PART C – DECISION UNDER APPEAL
The decision under appeal is the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction’s (the “ministry”)
Reconsideration Decision of March 18, 2020 in which the ministry denied a request for a crisis supplement for an
outstanding utilities (hydro) balance pursuant to section 57 of the Employment and Assistance for Persons with
Disabilities Regulation.
PART D – RELEVANT LEGISLATION
EAPWDR Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Regulation, section 57
PART E – SUMMARY OF FACTS
The information before the ministry at the time of reconsideration included the following:
1)
February 25, 2020 – the appellant contacted the ministry to request a crisis supplement for BC Hydro. The
appellant provided a document detailing their catch-up payment plan arrangements.
2)
February 28, 2020 – the ministry informed you that your request was denied for the following reasons:
o They had not demonstrated an unexpected expense. The ministry spoke to BC Hydro and was advised that
they had made several arrangements dating back to 2018 and none of them had been followed through
with. The ministry found that the arrangements dating back to 2018 were indicative of the expense not
being unexpected.
o The ministry found that the appellant had resources to pay the hydro expense – relying on the fact that the
appellant had made the payment arrangements.
o The ministry found that the appellant had not demonstrated an imminent danger to physical health due to
the fact that they were moving in 2 days, and there was uncertainty whether the new residence had
electric heat.
3)
A review of the appellant’s hydro document, dated January 30, 2020, indicates that the appellant has an
installment of $100.00 due February 19, 2020 and another installment of $100.23 due March 27, 2020.
Additional Information:
At the hearing, the panel waiting for ten (10) minutes past the time of the start of the teleconference hearing so as
to allow for the appellant to join. After the ten minutes, and after confirming that the Notice of Hearing was
delivered on April 9, 2020 at 4:20 pm, the panel proceeded in the absence of the appellant, pursuant to section 87
of the Employment and Assistance Regulation.
Additionally, the appellant had submitted additional evidence on April 8, 2020 for the panel to consider at the
hearing. This evidence was found to be not relevant to the reconsideration decision before the panel. This
document included a (1) one page moving invoice and was not objected to by the ministry. However, the panel
found this document to be inadmissible, pursuant to section 22 of the Employment and Assistance Act.
PART F – REASONS FOR PANEL DECISION
The decision under appeal is the reasonableness of the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction’s
(the “ministry”) Reconsideration Decision of March 18, 2020 in which the ministry denied a request for a crisis
supplement for an outstanding utilities (hydro) balance pursuant to section 57 of the Employment and Assistance
for Persons with Disabilities Regulation.
The relevant section of the legislation is as follows:
Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Regulation
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.
(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;
(c)water;
(d)hydro.
Panel Decision
The ministry’s position, as set out in the Reconsideration Decision, is that the appellant is not eligible for a crisis
supplement for (hydro) due to not meeting one of the three criteria necessary to be eligible.
The appellant’s position, as was indicated in the appellant’s Notice of Appeal, is that they do not have the means
necessary to pay the outstanding hydro balance.
As per section 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.
The ministry argued that the appellant did meet two of the three criteria outlined, such as; the need was imminent,
and the appellant had no resources to pay, however the ministry determined that the appellant did not
demonstrate how the need was unexpected. Specifically, the ministry determined that the fact that the expense
was ongoing from 2018, and the appellant had made multiple payment plan arrangements, of which they did not
follow through was evidence that the need for a crisis supplement was not an unexpected one.
The panel finds that the evidence establishes that the appellant did have an on-going arrangement with BC Hydro
to pay the expense from as far back as 2018. The panel finds that the ministry was reasonable and fair when it
determined this fact as being indicative of the appellant knowing the expense was outstanding and not an
unexpected one.
Accordingly, the panel finds that the decision of the ministry to deny the crisis supplement 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 this appeal.
APPEAL NUMBER
2020-00109
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)
2020/05/02
PRINTNAME
Vivienne Chin
SIGNATUREOFMEMBER
DATE(YEAR/MONTH/DAY)
2020/05/02
PRINTNAME
Patrick Cooper
SIGNATUREOFMEMBER
DATE(YEAR/MONTH/DAY)
2020/05/02
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.