Other Canada Pension Plan (CPP)

Decision

[1] I’m refusing to give the Claimant, S. S., leave (permission) to appeal. The appeal will not proceed. These are the reasons for my decision.

Overview

[2] The Claimant applied for a Canada Pension Plan (CPP) retirement pension on December 20, 2023. The Minister of Employment and Social Development (Minister) refused his application. The Claimant appealed the Minister’s decision to this Tribunal.

[3] The General Division dismissed the Claimant’s appeal. The General Division explained that the Claimant isn’t eligible for the CPP retirement pension because he has no valid years of contributions to the CPP.

Issues

[4] The issues in this appeal are:

1. a) Is there an arguable case that the General Division made an error of fact about the Claimant’s contributions that would justify giving the Claimant permission to appeal?
2. b) Does the application set out evidence that wasn’t presented to the General Division?

I’m not giving the Claimant permission to appeal

[5] I can give the Claimant permission to appeal if the application raises an arguable case that the General Division:

• didn’t follow a fair process;
• acted beyond its powers or refused to exercise those powers;
• made an error of law;
• made an error of fact; or
• made an error applying the law to the facts.^{Footnote 1}

[6] I can also give the Claimant permission to appeal if the application sets out evidence that wasn’t presented to the General Division.^{Footnote 2}

[7] Since the Claimant hasn’t raised an arguable case and hasn’t set out new evidence, I must refuse permission to appeal.

There’s no arguable case that the General Division made an error of fact about the Claimant’s contributions that would justify giving the Claimant permission to appeal.

[8] The Claimant argues that he had valid contributions to the CPP and therefore he is eligible for the CPP retirement pension, and the General Division made an error by dismissing his appeal.^{Footnote 3}

[9] The General Division explained that a CPP retirement pension is paid to a contributor who has reached 60 years of age.^{Footnote 4} A contributor is a person who has made a valid contribution to the CPP in at least one year.^{Footnote 5}

[10] The General Division considered the Claimant’s contributions to the CPP in the record.^{Footnote 6} The General Division concluded that since the record of earnings showed that the Claimant had no valid years of contributions, he isn’t a contributor, and therefore he can’t receive the CPP retirement pension. The General Division also explained that the record of earnings is presumed to be accurate.^{Footnote 7}

[11] I asked the Claimant to clarify which years he says he made contributions to the CPP, and where they would be found in the General Division documents. He stated only that he was injured at work in 1992 and received workers’ compensation benefits for 20 months. However, he was not able to point to any years in which he had valid contributions to the CPP that the General Division may have overlooked or misunderstood.^{Footnote 8}

[12] The Claimant hasn’t raised an arguable case for an error of fact about his contributions. Without contributions to the CPP, the General Division explained that the Claimant isn’t entitled to a CPP retirement pension.

The Claimant hasn’t provided any new evidence

[13] The Claimant hasn’t provided any new evidence. Accordingly, new evidence cannot form the basis for granting him permission to appeal.

[14] I’ve reviewed the record.^{Footnote 9} I’m satisfied that there’s no arguable case the General Division ignored or misinterpreted any other important evidence. I understand why the Claimant needs a retirement pension, but the Tribunal cannot find a person eligible for a retirement pension if they haven’t contributed to the CPP.

Conclusion

[15] I’ve refused to give the Claimant permission to appeal. This means that the appeal will not proceed.