2011 MBCA 15, 2011 MBCA 15

Citation: Klippenstein v. Director, Point Douglas, 2011 MBCA 15 Date: 20110203 Docket: AI 10-30-07460 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA B E T W E E N: ) L. P. KlippensteinLARRY PETER KLIPPENSTEIN ) on his own behalf ) (Appellant) Applicant ) I. D. Frost ) for the Respondent- and - ) Director, Point Douglas ) SOCIAL SERVICES APPEAL BOARD and ) Chambers motion heard:DIRECTOR, POINT DOUGLAS ) January 20, 2011 ) (Respondents)Respondents ) Decision pronounced: ) February 3, 2011 FREEDMAN J.A. 1 The applicant seeks leave to appeal an order (the Order) of the Social Services Appeal Board (the Board) dated July 15,2010.

The Order confirmed a decision of the Director of Employment and Income Assistance under The Employment and IncomeAssistance Act, C.C.S.M., c. E98, denying the applicant certain benefits. 2 Leave to appeal may only be granted on a question of jurisdiction or point of law (s. 23, The Social Services Appeal BoardAct, C.C.S.M., c. S167) (the Act). No question of jurisdiction is raised. The well-accepted principles applicable to an application such asthis are set out in Pelchat v. Manitoba Public Insurance Corp., 2006 MBCA 90, 40 C.C.L.I. (4th) 46 (at para. 2): …. 1.

The question must be truly one only of jurisdiction or of law, and not one which “involve[s] the court in an assessment oranalysis of conflicting factual issues” (Shersty v. Manitoba Public Insurance Corp. (2002), 43 C.C.L.I. (3d) 35, 2002 MBCA 108 (Man.C.A. [In Chambers]), at para. 2, Fillion v. Manitoba Public Insurance Corp. (2004), 10 C.C.L.I. (4th) 182, 2004 MBCA 61 (Man. C.A.),and cases cited therein). 2.

The case must be one that warrants the attention of the court. “The issue must be one of importance; not just for theimmediate case, but in determining other similar disputes which are apt to arise in [the] future” (Wuziuk v. Manitoba (Director of SocialServices) (No. 2) (1979), (MB CA), 3 Man.R. (2d) 81 (Man. C.A.), at para. 7. 3. There must be an arguable case of substance; i.e., one with a reasonable prospect of success (see Lejins v. Manitoba PublicInsurance Corp. (2003), 50 C.C.L.I. (3d) 1, 2003 MBCA 95 (Man. C.A. [In Chambers])). 3 See also Custovic v.

Manitoba (Director, Employment & Income Assistance), 2008 MBCA 53, 62 C.C.L.I. (4th) 57. 4 The applicant argued that the Board erred in misidentifying his legal address or residence, in not considering his eligibilityas a disabled person, in denying the expense of his attempts to regain access to that address or residence, and in denying him access todue process (i.e., not ensuring he had legal assistance). 5 Counsel for the Board noted that there was a legislative basis for the Board’s decision, in that the applicant’s financialresources exceeded the cost of his basic necessities budget, when determined in accordance with the applicable statute and regulation.

6 The Board’s reasons clearly show it was aware of the fact of the applicant’s disability. Whatever arguments the applicant has with the Order and with the underlying reasons of the Board, are arguments that, with the possible exceptions of the “due process” argument, at best, raise questions of mixed fact and law. They are, therefore, not questions upon which leave can be granted. 7 The last argument, about due process, does not arise from the reasons or the Order itself.

The Board is under no duty to ensure that parties before it have legal counsel, and the applicant had the assistance of an advocate when he appeared at the Board. The Act is intended to provide an informal appeal process ( s. 2 ) and an appellant may have an advocate (not necessarily legally trained) at a hearing ( s. 14 ), as did the applicant. There is no merit to this argument on which the applicant, in my view, does not have “an arguable case of substance” (at para. 2). 8 Leave to appeal is denied. J.A.