Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction

Part C – Decision Under Appeal

Appeal Number 2022-0086

The decision under appeal is the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction (ministry) reconsideration decision dated April 20, 2022, which determined that the appellant was not eligible for a moving cost supplement as per section 55 of the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Regulation.

Part D – Relevant Legislation   Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Act (EAPWDA) section 5

Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Regulation (EAPWDR) section 55

        EAAT003 (17/08/17) 2

Part E – Summary of Facts

Appeal Number 2022-0086

Relevant Evidence Before the Minister at Reconsideration Ministry records show: The appellant is a recipient of disability assistance receiving $983.50 support, $375.00 shelter and $52.00 transportation allowance minus $760.97 Canada Pension Plan income for a total of $649.53.

On February 11, 2022 the appellant requested a supplement to pay for moving costs to move to Ontario so she would be able to afford to live. She indicated she was facing homelessness due to the rental crisis.

With the request, the appellant submitted a note from her prospective landlord in Ontario stating she would be renting a place for $700.00 per month including utilities; a security deposit was not required until she was back on her feet.

Estimate for Truck Rental – February 16, 2022 $3,314.00

Letter from Appellant to Whom It May Concern – March 7, 2022 The appellant states her original move date to Ontario was set for June 30, 2022 but it has been rescheduled for June 9, 2022. She has calculated the cost of the truck rental, length of travel, time and motel costs.

Email from Truck Rental Company to Appellant – March 10, 2022 Cost for truck rental - $3,154.00

Request for Reconsideration – April 4, 2022- summary The appellant states the denial for moving expenses to Ontario makes no sense to her. Her income is $1,359.50/month and her expenses total $1,823.63/month.

For over 14 months she has been searching for resources. The appellant states she has contacted the Prime Minister, the Premier, the Minister responsible for Housing, advocates and all community services. She was told there are no resources unless she literally becomes homeless. She has also contacted the newspaper to bring attention to the lack of resources available. And, she is still in communication with the MLA's office and has been for over a year.

The appellant states she is a woman with disabilities (in her 60s) and has worked since she was 11 years old. She’s been recommended for four surgeries as she has mobility issues. Dealing with this and with the lack of resources is overwhelming and causes great anxiety on a daily basis. As well, her daughter cannot help all the time as she too is struggling with rising costs.

In Ontario, the appellant has been offered $200/month to feed and let out the landlord's dogs as they work 12 to 14 hours/day.

The appellant adds that her current accommodation is not only unaffordable but unsafe as well. She’s had to call the police and property managers because her neighbour has been harassing her.

        EAAT003 (17/08/17) 3

Appeal Number 2022-0086

Letter from MLA to Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction – April 4, 2022 The MLA states the appellant is in her 60s and lives with multiple disabilities. For many months she has struggled with the increasing cost of living while trying to get by on a fixed income of $1359.47/month. Her total expenses are roughly $1820/month. The appellant’s monthly deficit is approximately $460.00. She is at urgent and severe risk of losing her housing. The appellant has been on the wait list for subsidized housing for many months. She has been told she does not qualify for Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters (SAFER) because she is on PWD. For 14 months the appellant has researched additional resources - from the ministry, the federal government and all local agencies. There is a nearly a zero vacancy rate in her community and the cost of listed rental units continues to increase. As a result, there are no available rental units, which would provide improved living conditions for the appellant distraught by the lack of available alternatives for housing.

The appellant sought to improve her circumstances by broadening her search for housing to other provinces. She identified a rental unit in Ontario where she would pay $700.00/month (utilities included). Additionally, her landlord has offered to subsidize her rent by $200.00/month in exchange for letting their dogs out during work days. However, the appellant is in need of assistance to help cover costs associated with the move.

With the unsuccessful attempts to improve her living conditions through provincial, federal and local services it seems that this move, which may reduce her expenses by up to $600 a month, is required.

Additional Information Appellant Notice of Appeal (April 28, 2022)   The appellant states she had two choices, either homelessness or move to Ontario.

She states that she understands that what she is asking for does not fall under the guidelines. However, she’s exhausted all options to reduce her moving costs and her only option is a moving truck. She’s enquired about a U-box which would be a cheaper option, but the company does not deliver to her community and does not deliver to her residence in Ontario.

The appellant states that at no time did she think she would be denied assistance to secure a roof over her head. She’s already halfway packed and paid for vehicle insurance until the end of June. The truck is reserved for June 19. The appellant’s final walk through of her apartment is scheduled for June 21.

The appellant states she will become homeless in BC as a disabled woman, in her 60s, with a little 12- year old dog if she is again denied.

Submission 1– May 9, 2022 - summary Email from Appellant to Panel – May 9, 2022 The appellant stated the cost of the truck rental has changed three times, going down significantly over time without any explanation from the rental company. As well, the appellant stated that at no time did she ask the ministry to pay for all moving costs. She explained to the ministry that she would be receiving $975.00 back for a security deposit and half a month’s rent. She also has an old vehicle she’s hoping to receive $1500.00 for (although $1000.00 is probably more likely).

        EAAT003 (17/08/17) 4

Rental Truck Reservation - March 4, 2022 One-Way Reservation – Rental Rate $2,883.00

Appeal Number 2022-0086

Letter from Building Management to Appellant - March 10, 2022 Re: vacating notice The letter states this is the appellant’s first notice to schedule an outgoing inspection and they would like to schedule the inspection for June 21, 2022 at 2:00 PM.

Letter to Appellant from the Attorney General and Minister responsible for Housing in BC - March 17, 2022 The minister states they asked BC Housing to look into the appellant’s housing registry application and was advised the appellant should expand her housing preferences to include other communities where housing that fits her needs is more available. The minister encouraged the appellant to explore the affordable rental housing listings on the BC housing website in addition to the SAFER program which helps make rent affordable for BC seniors, without a moderate income, by providing direct cash access to eligible seniors.

Response to Appellant from the Prime Minister's office - May 10, 2022 The response states that although the Prime Minister appreciates hearing comments, suggestions and concerns from all Canadians in these trying times, the matter falls primarily within the responsibilities of the provincial government

Email from Appellant to the Tribunal - May 10, 2022 The appellant states this process is and has been affecting her wellbeing for some time. She has purchased baby aspirin as the anxiety is overwhelming. In her 60s and disabled, the thought of possibly becoming homeless in BC has taken its toll. The appellant adds that she was a single mother and that in itself was a difficult job.

Submission 2 – May 10, 2022 – summary Email from Client Service Coordinator – February 24, 2021 Re: one-on-one coaching to ensure appellant is accessing all possible income supports and to discuss budget

Email from Poverty Law - April 1, 2021 Re: arranging a homeless prevention coordinator

Email from Premier of BC to Appellant – May 3, 2022 Referred to appropriate ministry

Submission 3 – May 11, 2022 - summary Letter from Appellant’s Landlord - April 8, 2021 - advocating on behalf of appellant The appellant’s landlord stated they have been working with the appellant for several months trying to come to a solution on her housing affordability crisis that is in part precipitated by her daughter moving out and in part by the cost of living crises.

They have been an advocate for the appellant while she has waded through a myriad of options trying to figure out how to have enough money for housing let alone anything left over to live off. The appellant is

        EAAT003 (17/08/17) 5

Appeal Number 2022-0086 an adult on disability, at risk of homelessness. Her current income versus expenses do not leave her with enough money to pay her rent once her daughter moves out. The appellant has been applying to get on a list for subsidized housing, but the wait will be several years. She has been working with several agencies but keeps being advised she doesn’t qualify. The stress and panic that the appellant is under is very heartbreaking. The landlord accommodated the appellant on an under-market rate for rent as they knew she was going to be a good tenant. The appellant is unable to pay her rent without her daughter living with her. Her rent would be 75% of her actual income. The 25% left is not enough to pay other bills and eat while trying to access services.

The appellant has been told to redo her budget – move to a smaller place (currently renting for $300.00 to $400.00 more than her current tenancy agreement) or get a roommate.

At the hearing, the appellant reiterated that if she can’t get assistance to move to Ontario she will become homeless as she just can’t afford to live in BC anymore. Her daughter moved out in April 2021 and was helping her with rent but is unable to continue. She was trying to secure housing on Vancouver Island so she could stay close to her daughter. She doesn’t want to live in the lower mainland as she doesn’t know anyone there. The appellant states she has exhausted all housing options across the island. The appellant added that she has a friend who lives in the community in Ontario she would like to move to, and this friend would be a support to her. The appellant used to live in Ontario and moved to BC in 1993. She has kept in close touch with her friend.

The appellant also stated that she tried to inquire about financial assistance (PWD equivalent) from the Ontario government but was unable to. She stated that when she tried contacting Ontario to find information on social assistance rates and eligibility, "it did not allow her call to go through from out of province."

Ministry At the hearing, the ministry stated it doesn’t only consider reducing shelter costs when determining whether or not living circumstances would be improved. The ministry considers factors such as family support, overall affordability, government assistance for disabled persons, medical resources etc. The ministry added that the appellant has family in BC as her daughter lives in BC. As well, the ministry was unsure whether the appellant would qualify for assistance in Ontario. Therefore, it is not sure the appellant’s life would truly be improved by moving to Ontario. The decision is made on a case-by-case basis and reducing shelter costs can be accomplished in BC.

The ministry did not raise any objections to the appellant’s additional submissions. The panel determined the additional information is reasonably required for a full and fair disclosure of all matters related to the decision under appeal and therefore is admissible under section 22(4) of the Employment and Assistance Act.

        EAAT003 (17/08/17) 6

Part F – Reasons for Panel Decision

Appeal Number 2022-0086

The issue on appeal is whether the ministry’s reconsideration decision that determined the appellant was not eligible for a moving cost supplement as per section 55 of the EAPWDR was reasonably supported by the evidence or was a reasonable application of the legislation in the circumstances of the appellant.

The ministry is satisfied that the appellant requested the ministry’s approval prior to incurring any moving costs and that she does not have the funds to cover the costs. In addition, the ministry is satisfied the appellant has provided the least expensive appropriate quotes to move her personal items.

Relevant sections of the legislation can be found in the Schedule of Legislation at the end of this decision.   Appellant Argument The appellant argues she had two choices, either homelessness or move to Ontario. Her income is $1,359.50/month and her expenses total $1,823.63/month. For over 14 months she has been searching for additional resources. She has contacted the Prime Minister, the Premier, the Minister responsible for Housing, advocates and all community services but was told there are no resources unless she literally becomes homeless.

The appellant also argues that she was trying to secure housing on Vancouver Island so she could stay close to her daughter but has now exhausted all housing options across the island. She argues further that she has a friend who lives in Ontario and who would be a support to her. The appellant used to live in Ontario and moved to BC in 1993. She has kept in close touch with her friend since.

The appellant also argues that she is a woman with disabilities (in her 60s), has worked since she was 11 years old and has been recommended for four surgeries, as she has mobility issues. Dealing with this and with the lack of resources is overwhelming and has caused great anxiety.

In addition, the appellant argues that her current accommodation is unaffordable as well as unsafe as she’s had to call the police and property managers because her neighbour has been harassing her.

  Ministry Argument The ministry argues the appellant’s request did not meet the criteria for a moving supplement because the sole reason for the move was for a reduction in rental costs and not to improve living circumstances. Reducing shelter costs can be accomplished in BC. The ministry argues it doesn’t only consider reducing shelter costs, when determining whether or not living circumstances would be improved. It considers factors such as family support, overall affordability, government assistance for disabled persons, medical resources etc. The ministry added that the appellant has family in BC as her daughter lives in BC. As well, the ministry was unsure if the appellant would qualify for assistance in Ontario, so questions whether the appellant’s life would truly be improved by moving to Ontario.

The ministry added that the appellant had stable and safe housing in a safe community with supports available.

The ministry argues further that although her shelter costs would be significantly reduced, it is only permitted to provide a supplement to pay for moving costs for this reason if the appellant is moving within BC.

        EAAT003 (17/08/17) 7

Appeal Number 2022-0086   The ministry also argues that although the appellant has been offered $200.00/month to feed her landlord’s dogs, she has not provided any information to support this and therefore the ministry is not satisfied the appellant has confirmed employment that would significantly promote financial independence, and is required to move to begin that employment.

In addition, the ministry argues that although the appellant advised her that her accommodation was not safe due to a harassing neighbour, she has not provided any evidence to support that she is required to move to avoid imminent threat to her physical safety.

Majority Analysis Section 5, EAPWDA - disability assistance and supplements Section 5 states the minister may provide disability assistance or a supplement to or for a family unit that is eligible for it. Ministry records show the appellant is a recipient of disability assistance.

Section 55(2), EAPWDR states the minister may provide a supplement to or for a family unit that is eligible for disability assistance to assist with one or more of the following:

Section 55(2)(a), EAPWDR – moving for employment Section 55(2)(a) states the minister may provide a supplement to assist with 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.

Although in her request for reconsideration the appellant states she has been offered $200/month to feed and let out the landlord's dogs, the majority panel finds this is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that she is moving to Ontario for employment that would significantly promote financial independence.

Therefore, the majority panel finds the ministry reasonably determined the appellant is not eligible for a moving expense supplement under section 55(2)(a).

Section 55(2)(b), EAPWDR – moving to improve living circumstances Section 55(2)(b) states the minister may provide a supplement to assist with moving costs required to move to another province or country, if the family unit is required to move to improve its living circumstances.

The appellant argues she had two choices, either homelessness or move to Ontario. Her income is $1,359.50/month and her expenses total $1,823.63/month. She also argues she has exhausted all affordable housing options on Vancouver Island. In the letter from the MLA to the Minister (April 4, 2022), the MLA states the appellant sought to improve her circumstances by broadening her search for housing to other provinces. She identified a rental unit in Ontario where she would pay $700.00 a month (utilities included). The appellant also argues that she has a friend who lives in Ontario and who would be a support for her.

The ministry argues that when determining whether or not living circumstances would be improved it doesn’t only consider reducing shelter costs and each case is made on a case-by-case basis. It considers factors such as family support, overall affordability, government assistance for disabled persons, medical resources etc. The ministry added that the appellant’s daughter lives in BC and also is unsure if the appellant would qualify for assistance in Ontario. Therefore, the ministry is not satisfied the

        EAAT003 (17/08/17) 8

Appeal Number 2022-0086 appellant’s life would truly be improved by moving to Ontario. And, the ministry argues that reducing shelter costs can be accomplished in BC.

The majority panel notes, in her request for reconsideration, the appellant states her income is $1,359.50/month and her expenses total $1,823.63/month. At the hearing, the appellant stated that she tried to inquire about financial assistance (PWD equivalent) from the Ontario government but was unable to. She stated that when she tried contacting Ontario to find information on social assistance rates and eligibility, "it did not allow her call to go through from out of province."

Although ministry records show the appellant submitted a note from her prospective landlord in Ontario stating she would be renting a place for $700.00 per month including utilities, the majority panel finds there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that moving to Ontario is required to improve the appellant’s living circumstances. In BC the appellant is fully aware of her income and expenses. However, she has not obtained information as to what her total income in Ontario would be. In addition, she only has information on her rental cost, but not other expenses.

The majority panel finds the appellant is asking that the ministry provide moving expenses for Ontario so she can live where her income is at least sufficient to meet her expenses and yet she has provided insufficient evidence to demonstrate that this move will accomplish that.

As well, the majority panel notes the appellant argued that she exhausted all affordable housing on the island, but the majority panel finds there is insufficient information to show the appellant has exhausted all affordable housing options across BC.

Therefore, the majority panel finds the ministry reasonably determined the appellant is not eligible for a moving expense supplement under section 55(2)(b).

Section 55(2)(c), EAPWDR – moving as compelled to vacate residence Section 55(2)(c) states the minister may provide a supplement to assist with 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

The majority panel finds there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the appellant is compelled to vacate her residence for the reasons listed above.

Therefore, the majority panel finds the ministry reasonably determined the appellant is not eligible for a moving expense supplement under section 55(2)(c).

Section 55(2)(d), EAPWDR – moving to reduce shelter costs Section 55(2)(d) states the minister may provide a supplement to assist with moving costs required to move anywhere in BC if the family unit's shelter costs would be significantly reduced as a result of the move. In her request for reconsideration the appellant states she is moving to Ontario. The majority

        EAAT003 (17/08/17) 9

Appeal Number 2022-0086 panel finds as section 55(2)(d) allows for a move only within the province of BC, a moving supplement cannot be authorized to another province under this legislation.

Therefore, the majority panel finds the ministry reasonably determined the appellant is not eligible for a moving expense supplement under section 55(2)(d).

Section 55(2)(e), EAPWDR – moving to avoid an imminent threat to physical safety Section 55(2)(e) states the minister may provide a supplement to assist with moving costs required to move anywhere in BC to avoid an imminent threat to the physical safety of any person in the family unit. Although the majority panel notes, in her request for reconsideration the appellant stated that her current accommodation is unsafe as she’s had to call the police and property managers because her neighbour has been harassing her, the majority panel finds this is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the appellant needs to move to avoid imminent threat to her physical safety. In addition, as section 55(2)(e) allows for a move only within the province of BC, the panel finds a moving supplement cannot be authorized to another province under this legislation.