Other Canada Pension Plan (CPP)

Decision

[1] The appeal is summarily dismissed. This means there won’t be a hearing and the Tribunal is closing the appeal file.

[2] This decision explains why I am summarily dismissing the appeal.

Overview

[3] The Appellant (B. G.) applied for a Canada Pension Plan (CPP) Credit Split (also called a Division of Unadjusted Pension Benefits referred to as DUPE) in June 2021.^{Footnote 1}

[4] She asked the Minister to cancel the Credit Split. She said she wanted to see if her ex-husband’s CPP would help her, but it made her CPP worse. She said since he was deceased, he would not be collecting CPP, so she did not want the Credit Split to happen.^{Footnote 2}

[5] The Minister refused to reverse the Credit Split.^{Footnote 3} The Appellant appealed to the Social Security Tribunal.

[6] I am sympathetic to the Appellant’s situation and understand her frustration, but I must summarily dismiss an appeal if I am satisfied that it has no reasonable chance of success.^{Footnote 4} I have decided that this appeal has no reasonable chance of success for the reasons set out below.

What summary dismissal means

[7] The Tribunal has to summarily dismiss an appeal if it considers that the appeal has no reasonable chance of success.^{Footnote 5} If an appeal doesn’t have a reasonable chance of success, it means an appellant doesn’t have an argument that could possibly succeed. No matter what evidence or arguments an appellant might present at a hearing, the appeal still would not have a reasonable chance of success.^{Footnote 6}

[8] If the Tribunal summarily dismisses an appeal, there won’t be a hearing and the Tribunal will close the appeal file.

[9] I sent the Appellant a letter explaining that I planned to summarily dismiss her appeal. I asked her to tell me in writing why she thinks her appeal should not be summarily dismissed.^{Footnote 7}

[10] The Appellant replied to my letter. She said I should not summarily dismiss her appeal because she believes:

• if the Credit Split does not benefit either party, then it can be cancelled. She argues that since her ex-husband is deceased, it doesn’t benefit him and it has reduced her pension, so it obviously doesn’t benefit her.
• In December 2021, she was told by an employee of Service Canada that she would receive the greater of the two amounts.

What I have to decide

[11] I have to decide whether the Appellant’s appeal has a reasonable chance of success.

Reasons for my decision

[12] The Appellant’s appeal doesn’t have a reasonable chance of success.

[13] The Appellant and her late ex-husband were married in April 1985. They lived together until April 27, 2019 and divorced in July 2016.^{Footnote 8} The Credit Split was performed on December 24, 2021.

[14] The Appellant’s ex-husband passed away in December 2020.^{Footnote 9} The Appellant said the Credit Split resulted in a reduction of her CPP retirement pension.

[15] The CPP says that following a judgment granting a divorce after January 1, 1987 and after receipt of the required information, a CPP Credit Split is mandatory. The Credit Split cannot be reversed.^{Footnote 10}

[16] Section 55.1(5) of the CPP states:

Before a division of unadjusted pensionable earnings is made under this section, or within the prescribed period after such a division is made, the Minister may refuse to make the division or may cancel the division, as the case may be, if the Minister is satisfied that:

1. (a) benefits are payable to or in respect of both persons subject to the division; and
2. (b) the amount of both benefits decreased at the time the division was made or would decrease at the time the division was proposed to be made.

[17] This means both benefits would need to be payable to both the Appellant and her ex-husband AND, both would need to experience a decrease in their pension as a result of the Credit Split for the Minister to allow a withdrawal. Because one party is deceased, it can’t be determined if the party would experience a decrease in his pension.

[18] I also considered what the Federal Court has done in similar situations. In the Dela Cruz case,^{Footnote 11} similar to this case, the Appellant was divorced and her ex-husband passed away. She applied for the Credit Split and it was approved. It resulted in a reduction in her monthly pension benefits. The Appellant asked that the Credit Split be cancelled. She said she would not have applied if she knew it would reduce her pension.

[19] The Federal Court said:

By operation of paragraph 55.1(1)(a) of the CPP, credit splitting is mandatory and automatic following a divorce. This is the case even if one of the parties is deceased and the split results in a disadvantage and a reduced pension to the living spouse.^{Footnote 12} (my emphasis)

[20] While I am sympathetic to the Appellant’s situation, I do not have the authority, to cancel the Credit Split. I cannot make exceptions to the rules of the CPP. I am a statutory decision-maker and 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.

[21] The Appellant also appears to be alleging wrongdoing on the part of the Minister regarding the advice she received in December 2021.^{Footnote 13} I do not have jurisdiction to deal with issues relating to erroneous advice or administrative errors on the part of the Minister. Only the Minister and the Federal Court have this jurisdiction.^{Footnote 14}

Conclusion

[22] I have to follow the rules set out in the CPP. Those rules tell me how to determine whether the Appellant can cancel the Credit Split.

[23] The CPP says that following a judgment granting a divorce after January 1, 1987 and after receipt of the required information, a CPP Credit Split is mandatory. The Credit Split cannot be reversed.^{Footnote 15}

[24] This means the appeal doesn’t have a reasonable chance of success.

[25] The appeal is summarily dismissed.