PART C – DECISION UNDER APPEAL
The decision under appeal is the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction (“ministry”)
reconsideration decision, dated 20 December 2017, which determined that the Appellant was not eligible
for a crisis supplement for clothing because he did not meet the legislative criteria set out in section 57 of
the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Regulation (EAPWDR). The Ministry
determined that the appellant had not demonstrated that:
the item(s) was unexpectedly needed;
failure to obtain the item(s) would result in imminent danger to the physical health of a person in
the appellant’s family unit or removal of a child; and
there were no resources available to the family unit to meet the need.
PART D – RELEVANT LEGISLATION
Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Regulation, Section 57.
PART E – SUMMARY OF FACTS
Neither the appellant nor the ministry attended the hearing. After confirming that both the appellant and
the ministry were notified, the hearing proceeded under section 86(b) of the Employment and Assistance
Regulation.
The information before the ministry at reconsideration included the following:
the appellant is in receipt of disability assistance as a sole recipient;
the appellant requested a crisis supplement for clothing on 7 December 2017;
the appellant stated that he had spent his money on gifts for his grandchildren and helping his
daughter with food, clothing, winter wear, etc.;
the appellant ended up shorting himself on funds and required monies for clothes, boots, gloves,
toque and winter coat;
the appellant had accessed community resources; and
the appellant was notified on 8 December 2017 that his request had been denied by the ministry.
Request for Reconsideration
The appellant’s Request for Reconsideration dated 13 December 2017, which stated: In regards to
condition 4 there is an imminent risk to my health because if my feet are decreasing at an alarming rate,
there is no way for me to heal them on my own. For condition 2, I felt that I was obligated to provide for
my grandchildren and children because of the situation, which is personal, and Christmas.
Notice of Appeal
In the Notice of Appeal dated 2 January 2018, the appellant did not provide reasons for appeal.
At the Hearing
Appellant
The appellant did not attend the hearing.
Ministry
The ministry did not attend the hearing.
Admissibility of Additional Information
The panel determined that there is no information before it requiring an admissibility determination under
s. 22(4) of the Employment and Assistance Act.
PART F – REASONS FOR PANEL DECISION
The issue under appeal whether the ministry reconsideration decision of dated 20 December 2017,
which held that the appellant was not eligible for a crisis supplement because he had not demonstrated
that all three legislative criteria in section 57(1) of the Employment and Assistance for Persons with
Disabilities Regulation had been met, was reasonably supported by the evidence or a reasonable
application of the legislation in the circumstances of the appellant.
The ministry was not satisfied that the appellant had demonstrated that the need was unexpected. The
ministry also found that the appellant had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that failure to
obtain funds would place the appellant’s physical health in imminent/immediate danger. In addition, the
ministry found that the appellant had not demonstrated that there were no resources available to cover
the cost.
The legislation provides:
Crisis supplement
57 (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.
Section 57(1) of the EAPWDR allows the minister to provide a crisis supplement to a family unit that is
eligible for disability or hardship assistance if the family unit or a person in the family unit requires the
supplement to meet an unexpected expense or obtain an item unexpectedly needed. The EAPWDR
requires that the following three criteria be met: 1) the item or expense is unexpected, 2) there are no
resources available to meet the expense, and 3) failure to meet the expense will result in imminent
danger to physical health or removal of a child.
Unexpected Need
Section 57(1)(a) states the applicant must require the supplement to meet an unexpected expense or
obtain an item unexpectedly needed. In the reconsideration decision, the ministry concluded that the
need for seasonal clothing is not an unexpected expense. The appellant argued in his Request for
Reconsideration that he felt obligated to provide for his children and grandchildren due to a personal
situation and Christmas. The Panel finds, based on the information provided, that the Ministry’s
conclusion that the Appellant has not established his need was unexpected or unexpectedly needed as
required under Section 57(1)(a) was reasonably supported by the evidence. In reaching this conclusion,
the panel notes that the appellant has indicated that there was a personal situation that caused him to
feel obligated to spend his money on family; however, the appellant has not provided additional
information to demonstrate that this personal situation led to his unexpected need for clothing.
No Resources
Section 57(1) of the EAPWDR requires an applicant requesting a crisis supplement to satisfy the minister
that he or she is unable to meet the expense or obtain the item because there are no resources available
to the family unit. The panel notes that, in the reconsideration decision, the ministry has incorrectly
articulated this criterion as requiring “no alternate resources” rather than “no resources” as set out in the
legislation. In the reconsideration decision the ministry argued that the appellant’s support allowance is
intended for day to day items, such as clothing. The ministry further argues that the appellant’s decision
to use his funds to purchase items for family members, rather than for himself, does not change the fact
that he was provided funds for this purpose. The appellant has not addressed this criterion directly in his
Request for Reconsideration argument. However, he has argued in his Request for Reconsideration that
he felt obligated to use his money to provide for family members. However, the panel finds that the
ministry’s determination that this criterion has not been met because the appellant was provided funds
for this purpose is a reasonable application of the legislation
Imminent Danger
Section 57(1)(b) states in order for a crisis supplement to be granted it must be demonstrated that the
failure to meet the expense or obtain the item will result in the imminent danger to the physical health of
the person or removal of a child. In his Request for Reconsideration, the appellant argued that there is
an imminent risk to his health. He stated that his “feet are decreasing at an alarming rate and there is no
way for [him] to heal them on his own”. The ministry’s position is that the appellant did not provide
sufficient evidence to demonstrate that his physical health would be in imminent/immediate danger or
that a child would be removed from his care. The panel notes that, in the reconsideration decision, the
ministry has simply stated a conclusion that there is insufficient evidence from the appellant. The Panel
finds that there is no suggestion by the appellant that removal of a child under the Child, Family and
Community Service Act is a possibility. However, the panel notes that the appellant has provided no
information regarding the foot issue that he argues is an imminent risk to his health. As such, the panel
finds that the evidence reasonably supports the ministry’s conclusion that there is insufficient evidence to
demonstrate that this criterion has been met.
Conclusion
The panel finds that the ministry’s reconsideration decision, which held that the appellant was not eligible
for a crisis supplement to purchase clothing because he did not meet all of the legislated criteria in
section 57 of the EAPWDR, is a reasonable application of the legislation in the circumstances of the
appellant and reasonably supported by the evidence. The panel confirms the ministry‘s reconsideration
decision. The appellant is not successful on 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.