On this page
Reasons and decision
Introduction
[1] The Appellant’s application for a Canada Pension Plan (CPP) death benefit was date stamped by the Respondent on December 31, 2013. The Respondent denied the application initially and upon reconsideration as the benefit had been paid to the Added Party. The Appellant appealed the reconsideration decision to the Social Security Tribunal (Tribunal).
[2] The hearing of this appeal was by Questions and answers for the following reasons:
- More than one party will attend the hearing.
- The method of proceeding is most appropriate to allow for multiple participants.
- The issues under appeal are not complex.
- There are gaps in the information in the file and/or a need for clarification.
- This method of proceeding respects the requirement under the Social Security Tribunal Regulations to proceed as informally and quickly as circumstances, fairness and natural justice permit.
The law
[3] Paragraph 44(1)(c) of the CPP and Regulation 64(1) sets out who is eligible to receive the CPP death benefit. The general rule is the Estate receives the death benefit. If there is no Estate, or if the Estate does not apply within 60 days of the death, then the Minister may direct payment to whoever paid or was responsible for funeral expenses, the survivor of the deceased, or the next of kin of the deceased.
[4] Subsection 42(1) of the CPP defines survivor as a person who was married to the contributor at the time of the contributor’s death or a person who was the common-law partner of the contributor at the time of the contributor’s death.
[5] According to subsection 2(1) of the CPP, the common-law partner is the person who was cohabiting with the contributor in a conjugal relationship at the time of the contributor’s death, having so cohabited for a continuous period of at least one year.
Issue
[6] In this case, the Tribunal must decide who is entitled to receive the death benefit.
Evidence
[7] Mr. G. S., the contributor, passed away on December 11, 2013. The Added Party was listed as his common-law spouse on the Proof of Death Certificate (GD4-2). His funeral was prepaid, but the Added Party paid for his urn (GD5-2).
[8] The Appellant is the biological daughter of the contributor.
[9] The Respondent determined that the Added Party was the survivor of the contributor and she was therefore paid the death benefit.
[10] The Added Party submitted in a statement dated December 14, 2015 that she was the contributor’s common-law wife from June 1, 2009 (GD3-1). She stated that she would bathe him, take him to appointments, dress him, and go places with him (GD4-1). In a statement dated January 11, 2016 (GD5-1), she noted that she moved in with the contributor to be his caretaker. In June 2009, they moved into a two bedroom apartment and each had their own bedroom. The Added Party explained that there was no sex between the two and that she took care of him, cooked his meals, did his laundry and did the cleaning.
[11] On February 17, 2016 the Added Party clarified the conditions under which she agreed to be the contributor’s caregiver (GD8-1). They were: that he stopped drinking alcohol, that he gets a two bedroom apartment, that he didn’t try to initiate a sexual relationship because she was not attracted to him, and that he was to pay half the utilities and buy his own groceries.
Submissions
[12] The Appellant submitted that she is entitled to receive the death benefit because she is the next of kin of the contributor.
[13] The Respondent submitted that the Appellant is not entitled to the death benefit because the Added Party is the survivor of the contributor.
[14] The Added Party submitted that she is entitled to receive the death benefit because that’s what the contributor wanted.
Analysis
[15] The CPP clearly defines who is entitled to a death benefit when a contributor passes away. In this case there was no estate, as there was no will. The funeral expenses were prepaid by the contributor, but the Added Party paid for the urn used to contain the contributor’s ashes with her own money. The evidence provided by the Added Party clarifies that she and the contributor were not in a common-law relationship, as defined by the CPP.
[16] What consists of funeral expenses is not specifically defined under the CPP; however the Tribunal finds that it should include all expenses paid for the final arrangements after a person has passed away. That would include the urn used to keep the deceased’s ashes. It is unclear why the urn was not included in the expenses prepaid by the contributor; however neither the Appellant nor the Respondent submitted evidence to contradict the Added Party’s claims that she paid for the urn and the Tribunal finds that she is a credible witness.
[17] The Respondent determined that the Added Party fulfilled the priority criteria ahead of the Appellant. The Tribunal finds that the Added Party is not the common-law spouse of the contributor, based on the evidence of the Added Party. However, the Tribunal finds that the Added Party met the second criteria, being the individual responsible for the funeral expenses of the contributor, as she paid for the urn that the contributor’s ashes are held in.
[18] The Appellant claimed that the Added Party committed fraud when she applied for the death benefit. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to make a finding on fraud.
Conclusion
[19] The appeal is dismissed.