|
More than one year after the Ministry of Employment and Income
Assistance decided that a client was not eligible for income
assistance; Ms. B contacted the Ombudsman’s Office to complain.
Ms. B was not sure why the Ministry had decided she was ineligible
for income assistance; however, she believed the reasons related
to her access to a trust fund belonging to her son.
Ms. B explained that her son sustained a head injury in a car
accident when he was a child and a trust fund was established with
the proceeds from an insurance settlement. Ms. B said that when
her son turned nineteen he was incapable of managing his affairs
so she was appointed committee.
As committee, Ms. B had access to her son’s trust fund; however,
she maintained that she had no right to use money from the fund
for her own benefit. Ms. B believed the trust fund should have had
no bearing on her eligibility for income assistance. She was also
concerned that the Ministry refused to reconsider the decision,
respond in a substantive way to her request for administrative
review or reply to her letters of complaint.
The reasons for the Ministry’s decision regarding Ms. B’s
eligibility were unclear and might not have been communicated to
her at the time the decision was made. It was also not evident
that Ministry policies were followed in Ms. B’s case. Following a
period of consultation, the Ministry agreed to reopen Ms. B’s
income assistance file and assess her eligibility for income
assistance from the date on which her file was closed.
The Ministry subsequently concluded that the trust fund did not
have any bearing on Ms. B’s eligibility for income assistance and
determined that she was eligible for income assistance all along.
To address the matter, the Ministry made a payment to her
equivalent to the amount she would have received had her file not
been closed. We considered the complaint to be settled and we
discontinued our investigation.
Appeal decision based on wrong information
Employment and Assistance Appeal Tribunal
2006 Annual Report
Our office was contacted by Ms. F, who said a decision by the
Employment and Assistance Appeal Tribunal was unfair to her
because the Tribunal had made a decision on a matter she did not
appeal because it had been sent the wrong information package.
We were told by Ms. F that she
had been waiting for a decision from the Tribunal regarding
reimbursement for home repairs. When she found out the Tribunal
had not decided in her favour, she also discovered the Tribunal
had made its decision based on information not relating to her
case.
We discussed the matter with a
District Supervisor for the Ministry of Employment and Income
Assistance, who agreed that the Tribunal had been sent the wrong
information by his office.
To address Ms. F’s concerns, the
Supervisor ensured that the Tribunal was sent the correct
information package and the appeal proceeded.
We were also advised that as a
result of Ms. F’s complaint, the Ministry had made changes to
its internal procedures to avoid similar errors in the future.
Man questions paying child support for 19-year-old son
Family Maintenance Enforcement Program
2006 Annual Report
We were contacted by a man who felt the Family Maintenance
Enforcement Program (FMEP) was operating unfairly by continuing
to make him pay child support payments for his 19-year-old son.
Mr. V said that his child
support payments should end automatically when his child reached
19 years of age and he believed that FMEP was treating him
unfairly by telling him he had to bring the matter before the
courts if he wished to have his child support obligations
terminated.
We reviewed this matter with the
FMEP. They relied on case law which supported court-ordered
child support obligations could continue past a child’s
nineteenth birthday provided the child was living with the
recipient of the maintenance, not working and was attending
school.
We were also advised that it is
FMEP policy to continue enforcing child support past the child’s
nineteenth birthday when that child indicates that he or she
intends to return to school. It is also policy to stop enforcing
child support if the child has not returned to school after two
consecutive semesters have passed.
In this case, Mr. V’s ex-wife
told FMEP that her son intended to return to school so
enforcement of child support had continued. By February 2006
though, in accordance with FMEP’s policy, after two school terms
had passed and Mr. V’s son had not yet returned to school, FMEP
stopped enforcing child support.
As it appeared after our
investigation that the policy on ceasing payments that was
applied in this case was reasonable we closed the file.
Man’s pension seized by Family Maintenance Program
Family Maintenance Enforcement Program
2006 Annual Report
We were contacted by Mr. M who said he had been left penniless
because all of his pension income was being seized by the Family
Maintenance Enforcement Program (FMEP).
We spoke with a Manager at FMEP
to find out why 100 per cent of Mr. M’s federal pension had been
garnished, even though provincial legislation allows for a
maximum of only 25 per cent of a federal pension to be seized.
The Manager discovered that
Manitoba’s Maintenance Enforcement Program had seized 100 per
cent of Mr. M’s Canada Pension Plan and Old Age Pension, which
was permitted under Manitoba legislation.
The Manager asked the Manitoba
program to stop seizing Mr. M’s pension funds because he was no
longer living in that province. The Manager also arranged for
Mr. M to receive a refund from the Manitoba program.
Disability income
reduced
Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance
2006 Annual Report
Although some of the cases we investigate involve relatively
small sums of money, we are constantly reminded of how important
those extra dollars can be for those on small, fixed incomes.
For example,
one woman asked us for assistance when the Ministry of
Employment and Income Assistance reduced her disability income
by $200 because her son was temporarily out of her care.
She explained
to us that she needed to buy food but had run out of money. She
felt it was particularly unfair to cut back her disability that
amount given that her expenses were almost the same as when her
son lived with her.
She told us
that she did not know if she had the option to appeal the
decision regarding the reduction in income, and said that she
was unable to discuss the matter with Ministry staff due to a no
contact restriction.
We discussed
this matter with the Ministry, which committed to review how the
woman’s disability assistance had been calculated and why it had
been reduced in amount.
Following the
review of this matter, the Ministry immediately issued the woman
a $150.50 cheque.
Disabled person penalized for misplaced support cheques
Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance
2006 Annual Report
Ms. Q has power of attorney for her severely disabled daughter.
She misplaced a number of her daughter’s disability cheques and
then deposited them in the bank sometime later when she found
them. Ms. Q supported her daughter from her savings in the
interim. Two of the cheques were returned to Ms. Q because they
were stale dated. She requested that the Ministry reissue the
cheque and the Ministry decided not to reissue them and to
reduce the amount of Ms. Q’s daughter’s monthly entitlement.
Ms. Q
disagreed with the Ministry’s decision to not reissue the stale
dated disability cheques and to reduce her daughter’s monthly
support entitlement. She believed that the process the Ministry
followed in reaching its decisions in this case was unfair
because the Ministry failed to consider relevant factors.
After
reviewing the case, the Ministry informed us that in light of
the circumstances in this case, they reissued the cheques. In
addition, the Ministry informed us that they are working with
Ms. Q to set up a direct deposit. The Ministry also informed us
that they reinstated the full amount of benefits to Ms. Q’s
daughter and that they scheduled a financial review with Ms. Q
to determine current financial circumstances and need.
We considered
the complaint to be resolved and we closed our file on the basis
of section 13(i) of the Ombudsman Act.
Ministry
refused to pay moving costs
Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance
2006 Annual Report
Sometimes as a part of an investigation, questions may come up
regarding government policies and processes that, in our view,
may include built-in obstacles that hinder service to the public
and achieving the goals of the program.
This was the
case when Mr. W came to us to complain that the Ministry of
Employment and Income Assistance would not reimburse him for
moving expenses because he had failed to file certain
documentation within a specified timeframe when claiming the
expenses. He said he had not been told there was a particular
time limit.
The problem
for Mr. W was, in order to get reimbursed for his moving
expenses he had to have an active file with the ministry, but
because he had not provided a cheque stub his file had been
closed after 30 days. He explained he had not sent the cheque
stub in as he had happily got a job and would not be seeking
income assistance benefits for the following month.
After much
discussion between the Ministry and this office, the Ministry
agreed to pay Mr. W’s moving costs.
Long-time debt comes back to haunt couple
Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance
2006 Annual Report
Ms. Y contacted us to complain that the Ministry of Employment
and Income Assistance treated her and her husband unfairly by
not telling them they owed more than $5,000 to the government
for approximately ten years, and that they believed they were
now responsible for paying a significant amount of interest
because they did not know about the debt.
The Ministry
informed us that this complaint related to a conviction against
Ms. Y’s husband in June 1996. At that time her husband was
ordered to repay the Ministry money that was taken fraudulently.
Since it is
mandatory that a copy of the order be given to the convicted
person, the Ministry believed the husband was properly informed
of his debt. We were also advised by the Ministry that a
breakdown in communication between the Court Registry and the
Ministry resulted in the Ministry not following up on collecting
this debt as quickly as it normally would.
In conclusion
we advised Ms. Y that because there is no time limit on an order
of this nature we believed she and her husband were still
responsible for paying off the debt. The good news however was
that in fact no interest had been added to the amount owing by
either the Ministry or Court Services.
We also told
Ms. Y that if she and her husband felt their lawyer had not
properly informed them of the amount owing, they could contact
the Law Society of British Columbia to discuss the matter.
|
