Other Canada Pension Plan (CPP)

Decision

[1] The appeal is dismissed.

[2] The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with the issues raised in this appeal.

Overview

[3] The Minister of Employment and Social Development (the Minister) wrote to the Appellant on December 18, 2020. The Minister advised the Appellant that she was no longer eligible to receive a Disabled Contributor’s Child Benefit (DCCB) under the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) for her three children since June 2015. This was because the Appellant’s ex-husband could no longer receive a CPP disability pension as of June 2015. The Minister asked the Appellant to pay back $20,553.90 for benefits received from June 2015 to June 2018.

[4] The Appellant did not believe that she should repay this money. She appealed the Minister’s decision to the Social Security Tribunal of Canada.

[5] The Appellant says the Minister’s decision is unfair. She had no power to decline the DCCB payments. She has had no contact with her ex-husband for years. She feels that she is being punished by being held accountable for this debt. She says that she has not done anything improper. She is asking the Tribunal to rule that the Minister does not have the right to collect a debt from her and that any debt owed is that of her ex-husband. The Appellant also says that there was a substantial delay on the part of the Minister in notifying her of the repayment request. She argues that this might be an administrative error made by the Minister.

[6] I invited the Appellant to a Case Conference because I had concerns that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to make a decision in this appeal and that this appeal should be dismissed.

[7] I held a Case Conference with the Appellant and the Minister on April 14, 2022. The Minister’s representative agreed with me that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to deal with this appeal. The Appellant declined withdrawing her appeal. She asked that I write a decision dismissing this appeal. I agreed to write a decision based on the documents in the file.

Reasons for my decision

[8] The Tribunal is created by law. It only has jurisdiction to deal with appeals that fall under its enabling legislation. This appeal does not fall under the Tribunal’s jurisdiction because it deals with the determination of a debt and the recovery of a debt.

[9] The CPP outlines the appeal procedure to the Tribunal. Under section 81 of the CPP, an Appellant can ask the Minister to reconsider a decision it has made within 90 days of being notified of the decision.

[10] Section 81 of the CPP sets out the type of decision where an Appellant can request reconsideration.^{Footnote 1} The CPP requires the Minister to reconsider any decision it made under section 81 without delay.^{Footnote 2} If the Minister refuses to reconsider its decision, Appellants can then appeal the Minister’s reconsideration decision to the Tribunal.^{Footnote 3}

[11] The problem for the Appellant is that she is asking the Minister to reconsider a decision about a debt allegedly owed by her. Section 81 of the CPP does not deal with disputed debts. This means that the Appellant has no appeal rights to the Tribunal.

[12] The CPP also says that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with issues of administrative error made by the Minister.^{Footnote 4}

[13] The Tribunal also does not have jurisdiction to remit all or part of a debt to undue financial hardship. Only the Minister can do that.^{Footnote 5}

[14] The Minister’s representative provided the Appellant with information on how to make a claim of undue hardship and administrative error. This involved calling the Minister’s toll free number at 1-800-277-9914. The Minister’s representative also said she would send the Appellant a letter with a proper client identification number. The Appellant’s son also has a similar issue. He is being asked to pay back DCCB benefits he received because the ex-husband stopped receiving CPP disability benefits. The Minister’s representative said she would clarify whether her son’s issue can be joined with the Appellant’s and reviewed together.

[15] I feel sympathetic towards the Appellant. But I cannot waive the debt on compassionate grounds, no matter how sympathetic her circumstances might be. I must dismiss this appeal because I do not have jurisdiction to deal with the issues raised by the Appellant.

Conclusion

[16] The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with the issues raised by the Appellant.

[17] This means the appeal is dismissed.