PART C – DECISION UNDER APPEAL
The decision under appeal is the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction’s (the “ministry”)
Reconsideration Decision of September 6, 2018 in which the ministry determined that the appellant was not eligible
for a crisis supplement to pay an outstanding hydro bill, pursuant to Section 59(1) of the Employment and
Assistance Regulation (EAR) because the amount of the bill that had accrued was not unexpected as it was over a
lengthy period of time and the appellant had missed multiple payments throughout the year.
PART D – RELEVANT LEGISLATION
Employment and Assistance Regulation (EAR) section 59(1)
PART E – SUMMARY OF FACTS
The information before the ministry at reconsideration included:
•
A request for reconsideration dated August 23, 2018 which noted that:
o
the appellant had requested a crisis supplement to pay an annual adjustment from BC Hydro in the
amount of $4,377.84 on June 21, 2018;
o
the ministry worker called BC Hydro and were informed that multiple bills throughout the year had
not been paid sufficiently, causing a large bill to accrue;
o
the appellant stated she had been monitoring the hydro amount by calling BC Hydro monthly but
that she had never received a “total amount owing”;
o
the ministry denied the request for a crisis supplement and informed her of her right to a
reconsideration of that decision which was due by June 26, 2018;
o
the appellant next contacted the ministry on August 23, 2018 again requesting a crisis supplement
to pay BC Hydro, this time in the amount of $4,581.00 and that BC Hydro would no longer accept
her monthly payment of $199;
o
the appellant wrote as her reasons for requesting the reconsideration: that her hydro was about to
be cut off; that she has 2 children to care for; that she had no access to hydro to know she was so
in debt; and that hydro is an expected bill which she has been paying but that this amount was
unexpected.
On t
he Notice of Appeal form signed by the appellant on September 11, 2018 she wrote, “I read the last application
and the reason being so high was an unpaid bill that went long term since 2016. You guys have been paying since
I do not have a computer at home and hydro did not mail me bills like I asked so was unaware of my large bill.
When I was asked about payment I had thought the ministry was making sufficient.”
At
the hearing, the appellant stated that the ministry pays her BC hydro payments on her behalf and that BC Hydro
contacted her in April 2018 because the payments the ministry had been sending on her behalf were being credited
to a closed account. The appellant stated that in April she got her new account all straightened out and was told by
BC Hydro that she had a credit on her account. The appellant explained that she told BC Hydro that she could not
access online services and that they needed to mail her any billings as she did not have internet access however,
they never did so. The appellant stated that BC Hydro called her in June 2018 and informed her that she had
$3800 owing and that they wouldn’t tell her why that amount was owing because the ministry was making the
payments on her behalf. The appellant contacted the ministry who called BC Hydro and then informed the
appellant that the amount was the total from multiple bills throughout the years as well as an amount from a
previous account. The appellant argued that this was a surprise to her because she had been told in April she had
a credit on her account. The appellant stated that BC Hydro informed her that her usage had been increasing and
that they had sent a notification to her online account, but she argued that she did not have access to that and she
was surprised by the high amount. The appellant commented that BC Hydro told her she should’ve asked the
ministry to increase the monthly payment and that BC Hydro requires payment for half of the total amount owing
and are willing to accept payments for the remainder. The appellant stated that she is now receiving the bills and is
aware that she needs to notify the ministry of any changes.
Dur
ing questioning about how often she had been in recent contact with BC Hydro she stated that she had spoken
to them around December 2017 as they told her she needed her address changed and that they didn’t give her any
information about the total amount owing but told her that the amount she was using was actually closer to $500
per month. The appellant was next in contact with them monthly from about March 2018 to June 2018 to straighten
out the old account. The appellant explained that she had moved from one trailer to another in April 2017.
At the hearing, the ministry relied on its reconsideration decision and also emphasized that it is the person’s
responsibility to know the amount of their BC Hydro bill and to notify them of any change in account number or the
amount that is to be paid. The ministry clarified that the worker did call BC Hydro and that the overdue amount
owing was from an annual adjustment from the previous year of usage. When asked for clarification about why the
request for reconsideration indicated that several payments had been missed although the ministry was paying
directly, the ministry suggested that the wording may have been incorrect and that the higher amount owing at the
end of the year was due to the monthly amount being paid was not enough to cover the higher usage being billed.
Additional Information
There was no additional information provided in writing or in the oral presentation that was not before the ministry at
the time of reconsideration.
PAR
T F – REASONS FOR PANEL DECISION
The issue under appeal is the reasonableness of the ministry reconsideration decision of September 6, 2018 in
which the ministry determined that the appellant was not eligible for a crisis supplement to pay an outstanding
hydro bill, pursuant to Section 59(1) of the EAR because the amount of the bill that had accrued was not
unexpected as it was over a lengthy period of time and the appellant had missed multiple payments throughout the
year.
The
applicable legislation is:
Cr
isis 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.
The appellant’s position is that because she had spoken to BC Hydro in April, 2018 and was told that she had a
credit on her account, she was surprised to be told that she owed $3800 in June, 2018 and that this amount was
unexpected for her and that she does not have any ability to pay the approximately $2,000 down payment they
require to keep her electricity connected.
The ministry’s position is that in order to be eligible for a crisis supplement the request must meet all the criteria set
out in section 59(1) of the EAR. The ministry agrees that the appellant met the criteria of section 59(1)(b) and that
there are no resources available to her. However, the ministry argues that she does not meet section 59(1)(a)
which requires that the crisis supplement is for an unexpected expense or to obtain an item unexpectedly needed
because the appellant was aware that monthly costs for hydro were accruing yet she did not follow up with BC
Hydro to ensure the amount being sent by the ministry was sufficient to cover the costs being incurred.
Panel Decision
Sec
tion 59(1) of the EAR states that a crisis supplement may be issued if the supplement is to meet an unexpected
expense or to obtain an item unexpectedly needed. The appellant has had BC Hydro service since at least April,
2017 and the ministry had been making payments on her behalf with her knowledge. The appellant explained that
she had numerous conversations with BC Hydro, including one in December 2017 where they mentioned that her
hydro consumption was higher than the amount being paid yet she did not follow up on that. The panel notes that
the appellant had many opportunities to question BC Hydro about the exact amount owing and to make
arrangements to have the monthly amount adjusted, so this demonstrates that it was not an unexpected expense
and therefore finds that the ministry reasonably determined that the requirements of section 59(1)(a) have not been
met.
Conclusion
The pane
l finds that the ministry’s determination that the appellant was ineligible for a crisis supplement under
section 59(1) of the EAR because she did not meet eligible criteria was a reasonable application of the legislation.
The pane
l therefore confirms the ministry’s decision. The appellant is not successful on her 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
Janet Ward
SIGNATURE OF CHAIR
DATE (YEAR/MONTH/DAY)
2018/10/04
PRINT NAME
Margarita Papenbrock
SIGNATURE OF MEMBER
DATE (YEAR/MONTH/DAY)
2018/10/04
PRINT NAME
Donald Storch
SIGNATURE OF MEMBER
DATE (YEAR/MONTH/DAY)
2018/10/04
EAAT003 (17/08/17)
Signature Page
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.