PART C – Decision under Appeal
The decision under appeal is the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction’s (the
ministry) reconsideration decision dated August 13, 2018, which denied the appellant’s request for a
crisis supplement for his August 2018 rent. The ministry was satisfied that the appellant required the
supplement to meet the expense and that he was unable to meet the expense because there were no
resources available to him as required by section 59(1)(a) of the Employment and Assistance
Regulation (EAR). However, the ministry was not satisfied that the appellant was eligible for income
assistance or hardship assistance as required by section 59(1) of the EAR.
The ministry was also not satisfied that failure to obtain the crisis supplement would result in
imminent danger to the appellant’s physical health or the removal of a child under the Child, Family
and Community Service Act (CFCSA) as required by section 59(1)(b) of the EAR.
PART D – Relevant Legislation
Employment and Assistance Act (EAA) section 4
EAR section 59
PART E – Summary of Facts
The information before the ministry at the time of reconsideration was the following:
•
Text messages between May and July 8, 2018 between the appellant and his former employer
•
Emails June 4, 2018 to July 5, 2018 between the appellant and his employer
•
Printout of appellant’s bank information May 30, 31 and June 11-14, 2018
•
Appellant’s work schedule June 9 to 22, 2018
•
Email notification of the employer’s direct deposit to the appellant’s bank account June 12,
2018 of $200
•
Email notification of the employer’s direct deposit to the appellant’s bank account June 19,
2018 of $102
•
Paystub, undated showing current net pay of $1,070
•
Employment Standards Branch (ESB) complaint submission July 5, 2018
•
Appellant’s Request for Crisis Supplement – Shelter dated July 25, 2018
•
Request for Reconsideration form dated July 30, 2018 (RFR) in which the appellant states that
he has a legitimate hardship as the company he had been working for was illegally withholding
wages of $2,500. The appellant states that he is worried that if he does not pay his rent on
August 1, 2018 he will be evicted
•
Email of job interview confirmation August 3, 2018
•
Email notification of the employer’s direct deposit to the appellant’s bank account, undated of
$400
Addi
tional Information
In his Notice of Appeal dated August 15, 2018 (NOA) the appellant states that he spoke to a ministry
worker the week prior and advised that he would be submitting additional documentation. The
appellant states that the worker did not do her job and should have requested an extension of time on
his behalf so that he could submit further documentation.
With his NOA, the appellant submitted the following documentation, stating that his file is properly
updated:
Bank statements for May and June 2018
Duplicate copies of the email notifications and the appellant’s June 9 to 22, 2018 work schedule
Letter from the ministry to the appellant dated July 17, 2018 indicating that the appellant’s income
assistance cheque will be held until further information is provided for income verification
Employee Paystub for pay period May 12, 2018 to May 25, 2018 in the amount of $1,070
Bank transactions from August 1 to 8, 2018
-
ESB Factsheet and Self-Help Kit
Appellant’s submission to the ESB requesting payment of $2,273.50 from his former employer
Pri
or to the hearing the appellant provided five submissions (together, the “Submissions”) as follows:
1.
Emai
l dated August 19, 2018, 5 pages, regarding the appellant’s employment and financial
circumstances with copy of his new employment position and request for rent payment dated
August 16, 2018 (S1)
2.
Email dated August 19, 2018, 18 pages, regarding the appellant’s employment and financial
circumstances with a copy of his rental agreement and duplicates of other documents (S2)
3.
Email dated August 19, 2018, 47 pages, regarding the appellant’s employment and financial
circumstances with further duplicate of the NOA, tenancy agreement, employment position,
landlord’s payment request, emails regarding job positions, banking information, and ESB
information (S3)
4.
Email dated August 20, 2018, 1 page, indicating that the appellant was hired on May 1, 2018
(S4)
5.
Email dated August 20, 2018, 1 page, providing further information regarding the money
received from his employer for employment related expenses (S5)
The appellant did not attend the hearing. Having confirmed that the appellant was notified of the
hearing, the panel proceeded with the hearing pursuant to EAR section 86(b).
At t
he hearing, the ministry relied on the reconsideration decision.
Admissibility of New Information
The ministry did not object to the admissibility of the NOA or documents provided with the NOA or the
appellant’s Submissions.
The panel has admitted the documents and the Submissions as they are information in support of
information and records that were before the ministry at the time of reconsideration, in accordance
with section 22(4) of the Employment and Assistance Act. In particular, the information in the
documents provided with the NOA and the Submissions provides further information and explanation
about the appellant’s income, efforts to obtain his wages from his employer, and banking information.
The p
anel accepts the information in the NOA as argument.
PART F – Reasons for Panel Decision
The issue on this appeal is whether the ministry’s decision to deny the appellant a crisis supplement
for August 2018 rent was reasonably supported by the evidence or was a reasonable application of
the applicable enactment in the circumstances of the appellant.
In particular, was the ministry reasonable in determining that the appellant was not eligible for income
assistance or hardship assistance as required by section 59(1) of the EAR or that failure to obtain the
crisis supplement would result in imminent danger to the appellant’s physical health or the removal of
a child under the Child, Family and Community Service Act (CFCSA) as required by section 59(1)(b)
of the EAR.
EAA
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.
EAR
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.
(2)A crisis supplement may be provided only for the calendar month in which the application or
request for the supplement is made.
(3)A crisis supplement may not be provided for the purpose of obtaining
(a)a supplement described in Schedule C, or
(b)any other health care goods or services.
(4)A crisis supplement provided for food, shelter or clothing is subject to the following
limitations:
(a)if for food, the maximum amount that may be provided in a calendar month
is $20 for each person in the family unit,
(b)if for shelter, the maximum amount that may be provided in a calendar
month is the smaller of
(i)the family unit's actual shelter cost, and
(ii)the maximum set out in section 4 of Schedule A or Table 2 of
Schedule D, as applicable, for a family unit that matches the family unit,
and
(c)if for clothing, the amount that may be provided must not exceed the
smaller of
(i)$100 for each person in the family unit in the 12 calendar month
period preceding the date of application for the crisis supplement, and
(ii)$400 for the family unit in the 12 calendar month period preceding
the date of application for the crisis supplement.
(5)The cumulative amount of crisis supplements that may be provided to or for a family unit in
a year must not exceed the amount calculated under subsection (6).
(6)In the calendar month in which the application or request for the supplement is made, the
amount under subsection (5) is calculated by multiplying by 2 the maximum amount of
income assistance or hardship assistance that may be provided for the month under
Schedule A or Schedule D to a family unit that matches the family unit.
(7)Despite subsection (4) (b) or (5) or both, a crisis supplement may be provided to or for a
family unit for the following:
(a)fuel for heating;
(b)fuel for cooking meals;
(c)water;
(d)hydro.
[am. B.C. Reg. 12/2003.]
*******
Panel Decision
The EAR requires a family unit to provide certain personal, income and employment information to
determine whether the family unit is eligible for income assistance or hardship assistance. Section
59(1) of the EAR makes eligibility for income assistance or hardship assistance a pre-condition for a
crisis supplement.
The appellant’s position is that the ministry ought to have found him eligible for income assistance as
his bank statements clearly specify what he was paid for income as compared to other monies he
received from his former employer for employment related or ‘float’ expenses required for
miscellaneous items such as dump fees and office expenses. The appellant states that as shown on
his bank statement, his payroll was direct deposited with the notation ‘payroll direct deposit” whereas
other float deposits were not coded as payroll.
The appellant states that in the three months he was working for his employer he was not paid
properly for documented hours and that his employer owes him over $2000 which he is pursuing
through the ESB. The appellant states that he has been unemployed since June 2018, that he has
not been able to obtain the money owed to him from his former employer of $2,273.50, and has no
other means to pay his August 2018 rent. The appellant states that if he is evicted he will be
homeless and in a vulnerable position as he may be subjected to violence on the street.
The ministry’s position, as set out in the reconsideration decision, is that the ministry previously
determined that the appellant is not eligible for August assistance because his income is in excess of
the rate of assistance. The ministry states that while the appellant had requested reconsideration of
this decision, he had not followed through with his request so the minister was not satisfied that he
was eligible for income assistance or hardship assistance as required by section 59(1) of the EAR.
Th
e reconsideration decision also states that the appellant has not provided any evidence, such as
an eviction notice, to confirm how much money the appellant owes or that he would be required to
leave if he did not pay his August rent. In addition, the ministry states that the appellant has not
provided any evidence to suggest that he has a medical condition that would be worsened if he was
required to stay temporarily at a shelter or with family and friends while he secured alternate
accommodation. The ministry’s position is that the appellant has not met the criteria of EAR section
59(1)(b).
Th
e panel finds that the ministry was reasonable in determining that the appellant did not meet the
criteria of section 59(1) of the EAR as the information provided did not establish that the appellant
was eligible for income assistance or hardship assistance. In particular the ministry had provided a
letter to the appellant dated July 17, 2018 indicating that income verification was requested but the
appellant had not responded to that request and a determination regarding the appellant’s income
assistance application was not made prior to the reconsideration decision regarding the crisis
supplement request. While the appellant may have provided further information and documentation
to the ministry regarding his income with the NOA, the panel finds that at the time of reconsideration,
the ministry was reasonable in determining that the appellant did not satisfy the criteria of EAR
section 59(1) as the ministry had not yet determined his eligibility.
Although the ministry states that the appellant had not provided any evidence indicating how much
money he owed his landlord for his August 2018 rent, the panel finds that the residential tenancy
agreement provided with S2 confirms that the appellant’s monthly rent was $1,075 and that it was
due on the first day of each month. The panel also notes that with S2 the appellant also provided an
email from his landlord dated August 16, 2018 requesting that the appellant make payment as soon
as possible for August rent. However, the appellant did not provide any evidence indicating that he
would be facing eviction if his August rent was not paid.
While the panel acknowledges that the possibility of facing eviction and becoming homeless is a
situation the appellant would prefer to avoid, becoming homeless is not, on its own, sufficient to meet
the criteria of “imminent danger to physical health”. The appellant did not provide any evidence to
suggest that he has a medical condition that would be worsened and that would present imminent
danger to his physical health if he was required to stay temporarily at a shelter or with family and
friends while he secured alternate accommodations. Accordingly, the panel finds that the ministry
was reasonable in determining that the appellant did not meet the criteria required in EAR section
59(1)(b)(i).
Conclusion
Havi
ng reviewed and considered all of the evidence and the relevant legislation, the panel finds that
the ministry’s reconsideration decision, which found that the appellant is not eligible for a crisis
supplement for August 2018 rent was reasonably supported by the evidence and a reasonable
application of the legislation in the circumstances of the appellant. The panel therefore confirms the
ministry’s decision.
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
Helene Walford
SIGNATURE OF CHAIR
DATE (YEAR/MONTH/DAY)
2018/09/30
PRINT NAME
Chris McEwan
SIGNATURE OF MEMBER
DATE (YEAR/MONTH/DAY)
2018/09/30
PRINT NAME
David Handelman
SIGNATURE OF MEMBER
DATE (YEAR/MONTH/DAY)
2018/09/30
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.