Canada Pension Plan (CPP) disability

Decision and reasons

Decision

[1] The appeal is dismissed.

Overview

[2] D. T. (Claimant) applied for a Canada Pension Plan disability pension in 2017. He says that he is disabled by a number of conditions, including anxiety with panic attacks, depression, pain and physical limitations.^{Footnote 1}

[3] The Minister of Employment and Social Development refused the application. The Claimant requested reconsideration of the Minister’s decision late. The Minister refused to extend time for the Claimant to request reconsideration. The Claimant appealed this decision to the Tribunal. The Tribunal’s General Division dismissed the appeal. It decided that the Minister acted judicially when it refused to extend time for the Clamant to request reconsideration.

[4] Leave to appeal this decision to the Tribunal’s Appeal Division was granted. The appeal had a reasonable chance of success on the basis that the General Division may have made an error in law. I have now read all of the documents filed with the Appeal Division and the General Division decision. I have heard the parties’ oral arguments. The appeal is dismissed. The General Division did not make an error in law. It provided the parties with a fair process and has no legal authority to deal with errors made by Service Canada employees.

Preliminary matter

[5] The Claimant argues that he contacted Service Canada and the Canada Pension Plan about his reconsideration request and explained that his doctor was taking a long time to provide a report. He says that he was repeatedly told by Service Canada and Canada Pension Plan employees not to worry that his request for reconsideration was late, and that he could wait until he had all of the medical evidence before making the request for reconsideration.

[6] Counsel for the Minister of Employment and Social Development agreed to provide information to the Claimant so that he could pursue a remedy because of erroneous advice given to him by Service Canada or their administrative error. This will be done outside of the appeal process.

Issues

[7] Did the General Division make an error in law by failing to act judicially when it did not consider all relevant factors about extending time to request reconsideration?

[8] Did the General Division fail to provide a fair process when it decided the appeal without an oral hearing?

[9] Should the appeal be allowed because Service Canada made an administrative error?

Analysis

[10] An appeal to the Tribunal’s Appeal Division is not a re-hearing of the original claim. Instead, the Appeal Division can only decide whether the General Division:

1. failed to provide a fair process;
2. failed to decide an issue that it should have, or decided an issue that it should not have;
3. made an error in law; or
4. based its decision on an important factual error.^{Footnote 2}

Acting judicially

[11] A claimant must request reconsideration of the Minister’s decision about their disability pension application within 90 days of the initial decision.^{Footnote 3} However, this time can be extended. If the reconsideration request is made more than one year after the initial decision, the following factors must be considered:

1. Is there a reasonable explanation for the delay;
2. Did the claimant have a continuing intention to request reconsideration;
3. Does the request have a reasonable chance of success; and
4. Would a party be prejudiced by allowing an extension of time?^{Footnote 4}

[12] The General Division had to decide whether the Minister acted judicially when it made the decision to refuse an extension of time to request reconsideration. As set out in the General Division decision, this means that the Minister had to act in good faith and without improper purpose. It also had to consider relevant factors, and no irrelevant ones, and not discriminate when it made its decision.^{Footnote 5}

[13] The decision states that the Minister considered the Claimant’s explanation for his delay and the impact of his mental health illness on his ability to make the request. It decided that he had not provided a reasonable explanation for his delay or proven that he had a continuing intention to request reconsideration.^{Footnote 6} For example, the decision states that the Claimant did not have a continuing intention to request reconsideration because he did not contact Service Canada from November 2017 to August 2019.^{Footnote 7}

[14] The Claimant therefore, did not fulfill two of the factors that the Minister had to consider. Because all four factors must be fulfilled for the Minister to exercise its discretion to extend time, it was not necessary to consider the remaining factors.

[15] The General Division made no error when it decided that the Minister acted judicially.

Fair process

[16] The Tribunal must provide parties with a fair process. This means that all parties must have the opportunity to present their legal case to the Tribunal, to know and answer the other party’s legal case and to have a decision made by an independent decision maker.

[17] The Claimant says that the General Division failed to provide a fair process. He explained that due to an administrative error his file was “split” and documents were filed in two separate files. However, he acknowledged that this was corrected before the General Division made its decision. Therefore, there was no failure to provide a fair process – the General Division had all of the evidence before it when it made its decision.

[18] The Claimant says, however, that the Minister made an error because it stated that he had not filed any additional medical evidence with his reconsideration decision. He says that this information was part of what was filed incorrectly when his file was “split”.

[19] This does not point to any error made by the General Division. The General Division gave the parties the opportunity to present their case, and to answer the other’s case. There is no suggestion that the General Division was biased or partial to any party.

[20] I note that the General Division made its decision based on the documents filed with the Tribunal, and without an oral hearing. But, an oral hearing is not required in every case.

[21] The General Division provided a fair process.

Administrative error

[22] Finally, the Claimant argues that he relied on advice given by Service Canada and Canada Pension Plan employees that he could wait until he had all his medical evidence to request reconsideration, even if this made the request late. This may be so. However, the Tribunal has no legal authority to deal with this issue. Therefore, the Appeal Division cannot grant the Claimant any relief on this basis.

Conclusion

[23] The appeal is dismissed for these reasons.