APPEAL NUMBER
2020-00044
PART C – DECISION UNDER APPEAL
The decision in this appeal is the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction (ministry)
decision of January 27, 2020 to deny the appellant’s request for a crisis grant for clothing, specifically a
winter jacket. The ministry found the appellant’s request did not meet all of the criteria for provision of a
crisis grant set out in section 59 of the Employment and Assistance Regulation.
PART D – RELEVANT LEGISLATION
Employment and Assistance Act (EAA) section 4
Employment and Assistance Regulation (EAR) section 59
APPEAL NUMBER
2020-00044
PART E – SUMMARY OF FACTS
Information before the Minister at reconsideration included:
A ministry “Integrated Case Management Decision Report” dated December 27, 2019.
-
The appellant’s Request for Reconsideration signed January 3, 2020.
The appellant included a note with his Notice of Appeal to the Tribunal dated February 5, 2020. It was
accepted by the Panel as argument.
At the hearing, the appellant stated that their jacket was four years old but provided no protection from
the cold and was worn out. The appellant stated that they have been on income assistance for two
months and the ministry’s refusal to provide a jacket was a shock. The appellant stated that it is a right to
have a jacket provided. The appellant stated that prevention was better than a cure. The appellant stated
that two income assistance cheques were received in December, 2019, but they money was for rent and
food, and after paying rent, only $100 per month is left. The appellant explained that December rent was
in arrears and the January rent also needed to be paid.
The ministry responded that the appellant asked for a jacket on December 27, 2019 and stated that the
old one had been thrown away. The appellant was advised that this is not an unexpected need and that
two income assistance cheques had just been provided – one for January, 2020 and a prorated payment
for December, 2019, therefore funds were available to pay for a jacket. The ministry stated that the
legislation is clear with respect to crisis grants – the need must be unexpected, there must be no
resources available to meet the need and failure to provide the item requested would result in imminent
danger to the person’s physical health. The ministry stated that the need to replace clothing that has
worn out is not unexpected and the appellant had received two income assistance cheques that month,
therefore the resources to purchase a jacket were available. The ministry stated that they were satisfied
that failure to obtain the jacket would result in imminent danger to physical health, therefore this criterion
was met. The ministry stated that income assistance is for basic needs, including clothing.
APPEAL NUMBER
2020-00044
PART F – REASONS FOR PANEL DECISION
The issue in this appeal is the reasonableness of the ministry decision to deny the appellant’s request for a crisis
grant for clothing.
Legislation
EAA
Income assistance and supplements
4 Subject to the regulations, the minister may provide income assistance or a supplement to or for a
family unit that is eligible for it.
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, 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 sum of
(A)the maximum set out in section 2 of Schedule A and the maximum set
out in section 4 of Schedule A, or
(B)the maximum set out in Table 1 of Schedule D and the maximum set out
in Table 2 of Schedule D,
as applicable, for a family unit that matches the family unit, and
(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. 1, s. 2.]
(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;
APPEAL NUMBER
2020-00044
The appellant’s position is that a winter jacket is a basic need and it is a right to have one.
The ministry’s position is that in order to provide a crisis grant, all of the conditions set out in section 59
of the EAR must be met. The appellant threw away a jacket before applying for a new one, and it is not
unexpected for clothing to wear out. The appellant received two income assistance cheques in the month
of December, 2019, so he had the resources to buy a jacket. These two conditions were not met.
The panel notes that there are three criteria for provision of a crisis grant as stated above: the need must
be unexpected, there must be no resources available to meet the need and failure to provide the
requested item will result in imminent danger to the health of any person in the family unit. The ministry
stated that the third criterion, failure to obtain the item would result in imminent danger to physical health,
was met.
The fact that the appellant stated that the jacket was thrown away before the request for a grant to buy a
new one is an indication that the need for a jacket was not unexpected. It is also a fact that clothing
wears out and must be replaced from time to time. The panel finds that the ministry reasonably
determined that the criterion set out in s.59(1)(a), EAR that the need be unexpected was not met.
The appellant agreed with the ministry’s statement that two income assistance cheques were issued in
the month of December, 2019. As income assistance is intended for the provision of basic needs,
including clothing, the panel therefore finds that the ministry reasonably determined that the appellant
had resources available to purchase a jacket; the criterion of having no resources available as required
under s. 59(1)a) EAR was not met.
As all of the criteria set out in section 59, EAR must be met for provision of a crisis grant, the panel finds
that the ministry decision to deny the appellant’s request was reasonably supported by the evidence.
The panel confirms the ministry decision.
The appeal is not successful.
APPEAL NUMBER
2020-00044
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)
PART H – SIGNATURES
PRINT NAME
Reece Wrightman
SIGNATURE OF CHAIR
DATE (YEAR/MONTH/DAY)
2020 March 20
PRINT NAME
Carlos Garcia
SIGNATURE OF MEMBER
DATE (YEAR/MONTH/DAY)
2020 March 20
PRINT NAME
Jean Lorenz
SIGNATURE OF MEMBER
DATE (YEAR/MONTH/DAY)
2020 March 20
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.