On this page
Reasons and Decision
Overview
[1] The Respondent received the Appellant’s application for a Canada Pension Plan (“CPP”) Survivor’s Pension and a CPP Orphan’s Benefit (sometimes called a Children’s Benefit) on November 26, 2014. The Appellant claimed that she and her children were entitled to these benefits because she had been in a common-law relationship with the deceased contributor E. P. (the “Contributor”) at the time of his death. The Respondent denied the application initially and upon reconsideration. The Appellant appealed the reconsideration decision to the Social Security Tribunal (“Tribunal”).
[2] In order for the Appellant and her children to be eligible for the specified benefits, the Contributor must have made the required number of valid contributions to the CPP. The required number of valid contributions is based on the number of years starting with the year that the Contributor reached the age of 18 and ending when the Contributor died. The Contributor was born on X X, X and died on September 23, 2010. His contributory period therefore commenced on X X, 1995 and ended on September 23, 2010.
[3] This appeal was decided on the basis of the documents and submissions filed for the following reasons:
- The issues under appeal are not complex.
- 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 not eligible for a CPP Survivor’s Pension, nor are her children eligible for a CPP Orphan’s Benefit, for the reasons set out below.
Evidence
[5] The Appellant was born on X X, X and lives in X, Yukon. The Orphan’s Benefit application provided the names of two of the Appellant’s children: N. P. (born X X, X) and T. P. (born X X, X), who were both in her care and custody at the time of the Contributor’s death. The Contributor was the father of both of those children. In addition, the Appellant had been maintaining both children since the Contributor’s death. Although the Appellant and the Contributor were not married, they had been in a common-law relationship and were living together at the time of the Contributor’s death. They relationship commenced in 1994 and they had lived together since June 18, 1996.
[6] A third child, S. P., was born to the Appellant on X X, X. While the Contributor also appears to have been S. P.’s father, the evidence does not indicate whether S. P. was still in the Appellant’s care and custody.
[7] Although they had lived together for 14 years, the Appellant and the Contributor had no joint lease or mortgage, had no joint credit cards or bank accounts, had no other joint property, and did not have life insurance on each other. However, the Appellant indicated that “income taxes” would provide evidence of their conjugal relationship as common-law partners.
[8] According to the Contributor’s Record of Earnings (“ROE”), he made valid contributions to the CPP in 1995, 1999, 2002, 2006 and 2007. According to the ROE, he also appears to have received some employment income in the years 1996, 1997, 2001, 2004, 2008 and 2009, although the income in those years was below the yearly basic exemption (“YBE”) and therefore insufficient for CPP purposes. There is no ROE evidence of any income in 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005 or 2010.
[9] After her application was first denied, the Appellant said the Contributor worked for a variety of employers and she knew that he worked in years other than 1995, 1999, 2002, 2006 and 2007. She undertook to provide documentation of that employment as soon as she was able to do so.
[10] When she appealed to the Tribunal, the Appellant stated that she was a single mother and, as the only income earner, was having financial difficulties feeding and clothing her children. She provided a copy of the Contributor’s résumé that appeared to cover the period between 1994 and 2002. The résumé provided the names of the Contributor’s employers, as well as the jobs and duties performed by the Contributor, during that period. However, the résumé does not specify how much money was made, how many hours were worked, whether the work was full-time or part-time, the extent to which CPP contributions were made on earnings, or whether the work was permanent, temporary or seasonal. The Contributor also appeared to be going to college during at least part of the period for which he reported being employed.
Submissions
[11] The Appellant submitted that she qualifies for a Survivor’s Pension (and her children qualify for the Orphan’s Benefit) because:
- She submitted evidence that the Contributor worked in years other than 1995, 1999, 2002, 2006 and 2007 and therefore ought to have made more than five years of qualifying contributions to the CPP; and
- She is experiencing financial hardship.
[12] The Respondent submitted that the Appellant does not qualify for a disability pension because:
- The Contributor is required to have made valid CPP contributions for at least six years, in order for the Appellant and her children to qualify for the requested benefits; and
- The Contributor only made valid CPP contributions for five years.
Analysis
Requirements for CPP survivor’s and orphan’s benefits
[13] The Appellant must first establish on a balance of probabilities that the Contributor made valid contributions to the CPP for the minimum qualifying period set out in the legislation.
[14] Paragraphs 44(1)(d) and (f) of the Canada Pension Plan state that a CPP Survivor’s Pension and a CPP Orphan’s Benefit can only be paid if the deceased contributor made valid contributions for not less than the minimum qualifying period. Subsection 44(3) of the Canada Pension Plan says that a contributor shall be considered to have made contributions for not less than the minimum qualifying period if contributions were made for at least ten years or for at least one third of the years wholly or partly within his contributory period.
[15] The contributory period is defined in section 49 of the Canada Pension Plan. For the Contributor, the contributory period would have begun when he reached the age of 18 and would have ended in the month he died. Accordingly, the contributory period in this case began in August of 1995 and ended in September of 2010. This includes sixteen calendar years. As a result, the Contributor would have needed to make valid contributions for at least six years in order to meet the “one-third criterion”.
[16] The ROE evidence discloses that the Contributor made valid contributions for only five years: 1995, 1999, 2002, 2006 and 2007. It therefore appears that the Appellant’s appeal must fail, as six years of valid contributions are required to meet the requirements of subsection 44(3) of the Canada Pension Plan.
[17] However, the Appellant has made submissions and filed evidence to suggest that the Contributor worked for more than just the five years on the ROE in which he clearly made qualifying contributions. This evidence consists essentially of a résumé apparently prepared by the Contributor at some point between 2002 and his death in 2010.
Does the Contributor’s apparent work history assist the Appellant?
[18] As the Contributor died in 2010, the Tribunal obviously does not have the benefit of his oral evidence to clarify the origin and purpose of the submitted résumé. However, the Appellant lived with the Contributor until his death and there is no reason to doubt the veracity of the résumé. The Tribunal accepts that the résumé was prepared by the Contributor and that he likely was engaged in some form of work activity during the periods specified.
[19] Nonetheless, the apparent work activity undertaken by the Contributor in the years 1994, 1996, 1997, 1998, 2000 and 2001 is in itself not enough. The Contributor must not only have been employed in at least one of those years, his earnings for at least one of those years must have been at least equal to the YBE amount for the year in question. For 1994, the YBE was $3,400.00, although the Contributor also had not reached the age of 18 by 1994. For 1996 and subsequent years, the YBE was $3,500.00. In the absence of some persuasive evidence that the ROE is incorrect, the Tribunal prefers to rely on the objective earnings information provided in the ROE.
[20] The résumé, even with the other evidence filed by the Appellant, does not persuade the Tribunal that the Contributor made valid contributions to the CPP for any years other than 1995, 1999, 2002, 2006 and 2007. His apparent work activity during that time may have been part-time, seasonal, intermittent, volunteer, or even “cash only”. It also appears he was attending school for the period between January 1996 and January 1997. For whatever reason, his apparent work activity did not result in reported earnings at the YBE level or higher for years other than 1995, 1999, 2002, 2006 and 2007. The mere fact that he was likely engaged in some kind of work activity during all of the years from 1994 to 2002 is insufficient. The Tribunal finds that the work history outlined in the Contributor’s résumé ultimately does not assist the Appellant in this appeal.
Is financial need relevant?
[21] The Appellant has indicated that she faces significant financial challenges. Although not married to the Contributor, the Appellant does appear to have been in a relationship of some permanence with the Contributor. She stated that their relationship commenced in 1994, they began living together on June 18, 1996, and were living together when the Contributor died on September 23, 2010. They also had three children together. It is entirely understandable that the Contributor’s death had some effect on the financial status of both the Appellant and her children. It is also entirely understandable that, as a single parent, the Appellant continues to face financial challenges today. The Contributor’s death at the young age of 33 undoubtedly also had a significant non-financial impact on the Appellant and her children.
[22] However, the Tribunal is created by legislation and, as such, it has only the powers granted to it by its governing statute. It is not empowered to make findings on the promotion of social well-being. The Tribunal is also required to interpret and apply the provisions as they are set out in the Canada Pension Plan. The legislature has seen fit to establish minimum contributory requirements and the Tribunal can only apply those requirements as they are set out in the applicable legislation. The Tribunal has no power to waive those requirements or to grant partial benefits in respect of contributors who only partially meet the legislated requirements. As a result, the Tribunal unfortunately cannot take the financial need of the Appellant and/or her children into consideration.
Conclusion
[23] After considering the evidence and submissions in this matter, the Tribunal finds that the Contributor did not meet the contributory requirements set out in subsection 44(3) of the Canada Pension Plan. The Tribunal also finds that the Appellant’s apparent financial need is not relevant for the purposes of this appeal.
[24] The appeal is dismissed.