Other Canada Pension Plan (CPP)

Decision and Reasons

Decision

[1] Leave to appeal is refused.

Overview

[2] The Applicant, M. B., was born in March 1952 and applied for a Canada Pension Plan(CPP) retirement pension in April 2016. The Respondent, the Minister of Employment and Social Development (Minister), approved the application and commenced payment when the Applicant turned 65.

[3] The Applicant was disappointed with the amount of his monthly benefit and asked the Minister to reconsider it. In a letter dated March 29, 2018, the Minister upheld its calculation of the amount.

[4] The Applicant appealed the Minister’s decision to the General Division of the Social Security Tribunal of Canada. The General Division held a hearing by teleconference and, in a decision dated January 7, 2019, dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence that the Minister had made an error in determining the Applicant’s monthly retirement pension.

[5] The Applicant has now applied for leave to appeal from the Appeal Division. In his application, the Applicant alleged that the General Division failed to observe a principle of natural justice. In particular, he complained that the General Division ignored medical reports indicating that he had injured his back in 1981. He also suggested that his doctors had minimized his injuries because of changes that the Alberta government made to the Workers’ Compensation Board in the 1990s.

[6] Having reviewed the General Division’s decision against the underlying record, I have concluded that the Applicant has not advanced any grounds that would have a reasonable chance of success on appeal.

Issue

[7] According to section 58 of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act (DESDA), there are only three grounds of appeal to the Appeal Division: the General Division (i) failed to observe a principle of natural justice; (ii) erred in law; or (iii) based its decision on an erroneous finding of fact made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material. An appeal may be brought only if the Appeal Division grants leave to appeal,^{Footnote 1} but the Appeal Division must first be satisfied that it has a reasonable chance of success.^{Footnote 2} The Federal Court of Appeal has held that a reasonable chance of success is akin to an arguable case at law.^{Footnote 3}

[8] My task is to determine whether any of the Applicant’s submissions raise an arguable case on appeal.

Analysis

[9] The Applicant is plainly dissatisfied with his CPP retirement pension, but he has not explained how the General Division erred when it determined that the Minister correctly calculated his monthly amount.

[10] In its reconsideration letter dated March 29, 2018, the Minister explained how it arrived at the amount:

The amount of your Canada Pension Plan retirement pension is based strictly on your valid earnings and contributions to the Plan, the number of months in your contributory period less 17% of the months with your lowest earnings.

Your Canada Pension Plan retirement pension payable at age 65 will equal 25% of your average monthly pensionable earnings during your contributory period.

The pensionable earnings are the amount of earnings above the year's basic exemption amount and below the maximum amount on which someone can contribute to the Canada Pension Plan

Your contributory period begins in January 1966 or age 18 whichever is the later of the two, and ends when a Canada Pension Plan Retirement begins, at death, or age 70.

Your contributory period began in April 1970 (age 18) and ended in March 2017 (the month before your pension began) for a total of 564 months. Your contributory period of 564 months is reduced by 17% of the months of your lowest earnings or 564 x 17% = 96 months. Your adjusted contributory period for the calculation of your retirement pension is 564 - 96 = 468 months.

Your average pensionable earnings divided by your adjusted contributory period will give you your average monthly pensionable earnings (173,221 / 468 = $370.13). Your Canada Pension Plan pension at age 65 is 25% of your average monthly pensionable earnings ($370.13 x 25% = $92.53) [Italics in original].^{Footnote 4}

[11] The General Division endorsed this calculation, adding:

I will try to explain to the [Applicant] why the monthly amount he is entitled to receive is so low in the simplest possible terms. At the end of the day, CPP [retirement pension] is a contribution based benefit. If earnings are low then contributions are low. The number of years in which one contributes to CPP has an effect on the total amount contributed. The [Applicant] contributed to CPP in only 11 out of 47 possible years and his earnings were quite low. The result is his monthly entitlement to CPP [retirement pension] is also low.^{Footnote 5}

[12] My review of the decision indicates that the General Division applied the appropriate law^{Footnote 6} to the evidence before it and came to the defensible conclusion that the Minister’s calculation was correct. The Applicant’s stated reasons for appealing are not relevant to the permissible grounds; they do not specify how, in coming to its decision, the General Division failed to observe a principle of natural justice, committed an error in law, or made an erroneous finding of fact.

[13] While the General Division did not arrive at the conclusion the Applicant would have preferred, it is not my role, as a member of the Appeal Division, to reassess the evidence but to determine whether the decision leads to an acceptable outcome under the facts and law.

[14] An appeal to the Appeal Division is not an opportunity for an applicant to re-argue their case and ask for a different outcome. My authority permits me to determine only whether any of the Applicant’s reasons for appealing fall within the specified grounds of section 58(1) of the DESDA and whether any of them have a reasonable chance of success.

[15] I do not see an arguable case for the Applicant’s appeal.

Conclusion

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