APPEAL NUMBER PART C – DECISION UNDER APPEAL The decision under appeal is the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction (the ministry) reconsideration decision dated October 21, 2019, which denied the appellant’s request for a crisis supplement to pay September rent because the ministry was not satisfied that • the appell ant’s need to pay September rent or for money to do so was unexpected to the appellant as set out in section 59(1)(a) of the Employment and Assistance Regulation (EAR), and that • fail ure to provide the appellant with a crisis supplement to pay September rent would result in imminent danger to the appellant’s physical health as set out in section 59(1)(b)(i) of the EAR. The ministry was satisfied that there were no resources available to the appellant to pay September rent a set out in section 59(1)(a). PAR T D – RELEVANT LEGISLATION EAR section 59
APPEAL NUMBER PART E – SUMMARY OF FACTS The appellant did not attend the hearing. Upon confirming that the appellant was notified the hearing proceeded in accordance with section 86(b) of the EAR. The information before the ministry at reconsideration included the following: The appellant is a sole recipient of income assistance. The appellant receives $760 per month for income assistance. This includes $385 for a support allowance and $375 for shelter allowance. On September 3, 2019 the appellant advised the ministry of a recent move. The ministry requested the appellant to provide a residential tenancy agreement for the new address. On S eptember 11 the appellant provided a shelter information form confirming the move to a new residence on September 1, 2019 where the appellant was required to pay $375 for rent. On S eptember 20, 2019 the appellant provided a 10-day notice to end tenancy confirming the appellant owed $375 for September rent. The appellant requested a crisis supplement explaining that the September allowance was used to pay arrears owed to the previous landlord prior to moving. The ministry denied the request for the crisis supplement. In the r econsideration decision submitted on October 7, 2019 the appellant wrote that without a crisis supplement the appellant will be homeless and in further peril. On O ctober 8, 2019 the appellant explained to the ministry that the October assistance was used to get caught up with the current landlord so eviction could be avoided. In the N otice of Appeal dated October 23, 2019 the appellant expressed the belief that all requirements for a crisis supplement had been met. At the hearing the ministry presented the reconsideration decision and added the following information: The appellant received the September income assistance cheque on August 22, 2019. Pur suant to section 22(4) of the EAA the panel admitted the information provided by the ministry on appeal as this information had been before the ministry at reconsideration.
APPEAL NUMBER PART F – REASONS FOR PANEL DECISION The issue in this appeal is the reasonableness of the ministry reconsideration decision that denied the appellant’s request for a crisis supplement to pay September rent because the ministry was not satisfied that • the appellant’s need to pay September rent or for money to do so was unexpected to the appellant as set out in section 59(1)(a) of the EAR, or that • failure to provide the appellant with a crisis supplement to pay September rent would result in imminent danger to the appellant’s physical health as set out in section 59(1)(b)(i) of the 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 Appellant’s Position: The appell ant argues that all necessary requirements for a crisis supplement for September rent are met and that without the crisis supplement the appellant will be homeless and in peril. Ministry Position Crisis supplements address urgent situations that a person could not reasonably plan for or anticipate and are not intended to augment the monthly assistance. Section 59 of the EAR says a request for a crisis supplement must meet all three of the following criteria: 1. The need for the item is unexpected or there is an unexpected expense and 2. There are no resources available and 3. Failure to obtain the item or meet the expense will 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). When the appellant agreed to rent the new residence the appellant was aware that the September allowance had been used to pay arrears owed to the previous landlord. The appellant has not indicated that anything unexpected has happened since that time preventing payment of September rent at the new address. Therefore the ministry is not satisfied that the appellant’s need to pay rent or for money to do so is unexpected to the appellant, and requirement # 1 is not met. On October 8, 2019 the appellant explained that the October assistance was used to pay the landlord to avoid eviction. The minister does not consider food money to be an available resource to pay rent. As a result the ministry is satisfied that the appellant meets requirement # 2.
APPEAL NUMBER Although the appellant indicated that homelessness will be the result of not receiving a crisis supplement the appellant has since reportedly managed to pay the landlord and avoid being evicted. As a result the ministry is not satisfied that that failure to provide the appellant with a crisis supplement to pay September rent will result in imminent danger to the appellant’s physical health. Requirement #3 is not met. Panel Decision Section 59(1) sets out 3 criteria all of which the appellant must meet before the ministry may provide a crisis supplement: • 1. the appellant requires the supplement to meet an unexpected expense or obtain an item unexpectedly needed; • 2. there are no resources available to the appellant; • 3. failure to obtain the crisis supplement will result in imminent danger to the physical health of the appellant. 1. Unexpected For the appellant to be eligible for a crisis supplement there has to be sufficient evidence of unexpectedness. The panel finds that there is no evidence of any unexpected occurrence that prevented the appellant from paying September rent. The appellant was aware that September rent needed to be paid to the current landlord. The appellant was also aware of the arrears owed to the previous landlord and used the September allowance for paying these arrears. Consequently, the panel finds that the ministry reasonably determined that the appellant’s need to pay September rent or for money to do so was not unexpected and that the appellant does not meet this requirement. 2. No resources available The ministry determined that this criterion has been met. 3. Imminent danger to the physical health: While the appellant argues that without the crisis supplement the appellant will be homeless and in danger, the panel finds there is no evidence of imminent danger to physical health. As the appellant has managed to pay the landlord and avoided being evicted the panel finds that the ministry reasonably determined that that failure to provide the appellant with a crisis supplement to pay September rent does not result in imminent danger to the appellant’s physical health. Consequently, the panel finds that the ministry reasonably determined that the appellant did not meet 2 out of 3 required criteria to be eligible for a crisis supplement. Conclusion: The panel finds that the ministry’s decision to deny the appellant a crisis supplement for September rent was reasonably supported by the evidence and a reasonable application of the legislation in the appellant’s circumstances. The ministry’s reconsideration decision is confirmed and the appellant is not successful on appeal.
PA RTG–ORDER THE PANEL DECISIONIS:(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 LEGISLATIVEAUTHORITYFORTHEDECISION: Employment and Assistance Act Section 24(1)(a) or Section 24(1)(b) and Section 24(2)(a) and Section 24(2)(b) PA RTH–SIGNATURES PRINTNAME Inge Morrissey SIGNATUREOFCHAIR DATE(YEAR/MONTH/DAY) 2019/11/13 PRINTNAME Donald Stedeford SIGNATUREOFMEMBER DATE(YEAR/MONTH/DAY) 2019/11/13 PRINTNAME Angie Blake SIGNATUREOFMEMBER DATE(YEAR/MONTH/DAY) 2109/11/13
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.