Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction

I APPEAL NUMBER PART C - DECISION UNDER APPEAL The decision under appeal is the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction's (the Ministry) reconsideration decision made under section 57(1) of the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Regulation (EAPWDR) and dated November 18, 2019, that denied the Appellant's request for a crisis supplement for food for November, 2019.

The Appellant did not satisfy the Minister that the Appellant had no resources with which to purchase food, and because the Appellant did have funds to purchase food, the ministry was not satisfied that failure to provide the Appellant with a crisis suppiement for food would result in imminent danger to the Appellant's physical health. The ministry cited section 57 (1) of the EAPWDR as authority.

PART D - RELEVANT LEGISLATION Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act (EAA), section 5 & 10 Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Regulation (EAR), sections 15, 28, 57(1) and 59(1)

I APPEAL NUMBER PART E- SUMMARY OF FACTS Nature of the Appellant's Application The Appellant applied for a crisis supplement for food for a specific month, which was denied. The Appellant requested reconsideration of the denial.

In this appeal, the Appellant indicated the preference to be referred to by the pronoun "they", and therefore the Appellant will be referred to as "the Appellant" or as "they" or "their".

A. Evidence at the Time of Reconsideration. Decision Made November 18, 2019 The consent information before the Ministry at the time of Reconsideration decision included:

(1) The Appellant's Request for Crisis Supplement• Food Dated November 8, 2019 In the Request, the Appellant stated • that the Appellant has a serious viral infection and the medication to control it requires food to be taken at the same time but their November disability benefits have not been paid and they have no money left in the bank • that the Appellant was requesting the supplement for the Appellant • that in answer to the question as to whether or not the Appellant has tried to meet the need on the Appellant's own that "food banks are closed so [the Appellant] cannot access any food. [The Appellant] have no money left in the bank, and there are no other resources]. • that the Appellant's answer to the query as to what available resources the Appellant had the answer was "There is no money left in the bank, food banks are closed in the two weeks following cheque pay, [the Appellant] have not been paid my November disability benefits at alf' • in answer to the question as to what was the direct threat to the Appellant's health and safety that the Appellant was at "risk of death, opportunistic infections occur when the medication is ineffective [specific viral infection] may develop immunity to the medication, food is absolutely required for the medication to be effective"

(2) The Decision to be Reconsidered The Decision to be Reconsidered was not provided by the ministry except for a reference to the ministry's original decision, which said that at that time the ministry was unable to determine that the Appellant was eligible for disability assistance or hardship assistance because it could not be determined when the Appellant left BC or had returned to the province and therefore the Appellant was not eligible for a crisis supplement at that time in accordance with Section 57 (1 )EAPWDR.

(3) The Request for Reconsideration dated November 8, 2019 In the Request for Reconsideration, the Appellant • Said that in relation to criterion 1 that the ministry was incorrect in stating that November benefits had been paid; the Appellant stated that no benefits for November were received and the Appellant

had no money but was eligible for them. The Appellant further said that it makes no sense that the ministry "make this criterion has not met. Why are you even Working for the government? Did you finish high school? Do you know how to read English?" • Said that in relation to criterion 2 that the ministry was incorrect when it said that they did not have an unexpected need or obligation, and went on to say "this is not true, I did state that I have a medical crisis and it is all because of the - ministry with my benefits, and I am going to sue in court and I am going to stopi!ie'm inistry from doing this to me and others. I am [serious viral infection] and my medication does not work if there is no food taken at the same time, I have no food, no money in the bank, no benefits paid for October and November and I am 100% eligible for my benefits as a BC resident and on disability assistance. give me the monev now or it will become worse in court when I sue",

I APPEAL NUMBER • Did not disagree concerning criterion 3, when the ministry found that the Appellant had accessed community resources • Did not disagree concerning criterion 4, when the ministry found that the Appellant did state the Appellant's health was in immediate danger due to needing food to take with medication.

(4) Letter from an Advocacy Organization dated November 12, 2019 signed by a Social Worker This letter confirmed that the Appellant was a client, living with a serious viral infection and that the Appellant requires daily medication to support and avoid imminent risk to the Appellant's health. The letter goes on to say that the medication required is of such that the Appellant must have access to nutritious foods in order to promote absorption and prevent stomach upset and other side effects and that vomiting of the medication can reduce or eliminate its effectiveness. The letter also states that lack of nutritional resource can directly impact absorption of the medications even when vomiting is not a factor.

(5) Airline Flight Information The Appellant provided airline flight information showing that • the Appellant left British Columbia June 21, 2019 and returned July 4, 2019 • the Appellant left British Columbia September 27, 2019 for■•·••and returned to British Columbia October 24, 2019 . • (6) Letter from the Appellant's Landlord Dated January 28, 2019 The Appellant's landlord wrote to confirm that the Appellant had made• 2 most recent rent payments, and while the December 2018 payment was made on time is rent for January 2019 was only paid in part and then about 3 weeks late because what the landlord said had been reported to him was that the Appellant needed to pay for prescription medicine not covered by MSP and asked for a waiver of the remaining rent until the middle of January 2019. That remaining rent was paid in late January 2019, but having paid for the rent for that month left the Appellant with little money for food for February 2019. The landlord supports the Appellant in any request to increase the Appellant's financial assistance.

(7) Letter from an Advocacy Organization dated January 17, 2019 signed by a Social Worker The social worker wrote on behalf of the Appellant to advise that the Appellant has 2 long-term mental disorders which make it very difficult-to attend legal proceedings in person, which the social worker says has been confirmed "through psychiatrist documentation which I have witnessed', but the social worker did not attach that documentation. The social worker supports the Appellant in any request to attend hearings via teleconference in consideration of the Appellant's mental health diagnoses. The social worker also advised that they would be willing to answer questions and gave a telephone number and an email address.

(8) A Letter from a Physician Dated January 3, 2019 A physician treating the Appellant at a health facility wrote to request special accommodation for the

Appellant, due to medical reasons, saying the Appellant experiences more difficulty with concentration during hearings or evaluations for there are other people present and would benefit from a separate space or phone hearing without distraction in that space.

(9) A Residential Sublease Agreement Dated November 1, 2018 The Appellant provided a residential sublease agreement between self as a subtenant renting from a sub- landlord outlining various terms, including that the Appellant's rent is $600 per month as well as other payments regarding the premises rented.

110) Black-and- White Identification

I APPEAL NUMBER The Appellant provided the face and obverse of an identification document in a different name, believed to be the Appellant's birth name.

(11) A Letter to the Appellant from the Ministry Dated November 6, 2019 In this letter, the ministry advises the Appellant that-request for access to personal information under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act was received October 23, 2019, and that it requested "a// income assistance records from files in your name within the date range of January 1, 2019

to October 23, 2019". The ministry advised the Appellant that 30 business days are allowed for a response which should be received by December 5, 2019, as well as advising the Appellant of other administrative matters having to do with Freedom of Information.

B. Evidence at the Appeal Additional Evidence - Ministry The ministry presented no additional evidence

Additional Evidence - Appellant At the Appeal, the Appellant provided the following:

(1) Notice of Appeal dated November 19, 2019 Under Reasons for Appeal, the Appellant states "please see attached letters", but the Panel notes that no letters were attached.

(2) A Letter from another Physician Dated November 20, 2018 The physician confirmed a different infection which the Appellant suffers from, and advised that the Appellant cannot afford the treatment; attached to the letter is a Laboratory requisition which appears to have been redacted in part.

(3) Confirmation of Assistance from the ministry Dated November 20, 2019 This document confirms that the Appellant receives assistance in the amount of $808.42 for support, $375.00 for rent, $40.00 for a dietary allowance which expires October 1, 2020, and $52.00 for a transportation allowance, totaling $1275.42, and notes on that document the status as "CASHED".

(4) Two Emails to the Tribunal from the Appellant dated November 20, 2019 In the first email at 3:38 PM the Appellant says that-submissions are attached. The Tribunal notes that in fact no submissions were attached.

In the 2 nd email sent at 3:49 PM, the Appellant says "hello, The Ministry is lying abol.!t my benefits beings paid to by bank account or "cashed", attached hereto is proof of their lies as I have not received a single

dime today November 20, 2019 by direct deposit and I have not cashed any checks anywhere. I have already sent a letter of intention to sue in courf'.

I APPEAL NUMBER PART F - REASONS FOR PANEL DECISION This Appeal is the second of 2 appeals by the same Appellant heard today. The first appeal is from a denial of a crisis supplement for food for October 2019 and the 2 nd appeal is from a denial of a crisis supplement for food for November 2019.

Issue on Appeal The issue on appeal is whether the reconsideration decision of the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction (the Ministry) made under section 57(1) of the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Regulation (EAPWDR) and dated November 18, 2019, that denied the Appellant's request for a crisis supplement for food for November, 2019 was reasonably supported by the evidence or was a reasonable application of the legislation in the circumstances of the Appellant.

The Appellant did not satisfy the Minister that the Appellant had no resources with which to purchase food, and because the Appellant did have funds to purchase food, the ministry was not satisfied that failure to provide the Appellant with a crisis supplement for food would result in imminent danger to the Appellant's physical health. The ministry cited section 57 (1) of the EAPWDR as authority.

Applicable Legislation Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act (EAPWDA), section 5 Disability assistance and supplements Subject to the regulations, the minister may provide disability assistance or a supplement to or for a family unit that

is eligible for it.

Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act (EAPWDA), section 10 Information and verification 10 (1) For the purposes of (a) determining whether a person wanting to apply for disability assistance or hardship assistance is eligible

to apply for it, (b) determining or auditing eligibility for disability assistance, hardship assistance or a supplement, (c) assessing employability and skills for the purposes of an employment plan, or (d) assessing compliance with the conditions of an employment plan, the minister may do one or more of the following: (e) direct a person referred to in paragraph (a), an applicant or a recipient to supply the minister with information within the time and in the manner specified by the minister; (f) seek verification of any information supplied to the minister by a person referred to in paragraph (a), an

applicant or a recipient; (g) direct a person referred to in paragraph (a), an applicant or a recipient to supply verification of any information he or she supplied to the minister.

(2) The minister may direct an applicant or a recipient to supply verification of information received by the minister if that information relates to the eligibility of the family unit for disability assistance, hardship assistance or a supplement. (3) Subsection (1) (e) to (g) applies with respect to a dependent youth for a purpose referred to in subsection (1) (c) or (d).

(4) If an applicant or a recipient fails to comply with a direction under this section, the minister may declare the family unit ineligible for disability assistance, hardship assistance or a supplement for the prescribed period.

(5) If a dependent youth fails to comply with a direction under this section, the minister may reduce the amount of disability assistance or hardship assistance provided to or for the family unit by the prescribed amount for the prescribed period.

r APPEAL NUMBER Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Regulation (EAPWDR), section 15 Effect of recipient being absent from BC for more than 30 days 15 The family unit of a recipient who is outside of British Columbia for more than a total of 30 days in a year ceases to be eligible for disability assistance or hardship assistance unless the minister has given prior authorization for the continuance of disability assistance or hardship assistance for the purpose of (a) permitting the recipient to participate in a formal education program, (b) permitting the recipient to obtain medical therapy prescribed by a medical practitioner, or (c) avoiding undue hardship.

Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Regulation (EAPWDR), section 28 Consequences of failing to provide information or verification when directed 28 (1) For the purposes of section 1 0 (4) [information and verification] of the Act, the period for which the minister may declare the family unit ineligible for assistance lasts until the applicant or recipient complies with the direction. (2) For the purposes of section 10 (5) [information and verification] of the Act, (a) the amount by which the minister may reduce the disability assistance or hardship assistance of the dependent

youth's family unit is $100 for each calendar month, and (b) the period for which the minister may reduce the disability assistance or hardship assistance of the dependent youth's family unit lasts until the dependent youth complies with the direction.

Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Regulation (EAPWDR), section 57 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) ff 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 aoolication for the crisis suonlement, and

I APPEALNUMBER (ii) $400 for the family unit in the 12 calendar month period preceding the date of application for the crisis supplement. General Scheme of the Legislation The general scheme of the EAPWDA section 5: The minister may provide a supplement to a person if that person has been designated as a Person with Disabilities and meets the requirements of the EAPWDR section 57. That section provides that an individual designated as a Person with Disabilities may receive a crisis supplement if three more criteria are met: • The first is that the Minister may provide a supplement if it is required to meet an unexpected expense or to obtain an item unexpectedly needed (section 57(1)(a) EAPWDR). • The second is that the person is unable to meet the expense or obtain the item because there are no resources available to the family (section 57(1)(a) EAPWDR). • The third is that the Minister must consider that failure to meet the expense or obtain the item will result in either imminent danger to the person's physical health or removal of a child under the Child, Family and Community Service Act (section 57(1 )(b) EAPWDR). The child removal provision is not an issue as the Appellant lives alone.

Appellant's Submission at Appeal Appellant's Request for an Adjournment of the Appeal Hearing The Appellant advised the Panel that they had sent a 29 page email by fax to the Tribunal and that 3 days before the hearing of the appeal they had received 515 pages of disclosure from the ministry pursuant to a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of PHvacy Act, that they still have problems

with the ministry, that their viral load had increased, that their health had become worse and that the Appeal should be postponed so that they could provide the 515 pages received from the ministry to the Panel. When asked if there was a facsimile receipt showing that the pages were sent to the Tribunal, the Appellant was not sure.

The Appellant went on to say that the 515 pages received covered the period May 2015 to February 2019, and again stated that they required an adjournment, and that they had determined that the ministry said the appeal could resume on December 23, 2019. The Appellant wanted the Panel to take into consideration how.had been dealt with by the ministry over

the period of time covered by the 515 pages, which was prior to the request for a crisis supplement that is the subject of this Appeal.

Panel's Determination on the Request for an Adjournment The Panel recessed for a short period of time to discuss the request for the adjournment without the parties being present. The Panel determined that as the 515 pages the Appellant wished to submit concerned the time period of May 2015 to February 2019, and did not concern the period of time when the Appellant was requesting a crisis supplement, specifically for November 2019. The Panel further determined that how the Appellant had been treated in his dealings with the ministry prior to the period of time for which the Appellant was requesting a crisis supplement was not relevant to this Appeal. Those 515 pages could have no possible relevance to this Appeal.

The Panel determined that the request for an adjournment would be denied.

f APPEAL NUMaE:R Continuation of the Appeal Hearing • Appellant's Submissions Upon reconvening with the parties and the interpreter present, the Appellant was informed that the request for an adjournment was denied, and the reasons for the denial were explained.

The Appellant stated that they did not agree with the Panel's determination, because the ministry had delayed providing the documents to the Appellant, and said that the ministry's holding the documents for so long meant that the appeal could not continue.

When the Appellant was again told that the request for an adjournment was denied, and the Appellant stated that they would make a complaint against the Tribunal, and stated that the Appeal was adjourned. The Appellant was again informed that the request for an adjournment was denied and hearing the Appeal would continue.

The Appellant then stated that they had made 2 (two) requests for disclosure from the ministry for their file up to November 2019, but did not say when that request was made, and again requested an adjournment.

The Appellant was told yet again that the request for an adjournment was denied and the Appeal hearing would continue.

The Appellant then said that the $1,275 support for October and November was provided on November 18 or 20 th , that they had received it, but had to go into a ministry office to "see a bunch of incompetent people then to get if'. The Appellant further said that doing so put their health in danger and questioned if the ministry personnel could read the letters the Appellant had provided. The Appellant further said that the ministry personnel do not know the law, and do not have the knowledge or competency to perform the work required all of them. The Appellant then said the Panel must have the papers they had acquired, which were the documents the Appellant had received under the Freedom of Information request in order

to see the errors and mishandling of the Appellant's file by the ministry.

The Appellant then said that they wanted to take the appeal to a "different Tribunal', by which the Panel understands the Appellant to mean that the Appellant wanted a different Panel and did not want to continue with the Appeal before the present Panel.

The Appellant went on to say that without the ministry file, their case could not be proven, again requested an adjournment and stated that was all they were going to say on the Appeal.

As the submissions made by the Appellant in their Appeal concerning denial of a crisis supplement for food for October 2019, heard immediately before this Appeal (concerning denial of a crisis supplement for food for November 2019) are relevant to this Appeal, those submissions are repeated here.