P A R T C D E C I S I O N U N D E R A P P E A L T h e d e c i s i o n u n d e r a p p e a l i s t h e M i n i s t r y o f S o c i a l r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n d e c i s i o n , d a t e d 4 D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 9 , w a s n o t e l i g i b l e f o r a c r i s i s s u p p l e m e n t b e c a u s e t h e p h y s i c a l h e a t h a s r e q u i r e d b y s e c t i o n 5 7 o f t h e E m p R e g u l a t i o n ( " R e g u l a t i o n " ) . P A R T D R E L E V A N T L E G I S L A T I O N E m p l o y m e n t a n d A s s i s t a n c e f o r P e r s o n s w i t h D i s a b A P P E A L N U M B E R I D e v e l o p m e n t a n d P o v e r t y R e d u c t i o n ( " m i n i s t r y " ) i n w h i c h t h e m i n i s t r y d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e A p p e l l a n t y h a d n o t d e m o n s t r a t e d i m m i n e n t d a n g e r t o t h e i r l o y m e n t a n d A s s i s t a n c e f o r P e r s o n s w i t h D i s a b i l i t i e s i l i t i e s R e g u l a t i o n , S e c t i o n 5 7 .
I APPEAL NUMBER PART E-SUMMARY OF FACTS The information before the ministry at reconsideration included the following: The appellant is a person with disabilities and is in receipt of receipt of provincial disability assistance. The appellant contacted the ministry on 5 September 2019 to request assistance to replace their furn ace. Documentation and information to support this request was provided to the ministry on 24 September 2019 and 2 October 2019. This information included estimates for 2 different heat pumps. On 5 October 2019 the ministry denied the appellant's request for a crisis supplement. On 5 November 2019 the appellant filed a request for reconsideration, sought an extension of time and provided supporting information and documentation. This information included the appellant's written argument detailing the reasons for the request and an estimate for a new oil furnace. The ministry determined, in a reconsideration decision dated 4 December 2019, that the appellant was not eligible for a crisis supplement for furnace replacement because they had not met on of the required criteria set out i n the legislation. Additional information before the panel on appeal consisted of the following: Notice of Appeal In the Notice of Appeal, the appellant indicated that the ministry's decision was causing undue hardship. They indicated that they are a person in receipt of disability assistance with many health conditions. They also argued that the ministry had never mentioned the woodstove prior to the reconsideration decision and did not allow them to explain. They also indicated that their woodstove does not heat their whole home. Appeal Submissions The appellant provided 2 sets of advocate submissions and a letter from their family physician prior to the hearing. The first advocate submission (undated) was prepared by the appellant's MLA constituency office. The second advocate submission, dated 15 January 2019, was prepared by a community advocacy organiz ation . The family physician's letter, dated 9 January 2019, stated that the appellant faces various physical limitations that prevent them from chopping and h auling wood sufficient to heat their home and they cannot rely on this heat source though winter. At the Hearing Appellant The appellant argued that their physical health is in imminent danger as they live at a high elevation where winter temperatures are low and their home is without heat, except for one room. The appellant indicated that they do have a woodstove but that woodstove is not capable of heating their whole home, as it is located in an addition outside of their main residence and heats only that one room addition. The addition does not contain a bedroom, kitchen or bathroom. Furthermore, the woodstove is small and is only capable of burning for 4 hours. The appellant has been staying with a friend when possible. When they are at home, they stay in the one room addition, sleeping on a couch in front of the woodstove to keep warm and with an alarm set to wake them to maintain the fire in the wood stove through the night. As a person with disabilities, the appellant argues that they are not capable of doing the physical labour required to .maintain a woodstove without assistance. They have relied upon the assistance of family,
f r i e n d s a n d n e i g h b o u r s t o c h o p a n d c a r r y f i r e w o o d a h a v e a p p r o x i m a t e l y 5 d a y s o f w o o d l e ft a t t h e t i m e o M i n i s t ry T h e m i n i s t r y r e l i e d o n t h e r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n d e c i s i o n . A d m i s s i b i l i t y o f A d d i t i o n a l I n f o r m a t i o n T h e p a n e l f i n d s t h a t t h e i n f o r m a t i o n p r e s e n t e d i n t h h e a r i n g a n d t h e p h y s i c i a n ' s l e t t e r i s a d m i s s i b l e i n a c A s s i s t a n c e A c t . W h i l e t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n w a s n o t b e f o r e c o r d , t h e p a n e l f i n d s t h a t c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h i s e v i d i s c l o s u r e o f a l l m a t t e r s r e l a t e d t o t h e d e c i s i o n u n d e n o t e s t h a t t h e m i n i s t r y d i d n o t o bj e c t t o t h e a d m i s s i o T h e p a n e l f i n d s t h a t b o t h a d v o c a t e s u b m i s s i o n s c o n d e t e r m i n a t i o n u n d e r s . 2 2 ( 4 ) o f t h e E m p l o y m e n t a n P a n e l N o t e : t h e a p p e l l a n t t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e l e t t e r f r o J a n u a r y 2 0 2 0 a n d n o t J a n u a r y 2 0 1 9 . A l l p a r t i e s a g r a c c e p t s t h a t t h e l e t t e r s h o u l d p r o p e r l y b e d a t e d J a n I A P P E A L N U M B E R n d s u p p l y k i n d l i n g . T h e a p p e l l a n t e s t i m a t e s t h a t t h e y f t h e h e a r i n g . e a p p e l l a n t ' s N o t i c e o f H e a r i n g , t h e i r t e s t i m o n y a t t h e c o r d a n c e w i t h s . 2 2 ( 4 ) o f t h e E m p l o y m e n t a n d r e t h e m i n i s t r y a t r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n , a n d n o t p a rt o f t h e d e n c e i s r e a s o n a b l y r e q u i r e d f o r a f u l l a n d f a i r r a p p e a l . I n r e a c h i n g t h i s d e t e r m i n a t i o n , t h e p a n e l n o f t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n . s i s t o f a r g u m e n t a n d d o n o t r e q u i r e d a n a d m i s s i b i l i t y d A s s i s t a n c e A c t. m t h e f a m i l y p h y s i c i a n w a s w r i t t e n a n d p r o v i d e d i n e e d t h a t t h i s w a s a t y p o g r a p h i c a l e r r o r a n d t h e p a n e l u a r y 9 , 2 0 2 0 .
P A R T F R E A S O N S F O R P A N E L D E C I S I O N T h e i s s u e u n d e r a p p e a l i s w h e t h e r t h e m i n i s t r y ' s r e r e a s o n a b l y s u p p o rt e d b y t h e e v i d e n c e o r a r e a s o n a c i r c u m s t a n c e s . I n t h e r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n d e c i s i o n , t h e m i n i s t r y f o u n d t n e e d a n d t h a t t h e r e w e r e n o r e s o u r c e s a v a i l a b l e t o d e m o n s t r a t e d t h a t f a i l u r e t o m e e t t h e e x p e n s e w o u l T h e r e l e v a n t s e c t i o n o f R e g u l a t i o n p r o v i d e s : C r i s i s s u p p l e m e n t 5 7 ( 1 ) T h e m i n i s t e r m a y p r o v i d e a c r i s i s s u p p l e m e n t t o h a r d s h i p a s s i s t a n c e i f ( a ) t h e f a m i l y u n i t o r a p e r s o n i n t h e f a m i l y u n e x p e n s e o r o b t a i n a n i t e m u n e x p e c t e d l y n e e b e c a u s e t h e r e a r e n o r e s o u r c e s a v a i l a b l e t o ( b ) t h e m i n i s t e r c o n s i d e r s t h a t f a i l u r e t o m e e t ( i ) i m m i n e n t d a n g e r t o t h e p h y s i c a l h ( i i ) r e m o v a l o f a c h i l d u n d e r t h e C h i l d S e c t i o n 5 7 ( 1 ) o f t h e R e g u l a t i o n a l l o w s t h e m i n i s t e r e l i g i b l e f o r d i s a b i l i t y a s s i s t a n c e i f t h e f a m i l y u n i t o r a m e e t a n u n e x p e c t e d e x p e n s e o r o b t a i n a n i t e m u n e a p p e l l a n t ' s e l i g i b i l i t y f o r d i s a b i l i t y a s s i s t a n c e . T h e R m e t : 1 ) t h e i t e m o r e x p e n s e i s u n e x p e c t e d , 2 ) t h e r e 3 ) f a i l u r e t o m e e t t h e e x p e n s e w i l l r e s u l t i n i m m i n e n t h i s a p p e a l , t h e f i r s t t w o c r i t e r i a a r e n o t a t i s s u e a s t a p p e a l i s t h e t h i r d c r i t e r i o n . I m m i n e n t D a n g e r S e c t i o n 5 7 ( 1 ) ( b ) s t a t e s t h a t i n o r d e r f o r a c r i s i s s u p p t h e f a i l u r e t o m e e t t h e e x p e n s e o r o b t a i n t h e i t e m w o f t h e p e r s o n o r r e m o v a l o f a c h i l d . T h e p a n e l f i n d s r e m o v a l o f a c h i l d u n d e r t h e C h il d , F a m i l y a n d C o m I n t h e r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n d e c i s i o n , t h e m i n i s t r y d e t e r m t o r e p l a c e t h e i r f u r n a c e w o u l d r e s u l t i n i m m i n e n t d a f o r t h i s c o n c l u s i o n w a s t h a t t h e i r r e v i e w o f t h e a p p e a p p e l l a n t ' s h o m e a n d t h e a p p e l l a n t h a d p r e v i o u s l y w a s t h e i r p r i m a r y h e a t s o u r c e a s i t w a s c h e a p e r t h a i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e y w e r e u n a b l e t o u s e t h e w o o d s t o v T h e a p p e l l a n t , t h r o u g h t h e i r t e s t i m o n y a n d a d v o c a t e u n r e a s o n a b l e f o r t h r e e r e a s o n s . F i r s t , t h e a n n e l l a n t I A P P E A L N U M B E R c o n s i d e r a t i o n d e c i s i o n , d a t e d 4 D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 9 , w a s b l e a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e l e g i s l a t i o n i n t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t h a d d e m o n s t r a t e d a n u n e x p e c t e d c o v e r t h e c o s t , b u t t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t h a d n o t d r e s u l t i n i m m i n e n t d a n g e r t o t h e i r p h y s i c a l h e a l t h . o r fo r a f a m i l y u n i t t h a t i s e l i g i b l e fo r d i s a b i l i t y a s s i s t a n c e o r i t r e q u i r e s t h e s u p p l e m e n t t o m e e t a n u n e x p e c t e d d e d a n d i s u n a b l e t o m e e t t h e e x p e n s e o r o b t a i n t h e i t e m t h e f a m i l y u n i t , a n d t h e e x p e n s e o r o b t a i n t h e i t e m w i l l r e s u l t i n e a l t h o f a n y p e r s o n i n t h e f a m i l y u n i t , o r , F a m il y a n d C o m m u n i t y S e rv i c e A c t . t o p r o v i d e a c r i s i s s u p p l e m e n t t o a f a m i l y u n i t t h a t i s p e r s o n i n t h e f a m i l y u n i t r e q u i r e s t h e s u p p l e m e n t t o x p e c t e d l y n e e d e d . T h e r e i s n o d i s p u t e r e g a r d i n g t h e e g u l a t i o n r e q u i r e s t h a t t h e fo l l o w i n g t h r e e c r i t e r i a b e a r e n o r e s o u r c e s a v a i l a b l e t o m e e t t h e e x p e n s e , a n d t d a n g e r t o p h y s i c a l h e a l t h o r r e m o v a l o f a c h i l d . I n h e y h a v e b e e n m e t . T h e r e f o r e , o n l y i s s u e i n t h i s l e m e n t t o b e g r a n t e d i t m u s t b e d e m o n s t r a t e d t h a t i l l r e s u l t i n t h e i m m i n e n t d a n g e r t o t h e p h y s i c a l h e a l t h t h a t t h e r e i s n o s u g g e s t i o n i n t h i s a p p e a l t h a t m u n i t y S e rv i c e A c t i s a p o s s i b i l i t y . i n e d t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t h a d n o t e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t f a i l u r e n g e r t o t h e i r p h y s i c a l h e a l t h . T h e m i n i s t r y ' s r a t i o n a l e l l a n t ' s f i l e i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e r e w a s a w o o d s t o v e i n t h e c o m m u n i c a t e d t o m i n i s t r y s t a ff t h a t t h i s w o o d s t o v e n o i l . T h e m i n i s t r y f o u n d t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t h a d n o t e o r t h a t i t d i d n o t a d e q u a t e l y h e a t t h e i r h o m e . ' s a r g u m e n t s , s t a t e d t h a t t h e m i n i s t r y ' s d e c i s i o n i s i s n o t o h v s i c a l l v c a o a b l e o f m a i n t a i n i n a a w o o d s t o v e
I APPEAL NUMBER due to their disabilities. The appellant argues that they have relied upon the assistance and good will of others in order to use this heat source. The appellant refers to the physician's letter in support of this argument. Second, the appellant has only about 1 week's supply of wood and cannot obtain more given the current shortage of seasoned firewood, the increasing cost due to this shortage and difficulty having firewood delivered in winter conditions. Third, the woodstove is a secondary heat source at best as it only burns for 4 hours and heats less than ¼ of the appellant's home. The appellant argues that the woodstove does not heat the kitchen, bedroom or bathroom areas of the home. In addition to the three substantive arguments regarding imminent harm, the appellant also made a procedural argument regarding the reasonableness of the ministry's reconsideration decision. The appellant argued, that because there was no mention of the woodstove in the original 5 October 2019 decision, it was unfair and unreasonable for the ministry not to have allowed the appellant to explain the situation with their woodstove prior to the reconsideration decision. The panel finds, based on the information provided, that the ministry's conclusion that the appellant has not established an imminent danger to their physical health as required under Section 57(1) was not reasonably supported by the evidence nor a reasonable application of the legislation in the appellant's circumstances. The panel finds that the appellant has provided sufficient admissible evidence to establish that their woodstove does not heat their home sufficiently given its size and location. The panel finds that living in a home without heat in sleeping, bathing and cooking areas will result in imminent danger to the appellant's physical health. Furthermore, with the panel finds that the physician's letter and testimony establish that the appellant is not physically capable of maintaining the woodstove and cannot rely on this heat source. In the reconsideration decision, the ministry notes that the appellant is in receipt of disability assistance and indicates that the appellant's file history was reviewed. However, there is no mention in the reconsideration decision of any consideration of the appellant's disability. The panel finds it unreasonable for the ministry not to have considered and discussed the appellant's physical capacity in relation to the woodstove in its reconsideration decision. The panel also finds it unreasonable for the appellant to be required to rely on the goodwill of others as a means to maintain a safe level of heat in their home over winter, as they testified they have been forced to do. In light of these findings, the panel finds that the appellant has demonstrated imminent danger to their physical health and the ministry's determination on this criterion is not reasonable. In light of its findings regarding the ministry's reconsideration decision, the panel has not addressed the appellant's procedural fairness argument. Conclusion The panel finds upon review of all of the admissible evidence including the information not before the ministry at reconsideration that the ministry's reconsideration decision, which held that the appellant was not eligible for a crisis supplement is not a reasonable application of the legislation in the circumstances of the appellant nor reasonably supported by the evidence. The panel rescinds the ministry's reconsideration decision. The appellant is successful on appeal.
PART G -ORDER THE PANEL DECISION IS: (Check one) 0UNANIMOUS □ BY MAJORITY THE PANEL □CONFIRMS THE MINISTRY DECISION 0RESCINDS THE MINISTRY DECISION If the ministry decision is rescinded, is the panel decision referred back to the Minister for a decision as to amount? 0Yes □ No LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY FOR THE DECISION: Employment and Assistance Act Section 24(1)(a) D or Section 24(1)(b) D and Section 24(2)(a) D or Section 24(2)(b) 0 PART H -SIGNATURES PRINT NAME Jennifer Smith SIGNATURE OF CHAIR DATE (YEAR/MONTH/DAY) 2019/01/18 PRINT NAME Anne Richmond DATE (YEAR/MONTH/DAY) SIGNATURE OF MEMBER PRINT NAME Robert Fenske SIGNATURE OF MEMBER DATE (YEAR/MONTH/DAY)
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.