Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction

APPEAL NUMBER PART C – DECISION UNDER APPEAL The decision under appeal is the reconsideration decision of the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction (the ministry) dated May 16, 2019, which held that the appellant was not entitled to a crisis supplement to assist with outstanding storage costs pursuant to the Employment and Assistance Act for Persons with Disabilities Regulation, section 57. PART D – RELEVANT LEGISLATION Employment and Assistance Act for Persons with Disabilities Regulation (EAPWDR), section 57.

APPEAL NUMBER PART E – SUMMARY OF FACTS Information Before the Ministry at Reconsideration 1. The appellant is a sole recipient of assistance; 2. In February 2018, the government (through “victim services”), provided the appellant with three months of storage costs because she was a victim of violence against women; 3. The appellant was incurring a cost of $400 per month for storage; 4. In December 2018, the appellant had $579.17 in outstanding storage fees; 5. In January 2019, the appellant paid $200.00 towards the outstanding storage fees; 6. In February 2019, the appellant had $777.65 in outstanding storage fees; and 7. The appellant was designated as a person with disabilities (PWD) in May 2019. I nformation Provided on Appeal T he panel determined, pursuant to Employment and Assistance Act, section 22(4), that the following information was admissible because it was in support of the information and records before the minister at reconsideration: 1. The appellant had stored property in the same storage unit for 10 to 12 years, and it was mostly items related to a business she operated; 2. In June 2016, when the appellant moved into another person’s residence, she put some personal items i n t he storage unit; 3. In March 2017, after fleeing an abusive relationship in June 2016, the appellant placed more personal items in the storage unit; 4. She was able to get a short-term loan from a credit union and was able to pay the outstanding storage co sts; 5. She currently rents a storage unit from a different service provider and, in that unit, she stores: a. Personal possessions; b. Possessions that were consigned to her prior business; c. Records and documents related to her prior business; and d. Property belonging to her former business partner. S ummary of Relevant Evidence 1. The appellant was receiving income assistance at the time of the request and was designated eligible for disability assistance in May 2019; 2. The appellant had rented the storage unit for 10 to 12 years; and 3. The appellant was in arrears for more than one month rent on the storage unit.

APPEAL NUMBER PART F – REASONS FOR PANEL DECISION Issue on Appeal The issue on appeal is whether the minister’s decision that the appellant was not eligible for a crisis supplement is reasonably supported by the evidence and was a reasonable application of the applicable enactment in the circumstances of the appellant. Relevant Legislation EAPWDR, section 57 states: Crisis supplement 57 (1)The minister may provide a crisis supplement to or for a family unit that is eligible for disability 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 $40 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; (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)and (6)Repealed. [B.C. Reg. 248/2018, App. 2, s. 2.]

APPEAL NUMBER (7)Despite subsection (4) (b), 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. Ministry’s Position T he ministry’s position, consistent with the legislation cited above, is that there are three criteria that must be satisfied before the ministry may provide a crisis supplement under EAPWDR s. 57: 1. The applicant must be eligible for disability of hardship allowance; 2. The crisis supplement is required to meet an unexpected expense; 3. There are no other resources available to the family; 4. The failure to meet the expense will result in either imminent danger to physical health or the removal of a c hild under the Child, Family and Community Service Act. The ministry did not dispute that the appellant was eligible for disability or hardship allowance. However, the ministry did find that the appellant’s storage expense was not unexpected. The appellant had a contract with the storage company, and this was a monthly expense that was expected. T he ministry accepted that the appellant did not have the resources available to pay the unexpected costs. The ministry was not satisfied that the failure to meet the expense would result in imminent danger to the physical health of the appellant. I n summary, the ministry determined the appellant was not eligible for a crisis supplement for two reasons: 1. The storage expense was not an unexpected expense; and 2. The failure to pay the storage expense would not result in imminent danger to the physical health of the appellant. Appellant’s Position The appellant’s position was that because she was fleeing abuse that she should be provided with money to store her personal possessions. The appellant stated that if other members of the community, such as those residing in a ‘tent city’, were entitled to have the government pay for the storage of their personal possessions that she should be entitled to the same benefits. The appellant stated that some of the items in storage were important business records and she could not permit them to be seized because of unpaid storage fees. The appellant also stated that once she had recovered from her current disabilities, her intention was to resume running a business and that many of the items in storage were important to that plan. Panel Decision The panel considered the four criteria required for the appellant to be eligible for a crisis supplement. There is no dispute that the appellant satisfies the criterion that she is eligible for disability or hardship assistance. The panel considered whether the cost of storage was an “unexpected expense”. The panel finds that the expense of the storage unit was not an unexpected expense because the appellant had used that storage unit for a significant period prior to her application for a crisis supplement. The panel understands that it was unexpected to the appellant that she could not acquire the funds from support organizations to pay the storage costs, but the panel finds this is an unexpected loss of resources and not an unexpected expense.

APPEAL NUMBER The panel accepts that at the time of the appellant’s application for a crisis supplement that there were no resources available to her. T he panel also finds that the failure of the appellant to pay the expense of the overdue storage fees would not result in imminent danger to her physical health. The panel understands that the potential seizure of her possessions could cause significant distress to the appellant, but the panel did not find there was enough evidence that this distress constituted imminent danger to her physical health. I n conclusion, to panel finds that the ministry’s decision that the appellant was not entitled to a crisis supplement for her unpaid storage fees was reasonably supported by the evidence and was a reasonable application of the enactment in the circumstances of the appellant.

APPEAL NUMBER 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) PAR T H – SIGNATURES PRINT NAME Trevor Morley SIGNATURE OF CHAIR DATE (YEAR/MONTH/DAY) 2019/06/22 PRINT NAME Melissa McLean SIGNATURE OF MEMBER DATE (YEAR/MONTH/DAY) 2019/06/23 PRINT NAME Wesley Nelson SIGNATURE OF MEMBER DATE (YEAR/MONTH/DAY) 2019/06/22