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 of October 4, 2019 in which the ministry determined that the appellant was not eligible
for a moving supplement because the appellant was in receipt of Medical Services Only (MSO), pursuant to section
55 of the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Regulation.
PART D – RELEVANT LEGISLATION
EAA Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act, section 5
EAPWDR Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Regulation, section 55
APPEAL NUMBER
PART E – SUMMARY OF FACTS
The information before the ministry at the time of reconsideration included the following:
1)
The
appellant is designated a person with disabilities (PWD) with a dependant spouse.
2)
T
he appellant is eligible for $52.00 transportation supplement and is deemed eligible for Medical Services
Only (MSO) due to their current household income exceeding the rate of disability assistance for 2019 -
$14,400.00.
3)
September 10, 2019 - The ministry indicates that the appellant requested assistance to pay for moving
costs to move from
to Vancouver. The Ministry advised that the appellant was not eligible for a
moving supplement while in receipt of MSO.
4)
September 23, 2019 – The appellant submitted a Request for Reconsideration. The appellant indicated that
with being eligible for MSO there are various medical supplements available – and that it is medically
necessary to move from the current location over to Vancouver. The reason for the move is due to
acceptance into a Complex Chronic Disease Program. Further, the appellant noted that the move would
afford less travel in the long run which would otherwise result in undue health implications.
Additional Information
The Ministry representative did not attend the hearing. After waiting for five minutes and ensuring the Ministry had
received a Notice of Hearing on October 18, 2019, the panel proceeded with the hearing in the absence of the
Ministry representative, pursuant to Section 87 of the Employment and Assistance Regulation.
The appellant provided a 1 page submission and one 18
page additional submission for the panel to consider the
admissibility of the information.
The 1 page submission consisted of a moving quote (#1) from a moving company for $2047.50.
The 18 page submission consisted of:
October 2019 pay documentation
November 21, 2018 - letter from the Complex Chronic Disease Program indicating acceptance
Moving quote # 2 for $2611.18
Moving quote # 3 for $2126.25
Spouse pay information for September and October 2019
An undated letter written by the appellant; outlining the reason for the move, and a comparison of moving costs
with the alternate travel costs associated with attending medical appointments in Vancouver.
The panel considered that the information provided in both submissions was admissible as it was relevant to what
was before the reconsideration officer at the time the decision was made, pursuant to section 22(4) of the
Employment and Assistance Act.
APPEAL NUMBER
PART F – REASONS FOR PANEL DECISION
The issue under appeal is the reasonableness of the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction’s (the
“ministry”) Reconsideration Decision of October 4, 2019 in which the ministry determined that the appellant was
not eligible for a moving supplement because the appellant was in receipt of Medical Services Only (MSO),
pursuant to section 55 of the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Regulation.
The relevant section of the legislation is as follows:
Disability assistance and supplements
5 Subject to the regulations, the minister may provide disability assistance or a supplement to or for a family unit
that is eligible for it.
Supplements for moving, transportation and living costs
55 (1)In this section:
"living cost" means the cost of accommodation and meals;
"moving cost" means the cost of
(a)moving a family unit and the family unit's personal effects from one place to
another, and
(b)storing the family unit's personal effects while the family unit is moving if the
minister is satisfied that storing the personal effects is necessary to preserve the
personal effects;
"transportation cost" means the cost of travelling from one place to another.
(2)Subject to subsections (3) and (4), the minister may provide a supplement to or for a family unit that is
eligible for disability assistance or hardship assistance to assist with one or more of the following:
(a)moving costs required to move anywhere in Canada, if a recipient in the family unit is not working but has
arranged confirmed employment that would significantly promote the financial independence of the family unit
and the recipient is required to move to begin that employment;
(b)moving costs required to move to another province or country, if the family unit is required to move to improve
its living circumstances;
(c)moving costs required to move anywhere in British Columbia because the family unit is being compelled to vacate
the family unit's rented residential accommodation for any reason, including the following:
(i)the accommodation is being sold;
(ii)the accommodation is being demolished;
(iii)the accommodation has been condemned;
APPEAL NUMBER
(d)moving
costs
required to move
anywhere
in
British
Columbia
if
the
family
unit's
shelter
costs would
be
significantly reduced as a result of the move;
(e)moving costs required to move anywhere in British Columbia to avoid an imminent threat to the physical safety
of any person in the family unit;
(f)transportation costs and living costs required to attend a hearing relating to a child protection proceeding under
the Child, Family and Community Service Act, if a recipient is given notice of the hearing and is a party to the
proceeding;
(g)transportation costs, living costs, child care costs and fees resulting from
(i)the required attendance of a recipient in the family unit at a hearing, or
(ii)other requirements a recipient in the family unit must fulfil
in connection with the exercise of a maintenance right assigned to the minister under section 17 [assignment of
maintenance rights].
(3)A family unit is eligible for a supplement under this section only if
(a)there are no resources available to the family unit to cover the costs for which the
supplement may be provided, and
(b)subject to subsection (3.1), a recipient in the family unit receives the minister's
approval before incurring those costs.
(3.1)A supplement may be provided even if the family unit did not receive the minister's approval before incurring
the costs if the minister is satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist.
(4)A supplement may be provided under this section only to assist with
(a)in the case of a supplement under subsection (2) (a) to (e), the least expensive
appropriate moving costs, and
(b)in the case of a supplement under subsection (2) (f) or (g), the least expensive
appropriate transportation costs and the least expensive appropriate living costs.
[am. B.C. Regs. 275/2004, s. 2; 122/2019, App. 2, s. 3.]
Panel Decision
The ministry’s position, as set out in the Reconsideration Decision, is that the appellant is not eligible for a moving
supplement because the appellant is in receipt of Medical Service Only (MSO) benefits. In other words, while the
appellant is designated as a persons with disabilities, they cannot receive disability assistance due to their
household unit income exhausting the $14, 400 earnings exemption limit for 2019 – therefore the appellant
receives MSO benefits which does not afford the appellant an entitlement to a moving supplement.
The ministry also relied upon section 55 of the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Regulation
which sets out the criteria that a person (who would be eligible for disability assistance) would need to meet in
order to receive the moving supplement.
Specifically, section 55 (2)Subject to subsections (3) and (4), the minister may provide a supplement to or for a
family unit that is eligible for disability assistance or hardship assistance to assist with one or more of the
following: (a)moving costs required to move anywhere in Canada, if a recipient in the family unit is not working
but has arranged confirmed employment that would significantly promote the financial independence of the
family unit and the recipient is required to move to begin that employment;
(b)moving costs required to move to another province or country, if the family unit is required to move to improve
its living circumstances;
APPEAL NUMBER
(c)moving costs required to move anywhere in British Columbia because the family unit is being compelled to vacate
the family unit's rented residential accommodation for any reason, including the following:
(i)the accommodation is being sold;
(ii)the accommodation is being demolished;
(iii)the accommodation has been condemned;
(d)moving
costs
required to move
anywhere
in
British
Columbia
if
the
family
unit's
shelter
costs would
be
significantly reduced as a result of the move;
(e)moving costs required to move anywhere in British Columbia to avoid an imminent threat to the physical safety
of any person in the family unit.
The ministry notes in the Reconsideration Decision that the appellant did not meet any one of the criteria set out in
section 55(2) of the EAPWDR.
The Appellant’s position is that the move from the residence
to Vancouver is medically
necessary for the attendance of the Chronic Complex Diseases Program, and the current living arrangement is
stressful due to noise. Ultimately, the appellant argued that the move
would decrease the need for
regular travel back and forth for medical appointments – which is physically exhausting, and it would save
transportation costs in the long-run.
The panel finds that the evidence establishes that the appellant is currently in receipt of MSO - due to the family
unit’s 2019 income exhausting the earning exemption limit of $14, 400. In turn, the panel finds that the ministry
unreasonably relied upon section 55(2) of the EAPWDR. The ministry argued that the appellant would not be
eligible for a moving supplement if in receipt of MSO, which was not denied by the appellant. Accordingly, the
panel finds that the assessment of section 55(2) criteria not having been met by the appellant was unnecessary.
The panel finds that the evidence establishes the appellant responded to the said criteria not having been met with
further documentation to support the moving supplement application. The panel finds that given the disqualifying
nature of the exhausted income test for 2019, where the appellant was in receipt of MSO, and therefore not
eligible for a moving supplement, that the ministry did not require further criteria to deny the application for a
moving supplement.
Accordingly, the panel finds that the decision of the ministry to deny the appellant a moving supplement based on
the appellant not being eligible for a moving supplement while in receipt of medical services only, is reasonably
supported by the evidence in this case. Therefore, the panel confirms the ministry’s decision pursuant to section
24(1)(a) and section 24(2)(a) of the Employment and Assistance Act. The appellant therefore is not successful in her
appeal.
APPEAL NUMBER
PART F – REASONS FOR PANEL DECISION
PARTG
–ORDER
THE PANELDECISIONIS:(Check one)
UNANIMOUS
BYMAJORITY
THEPANEL
CONFIRMSTHEMINISTRYDECISION
RESCINDSTHEMINISTRYDECISION
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)
or Section 24(2)(b)
PARTH
–SIGNATURES
PRINTNAME
Jennifer Armstrong
SIGNATUREOFCHAIR
DATE(YEAR/MONTH/DAY)
2019/10/30
PRINTNAME
Rick Bizarro
DATE(YEAR/MONTH/DAY)
2019/10/30
SIGNATUREOFMEMBER
PRINTNAME
Jeremy Sibley
SIGNATUREOFMEMBER
DATE(YEAR/MONTH/DAY)
2019/10/30
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.