PART C – Decision under Appeal
The decision under appeal is the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction (the ministry)
reconsideration decision dated August 03, 2017 which found that the appellant is not eligible for
Persons with Persistent Multiple Barriers designation as the appellant had not been in receipt of
assistance for 12 of the immediately preceding 15 months as required by Section 2 (2) of the
Employment and Assistance Regulation (EAR).
PART D – Relevant Legislation
Employment and Assistance Regulation (EAR)- Section 2 (2) and Section 15
PART E – Summary of Facts
The appellant is in receipt of income assistance as a sole recipient.
The appellant’s income assistance file was re-opened February 14, 2017. He has been in receipt of
income assistance for 9 of the preceding 15 calendar months. (June, July, August 2016 and
February, March, April, May, June and July 2017).
June 23, 2017 the appellant was advised he was not eligible for Persons with Persistent and Multiple
Barriers (PPMB).
July 24, 2017 the appellant completed a Request for Reconsideration
The information before the ministry at the time of reconsideration included the following:
In the appellant’s Request for Reconsideration, the appellant wrote:
although he has only been on social assistance for 5 months, he was on social assistance
prior to 5 months of incarceration and on assistance prior to that for 3 months and that was
after an additional 20 months of incarceration.
between issues with trauma and knee injuries working has always lead to an inability to cope
and then drug use which has a 30 year pattern of incarceration, which is not a problem at this
stage of his life.
he does not want to return to this pattern
In the appellant’s Notice of Appeal, the appellant wrote:
the ministry in their decision did not mention PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder)
as well as injury to both knees and his hand
At the hearing the appellant stated:
the idea to apply for PPMB was not his idea but was his doctors, probation officer and case
worker
it was clear that he did not meet the criteria
he plans to go back to work
he tried to contact his doctor to obtain evidence about his PPMB but was not able to
he thought while being incarcerated he may still qualify for PPMB
At the hearing the ministry stated:
the appellant was not denied PPMB based on medical but rather on section 2 (2) of the EAR
which requires the appellant be on assistance for 12 of the 15 immediately preceding months.
the appellant was not eligible for assistance while he was incarcerated so those months do not
count towards his application for PPMB
PART F – Reasons for Panel Decision
Panel decision:
The issue on appeal is whether the ministry's reconsideration decision, which found that the appellant
is not eligible for PPMB as he was not in receipt of assistance for 12 of the immediately preceding 15
months, was reasonably supported by the evidence or was a reasonable application of the applicable
regulation in the circumstances of the appellant. The ministry found that the evidence does not
establish that the appellant met the criteria as set out in Section 2 (2) of the EAR.
The relevant legislation is as follows:
EMPLOYMENT AND ASSISTANCE REGULATION
Persons who have persistent multiple barriers to employment
2 (1) To qualify as a person who has persistent multiple barriers to employment, a person must meet the requirements
set out in
(a) subsection (2), and
(b) subsection (3) or (4).
(2) The person has been a recipient for at least 12 of the immediately preceding 15 calendar months of one or
more of the following:
(a) income assistance or hardship assistance under the Act;
(b) income assistance, hardship assistance or a youth allowance under a former Act;
(c) a disability allowance under the Disability Benefits Program Act;
(d) disability assistance or hardship assistance under the Employment and Assistance for
Persons with Disabilities Act.
(3) The following requirements apply
(a) the minister
(i) has determined that the person scores at least 15 on the employability screen
set out in Schedule E, and
(ii) based on the result of that employability screen, considers that the person has
barriers that seriously impede the person's ability to search for, accept or continue
in employment,
(b) the person has a medical condition, other than an addiction, that is confirmed by a
medical practitioner and that,
(i) in the opinion of the medical practitioner,
(A) has continued for at least one year and is likely to continue for at least 2
more years, or
(B) has occurred frequently in the past year and is likely to continue for at
least 2 more years, and
(ii) in the opinion of the minister, is a barrier that seriously impedes the person's
ability to search for, accept or continue in employment, and
(c) the person has taken all steps that the minister considers reasonable for the person to
overcome the barriers referred to in paragraph (a).
(4) The person has a medical condition, other than an addiction, that is confirmed by a medical practitioner
and that,
(a) in the opinion of the medical practitioner,
(i) has continued for at least one year and is likely to continue for at least 2 more
years, or
(ii) has occurred frequently in the past year and is likely to continue for at least
2 more years, and
(b) in the opinion of the minister, is a barrier that precludes the person from searching for,
accepting or continuing in employment.
Effect of being in prison or other lawful place of confinement- Section 15
15 A person is not eligible for income assistance or supplements while the person
(a) is detained in a lawful place of confinement, such as a federal or provincial correctional
institution, jail, lockup, prison or camp, or
(b) is absent from a lawful place of confinement under a temporary absence program and is
residing at a halfway house that is funded, sponsored or contracted for by the federal, or a
provincial, government.
Section 2 (1) of the EAR- Persons who have persistent multiple barriers to employment.
For the appellant to qualify as a person who has persistent multiple barriers to employment, the
appellant must first meet the requirements set out in subsection (2), which requires the person has
been a recipient of assistance for at least 12 of the immediately preceding 15 calendar months.
The appellant’s position is that he realizes he does not meet the criteria of section 2 (2) as he has
only been on assistance for 9 months but felt that his time while incarcerated may help.
The ministry’s position is as the appellant’s income assistance file was re-opened February 14, 2017,
he has only been in receipt of assistance for 9 months of the preceding 15 calendar months therefore
does not qualify as a PPMB in terms of the legislation.
The panel finds that the ministry was reasonable to determine that the appellant was not qualified for
PPMB designation. The appellant has not met the requirement of section 2 (2) of the EAR which
requires the appellant be a recipient of assistance for at least 12 months of the immediately
preceding 15 calendar months. The appellant is unable to include his time while he was incarcerated
as section 15 of the EAR states a person is not eligible for income assistance or supplements while in
prison.
Conclusion
Having reviewed and considered all of the evidence and relevant legislation, the panel finds that the
ministry’s reconsideration decision which determined that the appellant was not eligible for PPMB
designation pursuant to Section 2 (2) of the EAR was reasonably supported by the evidence, and
therefore confirms the decision. The appellant is not successful in his 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.