Other Canada Pension Plan (CPP)

Decision

[1] The appeal is dismissed.

[2] The Appellant, D. T., did not prove the Minister of Employment and Social Development (the “Minister”) was wrong when they conducted the Division of Unadjusted Pensionable Earnings (“DUPE”, or “Credit Split”) under the Canada Pension Plan (“CPP”). This decision explains why I am dismissing the appeal.

Overview

[3] The Appellant and the Added Party married on May 28, 1989.^{Footnote 1} They separated in September 2003. Their divorce was final on July 7, 2005. The Added Party applied for a Credit Split on May 25, 2021.^{Footnote 2} The Minister conducted the Credit Split for January 1989 to December 2002. The Appellant appealed the Minister’s decision.

[4] The Appellant says the Credit Split was not fair. He only continued living with the Added Party because they had children. He felt it was important to stay in the home for his children. He also continued paying for the Added Party’s expenses to take care of his children. He feels he should not have to share his CPP credits with her.

[5] The Minister says the Credit Spilt was conducted correctly. The Appellant confirmed the information the Added Party submitted with her application. The Minister says the Credit Split is mandatory under the law.

[6] The Added Party says the dates the Minister used for the Credit Split are correct. 

What the Appellant must prove

[7] For the Appellant to succeed, he must prove that the Minister incorrectly applied the CPP Credit Split provisions to his relationship with the Added Party.

Reasons for my decision

[8] The Appellant and Added Party agreed they were married on May 28, 1989, and separated in September 2003. This means a CPP Credit Split must be performed for the period from January 1, 1989, to December 31, 2002.^{Footnote 3}

The Appellant’s marriage to the added party creates an entitlement to a CPP credit split

[9] The law says a CPP Credit Split shall be performed for a former spouse who applies for that split. For spouses married after January 1, 1987, the Minister must conduct a Credit Split once it is informed of the divorce judgment. The Minister has very limited discretion. The law says that the division shall take place.^{Footnote 4} The Credit Split is effective the month the Minister receives the required information.^{Footnote 5}

[10] The evidence shows the Added Party applied for the Credit Split and the Minister received the necessary information. As the Minister submitted, they were required to conduct the Credit Split.

When the CPP credit split applies

[11] The parties agree the dates the Minister used are correct. The Minister is correct that the Credit Split is mandatory. There is no evidence that the Minister conducted the Credit Split incorrectly.

[12] There are very limited circumstances where a Credit Split is not mandatory.^{Footnote 6} They do not apply to this appeal.

[13] The Appellant feels the Credit Split is unfair. He paid the Added Party’s expenses for years and she should not be entitled to his CPP credits. He agreed they did not separate until September 2003. However, he feels the last four years were very bad for him. He feels those years should not be included because he only stayed to take care of his children.

[14] The Tribunal is created by legislation. It only has the powers granted to it by its governing statute. This means I have to interpret and apply the provisions as they appear in the CPP and its regulations. I cannot change or waive them, even if a party feels they are unfair in their particular situation.^{Footnote 7}

Conclusion

[15] I find the Minister correctly conducted the Credit Split.

[16] This means the appeal is dismissed.