Other Canada Pension Plan (CPP)

Decision

[1] The appeal is dismissed.

[2] The Appellant, C. K., is not eligible for a higher amount of his Canada Pension Plan (CPP) retirement pension.

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

Overview

[4] The Appellant was 60 years old in April 2015 when he applied for a CPP retirement pension. He had worked as a graduate student at the University of Alberta from 1983 to 1993. He had valid contributions in all of those years but 1989. He stated that he wanted his pension to start as of April 2015.

[5] The Minister approved the Appellant for a retirement pension in May 2015, and the pension began to be paid that month.

[6] The Appellant frequently communicated with the Minister after that. He questioned the start date of his pension, the contributions on which the amount of the payment was based, and the requirement that he pay withholding tax. In addition, he wanted his Employment Insurance (EI) contributions refunded.

[7] In March 2019, the Appellant stated that his contributory period should cover only the years when he contributed to the CPP.^{Footnote 1} He also stated that the Minister should ask his 1989 employer why his contributions to the CPP for 1989 were below the minimum level required to contribute to the CPP.^{Footnote 2}

[8] In August 2019, the Minister explained how the contributory period is determined. It also explained that contributions can only be made on amounts over the year’s basic exemption. In 1989, the Appellant’s earnings were below that amount. ^{Footnote 3} The letter stated that the amount of the Appellant’s retirement pension was correctly calculated.

[9] In October 2019, the Appellant wrote to the Minister objecting again to the calculation of his contributory period.^{Footnote 4}

[10] In February 2021, the Appellant requested reconsideration. He reported that he had not yet received a reconsideration letter. He stated that he disagreed with the Minister’s statements of August 2019.^{Footnote 5}

[11] In June 2021, the Minister’s reconsideration decision letter explained the contributory period of a contributor (section 49 of the CPP). It also explained the total pensionable earnings of a contributor (section 50 of the CPP). The Minister concluded that the calculation of the Appellant’s benefit rate was accurate.^{Footnote 6} The Appellant was not entitled to a higher retirement pension.

[12] The Appellant appealed the Minister’s reconsideration decision to the Social Security Tribunal’s General Division.

Matters I must discuss first

Form of hearing

[13] The Appellant asked that the hearing be conducted on paper rather than orally. This is because there’s a nine and a half hour time difference between where he lives and central Canada. I found that the Appellant’s circumstances justified a written hearing.

[14] Therefore, the hearing was conducted by Questions and Answers.

What the Appellant must prove

[15] For the Appellant to succeed, he must prove that he is entitled to a larger monthly payment of his CPP retirement pension.

Issues

[16] What is the Appellant’s contributory period?

[17] Did the Minister correctly calculate the Appellant’s total pensionable earnings?

Reasons for my decision

[18] The Appellant has failed to prove that he is entitled to a larger retirement pension.

Contributory period

[19] The Appellant has argued that his contributory period began in 1983 when he came to Canada and ended in 1993 when he left.^{Footnote 7} The Minister says that his contributory period was 505 months. The Appellant says that it was 120 months. He believes that his monthly pension should have been $296.10 as of 2021.^{Footnote 8} Instead, it was less than a quarter of this amount.

[20] There is, however, no statutory authority for the Appellant’s definition of the contributory period.

[21] Under the law, the length of the contributory period does not depend on residence in Canada. It is the same wherever the person is living. It begins the month after their 18th birthday. It ends the month before they begin collecting the retirement pension.^{Footnote 9} In the Appellant’s case, the period was from April 1973 to April 2015.

The Appellant’s 1989 earnings

[22] The Appellant took the position that his 1989 earnings were higher than recorded on his Record of Earnings. The Appellant’s Record of Earnings (ROE) states that his 1989 earnings were below the amount required to contribute to the CPP and his contribution of $34.12 was therefore refunded.^{Footnote 10} A CPP Earnings and Contributions Investigation confirms that his earnings in 1989 were in the amount of $2075, below the minimum threshold of $2700 for that year.^{Footnote 11} If his earnings had been higher, and he had made valid contributions to the CPP in 1989, it would have increased the amount of his pensionable earnings and he would be entitled to a higher retirement pension.

[23] The Appellant stated that I have the authority to investigate his 1989 earnings and CPP contributions.

[24] My authority to make a decision comes from legislation. The CPP gives me authority over appeals of certain of the Minister’s decisions. These are the reconsideration decisions. The CPP gives appellants the right to ask for and receive a reconsideration decision from the Minister if they are dissatisfied with an initial decision about their benefits.^{Footnote 12} An appellant dissatisfied with the Minister’s reconsideration decision can appeal to the Tribunal.^{Footnote 13}

[25] As noted above, the Appellant disagreed with the Minister on many issues. However, the reconsideration decision on this file concerned only the Appellant’s contributory period and his total pensionable earnings.^{Footnote 14} So those are the only matters I can make a decision about.

[26] An entry in an ROE is presumed to be accurate four years after it was made.^{Footnote 15} There is a mechanism by which the presumption can be rebutted. The Minister may correct an ROE if it receives information that an entry is inaccurate. The amount of the contributions may be adjusted upwards. A correction may be based, for example, on records from an employer or a former employee.^{Footnote 16}

[27] However, the CPP does not give the Tribunal authority to impute contributions that don’t appear in the Record of Earnings, or to alter or rectify the record of earnings filed.^{Footnote 17} The Tribunal doesn’t have independent access to information from the employer and the employee, and has no legal authority to obtain it.

[28] I have no authority for challenging the ROE’s statement about the Appellant’s 1989 earnings.

Total pensionable earnings

[29] Under the law, the total pensionable earnings of a contributor are the total of his pensionable earnings for all the months in his contributory period.^{Footnote 18}

[30] The Minister calculated the Appellant’s retirement pension as follows:

• The Appellant’s contributory period is 505 months.
• There is a drop-out factor of 17%.^{Footnote 19} This leaves 419 months in his contributory period.
• His unadjusted pensionable earnings are $93,366. Adjusted to current values, the earnings are $180,060.
• The retirement pension calculation is 25% of $429.74, or $107.44 per month.^{Footnote 20}
• The Appellant’s retirement pension was reduced by 0.58% per month for the 59 months he collected the pension before he turned 65. This reduces the amount of his pension to $70.67 per month as of May 2015.
• Since then, the Appellant’s retirement pension has increased yearly because it’s indexed to the cost of living. As of 2021, he was receiving $77.50 per month.^{Footnote 21}

[31] The Appellant’s only quarrel with this analysis is with the length of his contributory period. However, as stated above, the Minister’s definition of the contributory period is correct.

My jurisdiction

[32] In July 2015, the Appellant stated that he had no income. He relied on friends and relatives and on his limited savings to survive. He had no benefits from the government of his home country. He therefore asked that he receive all the CPP benefits to which he was entitled.^{Footnote 22}

[33] I am sympathetic to the Appellant’s financial circumstances. However, I must follow the legislation. I have no authority to make decisions based on compassion, financial need, or extenuating circumstances.^{Footnote 23}

Conclusion

[34] The Minister correctly calculated the Appellant’s contributory period and his total pensionable earnings.

[35] The Appellant is not entitled to a higher amount of his CPP retirement pension.

[36] This means that the appeal is dismissed.