PART C – Decision under Appeal
The decision under appeal is the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation (ministry)’s
reconsideration decision dated April 5, 2017, finding the appellant is not eligible to receive a crisis
supplement for repair of her snow plough because she does not meet two of the three legislated
criteria found in section 57 of the EAPWDR in that this was not an unexpected expense and failure to
provide the crisis supplement will not result in imminent danger to the appellant’s physical health.
PART D – Relevant Legislation
The relevant legislation is section 57 of the EAPWDR.
PART E – Summary of Facts
The appellant is in receipt of disability assistance as a single person.
The appellant lives in a remote area in a house heated by a pellet stove to which the only access is
along a ¼-mile-long easement road with a steep gradient which she is responsible for maintaining. In
the winter the appellant ploughs the road with an older-model small pick-up truck with a plough
attachment.
In February 2017, the appellant’s pellet stove motor broke down and she borrowed money from her
sister to replace it. Also in February, the appellant’s pick-up truck sprang a leak of coolant,
overheated and blew its head gasket, meaning that it needs repairs in the range of about $1300 to
$1700 in order to operate.
On February 22, the appellant filed a request with the ministry for a crisis supplement for a new motor
for her pellet stove and repairs to her snow plough. These requests were denied, and on March 15,
the appellant filed a Request for Reconsideration. The ministry denied the request for snow plough
repairs, but neglected to address the issue of the motor for the pellet stove.
As part of her appeal submission the appellant submitted a number of photographs of the easement
leading to her house in order to illustrate the gradient, condition and length of the easement. These
photographs show that the easement is relatively steep and unpaved.
PART F – Reasons for Panel Decision
The issue under appeal is the reasonableness of the ministry’s decision finding the appellant is not
eligible to receive a crisis supplement for repair of her snow plough because her request does not
meet two of the three legislated criteria found in section 57 of the EAPWDR in that this was not an
unexpected expense and failure to provide the crisis supplement will not result in imminent danger to
the appellant’s physical health.
The relevant legislation is section 57 of the EAPWDR:
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.
This appeal was held by written hearing by consent of the parties in accordance with section 22(3)(b)
of the Employment and Assistance Act.
Admissibility of New Information
The ministry did not object to the new information provided by the appellant in the
form of a number of photographs of the easement.
Section 22(4) of the Employment and Assistance Act states that the panel is empowered to admit as
evidence only “the information and records that were before the minister when the decision being
appealed was made” and “oral or written testimony in support of” the record of the ministry decision. If
the additional evidence substantiates or corroborates the information and records before the minister
at the reconsideration stage, the evidence should be admitted; if it does not, then it does not meet the
test of admissibility under s. 22(4)(b) of the Employment and Assistance Act and should not be
admitted.
In this case, the photographs are illustrative of the written information that the appellant provided to
the ministry as part of her reconsideration submission. As such, they are not “new” but provided as
supporting evidence to what was before the ministry at the time of the reconsideration. On this basis,
the panel finds that the additional evidence provided by the appellant is admissible.
The Appellant’s Position
The appellant’s position is that the expense was unexpected because she could not have foreseen
that her snow plough would overheat and need repairs. The appellant also maintains that failure to
provide the crisis supplement would result in imminent danger to her physical health because without
the snow plough, as a person with disabilities, getting up and down the easement road without the
plough to clear it is hazardous and could result in injury to her.
The Ministry’s Position
In its appeal submission, the ministry acknowledged that it had failed to address the issue of the
motor for the pellet stove matter in its reconsideration decision and would be preparing a separate
reconsideration decision.
As regards the issue of the snow plough repairs, it relies on its reconsideration decision. In that
decision the ministry found that the repairs to the head gasket were not unexpected because it was
reasonably foreseeable that if the snow plough overheated, it would be damaged and need repairs.
The ministry also found that there was no indication that the appellant’s physical health was in
imminent danger.
The Panel’s Analysis
Motor for the Pellet Stove
The panel accepts the ministry’s admission that it failed to consider the issue of the motor for the
pellet stove and will be preparing a separate reconsideration decision for that matter. Accordingly,
this appeal concerns the matter of the snow plough repairs only.
Unexpected Expense
In its reconsideration decision the ministry states: “there is nothing unexpected about the head gasket
needing replacement if the machine becomes overheated”. The appellant argues that this is an
unexpected expense because she could not have foreseen that her pick-up truck would suddenly
spring a leak of coolant, overheat and blow the head gasket. The panel agrees with the appellant that
the she could not have anticipated this expense in a way that makes it an expected expense. The
ministry’s interpretation of the legislation in this instance is not reasonable.
Alternate Resources
The ministry found in its reconsideration decision that the appellant met this criteria so that it is not in
question in this appeal.
Imminent Danger to Physical Health
The ministry’s position is that there is insufficient evidence to establish that the appellant is facing
imminent danger to her physical health. The appellant’s position is that without the pick-up she is in
danger of falling while walking the easement road. While she did provide a number of photographs of
the easement showing that it is relatively steep and unpaved, the appellant did not provide any
evidence that there are no alternative means for her to travel on the easement or the likelihood of
such a fall. Given this, the panel finds that it was reasonable for the ministry to conclude that there
was insufficient evidence before it that the appellant’s physical health was in imminent danger.
Conclusion
Accordingly, the panel finds that the Ministry’s decision to deny the appellant a crisis supplement for
repairs to her snow plough was a reasonable application of the relevant legislation and confirms the
Ministry’s reconsideration decision.
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.