Canada Pension Plan (CPP) disability

Decision

[1] The Claimant is entitled to a Canada Pension Plan (CPP) survivor’s pension.

Overview

[2] The Claimant made an application for a survivor’s pension on the basis that she maintained a conjugal relationship with the Contributor from 2011 until his death on August 29, 2015. The Minister received the Claimant’s application on June 20, 2016. The Minister denied the application initially and on reconsideration. The Claimant appealed the reconsideration decision to the Social Security Tribunal.

[3] To qualify for a survivor’s pension, the applicant must be the survivor of a deceased contributor^{Footnote 1}. A survivor is defined in the CPP as one who was married to the deceased contributor at the time of death, unless there is a common-law partner, in which case, the common-law partner’s entitlement shall prevail^{Footnote 2}. A common-law partner is defined as one who, at the time of death, was cohabiting with the deceased contributor in a conjugal relationship, having so cohabited for a continuous period of at least one year^{Footnote 3}.

Issue

[4] Was the Claimant the common-law partner of the Contributor at the time of his death for a continuous period of at least one year?

Analysis

The Claimant was the common-law partner of the Contributor at the time of his death

[5] To determine whether the Claimant was the common-law partner of the Contributor, she must produce evidence of a conjugal relationship with the Contributor at the time of his death for a continuous period of at least one year. In determining whether the partners were cohabiting, I must consider elements such as (but not limited to) continued financial interdependence, a sexual relationship, a common residence, a sharing of responsibilities in running the household, a shared use of assets, shared vacations, continued mutual dependency, communication between the parties, public recognition of the relationship and arrangement of the deceased contributor’s funeral.^{Footnote 4}

[6] The Claimant explained that she met the Contributor in a therapy group in June 2010. The couple began dating later that fall. According to her application for a survivor’s pension, she moved into the Contributor’s home on X in May 2011.^{Footnote 5} She reported living with him until his death in August 2016. While she did not own the home, she stated that she contributed to the couple’s household expenses.

[7] She has submitted numerous e-mails from the Contributor and the Contributor’s family that establishes that she and the Contributor were in a long-term relationship since the fall of 2010. I am satisfied that the correspondence demonstrates that the parties presented themselves as a couple to their friends and family, supported each other through their struggles with depression and had an intimate relationship. The Contributor’s daughters recognized the Claimant’s relationship with their father. She spent Christmas and other special occasions with the Contributor’s family. While not the executor of the Contributor’s estate, the correspondence shows she assisted with his funeral preparations along with other members of his family. The Minister has taken the position that this documentation, although persuasive, is not sufficient to substantiate a common-law relationship for a period of not less than one year before the Contributor’s death.

[8] While occasionally implied, missing from the correspondence is confirmation that the Claimant and the Contributor were living together on a continuous basis. With her survivor application, the Claimant provided little documentary evidence to confirm that she lived at X with the Contributor during the relevant time. While cohabitation is not synonymous with co-residence^{Footnote 6}, it is nonetheless a significant factor to consider in making a determination of a common-law spouse. Her application confirms that she did not have a residential lease, joint property, a joint bank account or life insurance with the Contributor to show the use of a common address. The Claimant submitted documents from an automotive repair shop that listed her address as X in 2011^{Footnote 7}; however, I did not find the invoices influential in the absence of other official documentation. The Minister indicated that a search of its database showed that the Claimant never used X as her address; however, the printout from its database search reveals that the Claimant did not have any contact with the federal government between 2009 and 2016^{Footnote 8}. Since she does not appear to have contacted the government during the relevant years in question, I did not find the results of the database search conclusive.

[9] In response to the Minister’s request for additional information, the Claimant supplied a photocopy of her driver’s licence that indicated that she lived at X^{Footnote 9}. The driver’s licence had a date of issue of June 2015, which only helps to prove that the Claimant lived at that address with the Contributor from June 2015 until his death in August 2015 – well under the requisite period of one year to establish a common-law relationship.

[10] Where this appeal turns is on the evidence submitted by the Claimant that verifies she changed her address on her driver’s licence in July 2011. Her representative provided a printout from the Ministry of Transportation that shows her address was “amended” to X on July 12, 2011, and then renewed using the same address on June 9, 2015^{Footnote 10}. I have placed significant weight on this evidence as a driver’s licence is an official document issued by the Ontario Ministry of Transportation. It is accepted as proof of identity to obtain a Canadian passport, vote in elections, buy age-restricted goods and open a bank account. As the Minister pointed out in its submissions^{Footnote 11}, the Highway Traffic Act requires individuals to report a change of address^{Footnote 12}, which we now have confirmation that the Claimant did in July 2011.

[11] While the Minister maintained its position to deny the Claimant a survivor’s pension^{Footnote 13}, I disagree. I concluded that the change of address confirmation from the Ministry of Transportation establishes “objective evidence” to show that she was living at X by July 2011. On the basis of this updated address information in conjunction with the voluminous personal correspondence submitted by the Claimant, I am satisfied that she has produced evidence of a conjugal relationship with the Contributor at the time of his death for a continuous period of at least one year. Accordingly, I find that the Claimant was the Contributor’s common-law spouse by July 2011 until his death in August 2015.

Conclusion

[12] The appeal is allowed.