Other Canada Pension Plan (CPP)

Decision

[1] The appeal is dismissed.

Overview

[2] The Claimant has been receiving a Canada Pension Plan (CPP) survivor’s pension since 2007, when her husband passed away. In January 2020, the Minister approved the Claimant’s application a CPP retirement pension. One year later, the Claimant turned 65, prompting the Minister to recalculate the combined amount of the two pensions. The effect was to lower the Claimant’s combined monthly payment from $388.58 to $231.50.^{Footnote 1}

[3] The Claimant appealed the Minister’s recalculation of her pension to the Social Security Tribunal’s General Division. She argued that her pension should have gone up, not down, and that the combined amount was too low to live on.

[4] The General Division saw nothing to indicate that the Minister’s recalculation was incorrect. It summarily dismissed the Claimant’s appeal because it was not satisfied that the appeal had a reasonable chance of success.

[5] The Claimant is now appealing the summary dismissal to the Tribunal’s Appeal Division. She complains that the General Division did not give her a hearing. She insists that she cannot survive on the amount that she now gets from the government.

[6] I have decided that there is no need for an oral hearing in this case. The issues are clear, and so are the relevant facts and the applicable law. This decision is based on my review of the documents already on file—the Claimant’s submissions, as well as the information that was available to the General Division.

Issues

[7] There are four grounds of appeal to the Appeal Division. A claimant must show that the General Division

• proceeded in a way that was unfair;
• acted beyond its powers or refused to use them;
• interpreted the law incorrectly; or
• based its decision on an important error of fact.^{Footnote 2}

[8] As I see them, the issues in this appeal are as follows:

• Did the General Division apply the correct test for summary dismissal?
• Do the Claimant’s reasons for appealing have merit?

[9] I have reviewed the General Division’s decision, as well as the law and the evidence it used to reach that decision. I have concluded that the General Division did not make any errors.

Analysis

The General Division applied the correct test for summary dismissal

[10] The General Division disposed of the Claimant’s appeal in the appropriate way. In its decision, the General Division correctly stated that it could summarily dismiss an appeal if it had no reasonable chance of success.^{Footnote 3} I am satisfied that the General Division understood the legal test and properly applied it to the facts.

[11] The threshold for summary dismissal is high.^{Footnote 4} It is not enough to consider the merits of a case in the parties’ absence and then find that the appeal cannot succeed. A decision-maker must determine whether it is plain and obvious on the record that the appeal is bound to fail.^{Footnote 5} The question is not whether the decision-maker must dismiss the appeal after giving full consideration to the facts, the case law, and the parties’ arguments. Rather, the question is whether the appeal is destined to fail, regardless of whatever evidence or arguments might be submitted at a hearing.

[12] In this case, the General Division dismissed the Claimant’s appeal because:

• The Claimant failed to explain how the Minister had miscalculated the amount of her monthly pension; and
• It could find no error in how the Minister applied the relevant provisions of the Canada Pension Plan.

[13] In doing so, the General Division correctly applied a high threshold, concluding that the appeal had “no reasonable chance of success.” For reasons that I will explain in more detail, it was plain and obvious on the record that the Claimant was bound to fail.

None of the Claimant’s reasons for appealing has merit

The General Division did not unfairly deprive the Claimant of a hearing

[14] The Claimant argues that the General Division acted unfairly by not giving her a hearing.

[15] I am not convinced by this argument.

[16] The Tribunal is not required to give all claimants hearings. The law gives the General Division authority to summarily dismiss an appeal if it concludes that it has no reasonable chance of success.^{Footnote 6} However, the General Division must first give the claimant an opportunity to explain in writing why their appeal has merit.^{Footnote 7}

[17] In this case, the General Division sent the Claimant a letter by email advising her of its intention to summarily dismiss the appeal.^{Footnote 8} The Claimant was given 30 days in which to make submissions.

[18] The Claimant confirmed that she received the email,^{Footnote 9} but there is no record of her ever replying to the General Division’s notice of intention to summarily dismiss. The Claimant had an opportunity to address the General Division’s concerns but failed to take advantage of it.

The Appeal Division is not a place to reargue the merits of one’s case

[19] The Claimant comes to the Appeal Division saying essentially the same thing that she said at the General Division. She insists that her combined pension should be higher.

[20] In my view, this argument cannot succeed.

[21] At the Appeal Division, a claimant must do more than simply disagree with the General Division’s decision. A claimant must also identify specific errors that the General Division made in coming to its decision and explain how those errors, if any, fit into the one or more of the four grounds of appeal permitted under the law. It is not enough for a claimant to make the same arguments that they made at the General Division.

[22] In this case, the General Division reviewed the record and found that the Minister complied with the law when it recalculated the Claimant’s pension amount. I don’t see any indication that the General Division committed an error in coming to this conclusion.

The Claimant has not explained how the Minister miscalculated her pension

[23] Despite repeated requests to do so, the Claimant has never explained how, in her view, the Minister miscalculated her combined pension amount. That matters because, in appeals like these, the Claimant bears the burden of proving that she is entitled to a pension or a specific pension amount; by contrast, the Minister is under no obligation to prove anything.

[24] Rather than demonstrating how the Minister got her pension wrong, the Claimant is instead protesting that it is too little to survive on. That may well be true, but that was not the issue at the General Division, nor is it the issue here at the Appeal Division. The Tribunal cannot consider a claimant’s financial circumstances when deciding their pension entitlement.^{Footnote 10}

[25] The Claimant may think this is unfair, but the General Division was bound to follow the letter of the law, and so am I.^{Footnote 11} I can only exercise those powers granted to me by the law.

There is no indication that the Minister applied the law incorrectly

[26] The General Division could find no error in how the Minister calculated the monthly amount of the Claimant’s combined pension. Having reviewed the Claimant’s qualifications for the pension in light of the applicable law, I don’t see how the Minister erred either. In letters to the Claimant^{Footnote 12} and in written submission to the General Division,^{Footnote 13} the Minister explained how it arrived at the amount:

In the case at hand, [the Claimant] has been in receipt of the Survivor pension since June 2007. Between June 2007 and December 2019, the Survivor pension was paid to [the Claimant] on a stand alone basis (she was only receiving a Survivor pension). In January 2020, the Survivor pension was combined with a Retirement pension. At this time the calculation of the combined Survivor pension and the Retirement pension was calculated in accordance with subsection 58(2)(a) of the CPP.

[The Claimant] was born on January 2, 1956. The CPP considers that a person has reached a particular age the month following their birthday. Therefore, in [the Claimant’s] case, her 65th birthday was on January 2, 2021 and she is deemed to have reached the age of 65 in February 2021. As per the CPP, effective February 2021, the combined Survivor pension and Retirement pension was recalculated under subsection 58(2)(c) of the CPP.^{Footnote 14}

[27] This overview is followed by a detailed breakdown of how the Minister calculated the Claimant’s combined pension amount according to the highly technical rules set out in section 58 of the Canada Pension Plan.

[28] Section 58(2)(c) the Canada Pension Plan contains the formula for calculating combined pension amounts for survivors, like the Claimant, who were born after December 31, 1932 and who began receiving a retirement pension after December 31, 1997. The problem for the Claimant is that this section results in a reduction of the combined pension amount when a recipient turns 65, because she is no longer eligible to receive a flat-rate portion as part of the survivor’s pension. However much the Claimant may disagree with this result, that is what Parliament has mandated. The General Division had no choice but to apply the law as written.

Conclusion

[29] The Claimant has not shown that the General Division erred in finding that the Minister miscalculated the amount of her combined retirement and survivor’s pension.

[30] The appeal is therefore dismissed.