Canada Pension Plan (CPP) disability

Decision

[1] The appeal is allowed in part.

[2] The Claimant, T. L., is eligible for the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) disabled contributor’s child benefit (DCCB) for September and October 2017, January, February and March 2018, January and February 2019 and September and October 2019. This decision explains why I am allowing the appeal.

Overview

[3] The Claimant’s mother applied for a CPP disability benefit in February 2019.^{Footnote 1} It was approved. A date of onset of December 2016 was established. The maximum retroactivity of 15 months (November 2017) was allowed. Payments began four months later in March 2018.

[4] The Claimant turned 18 in September 2016.^{Footnote 2} He applied for a DCCB in December 2019.^{Footnote 3} He was 21 years old and attending Southern Alberta Institute of Technology (SAID).

[5] The Minister denied the application because the Claimant was taking an apprenticeship program which does not constitute full-time attendance.^{Footnote 4} The Minister said the period of classroom training is the equivalent of an employer-sponsored training program. The period of time spent in the classroom is too short to make him eligible for the DCCB. The Minister relied on their policy which said the minimum length of time that will be considered as full-time school attendance is 12 weeks duration during a 15 week time frame.^{Footnote 5}

[6] The Claimant disagreed. He said the Declarations of Attendance received from the school said he was attending full-time. The Claimant also said that the CPP does not disqualify an apprenticeship program.

[7] The Claimant appealed to the Social Security Tribunal (Tribunal).

What the Claimant has to prove

[8] For the Claimant to succeed, he has to prove he was in school full-time.

Other matters

[9] The Claimant requested a question and answer hearing. A pre-hearing conference was held on July 13, 2021 to clarify information regarding the days the Claimant was in school. At the pre-hearing conference I was able to ask the Claimant all of the questions I had for him. He provided me with his answers and was given an opportunity to share any other relevant information. The Claimant’s mother attended as a witness and support person and also provided answers to my questions. She was also given the opportunity to share any other relevant information. The Minister’s representative also attended the hearing and answered any questions asked of him by myself and the Claimant. He was given an opportunity to present his argument and make any submissions. The Minister’s representative confirmed that the Minister’s decision was made by considering CPP Regulation 66 and 67, as well as Section 5.4.1, 5.4.2 and 5.6.9 of the Minister’s policy. I sent two written requests to the Minister for copies of these policies on which they relied, but they were not provided to the Tribunal. 

[10] I am satisfied that I have all the information necessary from the parties and the record to make my decision.

Reasons for my decision

[11] I find that the Claimant was entitled to the DCCB for September and October 2017, January, February and March 2018, January and February 2019 and September and October 2019. I reached this decision by considering the following issues:

• What are the rules for full-time attendance at school?
• Was the Claimant a full-time student? If yes, when was the Claimant a full-time student?

The rules for full-time attendance at school

[12] A Claimant who is between the ages of 18 and 25 can receive a DCCB only if they are “in full-time attendance at a school or university.”^{Footnote 6} The CPP doesn’t say what “full-time attendance” means. The question of full-time attendance is a question of fact for each situation. But, to receive a DCCB, a Claimant has to send the Minister a Declaration signed by their school to prove they are enrolled as a full-time student.^{Footnote 7}  Although the Claimant said he attended school full-time in August, September and October 2016 and in January and February 2017, there are no Declarations of Attendance at a school or university on file. Also, this is not the matter that was appealed to the Tribunal. The Claimant appealed the Minister’s reconsideration decision that he was not attending school full-time between September 2017 and October 2019.^{Footnote 8}

The Claimant was a full-time student for nine months

[13] The Claimant’s course, Heavy Equipment Tech Apprenticeship, is not a typical apprenticeship course. I had the benefit of a detailed explanation of the course structure from the Claimant and his mother at the pre-hearing conference. The Minister did not have this information when they made the decision to deny the DCCB.

[14] The Claimant’s mother testified that for individuals that identify with special needs, accommodations are also made. She said the Claimant is one of those students and he has supports in the program. I find this to be a credible statement because the Claimant said he was disabled in his application for the DCCB.^{Footnote 9}

[15] The Heavy Equipment Tech Apprenticeship program offers four in-class periods of instruction. Each in-class period of instruction is eight weeks long.^{Footnote 10} The Claimant explained that this is a four year program. The program is designed that you do one session of in-class training, then 1500 hours of apprenticeship work during the remaining ten months. After four years, you would be expected to have met the requirement for apprenticeship hours and you would graduate from the program and receive an apprenticeship licence from the Apprenticeship Board.

[16] This was not the case in the Claimant’s situation. His mother explained that because of high unemployment rates in Alberta, the government made exceptions to this program when the Claimant enrolled. He did not need to be “employer attached”. This meant that he could take the in-person training without an employer/apprenticeship arrangement. The Claimant’s mother explained that at no time was the Claimant “employer attached”. The Claimant testified that he has now completed the academic portion of the program, but his apprenticeship licence is being withheld because he has not completed his hours of apprenticeship.  This program with these exceptions is not what would be considered a regular apprenticeship program. The Claimant was never an apprentice. He only attended in-class educational courses.

[17] A Declaration of Attendance at School or University says the Claimant’s course load met or exceeded the minimum requirement to be considered a full-time student at the school (SAIT) from September 6, 2017 to October 28, 2017.^{Footnote 11}

[18] A Declaration of Attendance at School or University says the Claimant’s course load met or exceeded the minimum requirement to be considered a full-time student at the school (SAIT) from January 2, 2018 to March 3, 2018.^{Footnote 12}

[19] A Declaration of Attendance at School or University says the Claimant’s course load met or exceeded the minimum requirement to be considered a full-time student at the school (SAIT) from January 2, 2019 to October 25, 2019.^{Footnote 13} The Claimant explained at the hearing, the in-class instruction was for January and February 2019 and for September and October 2019. A representative of the school also confirmed that the period from January 2019 to October 2019 identified on the Declaration would not represent entirely in-class instruction.^{Footnote 14}

[20] In deciding that the Claimant’s school attendance did not constitute full-time attendance at school, the Minister relied on a policy which states that the minimum length of time that will be considered as full-time school attendance is 12 weeks duration within a 15 week time frame.^{Footnote 15}

[21] The Tribunal is not bound by the Minister’s policy. Its role is to interpret and apply the legislation. There is nothing in the definition of “full-time attendance” that indicates the number of weeks or months required. In this case, the Clamant was attending on a full-time basis as an “educational institution that provides training or instruction of an educational, professional, vocational or technical nature.” The fact that the program was only for eight weeks does not detract from his having attended full-time (as stated in the Declarations) nor does it detract from his having attended an educational institution in accordance with the CPP regulations.

[22] Section 12 of the Interpretation Act states:

Every enactment is deemed remedial, and shall be given such fair, large and liberal construction and interpretation as best ensures the attainment of its objects.

[23] The CPP provides social benefits, so I have to interpret the law that governs it broadly and generously. If I have any doubts about the wording of the law, I have to interpret it in the Claimant’s favour.^{Footnote 16}

[24] The DCCB is paid monthly. Eligibility for the DCCB is measured by what occurs in each month, not over several months. If a person is in full-time attendance at school or university in any given month, he is eligible to receive the DCCB.

[25] The testimony of the Claimant, the Declarations of attendance at school and the information provided by the school to the Minister^{Footnote 17} all show me that the Claimant was in school September and October 2017, January, February and March 2018, January and February 2019 and September and October 2019.

[26] The Regulations say the academic year includes the “normal period of scholastic vacation”.^{Footnote 18} The Claimant’s mother said the ten months in between the in-person classroom training was a “natural break”. I disagree. She and the Claimant explained that the time in between in-class training was to allow the completion of the 1500 hours of “hands-on” or apprenticeship training. This is logical since this is a four year program. Although the Claimant was unemployed and did not do his 1500 hours of apprenticeship training, the evidence does not support that the ten months in between the in-person classroom training was a “normal period of scholastic vacation”.

[27] The Tribunal is created by legislation and, as such, it has only the powers granted to it by its governing statute. The Tribunal is required to interpret and apply the provisions as they are set out in the CPP. The Tribunal cannot consider extenuating circumstances, such as financial difficulties, to allow the Claimant to receive the DCCB except where he meets the requirements of the legislation.

Conclusion

[28] I find that the Claimant is entitled to the DCCB for September and October 2017, January, February and March 2018, January and February 2019 and September and October 2019.

[29] This means the appeal is allowed in part.