Other Canada Pension Plan (CPP)

Decision

[1] The General Division made an error of jurisdiction. The General Division decision is rescinded (cancelled). The Appellant’s recourse is not with the Social Security Tribunal.

Overview

[2] The Appellant, M. C., was a young child when her father died in 1982. Her mother applied under the Canada Pension Plan for the death benefit, a survivor’s pension, and the surviving child’s benefit.^{Footnote 1} These were approved in November 1983, effective November 1982.

[3] The Appellant’s mother applied for reinstatement of her survivor’s pension in 2020. At the same time, she requested the surviving child’s benefit for the Appellant. Service Canada’s initial response about the surviving child’s benefit is not in its file.^{Footnote 2} Service Canada’s reconsideration decision said that the Appellant had received the surviving child’s benefit from November 1982 to May 1997.

[4] The Appellant appealed to the General Division of this Tribunal. She said that she and her mother had never actually received the surviving child’s benefit payments. She wanted to know where the payments had been sent, as her mother had moved during those years. Service Canada provided a list of cheques issued from 1983 to 1997, but did not confirm where they were sent or who (if anyone) had cashed them.^{Footnote 3}

[5] In a letter outlining why it might summarily dismiss the appeal, the General Division noted that the Appellant had been granted the surviving child’s benefit from November 1982. But in its decision, the General Division found that the Appellant wasn’t eligible for the surviving child’s benefit. In doing so, the General Division decided the wrong issue. The Appellant’s eligibility for the benefit has never been in question. So, the General Division decision on this issue must be rescinded.

[6] The issue that the Appellant brought to the General Division – whether she or her mother received the payments from 1982 to 1997 – was outside its jurisdiction. The Appellant can write to her Service Canada office to ask for a decision about whether she was denied benefits due to an administrative error.

Analysis

The General Division made an error of jurisdiction

[7] One of the grounds of appeal to the Appeal Division is an error of jurisdiction.^{Footnote 4} This includes the General Division acting beyond its jurisdiction by deciding the wrong issue, such as an issue not under appeal.

[8] The Appellant and the Minister’s representative agree that the question of the Appellant’s eligibility for the surviving child’s benefit was never in dispute. The Appellant was eligible for this benefit, and was granted the benefit.

[9] The Appellant told the General Division that she and her mother had never received the benefits for which she had been granted entitlement.^{Footnote 5} The Appellant and the Minister’s representative agree that this was the issue the Appellant was trying to appeal at the General Division.^{Footnote 6}

[10] The General Division recognized the earlier entitlement and the Appellant’s concern, but still decided that the Appellant “isn’t eligible for a surviving child’s benefit.”^{Footnote 7} This was an error of jurisdiction. The question of the Appellant’s eligibility wasn’t under appeal.

How to fix the error

[11] Since the General Division decided an issue that wasn’t under appeal, its decision will be rescinded.

[12] Unfortunately for the Appellant, the issue she raised cannot be appealed to the Tribunal. Only certain types of decisions under the Canada Pension Plan can be appealed to the Tribunal, such as decisions about benefit entitlement, retroactivity, reinstatement, credit splitting and pension assignment.^{Footnote 8}

[13] Here, the Appellant says that her mother didn’t receive the payments, possibly because she had moved. As the Appellant wrote, this is not about entitlement to a benefit, it is about the administration of the benefit.^{Footnote 9} The Appellant’s recourse is to request a decision under section 66(4) of the Canada Pension Plan, that she was denied her surviving child’s benefit because of administrative error.

[14] The Appellant recently mentioned that she hasn’t yet made this request. In the context of this appeal, she has asked Service Canada again for confirmation of the addresses where the payments were sent. I understand that she must first formally request a decision under section 66(4) from her local Service Canada office. This will trigger further investigation into the payments. Ultimately, Service Canada will make the decision about any administrative error. That decision cannot be appealed to this Tribunal, but it is subject to judicial review by the Federal Court.

Conclusion

[15] The General Division decision is rescinded. The Tribunal does not have the authority to decide the question of whether the benefit payments were ever received by the Appellant’s mother. As explained above, the Appellant’s recourse lies elsewhere.