Other Canada Pension Plan (CPP)

Reasons and decision

Overview

[1] The Appellant’s husband, K. C., passed away in December 2007.^{Footnote 1} In March 2020, the Appellant applied for death, survivor’s and orphan’s benefits under the Canada Pension Plan (CPP).^{Footnote 2}

[2] The Minister denied the applications because the Minister determined that the late K. C. (the contributor to the CPP) did not make enough contributions to the CPP to qualify his estate for the benefits. The Minister explained that the contributor needed to have made at least 8 years of contributions to the CPP. However, he only contributed in 7 years.^{Footnote 3}

[3] The Appellant asked the Minister to reconsider its decision. She did not deny that her husband had not contributed to the CPP for 8 years. Instead, she focused on the reasons why he did not contribute to the CPP in the year 2007.^{Footnote 4}

[4] The Minister reconsidered, and decided to maintain the denial of benefits.^{Footnote 5} The Appellant appealed the Minister’s reconsideration decision to the Social Security Tribunal’s General Division.^{Footnote 6}

Summary dismissal

[5] I must summarily dismiss an appeal if I am satisfied that the appeal has no reasonable chance of success.^{Footnote 7} When I look at whether an appeal has a reasonable chance of success, I must ask myself if it is plain and obvious on the record that the appeal is bound to fail, regardless of the evidence and/or arguments that the Appellant might bring at a hearing.^{Footnote 8}

[6] I have decided that this appeal does not have a reasonable chance of success. In other words, I have decided that this appeal is bound to fail.

[7] On January 18, 2021, I sent the parties a letter called an Intention to Summarily Dismiss. In this letter, I explained why the appeal does not have a reasonable chance of success. I also explained that if the Appellant believes that her appeal should not be summarily dismissed, then she should explain her position in writing and file her response by February 22, 2021.

What happened after I issued the intention to summarily dismiss

[8] The Appellant replied to the Intention to Summarily Dismiss on February 19, 2021. She said that her appeal has a reasonable chance of success because her husband’s income tax return for 2007 was not filed correctly. She explained that the return should have shown an income of $33,360 but instead showed no income.^{Footnote 9}

[9] On March 9, 2021, the Appellant wrote a letter asking if the Minister could “deem” 2007 as a qualifying year, even though no contributions were in fact made for that year. She added that she would file an adjustment with the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) if she needed to.^{Footnote 10}

[10] On March 29, 2021, I sent the Appellant a letter explaining, among other things, that the Minister had already said it would not be making any adjustments to the contributor’s statement of contributions and I referred the Appellant to the Minister’s submissions on this point. With this in mind, I asked the Appellant to clarify whether she would be filing a request for an adjustment with the CRA.^{Footnote 11}

[11] The Appellant confirmed that she would be filing a request with the CRA.^{Footnote 12} I then put the Appellant’s appeal in abeyance (on hold) to give her time to file her request.  

[12] On February 11, 2022, the Appellant filed the letters she had received from the CRA. The letters say that the CRA will not reassess the contributor’s income tax return for 2007 because the request was filed late.^{Footnote 13}

[13] Now that the CRA has rendered its decision, I have proceeded to render my decision in this matter.

My findings

What the law says about the death, survivor’s and orphan’s benefits

[14] The eligibility requirements for the death, survivor’s, and orphan’s benefits are set out in the CPP legislation. This means the eligibility requirements are not mere policy. They are law.

[15] The CPP legislation says that the benefits can only be paid if the contributor made base contributions to the CPP for not less than the minimum qualifying period.^{Footnote 14}

[16] To meet the minimum qualifying period, a contributor must have contributed:^{Footnote 15}

• for at least one-third of the total number of years included either wholly or partly within their contributory period; or
• for at least 10 years.

[17] A person’s contributory period starts the later of January 1, 1966 (when the CPP began) or the month after the person’s 18^th birthday.^{Footnote 16}

[18] A person’s contributory period ends with the earliest of:^{Footnote 17}

• the month before the month in which the contributor reached 70 years of age,
• the month in which the contributor died, or
• the month before the month in which the retirement pension started.

There are 23 years in the contributor’s contributory period

[19] The contributor was born in January 1967^{Footnote 18}, and so his contributory period started in February 1985 (the month after his 18^th birthday).

[20] The contributor died in December 2007 and so that is when his contributory period ended.

[21] There are a total of 23 years, included wholly or partly, in the contributor’s contributory period.

The contributor needed to have made at least 8 years of contributions

[22] One-third of 23 is 7.6. The law does not allow me to round down to the nearest whole number.^{Footnote 19} In other words, I cannot round 7.6 down to 7.0 years. This means the contributor needed to have made at least 8 years of valid contributions to the CPP to have qualified his estate for death, survivor’s and/or orphan’s benefits.

The contributor did not make 8 years of contributions to the CPP

[23] The contributor’s Record of Earnings shows he contributed to the CPP in 7 years, namely 2000 to 2006 inclusively.^{Footnote 20} He, therefore, did not contribute to the CPP in enough years to qualify his estate for benefits.

The record of earnings is presumed to be accurate

[24] When I look at a person’s contributions to the CPP, I have to use the information that is set out in that person’s Record of Earnings. A person’s Record of Earnings is presumed to be accurate.^{Footnote 21}

[25] I cannot make any changes to that record of contributions. This means I cannot “deem” contributions to have been made when in fact they were not.

I cannot consider extenuating circumstances

[26] The Appellant explained why her husband was unable to contribute to the CPP in the year 2007. She said, for example, that her husband was undergoing a number of significant stressors. The Appellant also provided documents showing the difficulties her husband was having in and before 2007.^{Footnote 22}

[27] The Appellant’s explanation is compelling, and I am sympathetic to her circumstances. However, the contributory rules do not have exceptions for those who experience difficult times or extenuating circumstances. I am required to apply the law as it is set out in the CPP legislation. I cannot ignore or amend the law, regardless of how compelling one’s circumstances might be.^{Footnote 23}

Conclusion

[28] The appeal is summarily dismissed.