Other Canada Pension Plan (CPP)

Decision

[1] The appeal is summarily dismissed.

Overview

[2] The Claimant and A. H. were married in April 1982, separated in March 1991, and divorced in March 1995.^{Footnote 1} In July 2018, A. H. applied for a Division of Unadjusted Pension Earnings (DUPE) for the period that the two of them cohabited.^{Footnote 2} The Minister performed the DUPE for the period that they were married.^{Footnote 3} Both the Claimant and A. H. requested that the DUPE be reversed.^{Footnote 4} The Minister denied this request upon reconsideration ^{Footnote 5}, and the Claimant appealed to the Social Security Tribunal (Tribunal).

[3] I must decide whether the Claimant has a reasonable chance of establishing that the DUPE can be reversed.

Analysis

[4] I must summarily dismiss an appeal if satisfied that it has no reasonable chance of success.^{Footnote 6} I have decided that this appeal has no reasonable chance of success for the reasons set out below.

[5] On October 19, 2019, I notified the Claimant that I was considering summarily dismissing the appeal and gave her a reasonable period of time to make submissions.^{Footnote 7} The Claimant did not respond.

[6] The CPP provides that a DUPE is mandatory in the case of spouses who divorced after January 1, 1987, once the Minister has been informed of the divorce judgment and received the prescribed information.

[7] I recognize that both the Claimant and A. H. have indicated that they do not want the DUPE. However, I have no discretion to reverse the DUPE as requested. The DUPE was performed in accordance with the provisions of the CPP and is mandatory.

[8] I am bound by the CPP provisions. The Tribunal is a statutory decision-maker and I am required to interpret and apply the provisions as they are set out in the CPP. I have no authority to make exceptions to the provisions of the CPP. Nor can I render decisions on the basis of fairness, compassion, or extenuating circumstances.

[9] Accordingly, I find that the appeal has no reasonable chance of success.

Conclusion

[10] The appeal is summarily dismissed.