Other Canada Pension Plan (CPP)

Decision and reasons

Decision

[1] The appeal is dismissed.

Overview

[2] K. M. (Claimant) resided in a common-law relationship from 1992 to January 2008. Her former common-law partner died in July 2016. In October 2016, the Claimant applied for a division of unadjusted pensionable earnings (credit split). The Minister of Employment and Social Development refused the application because the Claimant did not apply for the credit split within four years of separating from her common-law partner.

[3] The Claimant appealed the Minister’s decision to the Tribunal. The Tribunal’s General Division summarily dismissed the appeal because it had no reasonable chance of success. The Claimant’s appeal to the Appeal Division is dismissed because the General Division made no error under the Department of Employment and Social Development Act (DESD Act) upon which the Appeal Division can intervene.

Preliminary matter

[4] This appeal was decided on the basis of the documents filed with the Tribunal, after the following was considered:

• The legal issue to be decided is straightforward
• The parties’ legal positions are clear
• The parties attended a pre-hearing teleconference where the legal and procedural issues were discussed
• Neither party requested an oral hearing

Issue

[5] Did the General Division make an error in law when it failed to make an exception to the requirement that an application for a credit split be made within four years of the end of a common-law relationship?

Analysis

[6] The DESD Act governs the Tribunal’s operation. It sets out only three grounds of appeal that the Appeal Division can consider. They are that the General Division failed to observe a principle of natural justice, made an error in law, or based its decision on an erroneous finding of fact made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it.^{Footnote 1} Therefore, to succeed on appeal, the Claimant must prover that the General Division made at least one of these errors.

[7] The Canada Pension Plan says that an application for a credit split must be made within four years after the day on which the former common-law partners begin to live separate and apart, or later if both parties agree in writing.^{Footnote 2} It is not disputed that the Claimant applied more than four years after the date that she began to live separate and apart from her former common-law partner. There is no written agreement to extend this time.

[8] The Claimant argues that she did not know that she had to apply for the credit split within four years of the end of the relationship, and asks that an exception to this rule be made because of her lack of knowledge. The Canada Pension Plan does not permit any exceptions to be made to this rule. The General Division therefore made no error in law when it failed to do so.

[9] I have reviewed the General Division decision and the written record. The General Division did not overlook or misconstrue any important information. It did not base its decision on any erroneous findings of fact. There is no suggestion that it failed to observe a principle of natural justice.

[10] Therefore, the General Division made no error under the DESD Act. The Appeal Division cannot intervene in this case.

Conclusion

[11] The appeal is dismissed for these reasons.