Attention: For optimal viewing, please use Firefox or Google Chrome. This website is not fully supported by Internet Explorer.

Multiple barriers to fairness

Wednesday, June 23, 2021

Jamie applied to the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction for a Persons with Disabilities (PWD) designation. He contacted our office because he was concerned there was a delay in the adjudication process.

The focus of our investigation was whether the ministry followed a reasonable process in adjudicating Jamie’s PWD application. We contacted the ministry and obtained the records associated with Jamie’s application as well as details about how the ministry responded to his attempts to raise his concerns.

Based on our review, it appeared that the ministry’s process was fair. The records confirmed that after Jamie’s application was received he had been informed about the ministry’s service delivery timelines for PWD designation determination. In addition, the ministry forwarded Jamie’s request to expedite the adjudication to a Supervisor.

However, through our investigation we discovered that in the same month that Jamie was approved for PWD, the ministry had determined he no longer qualified for a Person with Persistent Multiple Barriers (PPMB) designation and was issued a lower rate of assistance as an “employable” client instead. We pointed to the information the ministry had on its file, including reports provided by Jamie about his limitations on his ability to work due to health problems, his understanding that he would continue to receive assistance under the PPMB rate pending the outcome of his PWD application, and the ministry’s stated policy purpose of the PPMB designation, which is to support clients transitioning to PWD. We questioned whether the ministry had adequately considered the information available to it.

The ministry agreed to review Jamie’s file and determined he was eligible for the PPMB rate. An administrative underpayment equalling the difference between the “employable” rate and the PPMB rate for the month in question was then issued to Jamie. We considered this action taken by the ministry addressed the fairness issue identified through our investigation of Jamie’s complaint.