On this page
Reasons and decision
Overview
[1] The Appellant is appealing the Respondent’s decision that he is not eligible for the Disabled Contributor’s Child benefit (DCCB) for the period of January 2017 to February 2017.
[2] The Respondent received the Appellant’s Declaration of Attendance at School or University form on January 16, 2017. The Appellant claims that he is entitled to DCCB because of his enrollment in a General Carpentry Apprenticeship classroom program from January 2, 2017 to February 24, 2017. The Respondent denied the Appellant’s claim both initially and upon reconsideration. The Appellant appealed to the Social Security Tribunal (Tribunal) on April 13, 2017.
[3] This appeal was decided on the basis of the documents and submissions filed for the following reasons:
- The member has decided that a further hearing is not required.
- There are no gaps in the information in the file or 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.
[4] The Tribunal has decided that the Appellant is eligible for DCCB for the reasons set out below.
The law
[5] Subsection 44 (1)(e) of the CPP provides that a disabled contributor’s child benefit shall be paid to each child of a disabled contributor subject to certain conditions.
[6] Subsection 44(2)(1) of the CPP defines a disabled contributor’s child to include any child of a contributor who is eighteen or more years of age but less than twenty five years of age and is in full-time attendance at a school or university as defined by regulation.
[7] Subsection 66 (1) of the CPP regulations provides, in part, that:
For the purpose of paragraph (b) of the definition "dependent child" in subsection 42(1) of the Act, “full-time attendance at a school or university” means full-time attendance at a school, college, university or other educational institution that provides training or instruction of an educational, professional, vocational or technical nature...
Issue
[8] The issue to be determined is whether the Appellant is entitled to DCCB for the period from January 2017 to February 2017.
Relevant facts
[9] There does not appear to be any significant dispute on the relevant facts.
[10] The Appellant was over 18 years of age and under 25 at the relevant time. He is the child of a disabled contributor.
[11] He attended the mandatory eight week classroom training portion of a carpentry apprenticeship program from January 2, 2017 to February 24, 2017. His declaration of attendance indicated that he was required to attend of 34.5 hours per week. The classroom training was run by the X X X X X X and is a mandatory requirement for the completion of his carpentry apprenticeship. The Appellant did not have an employer who paid for the schooling portion of his apprenticeship.
Submissions
[12] The Appellant submitted that he qualifies for DCCB because he has met all the requirements for full-time attendance at an educational institution and there is no basis for the Respondent’s position that the program has to be for 12-15 weeks: the eight week time period for the classroom program is prescribed by the provincial Ministry.
[13] The Respondent submitted that the period of classroom training should be considered to be the equivalent of an employer sponsored training program and does not constitute full-time attendance as defined by subsection 66(1) of the CPP regulations: the minimum length of time that should be considered as full-time school attendance for CPP purposes is 12 weeks within a 15 week time frame.
Analysis
[14] The only issue is whether the Appellant meets the full-time attendance requirement.
[15] In making it decision the Tribunal has been guided by the decision of the Pension Appeal Board in MHRD v. Ruelland (March 21, 1997), CP 4084 (PAB) which states that the definition of full-time attendance at a school or university should be given a liberal interpretation.
[16] The Tribunal has also been guided by the Pension Appeal Board decision in MNHW v. Guthro (September 13, 1993), CP 2668 (PAB) in which her internship at a teaching hospital was considered part of the Appellant’s formal education or training to become a professional dietician.
[17] In this case the Appellant’s eight week classroom attendance at the X X X X X X was part of the Appellant’s required education and training to become a licensed carpenter: he was required to attend for 34.5 per week; he was not sponsored by an employer; he did not receive any employment compensation; and he attended a college program recognized by the Ontario Ministry.
[18] There is no basis for the Respondent’s position that this is equivalent to an employer sponsored training program: it is a program mandated by the province and the Appellant was not sponsored by an employer. Further, there is no basis for the Respondent’s position that a full-time program must be for 12 weeks within a 15 week time frame. The Appellant was attending on a full-time basis and the length of the program was mandated by the provincial government.
[19] Although this minimum time requirement might be in accordance with Ministry guidelines the Tribunal is not bound by those guidelines: it is obligated to apply the CPP provisions to the specific facts of each case: Boles v. MEI (June 30, 1994), CP2794 (PAB).
[20] In this case the Appellant was attending on a full-time basis at an “educational institution that provides training or instruction of an educational, professional, vocational or technical nature.” The fact that the program was only for eight weeks does not detract from his having attended full-time nor does it detract from his having attended an educational institution in accordance with the CPP regulations.
Conclusion
[21] The appeal is allowed.