PART C – DECISION UNDER APPEAL
The decision under appeal is the reconsideration decision dated August 14, 2018 (the “Reconsideration
Decision”) of the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction (the “Ministry”), which denied
the appellant a crisis supplement in respect of a request to be reimbursed $750 for a damage deposit
regarding a move into certain premises commencing July 1, 2018, because the Ministry determined that
the request did not meet the criteria under sub-sections 58 (1), (2) and (4) of the
Employment and
Assistance Regulation (“EAR”).
PART D – RELEVANT LEGISLATION
Employment and Assistance Act (“EAA”), section 4
EAR, section 58
Res
idential Tenancy Act, definition of “security deposit”
PART E – SUMMARY OF FACTS
The evidence before the Ministry at the time of the Reconsideration Decision consisted of the following:
-
information from the appellant’s spouse on June 22, 2018 that the appellant and her spouse were
seeking other accommodation so that their three children could be returned to their care or they
could receive child in care top up supplement;
-
a copy of a residential tenancy agreement indicating as of July 1, 2018 the appellant was renting
certain premises for a total of $2250 per month. The form also indicated that $1125 had been
paid as a security deposit. The form further indicated that $1125 was still owed as a pet deposit
and was due by October 30, 2018;
-
on July 12, 2018 a Ministry worker contacted the landlord of the rental premises and confirmed
the appellant had already paid the damage deposit but was still required to pay the pet deposit;
-
on July 25, 2018 the appellant submitted a request for a crisis supplement via the online portal.
The appellant advised she had used her whole assistance cheque toward securing the rental
premises and her share of the rent is $1500 per month (based on $250 per person) and therefore
she requested to be reimbursed $750 for her damage deposit.
In her notice of appeal dated August 15, 2018 the appellant stated that:
-
she had just moved back from another province and was struggling to get prepared for her
youngest three children to be returned from Ministry custody;
-
she finally found a place suitable for her family and the landlord is expecting her portion of the
damage deposit, which is $750;
-
it was a necessity to have and keep stable housing in order for her children to be allowed to
return home to their family whom they need.
The appellant did not attend the hearing and, after having confirmed that the appellant had been notified
of the hearing date and time, the hearing proceeded under section 86 (b) of the EAR. The Ministry noted
that the Ministry can issue a security deposit but must follow the definition for “security deposit” in the
EAR
and
its
reference
to
the
Residential
Tenancy
Act
(RTA).
Specifically,
the
M
inistry
noted
the
distinction between a regular “security deposit” and a “pet security deposit” as defined in the RTA.
The Ministry noted that in assessing the request for a crisis supplement for a security deposit it looks at
whether the client has spent her own funds, which can sometimes then be reimbursed to the client, as
long as the legislative requirements are met.
The Ministry noted that in issuing a security deposit the Ministry sometimes issues the security deposit
directly to a landlord because the client has no available funds or, occasionally, the security deposit is
reimbursed to the client as the client has used other funds to pay the security deposit; but reimbursement
is only made so long as the client meets the relevant criteria.
The Ministry noted that the Reconsideration Decision referenced that the criteria was not met under
section 58 (2) of the EAR because the appellant did not require the security deposit to enable her to rent
the accommodation and that the landlord and the appellant had confirmed that the appellant had already
paid the security deposit and moved into the accommodation.
However, the Ministry acknowledged that in this appeal it was relying upon the appellant having failed to
meet the criteria set out in section 58 (4). The Ministry confirmed it was not relying upon an argument
based on
the appellant having already moved into the rental premises nor having already paid the
security deposit.
At the hearing, the Ministry reviewed the history of security deposits issued to the appellant.
The Ministry noted that the appellant had four outstanding security deposits at the time of her request for
an additional security deposit and that accordingly the Ministry was unable to issue an additional security
deposit.
The Ministry representative noted that in the Ministry’s records at the relevant time there were four
outstanding security deposits only one of which was in respect of the appellant fleeing an abusive
circumstance.
Those
security
deposits
are
reflected
in
the
circumstances
referred
to
in
the
Reconsideration Decision.
The Ministry noted that their file reflected that the appellant had indicated she used one of her income
assistance cheques to pay the security deposit. The Ministry noted that the EAR limits the number of
deposits the Ministry can issue unless there is abuse and the appellant was not fleeing abuse, and that
the only outstanding security deposit to be paid by the appellant was a pet security deposit.
The Ministry noted that the applicable legislation, and in particular section 58 (4) of the EAR, provides
that the Minister must not provide more than two security deposits to or for a family unit unless certain
exceptions apply. The Ministry noted that the exceptions did not apply in this case; in particular that only
one of the security deposits had not been recovered or repaid, the family unit required a security deposit
to
change
rented
residential
accommodation
because
the
recipient
is
separating
from
an
abusive
spouse, or because the family unit’s rented residential accommodation is being sold or demolished and a
notice to vacate has been given or the accommodation has been condemned, or the Minister is satisfied
that the family unit is homeless or at imminent risk of becoming homeless.
PART F – REASONS FOR PANEL DECISION
The issue on appeal is whether the Ministry reasonably determined that the appellant was not eligible for
a crisis supplement in respect of the deposit required for the subject premises because the Ministry
determined that the request did not meet the criteria under subsections 58 (1), (2), and (4) of the EAR.
Legislative Framework
The
relevant section of the EAA is as follows:
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.
The relevant subsections of the EAR are as follows:
Supplement to pay a security deposit
58
(1) In this section:
"cooperative association" means a cooperative association as defined in the Real
Estate Development Marketing Act;
"security deposit" means a security deposit as defined in the Residential Tenancy Act
,
or an amount required by a cooperative association to be paid by a recipient to the
cooperative association for the same or a similar purpose as a security deposit
under the Residential Tenancy Act.
(2)
The minister may provide a security deposit to or for a family unit that is eligible for
income assistance or hardship assistance if
(a)
the
security
deposit
is
necessary
to
enable
the
family
unit
to
rent
residential accommodation,
(b)the recipient agrees in writing to repay the amount paid under this section,
and
(c)
the security deposit does not exceed 50% of one month's rent for the
residential accommodation.
(4)
The
minister must not provide more than 2 security deposits to or for a family unit
unless
(a)only one of the security deposits has not been recovered or repaid,
(b)
the family unit requires up to one more security deposit to change rented
residential accommodation
(i)because the recipient is separating from an abusive spouse, or
(ii)because the family unit's rented residential accommodation
(A)
is being sold or demolished and a notice to vacate has
been given, or
(B)has been condemned, or
(c)the minister is satisfied that the family unit is homeless or at imminent risk
of becoming homeless.
The relevant section of the Residential Tenancy Act is as follows:
"security deposit" means money paid, or value or a right given, by or on behalf of a
tenant to a landlord that is to be held as security for any liability or obligation of the
tenant
respecting
the
residential
property,
but
does
not
include
any
of
the
following:
(a)post-dated cheques for rent;
(b)a pet damage deposit;
(c)a fee prescribed under section 97 (2) (k) [regulations in relation to fees];
Panel
Decision
The
panel notes the references in the Reconsideration Decision to section 58 (2) of the EAR as well as
references to the Residential Tenancy Act definition of “security deposit” as not including a pet damage
deposit.
The panel
notes that at the hearing the Ministry was not relying upon section 58 (2) of the EAR nor the
distinction between a regular security deposit and a pet damage deposit.
The Ministry relies upon section 58 (4) of the EAR which provides that the Minister must not provide
more than two security deposits to or for a family unit unless:
only
one of the security deposits has not been recovered or repaid;
the
family
unit
requires
up
to
one
more
security
deposit
to
change
rented
residential
accommodation because the recipient is separating from an abusive spouse or because the
family unit’s rented residential accommodation is being sold or demolished and a notice to vacate
has been given or the accommodation has been condemned;
the Minister is satisfied that the family unit is homeless or at imminent risk of becoming homeless.
The evidence before the Minister and at the hearing establishes that the appellant did not meet any of
the criteria set out in section 58 (4) of the EAR. In particular more than one of the security deposits
issued to the appellant had not been recovered or repaid; the family unit did not require one more
security deposit because the recipient was separating from an abusive spouse or because the family
unit’s rented residential accommodation was being sold or demolished and a notice to vacate had been
given or the accommodation had been condemned; or that the family unit was homeless or at imminent
risk of becoming homeless.
Accordingly,
in
respect
of
the
application
of
section
58
(4)
of
the
EAR,
the
panel
finds
that
the
Reconsideration Decision was a reasonable application of section 58 (4) of the EAR in the appellant’s
circumstances and was reasonably supported by the evidence. In the
result, the panel confirms the
Ministry’s decision. The appellant is not successful in the appeal.
PART G – ORDER
THE PANEL DECISION IS: (Check one)
UNANIMOUS
BY MAJORITY
THE PANEL
CONFIRMS THE MINISTRY DECISION
RESCINDS THE MINISTRY DECISION
If the ministry decision is rescinded, is the panel decision referred back to the Minister
for a decision as to amount?
Yes
No
LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY FOR THE DECISION:
Employment and Assistance Act
Section 24(1)(a)
or Section 24(1)(b)
and
Section 24(2)(a)
or Section 24(2)(b)
PART
H – SIGNATURES
PRINT NAME
Perry Mazzone
SIGNATURE OF CHAIR
DATE (YEAR/MONTH/DAY)
2018-09-14
PRINT NAME
Susan Ferguson
SIGNATURE OF MEMBER
DATE (YEAR/MONTH/DAY)
2018-09-14
PRINT NAME
Connie Simonsen
SIGNATURE OF MEMBER
DATE (YEAR/MONTH/DAY)
2018-09-14
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.