PART C – DECISION UNDER APPEAL
The decision under appeal is the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction’s (the “ministry”)
Reconsideration Decision of October 19
th
, 2017 in which the ministry deemed the appellant not eligible for a
moving or crisis supplement because the appellant did not provide sufficient evidence that the legislative criteria
had been met; pursuant to Section 57 & 59 of the Employment and Assistance Regulation.
PART D – RELEVANT LEGISLATION
EAR - Employment and Assistance Regulation, Section 57 & 59
EAA - Employment and Assistance Act, Section (4)
PART E – SUMMARY OF FACTS
The information before the ministry at the time of reconsideration included the following:
1)
The appellant is a sole recipient of income assistance.
2)
May 9
th
,
2017 – The ministry notes that on this day, the appellant made a request for a moving
supplement to pay for the storage of his personal belongings because the appellant did not have
accommodations at that time. The appellant indicated in this request, that he had been evicted from his
accommodation and was forced to store his personal belongings while he lived in his car.
3)
August 15
th
, 2017 - The ministry notes that on this day, the appellant made a request for a crisis
supplement to pay for his storage fees. The ministry notes that the appellant was advised of the criteria
for a crisis supplement and that a failure to pay storage fees would not result in an imminent danger to
the appellants physical health. The appellant was advised that he would not qualify for a crisis
supplement under his current situation. The appellant noted that the ministry could not be aware
whether or not the appellant was in imminent danger because they could not know whether or not the
appellant would kill himself if he were to lose his personal belongings. The ministry worker asked the
appellant if he were suicidal, and the appellant answered “no”. The ministry worker advised that the
service request would be made, but unless the appellant met the criteria for the crisis supplement, the
request would be denied.
4)
August 31
st
, 2017 – The ministry notes that they received a copy from the storage company of the
appellant’s outstanding storage fees, which indicated a balance of $1111.20 owing from June 2017 to
August 2017. The ministry noted that the appellant indicated his ex-spouse was supposed to pay the fees
for the locker, and was not. Further, the appellant noted that he would be willing to sign a re-payment
agreement for the storage fees if the ministry were to assist.
5)
August 31
st
, 2017 – An emailed invoice for the outstanding storage fees of $1111. 20 provided to the
appellant by the storage company.
6)
September 13
th
, 2017 – The ministry notes that on this day, the appellant was denied his request for a
crisis supplement.
Additional Information
At the hearing, the appellant submitted a dated November 17
th
, 2017 rental application. The panel determined
that this evidence was not admissible under section 22(4) of the Employment and Assistance Act as it was not in
support of the information that was before the reconsideration officer at the time the decision was made, nor did
it have any weight or bearing on the appealed decision.
The ministry did not object to the admission of the information.
At the hearing, the ministry relied on the reconsideration decision and did not introduce any additional evidence.
ATTACH EXTRA PAGES IF NECESSARY
PART F – REASONS FOR PANEL DECISION
The issue under appeal is the reasonableness of the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction’s (the
“ministry”) Reconsideration Decision of October 19
th
, 2017 in which the ministry deemed the appellant not
eligible for a crisis or moving supplement because the appellant did not provide evidence that the legislative
criteria had not sufficiently met; pursuant to Section 57 & 59 of the Employment and Assistance Regulation (EAR).
The relevant sections of the legislation are as follows:
Employment and Assistance Act
Income assistance and supplements
4 Subject to the regulations, the minister may provide income assistance or a supplement to or for a family unit
that is eligible for it.
Employment and Assistance Regulation
Supplements for moving, transportation and living costs
57 (1) In this section:
"living cost" means the cost of accommodation and meals;
"moving cost" means the cost of moving a family unit and its personal effects from one place to another;
"transportation cost" means the cost of travelling from one place to another.
(2) Subject to subsections (3) and (4), the minister may provide a supplement to or for a family unit that is eligible
for income assistance, other than as a transient under section 10 of Schedule A, or hardship assistance to assist
with one or more of the following:
(a) moving costs required to move anywhere in Canada, if a recipient in the family unit is not working but has
arranged confirmed employment that would significantly promote the financial independence of the family
unit and the recipient is required to move to begin that employment;
(b) moving costs required to move to another province or country, if the family unit is required to move to
improve its living circumstances;
(c) moving costs required to move within a municipality or unincorporated area or to an adjacent municipality
or unincorporated area because the family unit's rented residential accommodation is being sold or demolished
and notice to vacate has been given, or has been condemned;
(d) moving costs required to move within a municipality or unincorporated area or to an adjacent municipality
or unincorporated area if the family unit's shelter costs would be significantly reduced as a result of the move;
(e) moving costs required to move to another area in British Columbia to avoid an imminent threat to the
physical safety of any person in the family unit;
(f) transportation costs and living costs required to attend a hearing relating to a child protection proceeding
under the Child, Family and Community Service Act, if a recipient is given notice of the hearing and is a party to
the proceeding;
(g) transportation costs, living costs, child care costs and fees resulting from
(i) the required attendance of a recipient in the family unit at a hearing, or
(ii) other requirements a recipient in the family unit must fulfil
in connection with the exercise of a maintenance right assigned to the minister under section 20 [assignment of
maintenance rights].
(3) A family unit is eligible for a supplement under this section only if
(a) there are no resources available to the family unit to cover the costs for which the supplement may be
provided, and
(b) a recipient in the family unit receives the minister's approval before incurring those costs.
Employment and Assistance Regulation
Crisis supplement
59 (1) The minister may provide a crisis supplement to or for a family unit that is eligible for income 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.
Panel Decision
The ministry’s position, as set out in the reconsideration decision, is that the appellant is not eligible for a crisis
supplement to pay for his outstanding storage fees pursuant to Section 59 of the EAR or eligible for a moving
supplement as per Section 57 of the EAR. In his Notice of Appeal dated October 30
th
, 2017 the appellant stated
that he disagrees with the decision to deny the supplement(s) on the basis that the ministry should not have
considered him a transient, by definition, as he was only living in his vehicle for a short time and only as a result of
having nowhere else to go. Further, the appellant noted at the hearing that his situation was unexpected, he was
relying on his ex-spouse to pay the rent and she failed to do so, which ultimately forced the appellant to have to
store his belongings and move into his car.
Crisis Supplement
The ministry notes that the purpose of a crisis supplement is to address unexpected emergency needs to prevent
imminent danger to health and not intended to pay for outstanding bills. Further, the ministry notes that under
Section 59 of the EAR, a crisis supplement can be provided if all three of the following criteria are met; 1) The
need for the item is unexpected; the ministry’s position is that the appellant’s storage fees are not unexpected.
The appellant had established his storage unit for a number of months (three months prior to applying for the
supplement), and had paid fees for the few months before making the request for the crisis supplement. The
ministry contends that the appellant knew or ought to have known that the expenses for storage were on-going
on a month to month basis, and could not be unexpected - as he would have signed the contract for the storage
of his belongings. Referring to the second criteria, 2) Failure to obtain the necessary supplement will result in
imminent danger to health or the removal of a child under the Child, and Family Community Service Act. The
ministry notes that while the appellant indicates he may be adversely affected by not having access to his
personal belongings, the ministry notes that the appellant did not provide sufficient evidence to support the
probability of immediacy that failure to obtain the supplement would place the appellant’s physical health at risk
or in imminent danger, and therefore, this eligibility requirement has not been met.
Thirdly, 3) There are no alternate resources available to obtain the item or meet the expense. The ministry is
satisfied that the appellant has no resources to cover the cost of the storage fees. In sum, the ministry provides
that this eligibility requirement has been met.
The ministry’s position is that because the appellant’s request does not meet all three of the required eligibility
criteria, approval for a crisis supplement cannot be granted.
Section 59 of the EAR states that the minister may provide a crisis supplement to or for a family unit that is
eligible for income 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.
While the panel acknowledges the appellant’s potential loss of his personal items is of concern, it finds that the
appellant did not provide sufficient evidence to support his claim of probable risk or threat of real imminent
danger to his physical health if the crisis supplement for storage fees was not granted under section 59 of the
EAR. The panel provides that an example of real and likely imminent danger to physical health would refer to
circumstances where an appellant would require adequate winter clothing in sub-zero weather. In the appellant’s
circumstance, the panel considers that it is a reasonable concern for the appellant that he may adversely affected
by the loss of his personal belongings, but that the concern is not reasonably considered imminently dangerous to
his physical health.
Further, the panel finds that the ministry was reasonable in its determination that the storage fees were not an
unexpected expense. The panel confirms the reasonableness of the ministry to determine that the appellant had
established his storage unit for a number of months (three months prior to applying for the supplement), and had
paid fees for the few months before making the request for the crisis supplement. The panel confirms that the
appellant knew or ought to have known that the expenses for storage were on-going on a month to month basis,
and not unexpected, as he would have knowingly entered into the agreement with the storage company and
would have signed the contract for the storage of his belongings.
Accordingly, the panel finds that the ministry was reasonable to determine that the evidence does not support
the appellant having met all of the eligibility criteria, other than the appellant not having the resources to pay for
the storage fees as per Section 59(1) of the EAR.
Moving Supplement
Section 57(2)(a-e) of the EAR states that the minister may provide a moving supplement to or for a family unit
that is eligible for income assistance, other than as a transient under section 10 of Schedule A, or hardship
assistance to assist with one or more of the following: (a) moving costs required to move anywhere in Canada, if
a recipient in the family unit is not working but has arranged confirmed employment that would significantly
promote the financial independence of the family unit and the recipient is required to move to begin that
employment; the ministry provides that the appellant has not established that he was applying for this reason,
and therefore does not meet this criteria, or (b) moving costs required to move to another province or country,
if the family unit is required to move to improve its living circumstances; the ministry provides that the
appellant has not requested the supplement for this reason, and therefore, does not meet the eligibility, or (c)
moving costs required to move within a municipality or unincorporated area or to an adjacent municipality or
unincorporated area because the family unit's rented residential accommodation is being sold or demolished
and notice to vacate has been given, or has been condemned; the ministry provides that the appellant is seeking
costs associated with unpaid storage fees, as a direct result of being evicted from his living accommodations due
to unpaid rent, thus he does not meet this criteria as his accommodations were not sold or demolished and or, (d)
moving costs required to move within a municipality or unincorporated area or to an adjacent municipality or
unincorporated area if the family unit's shelter costs would be significantly reduced as a result of the move; the
ministry provides that the appellant is not seeking the moving supplement for this reason, as stated previously,
and therefore does not meet the criteria, and or (e) moving costs required to move to another area in British
Columbia to avoid an imminent threat to the physical safety of any person in the family unit; the ministry
submits that the appellant does not meet this criteria due to his request made for a moving supplement to pay for
storage fees, and not for the reason of relocating himself in order to avoid a threat to his personal safety.
Further, the ministry submits that the appellant’s request does not meet any of the above listed reasons, in
addition to the fact that the request for the moving supplement was made after the appellant had incurred the
cost, which as a legislative requirement, must be pre-approved by the ministry pursuant to section 57(3)(b).
Lastly, the ministry provides that in addition to not meeting any of the above criteria for a moving supplement,
the appellant was considered a transient by definition, as he was living in his car at the time that he made the
request for a moving supplement, and therefore excluded from consideration under section 10 of Schedule A.
The panel finds that the appellant did not provide evidence to establish that he met any of the eligibility criteria
listed in Section 57(2)(a - e), as his stated reasons for the request were to pay for outstanding storage fees – and
not for relocation purposes, or to avoid an imminent threat to personal safety, as per the legislative criteria.
Further, the panel finds that the evidence establishes, that the appellant accrued the costs of the storage unit
prior to making the request for the supplement, which according to section 57 (3)(b) of the EAR, he was to
establish prior approval from the ministry before incurring those costs in order to be considered for eligibility.
Further, the panel finds that in addition to the appellant not meeting any of the legislative criteria under section
57(2)(a-e), and not having established prior approval for the supplement from the ministry as per section 57(3)(b),
the fact that the appellant confirmed he was living in his car at the time he made the request, the panel finds that
this self-confirmation of transient status (of without a fixed address) renders him ineligible for consideration of
the moving supplement under section 10, of Schedule A.
Accordingly, the panel finds that the decision of the ministry to deem the appellant not eligible for a crisis or
moving supplement due to not meeting all of the eligibility requirements of Section 59(1) & Section 57(2)(a-e) &
(3)(b) of the Employment and Assistance Regulation, a reasonable application of the applicable enactment in the
circumstances of the appellant. Therefore, the panel confirms the ministry’s decision pursuant to section 24(1)(b)
and section 24(2)(a) of the Employment and Assistance Act. The appellant therefore 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.