PART C – Decision under Appeal
The decision under appeal is the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation (the
“ministry”) reconsideration decision of June 12, 2017 wherein the ministry denied the appellant a
crisis supplement for shelter (rent). The basis for the ministry’s decision was that the appellant did not
satisfy all three statutory criteria as set out in section 57(1) of the Employment and Assistance for
Persons with Disabilities Regulation (EAPWDR). The ministry was satisfied that the appellant’s need
for the rent was unexpected but held that:
1.
there were alternate resources available to the family unit, and
2.
failure to meet the expense would not result in imminent danger to physical health.
PART D – Relevant Legislation
EAPWDR – section 57(1)
PART E – Summary of Facts
The appellant did not attend the hearing and the panel being satisfied that he was notified of the date
and time the hearing proceeded under section 86(b) Employment and Assistance Act (EAA).
The evidence before the ministry at the time of reconsideration:
Shelter Information form dated April 11, 2017;
Letter to ministry from the appellant dated April 11, 2017 outlining his circumstances;
Request for Reconsideration dated May 12, 2107;
Covering letter dated June 12, 2017 attached to the appellant’s request for Reconsideration
describing the various resources, including housing societies, used to try to obtain alternative
housing and providing the appellant’s arguments as to why he meets the legislated criteria;
The appellant is a single recipient of disability assistance who shares accommodations with a
roommate. For the past two years the appellant had been living in a motel that had a seasonal rate
over the winter but now the monthly rate has increased substantially for the tourist season. He is now
required to pay a weekly rate. The appellant has been looking for alternate accommodations, but due
to the shortage of affordable housing, he has been unsuccessful. On April 11, 2017, the appellant
requested a crisis supplement for shelter. On April 13, 2017, the appellant contacted the ministry and
advised he had to move as his previous accommodation abruptly increased their monthly rate. The
appellant told the ministry he had been told his monthly rate was good until the end of May 2017, but
ended up being increased to $2,200.00 a month on March 1, 2017. The appellant was seeking
interim assistance and was hoping he would find new accommodation for May 1, 2017 for
$650/month. On April 27, 2017, the appellant submitted a Shelter Information form which indicated
effective March 1, 2017 the appellant was sharing accommodation with one other person and his
share of rent was $201.25/week. On June 12, 2017, the appellant contacted the ministry and advised
he had been seeking more affordable alternate accommodation but had been unsuccessful.
At the hearing, the ministry relied on the facts in the Reconsideration decision which included that the
ministry contacted the motel following the appellant’s request for reconsideration and was advised
that the appellant continues to reside at the motel and was paid up-to-date on his rent.
.
PART F – Reasons for Panel Decision
The issue under appeal is whether the ministry’s determination that the appellant was not eligible for
a crisis supplement for shelter is reasonably supported by the evidence or is a reasonable application
of the legislation in the circumstances of the appellant. The ministry determined the appellant did not
satisfy two of the three statutory criteria for a crisis supplement; the ministry was satisfied that the
appellant’s need for shelter was unexpected but held that:
1.
there were alternate resources available to the family unit, and
2.
failure to meet the expense would not result in imminent danger to physical health of any
person in the family unit.
The legislation considered: EAPWDR
Crisis supplement
Section 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.
Alternate Resources Available
Ministry’s Position
The ministry’s position is that the appellant requested a crisis supplement for shelter on April 10,
2017 to temporarily assist him with his rent ($200/week) because he could not find affordable
housing. The ministry argued that two months later, on June 12, 2017, the ministry determined he
was still staying at the same location and his rent (his share was $201.50 a week) was paid to date.
The ministry argued this demonstrated that the appellant did have resources available.
Appellant’s Position
The appellant argued that he and his roommate have used the resources available - social housing
organizations and online searches of rental offerings - and could not find suitable and affordable
housing. He stated they are both broke all the time.
Panel Decision
The evidence is that the appellant was able to stay in his accommodation for two months after he had
requested a crisis supplement to pay his weekly rent of $201.50. The evidence is the ministry
contacted the place where the appellant was staying and determined his rent was paid up to date.
The panel finds the appellant’s argument in his letter of June 12, 2017, “So while there are “alternate
resources” out there; we simply have not had any luck finding anything speaks to his search for
alternate accommodation but does not explain how he was meeting his shelter costs .
.
The panel finds the ministry’s decision that the appellant did have alternate resources available to
him for shelter was reasonable as he was able to stay at his current residence and keep his rent
current.
Imminent Danger to Physical Health
Ministry’s Position
The ministry position is that the appellant is not at risk of being homeless or that failure to provide a
crisis supplement for shelter will result in imminent danger to the appellant’s physical health. The
ministry argued that the appellant had not provided any information that his health would be in
imminent danger because of a lack of shelter when he continues to reside in his residence and his
rent is currently paid and up-to-date.
Appellant’s Position
The appellant argued that if he did not receive a crisis supplement for shelter he was at risk of being
homeless and on the street which would put him in imminent danger to his health.
Panel Decision
The evidence before the panel is that the appellant has continued to reside in the same residence
that he lived when he applied for the crisis supplement and that after three months his rent is paid
and up-to-date which does not support the appellant’s assertion that he is at imminent risk of being
evicted.
The panel finds there is insufficient evidence to support that the appellant’s physical health would be
in imminent danger if he did not receive the crisis supplement for shelter.
Accordingly, the panel finds that the ministry was reasonable in determining that the appellant has not
satisfied the legislative criterion related to “imminent danger to physical health”.
Conclusion
Since two of the criteria in EAPWDR section 57 have not been satisfied, the panel finds that the
ministry’s decision to deny the appellant a crisis supplement for shelter was a reasonable application
of the applicable legislation in the circumstances of the appellant. The ministry’s decision is
confirmed.
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.