Other Canada Pension Plan (CPP)

Decision

[1] The appeal is allowed.

[2] The Claimant, S. K., is eligible for a Canada Pension Plan Survivor Benefit. Payments start as of July 2019. This decision explains why I am allowing the appeal.

Overview

[3] The Contributor, S. V. and the Claimant lived together in a conjugal relationship for more than 20 years. They vacationed, celebrated holidays and planned their retirement together.

[4] On June 30, 2019, the Contributor passed away following a tragic motor vehicle accident. He was 69 years old at the time of his death.

[5] The Claimant says that she resided with the Contributor in a conjugal relationship for more than 20 years at the time of his death. As a result, she says that she is entitled to the Survivor Benefit.

[6] The Minister denied a Survivor Benefit. However, after the reconsideration decision was complete and additional evidence was presented by the Claimant it took the position that the Claimant had established the required common-law relationship and she was therefore eligible to receive the Survivor Benefit.^{Footnote 1}

[7] The Added Party says that she was never divorced from the Contributor and therefore she ought to remain entitled to a Survivor Benefit.

What the Claimant must prove

[8] For the Claimant to succeed, she must prove she was the common-law partner of the Contributor.

[9] The CPP has a definition for common-law partner. The definition is that the two people live together in an intimate relationship for at least one year.The CPP uses the language “cohabitating in a conjugal relationship” to describe the relationship.^{Footnote 2}

[10] “Cohabitating with the contributor in a conjugal relationship” involves a contextual analysis. This includes many of the factors in the following non-exhaustive list:

1. a) Financial interdependence;
2. b) Sexual relationship;
3. c) Common residence;
4. d) Purchasing gifts on special occasions;
5. e) Sharing of household responsibilities;
6. f) Shared use of assets;
7. g) Shared responsibility for children;
8. h) Shared vacations;
9. i) Expectation of mutual dependency;
10. j) Care for one another when ill, and knowledge of medical needs;
11. k) Communications between the parties;
12. l) Public recognition;
13. m) Attitude and conduct of the community; and
14. n) Funeral arrangements.^{Footnote 3}

Matters I have to consider first

[11] I advised both the Claimant and the Added Party at the beginning of the hearing of a potential conflict. The Claimant’s lawyer previously employed a lawyer whom I had worked with for a number of weeks a few years prior. I knew this because he had drafted and sworn several statutory declarations relied upon by the Claimant in her appeal.

[12] I advised both parties that I saw no actual conflict and did not interact with this lawyer while we worked for the same employer. Further, I have had no contact with him since he moved from my place of employment.

[13] Nobody objected to me continuing to act as the adjudicator in this matter. As such, I saw no reason to recuse myself.

Reasons for my decision

The Claimant was the common law partner of the Contributor

[14] During the hearing, I heard from the Claimant, her daughter, and a family friend. Each provided testimony about the relationship the Claimant had with the Contributor. I found the evidence each provided to be compelling. It was clear from each, that the Contributor and the Claimant shared an intimacy and love for each other. They regarded themselves as common-law spouses and their friends and family members saw them as such as well.

[15] In this respect, I note that there were three statutory declarations contained in the application materials. Each of these was from either friends or family members of the Contributor. Each statutory declaration detailed that the Claimant and Contributor put themselves out to the world as spouses. They referred to each other as spouses socialized as spouses, and took part in family events as spouses.

[16] At one point the couple travelled to the Contributor’s home country of Mauritius to celebrate the Claimant’s fiftieth birthday. At that time, the Contributor introduced her to his extended family.^{Footnote 4}

[17] In her statutory declaration, the Claimant stated that they equally contributed to their shared daily living expenses, such as groceries, clothes and toiletries. She paid for things without expecting repayment.^{Footnote 5}

[18] She wrote that the Contributor kept his personal belongings at her home. She had done the same. She wrote as well that they had sexual relations. They slept in the same bed, shared the same bathroom, and remained intimate. Throughout their entire relationship they remained committed to each other.

[19] The Claimant also wrote about her experience with the Contributor`s death. She wrote that when he passed away, she hosted five of the Contributor`s sisters and their families at her home. She arranged a celebration of life for the Contributor, and a total of 50-60 people attended. This included one of his sons, his sisters, and also the Claimant`s family and friends.

[20] G. V. provided a statutory declaration. He wrote that he had been friends with the deceased since the 1980s. He stated that when he visited the Contributor at his house, he often saw the Contributor and the Claimant together. He observed that the Claimant was sleeping over and cooking meals for both of them. He also witnessed the Claimant help with cleaning and other household chores. He wrote that he attended various social events, parties and gatherings with both of them. He observed them introduce themselves as a couple and dance together.^{Footnote 6}

Oral hearing evidence

[21] I called an oral hearing on this file because I felt it was important to hear from both the Claimant and the Added Party. Both provided testimony. I`ve considered their testimony along with that of the witnesses. Below, I have set out what I felt was the most important evidence that I heard.

S. S.

[22] S. S. is the daughter of the Claimant. She told me about the relationship between her mother and the Contributor. She described that when she first met the Contributor she was 9 years old. Her parents had gone through a difficult separation and she was quite young. She was hesitant to allow another father figure into her life. At first she did not see eye to eye with the Contributor. However, as time passed they bonded. The Contributor became a very important person in her life.

[23] S. S. described the Contributor and the Claimant as being in a very close relationship. They spent a great deal of time together, lived together, and participated in household activities together. S. S. also provided evidence with respect to the relationship between the Contributor and the Added Party. She told me that she did not believe that the Added Party and the Contributor had reconciled in the past two years and further that the Contributor had no regular contact with the Added Party over the past two years.

G. V.

[24] In addition to providing a statutory declaration G. V. attended the oral hearing and provided evidence. He told me that he was a cousin to the deceased and that the Claimant was like a sister-in-law to him. He told me that for the past 28 years they had been like a family. They attended reunions together, ate meals together, and generally spent time together. He told me that the last time he saw the Contributor was a week before he passed away. He had attended a dinner with the Contributor and the Claimant.

J. V.

[25] I also considered the evidence of J. V. She is the Added Party and remained married but legally separated from the Contributor. She provided written submission and made an oral submission at the hearing.

[26] In her written submission, J. V. wrote that she was 70 years old and that the man she married had put her through hell.^{Footnote 7} She wrote that she and Contributor had lived separately for two main reasons:

• her personal safety, as he was physically and mentally abusive towards her and because he resented her success in the nursing program; and
• he wanted to live separately, as that was his preference and choice.^{Footnote 8}

[27] J. V. further wrote that she continued to live separately because it was safer and more peaceful for her to do so.^{Footnote 9}

The Claimant and Contributor lived in a common law relationship

[28] The evidence clearly supported that the Claimant and Contributor lived in a common-law relationship for at least one year prior to the Contributor’s death. The evidence from the witnesses along with the evidence contained in the statutory declarations all pointed to a conjugal relationship that had been present well in excess of one year. It was clear to me in hearing from the witnesses that the Claimant and Contributor had a loving and fulfilling relationship that was recognized by not only their families but by the broader committee in which they gathered and engaged.

[29] The Contributor and Claimant were intimate with each other, lived with each other, and relied upon each other for both love and support. I have no issue finding that they were in a conjugal relationship for at least one year at the time of the Contributor’s death.

[30] I note as well, this position was not seriously contested by the Added Party. In hearing her submissions, it was clear to me that she very much felt entitled to a Survivor’s Benefit on the basis of the difficult times the Contributor had put her through. However, this is not enough. Only one person may qualify for a Survivor Benefit. In this case, that person must be the Claimant.

Conclusion

[31] I find that the Claimant is eligible for a CPP Survivor Benefit.

[32] This means the appeal is allowed.