Other Canada Pension Plan (CPP)

Decision and reasons

Decision

[1] The application for leave to appeal is refused.

Overview

[2] N. A. (Claimant) applied for a retirement pension under the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) on November 1, 2016, when she was just over 67 years old. The Minister received the application and granted the retirement pension with a payment start date of December 2015. That payment start date represented the earliest possible date that the payments could start, which is 11 months before the Minister received the application.

[3] The Claimant requested reconsideration. She argued that she had first applied for the retirement pension in June 2015 and that the start date of her pension should therefore be October 2014, the month after her 65th birthday. The Minister denied her request for reconsideration. The Claimant appealed to this Tribunal, and the General Division denied her appeal on November 30, 2018.

[4] The Appeal Division must decide whether there is an arguable case that the General Division made an error under the Department of Employment and Social Development Act (DESDA) that would justify granting leave to appeal.

[5] The Appeal Division finds that there is no arguable case that the General Division made an error under the DESDA. The application for leave to appeal is refused.

Issue

[6] Is there an arguable case that the General Division made an error of fact by deciding that the Claimant did not prove that she had sent an application to the Minister in 2015 and that there was no evidence that the Minister had received it in 2015, either?

Analysis

Appeal Division review of General Division decisions

[7] The Appeal Division grants leave to appeal General Division decisions only where there is an arguable case that the General Division has made an error. The only errors that allow the Appeal Division to grant leave to appeal are those that are listed in the DESDA. These possible errors are referred to as the “grounds of appeal.” One of the grounds of appeal listed in the DESDA occurs when the General Division based its decision on an erroneous finding of fact that it made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it.^{Footnote 1}

[8] On leave to appeal, an applicant must show that the appeal has a reasonable chance of success. To meet this requirement, the applicant needs to show only that there is some arguable ground on which the appeal might succeed.^{Footnote 2}

Payment of retirement pension

[9] A benefit is payable only when an application has been made and payment of the benefit has been approved.^{Footnote 3} The application must be received before it can be approved.

[10] The CPP provides the rules for payment of retirement pensions starting on or after January 1, 2012:

(3.1) For a retirement pension that commences to be payable on or after January 1, 2012 and if the applicant is not an estate, subject to section 62, if payment of the retirement pension is approved, the pension is payable for each month commencing with the latest of

(a) the month in which the applicant reached sixty years of age,

(b) the month following the month in which the application was received if they were under sixty-five years of age when they applied,

(c) the eleventh month preceding the month in which the application was received if they have reached sixty-five years of age when they applied, but in no case earlier than the month in which they reached sixty-five years of age, and

(d) the month chosen by the applicant in their application.^{Footnote 4}

Is there an arguable case that the General Division made an error of fact?

[11] There is no arguable case that the General Division made an error of fact. The General Division decided that: (i) the Claimant did not prove that she sent an application to the Minister in 2015; and even if she did send the application, (ii) there was no evidence that the Minister received an application from the Claimant in 2015. The Claimant has not pointed to any evidence that the General Division failed to consider when it reached those factual conclusions. There is no arguable case that these factual conclusions are either capricious or perverse.

[12] The Claimant argues that the General Division made an error of fact. In support of that statement, she argues that she did send the CPP application form “on time” but that it “seems like it was never received” and that she would like the opportunity to explain her personal situation further.^{Footnote 5}

[13] The General Division held a hearing using a process of written questions and answers with the Claimant.^{Footnote 6} The General Division asked the Claimant in writing whether the application of June 2015 was sent by courier or express post, and the Claimant answered that it was not. The General Division asked whether there was a return address on the envelope containing the original application of June 2015 and whether the application came back to the Claimant. The Claimant responded that there was a return address on the envelope, but the application did not come back to her. The General Division asked whether the Claimant kept a written record of calling Service Canada in 2015 to ask about receiving her application. The Claimant responded that she did not keep a written record. The General Division asked whether the Claimant kept a copy of her record of claim from November 2016, which was referenced in the Service Canada notes in the record.^{Footnote 7} The Claimant stated in response:

When my husband and I went to Service Canada Centre (X) on November 1, 2016, we took with us a copy of our June 2015 applications as proof that we had applied earlier. The SCC representative asked us to resubmit the same (June 2015) application and to just change the date at the bottom to November 1, 2016, which we did.

Since everything was done in SCC office and the rep. did not make a copy of this new application for us, I do not have a copy of November 1, 2016 application to forward to you. I am instead enclosing a copy of my June 2015 application.^{Footnote 8}

[14] The General Division asked the Claimant whether anyone could confirm that she sent the application in June 2015. The Claimant responded that she was “pretty sure” she mentioned not receiving CPP payments to her human resources representative at her last workplace before she retired. The Claimant provided telephone contact information for that person in human resources.^{Footnote 9}

[15] The General Division member set out in her decision the questions she asked and the answers she received.^{Footnote 10} The General Division member found that the retirement pension is paid retroactively based on when the Minister receives the application and that, in this case, the Minister received the application on November 1, 2016. The General Division considered the Claimant’s evidence and determined that while the Claimant may have sent an application in 2015, there was no evidence that it was received, so the retirement pension was payable effective December 2015: 11 months before November 2016, which is the month the application was received.^{Footnote 11}

[16] I find that there is no arguable case for an error of fact by the General Division in this matter. The General Division expressly considered the evidence the Claimant provided and did not reach any conclusions about that evidence that were arguably either perverse or capricious. The General Division concluded, based on that evidence, that the Claimant was not able to prove that the Minister had received the application in 2015 or that a 2015 application had been approved. The Claimant would have liked the General Division to reach a different conclusion based on the evidence, but the Claimant has no reasonable chance of success on appeal.

[17] The Appeal Division should go beyond a mechanistic review of the grounds of appeal.^{Footnote 12} I reviewed the record and I am satisfied that the General Division did not overlook or misconstrue any of the evidence.

Conclusion

[18] The application for leave to appeal is refused.