Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction

2025-0012 Part C – Decision Under Appeal The decision under appeal is the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction’s (the “ministry”) Reconsideration Decision dated December 6, 2024. The ministry found that under Section 55 of the Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Regulation the Appellant was not eligible for an additional moving supplement of $239.41 to pay for a move that occurred in December 2023.

The ministry found that the Appellant did not meet the legislative requirements to receive this supplement because the Appellant did not receive prior approval for the additional $239.41 and there were no exceptional circumstances preventing the Appellant from getting prior approval. The ministry also denied the request because the Appellant was not a recipient of income assistance, disability assistance, or hardship assistance at the time of the request; the Appellant’s file was designated Medical Services Only (MSO) on January 4, 2024, and the Appellant had not received disability assistance benefits since the December 2023 benefit month.

Part D – Relevant Legislation

Employment and Assistance for Persons with Disabilities Regulation (the “Regulation”), Section 55

The full wording of this legislation is set out in the Schedule of Legislation at the end of this decision.

EAAT003 (17/08/21) 2

2025-0012 Part E – Summary of Facts The hearing took place by teleconference on April 4, 2025 and was fully attended by the hearing panel members and the ministry representative. Together with a representative, the Appellant attended in part.

Adjournment Requests:

Prior to the hearing, the Appellant submitted three previous requests to adjourn: ➢ January 23, 2025—hearing adjourned for one month per Appellant request; ➢ February 13, 2025—hearing adjourned to the beginning of April per Appellant request, with the Tribunal Chair noting, “As this is not the first adjournment granted and it is a lengthy adjournment, there will be no further adjournments approved unless extenuating circumstances”; and ➢ March 18, 2025—request to adjourn and request denied on March 21, 2025 by the Tribunal Chair.

Within 24 hours of the scheduled hearing, the Appellant verbally requested an adjournment due to difficulty attending in person. The hearing was changed to teleconference to accommodate the Appellant, and the Appellant and their representative attended the teleconference hearing in part.

At the hearing, the Appellant again requested that the hearing be adjourned. To support their adjournment request, the Appellant argued that a denial from the panel would violate their human rights and would be discriminatory. The panel notes that under s.19.1 of the Employment Assistance Act and s. 46.3 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, the panel does not have the authority to apply the Human Rights Code.

The Appellant also said at the hearing that they were not well, “due to existing, long-standing medical conditions” and so were unable to participate in the hearing. The Appellant did not provide details as to how their chronic medical conditions prevented their participation by telephone; the Appellant provided their reasons in support of their request for adjournment of the hearing for more than 15 minutes before they ultimately hung up leaving the teleconference.

The panel declined the Appellant’s request to adjourn for several reasons: ➢ The panel determined that an additional adjournment would cause unreasonable delay given it would be the third adjournment from the Appellant’s original Notice of Appeal dated January 13, 2025 for the December 21, 2023 move;

EAAT003 (17/08/21) 3

2025-0012 ➢ The panel determined that the Appellant had not demonstrated extenuating circumstances requiring the hearing be adjourned—the Appellant attended by teleconference and participated in the hearing for more than 15 minutes; and ➢ In reply to the Appellant’s March 18, 2025 request to adjourn, on March 21, 2025, the Tribunal Chair had already directed that no further adjournments would be approved.

As such, and consistent with Section 86(b) of the Employment and Assistance Regulation, the hearing proceeded.

Information at Ministry Reconsideration:

The information before the ministry at the time of the December 6, 2024 Reconsideration Decision included: ➢ A June 16, 2023 medical note (“the June 16, 2023 medical note”) indicating that the Appellant may need to cancel appointments on short notice due to various, listed medical concerns; ➢ On December 11, 2023, a representative for the Appellant attended the local ministry office to request a moving supplement on the Appellant’s behalf: • The Appellant’s representative noted that the Appellant would be moving on December 20, 2023; • The Appellant’s representative submitted two quotes for moving costs; o One submitted quote was dated December 11, 2023 and moving cost estimated at $874.50; and o One submitted quote was dated December 8, 2023 and moving cost estimated at $1222.20; ➢ On December 14, 2023, the Appellant’s representative attended the local ministry office to follow up on the request for the moving supplement; ➢ On December 15, 2023, the Appellant’s representative attended the local ministry office to collect a security deposit cheque on behalf of the Appellant; ➢ December 17, 2023, $50 receipt for packing and moving household goods (paid December 21, 2023); ➢ December 18, 2023, $38.20 U-Haul receipt for packing supplies; ➢ On December 19, 2023, the Appellant’s representative attended the local ministry office to follow up on the request for the moving supplement; ➢ On December 19, 2023, the ministry confirmed the Appellant’s eligibility for a $874.50 moving supplement; ➢ On December 20, 2023, the Appellant’s representative attended the local ministry office and was given a $874.50 cheque for a moving supplement to be provided to the Appellant;

EAAT003 (17/08/21) 4

2025-0012 ➢ A December 22, 2023, $102.71 U-Haul receipt for moving van rental December 21, 2023 and return December 22, 2023; ➢ A December 22, 2023, $11.00 typed record noted as Petro Can gas receipt for moving van; ➢ On December 22, 2023, the Appellant’s bank records showed a $874.50 deposit; ➢ On January 4, 2024, the Appellant’s ministry file was switched to MSO; ➢ On March 8, 2024, the Appellant called the ministry to request additional reimbursement for unexpected moving expenses from December 2023 and that the Appellant intended to submit receipts; ➢ An August 22, 2024 letter (“the August 22, 2024 letter”) from the Appellant to their representative stating: • The Appellant had an emergency household move on December 21, 2023; • The move cost $1113.91; • The ministry provided $874.50; • The original moving estimate of $874.50 could not be finalized with the moving company, the Appellant cancelled the original move and put their own moving crew together and rented a U-Haul moving van; • The Appellant is still owed $239.41; and • The Appellant attempted to contact the representative after the December 21, 2023 move but the office was closed; ➢ On August 23, 2024, the Appellant’s representative attended the local ministry office to request the moving supplement and provided additional documents: • The August 22, 2024 letter; • A screenshot from the Appellant’s online banking showing a December 22, 2023 $874.50 ministry deposit; • A screenshot from the Appellant’s online banking labelled as “December 2023 bank statement” and “moving expenses: $912.00”; o Individual December 21, 2023 e-transfers are circled for various amounts: $12.00, $200.00, $200.00, and $500.00; • December 17, 2023, $50 receipt for packing and moving household goods (paid December 21, 2023); • December 18, 2023, $38.20 U-Haul receipt for packing supplies; • December 22, 2023, $102.71 U-Haul receipt for moving van rental December 21, 2023 and return December 22, 2023; and • A December 22, 2023, $11.00 typed record noted as Petro Can gas receipt for the moving van; ➢ On September 18, 2024, the ministry advised the Appellant’s representative of the ministry’s decision to deny the August 23, 2024 request for additional moving costs: ➢ On October 21, 2024, the Appellant submitted to the ministry: • Page 4 of the Request for Reconsideration package, signed by the Appellant;

EAAT003 (17/08/21) 5

2025-0012 • Page 3 of the Request for Reconsideration package, with handwritten notes from the Appellant requesting an extension to December 6, 2024 given the Appellant’s significant disabilities and need for more time to respond and to obtain legal advice; and • The June 16, 2023 medical note; ➢ On November 6, 2024, the Appellant’s representative submitted an Email requesting an extension for the Request for Reconsideration; • The ministry accepted this as the Appellant’s submission of the Request for Reconsideration; • The ministry approved a timeline extension for the Request for Reconsideration to December 5, 2024; ➢ On December 5, 2024, the Appellant submitted the Request for Reconsideration and provided documents and explanations: • The Appellant was eligible and on disability assistance (PWD) when the additional, unexpected moving expenses were incurred; • The additional expenses totalled $239.41; • The Appellant attempted to submit the additional moving expenses but the representative was out of the office due to the holidays; • Shortly after the December 21, 2023 move, the Appellant became very ill and was not able to tackle the request; • The remaining $239.41 should be covered; the Appellant has debts still owing and was entitled to it; • Telephone log August 25, 2023 to November 1, 2024 with five calls highlighted between December 11 and December 15, 2023 and one call on February 22, 2024; o The Appellant notes that this shows they called and left messages with their representative five times during the month of December 2023 to tell the representative that the move had been cancelled due to reasons beyond the appellant’s control, and that the Appellant had to do a more costly self-serve move; o The Appellant spoke with their representative in February 2024 after their PWD file was closed; and • The Appellant was entitled to the moving supplement because the additional moving expenses occurred before the PWD file was closed.

New Evidence After Ministry Reconsideration

Notice of Appeal

EAAT003 (17/08/21) 6

2025-0012 ➢ On January 13, 2025, the Appellant submitted a Notice of Appeal with “Reasons for Appeal” section not completed.

At the Hearing Appellant: As the Appellant declined to participate in the hearing, no new evidence was provided.

Ministry: The Ministry relied on its reasons stated in its Reconsideration Decision and no new evidence was provided.

Admissibility of New Evidence—if Applicable

Section 22(4) of the Employment and Assistance Act says that a panel can consider evidence that is not part of the record when the ministry made its Reconsideration Decision. However, neither the ministry nor the Appellant provided new evidence on appeal.

EAAT003 (17/08/21) 7

2025-0012 Part F – Reasons for Panel Decision The issue on appeal is whether the ministry’s decision that the Appellant was not entitled to an additional $239.41 moving supplement was reasonably supported by the evidence or was a reasonable application of the legislation in the circumstances of the Appellant.

Position of the Appellant

As the Appellant did not participate in the hearing, the panel relied on the submissions provided at reconsideration. The Appellant stated that they were eligible for the moving supplement. The Appellant further stated they were on Persons with Disabilities assistance when the additional, unexpected moving expenses occurred in December 2023 which was before the Appellant’s PWD file was closed in January 2024.

The Appellant said their evidence—receipts, telephone log, emails—verified they should be repaid the $239.41 because they made repeated attempts through their representative to get prior approval from the ministry. Further, the Appellant said that their evidence also confirmed that they had attempted to submit the additional moving expenses in December 2023 but their representative was out of the office due to the holidays and then shortly after the move, the Appellant became sick and was unable to tackle things further. Finally, the Appellant says they are entitled to the additional $239.41 because the original move was cancelled, the Appellant was required to do a more costly self-move, the additional expense was out of their control, and the additional cost left the Appellant in debt. The Appellant states for all those reasons, the ministry owes the Appellant the money for the additional moving expenses.

Position of the Ministry

The ministry determined the Appellant’s request for an additional $239.41 for a moving supplement did not meet the eligibility criteria set out in the legislation. The ministry found that the Appellant was not eligible for the supplement for two reasons:

1. On August 23, 2024 when the Appellant submitted their request for additional moving costs, the Appellant was not a recipient of disability assistance or hardship assistance as required by the legislation; and

2. The Appellant did not get prior approval for the added moving costs nor were there exceptional circumstances preventing the Appellant from getting prior approval, which is required under Section 55 of the Regulation.

EAAT003 (17/08/21) 8

2025-0012

The ministry says that the Appellant did not establish that exceptional circumstances prevented them from getting help from their representative to get prior ministry approval. Ministry records showed that the representative connected with the ministry about the moving supplement five times between December 11, 2023 and December 20, 2023; the representative received the original supplement cheque on December 20, 2023; and the Appellant deposited the cheque on December 22, 2023. Given this, the ministry was not satisfied that exceptional circumstances prevented the Appellant from notifying the ministry of their need for additional assistance with moving costs at the time of their move. As such, the ministry decided that an exception should not be made to assess the Appellant’s request for a moving supplement based on their original December 22, 2023 moving date.

Analysis

In Section 55, subsections 2, 3, and 3.1, the Regulation says that a moving supplement may be provided when several conditions are met including:

➢ The applicant is a recipient of disability assistance or hardship assistance; ➢ The recipient receives the minister's approval before incurring the moving costs; or ➢ If prior approval not obtained, the minister is satisfied that exceptional circumstances existed that prevented the applicant from getting prior approval.

In the Appellant’s case, the ministry denied the additional $239.41 moving expense because at the time the Appellant requested the supplement (August 23, 2024), the Appellant was not a recipient of disability or hardship assistance.

The ministry was also not satisfied that the Appellant had exceptional circumstances that prevented them from getting the required prior approval at the time of the December 21, 2023 move. As the Appellant did not receive prior approval or demonstrate exceptional circumstances for failing to get prior approval, the ministry did not provide the additional $239.41 supplement to cover the Appellant’s extra moving costs.

Whether Eligible as a Recipient of Disability or Hardship Assistance

The Appellant submitted that they are entitled the $239.41 additional moving supplement because they were a recipient of Persons with Disabilities assistance at the time of the move. The ministry countered that the Appellant was not eligible for the $239.41 additional moving

EAAT003 (17/08/21) 9

2025-0012 supplement because they were not a recipient of disability assistance at the time of the application for the additional moving supplement.

The Appellant moved December 21, 2023 and incurred expenses and at that time they were a recipient of disability assistance. At the time, the Appellant received the $874.50 moving supplement that they requested. Section 55(2) of the Regulation states, “the minister may provide a supplement to or for a family unit that is eligible for disability assistance…” (emphasis added). The legislation does not say a supplement may be provided to an applicant that was eligible. Given that the Appellant received the requested supplement at the time of the move and while eligible for disability assistance, the panel finds that the ministry was reasonable when it decided that the Appellant was not eligible for the additional moving supplement because when they applied for the additional supplement in 2024, they were not receiving Persons with Disabilities assistance.

Whether Exceptional Circumstances Existed That Prevented Prior Approval Being Obtained

The Appellant did not dispute that they did not receive prior approval for the additional moving costs. However, the Appellant argued that lack of ministry support and ill health explain the delays with their additional request for the $239.41 moving costs. The Appellant also says that because of being required to move quickly, the sudden change in moving plan to the more expensive self-move, and the unavailability of representatives to assist with the supplement application, they were unable to make the request for moving costs in advance or to make the request in a timely fashion. In turn, according to the Appellant, all these reasons demonstrate exceptional circumstances that prevented the Appellant from seeking prior approval.

The panel finds that the ministry was reasonable in deciding that the Appellant had not demonstrated there were exceptional circumstances that prevented them from seeking prior approval for the $239.41 additional moving costs. With their Request for Reconsideration, the Appellant said that they attempted to submit additional unexpected expenses for approval around the time of the move on December 21, 2023 but could not because representatives were unavailable to assist. However, the Appellant’s representative received the original $874.50 moving supplement cheque in person on December 20, 2023, which was then deposited by the Appellant on December 22, 2023. As such, the Appellant and the representative must have connected directly between December 20, 2023 and December 22, 2023. This confirms that there was opportunity to secure the representative’s assistance with seeking ministry approval for the additional $239.41 prior to or near the December 21, 2023 move date.

The Appellant also said that shortly after the December 21, 2023 move, they became ill and were unable to take any action to apply for the additional supplement. Unfortunately, there was no evidence about the nature of and extent of the illness. As such, the panel finds that there was

EAAT003 (17/08/21) 10

2025-0012 insufficient information available to determine whether the December 2023 illness provided an exceptional circumstance that would explain the Appellant’s lengthy delay in applying for the supplement. The Appellant applied for the supplement on August 23, 2024, almost nine months after the move. The legislation does not specify that retroactive payments are available for eligible expenses, nor if there is a cut-off date for applying. Rather it specifies that prior approval must be sought.

Finally, the Appellant said that the sudden change to the more expensive self-move was an exceptional circumstance warranting approval for the additional $239.41 moving supplement. The quote from the mover clearly noted it as an estimate and that written confirmation was required before the move would be added to the mover’s schedule. With no evidence of written confirmation from the Appellant to the mover, the panel finds that the mover’s cancellation and the change to a self-move was not unexpected or an exceptional circumstance.

Further, the panel finds that the Appellant’s assertion that the self-move was more expensive and thus an exceptional circumstance, is not supported by the Appellant’s evidence. The Appellant had received and deposited a $874.50 payment for moving services that were cancelled and never paid to the mover. As well, although the Appellant provided bank statements showing varied payments on the December 21, 2023 move date totalling $912, only one of the payments was supported by an itemized receipt that clearly noted it was for moving. According to the Appellant’s submissions, the moving costs supported by itemized receipts total $201.91: • $50 receipt for packing and moving household goods; + • $38.20 U-Haul receipt for packing supplies; + • $102.71 U-Haul receipt for moving van rental (with $3.20 credit); + • $11.00 Petro Can gas receipt for moving van.

Given all the above, the panel finds that the ministry was reasonable in deciding that the Appellant had not demonstrated there were exceptional circumstances that justified the Appellant not seeking approval for the $239.41 additional supplement prior to, or nearer to the December 21, 2023 move.

Conclusion The Regulation is clear that there must be prior approval for moving costs except when there are exceptional circumstances. The Appellant did not seek prior approval for the additional $239.41 moving supplement. The panel finds that the ministry was reasonable in deciding that the Appellant had not demonstrated there were exceptional circumstances that prevented the Appellant from seeking prior approval. The panel confirms the ministry’s decision was a reasonable application of the legislation in the circumstances of the Appellant. This means the Appellant is not successful with their appeal.

EAAT003 (17/08/21) 11

Relevant Legislation

2025-0012

EMPLOYMENT AND ASSISTANCE FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES REGULATION 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; (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 fulfill in connection with the exercise of a maintenance right assigned to the minister under section 17 [assignment of maintenance rights].