Other Canada Pension Plan (CPP)

Decision and Reasons

Decision

[1] Leave to appeal is refused.

Overview

[2] The Applicant, R. E., applied for an early Canada Pension Planretirement pension in May 2008, when he was 62 years old. The Respondent, the Minister of Employment and Social Development (Minister), approved the application and began paying him a monthly benefit of $173.

[3] In July 2015, R. E. provided evidence to the Minister that he had made contributions to the Canada Pension Plan during a period in which he worked for the United States government at a X in Newfoundland.^{Footnote 1} In August 2016, the Minister recalculated the amount of the Applicant’s benefit based on the previously unknown contributions that he had made between 1966 and 1970. As a result of this recalculation, the Applicant’s monthly benefit increased to $286, and he was credited with $8,339 because of the underpayment over the preceding eight years.

[4] The Applicant asked the Minister to explain how it had calculated his revised pension. The Minister’s response^{Footnote 2} did not satisfy the Applicant, and he formally requested reconsideration. In a letter dated June 16, 2017, the Minister upheld its calculation.^{Footnote 3}

[5] 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 4, 2019, dismissed the appeal, finding no merit to the Applicant’s submissions. In particular, the General Division found that:

• It had no jurisdiction to consider any government deductions from the Applicant’s paycheques prior to 1966, when the Canada Pension Plan was established;
• It had no authority under the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) to order payment of interest on the $8,397 underpayment;
• It could not consider the Applicant’s claim that he applied for an early Canada Pension Plan retirement pension under duress;
• It had no authority to order a lump sum payment equal to the value of his Canada Pension Plan entitlement; and
• It had no authority to order the appointment of an independent auditor to review his Canada Pension Plan account.

[6] The Applicant has now applied for leave to appeal from the Appeal Division. In his application, the Applicant made the following submissions:

• He should be receiving a Canada Pension Plan retirement pension in accordance with his entitlements;
• He should be compensated for losses that he has incurred as a result of the government’s denial of his entitlements;
• He is entitled to know the status of his Canada Pension Plan account, given the government’s admission that it underpaid his retirement pension from May 2008 to August 2016; and
• He applied for an early Canada Pension Plan retirement pension under duress, and this should be recognized by the government.

[7] The Applicant also alleged that the General Division’s denial of his demands amounted to a violation of the principles of natural justice. He indicated that he had requested a recording of the hearing before the General Division, or a transcript of the same, but had yet to receive either.

[8] 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

[9] 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 4} but the Appeal Division must first be satisfied that it has a reasonable chance of success.^{Footnote 5} The Federal Court of Appeal has held that a reasonable chance of success is akin to an arguable case at law.^{Footnote 6}

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

Analysis

[11] The Applicant is plainly dissatisfied with his Canada Pension Plan retirement pension, but he has not explained how the General Division erred when it determined that the Minister correctly calculated the amounts of his monthly entitlement and of his lump sum back payment.

[12] In its letter dated January 4, 2017, the Minister provided a lengthy and detailed explanation of how it recalculated his Canada Pension Plan retirement pension. The Minister included a year-by-year schedule of the Applicant’s pensionable earnings and made it clear that his contributory period began in January 1966—the same month that the CPP came into effect.

[13] The General Division did not detect any error in the Minister’s calculation, noting as follows:

In May 2017 Diane Lebouthillier, the Minister of National Revenue, told the [Applicant’s] lawyer that the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) does not have any information on deductions from the [Applicant’s] income in 1964 and 1965 for the CPP or for an American pension plan.

The CPP came into force in January 1966 and any deductions from the [Applicant’s] paycheck prior to that could not have been for CPP contributions. Accordingly, the deductions cannot be considered in the calculation of the amount of the [Applicant’s] CPP retirement benefit. Further, the Minister is not obligated to attempt to obtain information from the U.S. government about those deductions, nor do I have the power to order it to do so.^{Footnote 7}

[14] My review of the decision indicates that the General Division applied the appropriate law^{Footnote 8} to the evidence before it and came to the defensible conclusion that the Minister’s calculation was correct. Likewise, I see no error in the General Division’s determination that it lacked the authority to consider any pre-1966 deductions that the Applicant may have made; to assess interest on the his lump sum payment; to order a one-time payout of his CPP entitlement; or to appoint an auditor.

[15] For the most part, the Applicant’s submissions repeat what he argued before the General Division. The Applicant alleges that the General Division’s decision violated principles of natural justice, but he does not explain how. He suggests that the recording of the hearing will be essential to his case, but he has not made any submissions specific to the General Division’s conduct at that hearing. The Applicant’s lawyer requested the recording in writing,^{Footnote 9} and I see from the record that the Tribunal sent a copy to the Applicant at his residential address on March 29, 2019. To date, the Applicant has not supplemented his leave to appeal submissions with material drawing on the contents of the recording.

[16] In the absence of a specific allegation of error, the Applicant’s alleged grounds of appeal are so broad as to amount to a request to retry the entire claim. If he is requesting that I reconsider and reassess the evidence and substitute my decision for the General Division’s in his favour, I am unable to do so. 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) and whether any of them have a reasonable chance of success.

[17] Like the General Division, Imust follow the letter of the law and cannot simply make a decision that I think is fair. Such power, known as “equity,” has traditionally been reserved to the courts, although even they typically exercise it only if the law is not enough to resolve the issue. Canada v Tucker,^{Footnote 10} among many other cases, has confirmed that an administrative tribunal, such as the Social Security Tribunal, is not a court but a statutory decision‑maker and, therefore, is not empowered to provide any form of equitable relief.

[18] An appeal to the Appeal Division is not an opportunity for an applicant to re-argue their case and ask for a different outcome. 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.

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

Conclusion

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