Decision
The Appellant is not entitled to a partial Old Age Security (OAS) pension with the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) benefits based on his OAS pension application dated November 15, 2010 as the application was not made in compliance with the Old Age Security Act (OAS Act) and the Old Age Security Regulations (OAS Regulations).
Overview
[1] The Appellant’s application for the OAS pension was date stamped by the Respondent on November 15, 2010Footnote 1. The Appellant’s OAS pension was approved, at the rate of 22/40 effective in July 2011. He was also entitled to the GIS. After an investigation, the Minister determined that the Appellant was never eligible to receive OAS and GIS benefits because the OAS application received on November 15, 2010 was found to be invalid as the Appellant did not signed the OAS application. Consequently, a reimbursement of all benefits received was requested. The Appellant requested a reconsideration of the Minister’s decision. The Minister denied the reconsideration request and the Appellant appealed the reconsideration decision to the Social Security Tribunal.
Issue
[2] The issue in this appeal is whether the Appellant is entitled to a partial OAS pension with GIS benefits based on his OAS pension application dated November 15, 2010. The residence in Canada of the Appellant will not be considered but rather the OAS pension application’s compliance to the OAS Act and the OAS Regulations.
Analysis
i. Applicable law
[3] Subsection 5(1) of the OAS Act provides that, no pension may be paid to any person unless that person is qualified under the Act, an application has been made by or on behalf of that person and the application has been approved.
[4] Subsections 3(1) and (2) of the OAS Regulations provide that where required by the Minister, an application for a benefit shall be made on an application form and an application is deemed to have been made only when an application form completed by or on behalf of an applicant is received by the Minister.
ii. Documentary evidence and testimony
[5] The Appellant was born on June 3rd, 1946. He turned 65 years of age in June 2011. He arrived in Canada on August 15, 1988. He submitted an OAS pension application that was received by the Minister on November 15, 2010. A partial OAS pension was approved, at the rate of 22/40 effective in July 2011.
[6] Based on the evidence, in February 2015, the Appellant’s OAS file is requested by Service Canada integrity department for Canadian residence review following a joined investigation by the RCMP and the Canada Border Services Agency.
[7] During an interview with an integrity agent on May 9, 2017, the Appellant admitted he did not sign nor complete his OAS application. He asked his son to complete and sign the application on his behalf by verbal procuration.
[8] On October 19, 2017, the Minister sent a letter to the Appellant indicating that his OAS application received on November 15, 2010 found to not to be valid, as he did not signed the application. Consequently, he was not eligible for the partial OAS pension and the GIS benefits from July 2011 to April 2017 creating an overpayment amount of $82,519.54.
[9] The Appellant asked for a reconsideration of the Minister’s decision and on April 19, 2018, a decision letter was sent to the Appellant stating that the decision dated October 19, 2017 regarding the legitimacy of his OAS pension application was maintained. The letter further stated that regarding the review of the Appellant’s second OAS application dated June 15, 2017 with the new documents sent along with the request for reconsideration, the original decision was reversed, as the Appellant was found eligible for a partial OAS of 12/40th with GIS effective on July 2016. As a result, the total overpayment of $82,519.54 was revised to $58,240.91.
[10] In his Notice of Appeal to the Tribunal, the Appellant stated that he asked his son to fill out the OAS application submitted in 2010 and sign it for me.
[11] The OAS Act and the OAS Regulations specify that no pension may be paid to any person unless that person is qualified under the Act, “an application has been made by or on behalf of that person” [emphasis added] and the application has been approved. Also, an application is deemed to have been made only when an application “form completed by or on behalf of an applicant “ [emphasis added] is received by the Minister.
[12] Based on the evidence and the testimony of the Appellant at the hearing, the OAS application submitted in November 2010 was not made by the Appellant nor was it made on his behalf. The son of the Appellant signed the form as if he was the Appellant. He did not sign his name on behalf of the Appellant but represented himself as being the Appellant at the Appellant’s request. In addition, the Appellant testified that his son did not have a power of attorney or any other formal authority to sign on his behalf.
[13] I note that in section 18 (Signature) of the OAS application, it is clearly indicated that if the application is signed by someone who has the authority to act on behalf of the applicant, that person must provide proof of authorization. The form also states to contact the Minister’s offices to find out which documents are required for proof of authorization. In this case, the Appellant’s son sign in lieu of the Appellant.
[14] Therefore, the Appellant is not entitled to a partial OAS pension with GIS benefits based on his OAS pension application dated November 15, 2010 as the application was not made in compliance with the OAS Act and the OAS Regulations. For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed.