote she:
was in hospital
is trying to find a place which includes utilities
had to travel back and forth to Ladysmith as her grandmother had died
doesn’t live a luxury life
has had 7 family members pass away, depression is here
In the appellant’s Notice of Appeal, she wrote that she:
had deaths in the family
had transportation to family
was admitted to hospital
has no food and walks with a walker
In the appellant’s Submission, she wrote that she:
almost had her hydro cut off
had always had hydro included in her rent
was hoping to get into subsidized housing
can no longer work at what she was doing
can hardly write anymore
In the appellant’s Late Submission, she wrote that she:
could not afford the hydro that month
owes her daughter for money that she borrowed for the bill
is trying to get into subsidized housing
has been bed-ridden and not able to obtain an advocate
Notes written by appellant included in the Notice of Appeal included:
her daughter lent her money to pay the hydro bill which she intends to pay back when she is
given the funds by the ministry
she was admitted to hospital for 10 days and was released April 12
she is not feeling well so writing is wobbly
she has had a break down with her bills catching up on her
The ministry response to the appellant’s late submission was to rely on the reconsideration summary
provided in the Record of the Ministry.
Admissibility of Additional Information
The panel considered the information provided in the letter from the appellant in her Late Submission
and the notes in her Submission as being in support of, and tending to corroborate, the appellant’s
crisis supplement application which were before the ministry at reconsideration. Therefore, the panel
admitted the documentation in accordance with Section 22(4)(b) of the Employment and Assistance
Act.
PART F – Reasons for Panel Decision
The issue is whether the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation’s (the Ministry)
reconsideration decision made under section 57(1) of the Employment and Assistance for Persons
with Disabilities Regulation dated April 24, 2017, that denied the appellant’s request for a crisis
supplement for utilities was reasonably supported by the evidence or was a reasonable application of
the legislation in the circumstances of the appellant.
Relevant Legislation
EMPLOYMENT AND ASSISTANCE FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES REGULATION
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 general scheme of Section 57 of the
EAPWDR is that an individual may receive a crisis
supplement if three criteria are met. The first is that the Minister may provide a supplement if it is
required to meet an unexpected expense or to obtain an item unexpectedly needed (section 57(1)(a)
EAPWDR). The second is that the person is unable to meet the expense or obtain the item because
there are no resources available to the family unit (section 57(1)(a) EAPWDR). The third is that the
Minister must consider that failure to meet the expense or obtain the item will result in either imminent
danger to the person’s physical health or removal of a child under the Child, Family and Community
Service Act (section 57(1)(b)(i)(ii) EAPWDR).
Section 57(1)(a) EAPWDR – First Criterion - Unexpected Expense
(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
Ministry’s Position
There was no evidence before the reconsideration officer that the appellant unexpectedly received a
hydro bill as hydro is an ongoing monthly expense. The appellant’s bill reflects her consumption and
therefore, the cost of hydro billed is not unexpected.
Appellant’s Position
The appellant has stated that due to travel for family deaths, not working and medical issues she is
unable to pay her hydro bill. As well, she is not use to paying for her utilities as they have been part of
her rent at other locations.
Panel Finding
The panel finds there was insufficient evidence before the reconsideration officer to indicate whether
or not the appellant’s hydro bill was or was not an unexpected expense.
The panel finds therefore that the Ministry’s determination at reconsideration that the appellant had
no unexpected expense or to obtain an item unexpectedly needed was a reasonable application of
the first criterion of section 57(1)(a) of the EAPWDR in the circumstances of the appellant and was
reasonably supported by the evidence.
Section 57(1)(a) EAPWDR – Second Criterion - Inability to Meet the Expense
The appellant is unable to meet the expense or obtain the item because there are no resources available to
the family unit
Ministry’s Position
The ministry recognizes the appellant borrowed funds from her daughter to address her financial
issues. There was no evidence before the reconsideration officer that the appellant sought alternative
resources in her community to help her meet the need to pay back her daughter.
Appellant’s Position
The appellant states she borrowed money from her daughter to address the need to pay for her hydro
but requires the crisis supplement to pay her daughter back the funds borrowed.
Panel Finding
The Panel finds that there was evidence the appellant was able to find assistance through her
daughter
to
pay
her
outstanding
hydro
bill
but,
there
was
insignificant
evidence
before
the
Reconsideration officer as to what other resources the appellant had or did not have at her disposal
with which to pay for her hydro.
The panel finds therefore that the Ministry’s determination at reconsideration that the appellant had
not shown what resources were or were not available to her with which to pay her hydro bill was a
reasonable
application
of
the
second
criterion
of
section
57(1)(a)
of
the
EAPWDR
in
the
circumstances of the appellant and was reasonably supported by the evidence.
Section57(1)(b)(i)(ii) EAPWDR- Third Criterion – Failing to Meet an Unexpected Expense Will
Result in Imminent Danger to Physical Health
The ministry stated the appellant satisfied the third criterion, that failure to pay the hydro bill will result
in termination of hydro services and will result in imminent danger to the appellant’s health.
CONCLUSION
The panel finds that the Ministry’s decision in denying the appellant a crisis supplement to pay her
hydro bill was a reasonable application of the evidence in the circumstances of the appellant and was
reasonably supported by the evidence.
The panel confirms the Ministry 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.