Other Canada Pension Plan (CPP)

Decision

[1] The appeal is dismissed.

[2] The Appellant, H. F., is not entitled to a higher amount of her Canada Pension Plan (CPP) retirement pension. This decision explains why I am dismissing the appeal.

Overview

[3] The Appellant began receiving her CPP retirement pension in September 2020, the month after her 65^th birthday.

[4] In October 2020, the Appellant requested that the Minister reconsider the monthly rate of her retirement pension.

[5] The Minister denied her request on reconsideration, explaining that the calculation of her CPP retirement pension was correct.

[6] The Appellant appealed the Minister’s decision to the General Division of the Social Security Tribunal (Tribunal). She stated that she should be receiving the maximum amount of CPP retirement benefits. She believes that the Minister should not count the years when she had a low income in determining her contributory period for the purposes of the CPP.

Matters I must consider first

Early case management

[7] I originally scheduled a case conference for July 27, 2021. It was cancelled because the Appellant stated that she did not wish to participate in early case management.^{Footnote 1}

[8] In August 2021, the Appellant stated that she was ready to proceed with her appeal in person in the city where she lives.^{Footnote 2}

[9] At a pre-hearing conference in January 2022, the Appellant agreed to a hearing by teleconference.

Procedural fairness

[10] At the February 2022 hearing, the Appellant raised an issue of procedural fairness. She stated that in March 2021, before she had submitted her Notice of Readiness to proceed, the Minister had submitted an “Observation Sheet.”^{Footnote 3} It stated that the Minister had reviewed the Appellant’s submission at GD4 and found that it was not relevant to the appeal. The Minister requested that the Appeal be dismissed.

[11] The Appellant stated that it was improper for the Minister to request that an appeal be dismissed before all the documents were before the Tribunal.

[12] The Social Security Tribunal Regulations provide that the Tribunal must provide a copy of any document filed by a party to the other parties to the proceeding without delay.^{Footnote 4} However, there is no legal requirement that a party must wait until the Tribunal receives the Notice of Readiness from all parties before making a recommendation about what decision the adjudicator should make.

What I must decide

[13] I must decide whether the Minister correctly calculated the Appellant’s CPP retirement pension.

Reasons for my decision

[14] The Appellant made reference to the Minister’s reconsideration decision letter. It stated that the CPP “protects the value of your [CPP retirement] pension by making certain adjustments before calculating 25% of the earnings” a person contributed to the CPP during their contributory period. She stated that she did not believe that in making its calculations, the government was protecting the value of her pension.

[15] The CPP states that a retirement pension is payable to a contributor over the age of 60. It is a monthly pension equal to 25% of the contributor’s average monthly pensionable earnings.^{Footnote 5}

[16] The CPP includes a general drop-out provision. Seventeen percent of a person’s lowest earning years in their contributory period^{Footnote 6} are not counted when calculating 25% of average monthly pensionable earnings.^{Footnote 7}

[17] The Appellant had contributions in all of the years from age 18 to age 65.

[18] The Appellant stated that instead of 17% as provided in the CPP, she should have 34% of her lowest-income years eliminated from her contributory period. Her retirement pension calculations should not include periods of time she was not employed on a full-time basis because she was going to school or was ill. She also asked that years of low earnings when she was not working because she was travelling be excluded from the calculation of her retirement pension.

[19] The Appellant says that the law is designed to provide retirement pensions for people who have nine-to-five careers. She was not such a person. She didn’t always work. She was a marginalized worker. In 16 of the 47 years she worked, her income was under $10,000. She believed that all of these years should be removed from her contributory period. This would increase the amount of her CPP retirement pension.

[20] The Minister stated that the only allowable drop-out provision available to the Appellant under the law is the general drop-out provision, which is 17% of the lowest earning years in her contributory period. There are other periods that may be left out of the pension calculation, but the Appellant is not eligible for any of them.^{Footnote 8}

[21] The Appellant also stated that the amount of her retirement pension was too low to cover her monthly cost of living. She stated that the Minister did not take her cost of living into account. She stated that she should not be apprehensive about her future as a retired person.^{Footnote 9}

[22] The Minister does consider increases in the cost of living, but only to a limited extent. In its reconsideration letter, the Minister stated that benefits were adjusted each January to reflect changes in the cost of living.^{Footnote 10}

[23] I do not have the authority to authorize a different method of calculating the Appellant’s CPP retirement pension than the CPP provides. The Supreme Court of Canada has stated that the CPP

was designed to provide social insurance for Canadians who experience a loss of earnings due to retirement, disability, or the death of a wage-earning spouse or parent. It is not a social welfare scheme. It is a contributory plan in which Parliament has defined both the benefits and the terms of entitlement, including the level and duration of an applicant’s financial contributions.^{Footnote 11}

[24] I am sympathetic to the Appellant’s concerns. However, I am a statutory decision-maker. I am required to interpret and apply the rules as they are set out in the CPP. I cannot make decisions based on fairness, compassion, or special circumstances.      

[25] The CPP retirement pension is not the only benefit available to the Appellant. She may also be eligible for the Old Age Security pension and the Guaranteed Income Supplement.^{Footnote 12}

Conclusion

[26] The Appellant is receiving the correct amount for her retirement pension.

[27] This means the appeal is dismissed.