Canada Pension Plan (CPP) disability

Decision Information

Decision Content

Citation: The Estate of HR v Minister of Employment and Social Development, 2023 SST 1803

Social Security Tribunal of Canada
General Division – Income Security Section

Decision

Appellant: The Estate of H. R.
Respondent: Minister of Employment and Social Development

Decision under appeal: Minister of Employment and Social Development
reconsideration decision dated April 24, 2023 (issued by
Service Canada)

Tribunal member: Adam Picotte
Type of hearing: In Writing
Decision date: November 7, 2023
File number: GP-23-894

On this page

Decision

[1] The appeal is dismissed.

[2] The Appellant, the Estate of H. R., isn’t eligible for a CPP disability benefit. This decision explains why I am dismissing the appeal.

Overview

[3] The Appellant is the Estate of H. R. H. R. submitted a medical report in support of her application for a terminal illness on January 6, 2023. The Minister wrote back to her and advised that it was necessary for her to submit an application form before her claim could be adjudicated. Sadly, she passed away on January 9, 2023, before she had an opportunity to submit an application form. Instead her partner, J. R.  submitted an application on behalf of the estate on January 21, 2023. 

[4] The Estate says that there is an entitlement to a benefit and that Section 60 of the Canada Pension Plan allows an estate to apply for a benefit up to 12 months after the death of a contributor.

[5] The Minister says there the date of application is not protected through the filing of a medical report and as such the Estate cannot apply and receive a disability benefit.

What the Appellant must prove

[6] For the Estate to succeed, it must prove an application was submitted prior to the death of H. R.

Matters I have to consider first

The Estate requested an in person hearing

[7] Initially, the Estate requested a hearing in person. I called a case conference to discuss this request. At the end of the case conference both parties agreed the issue was a legal dispute and no facts were in dispute. As a result, both parties agreed I could proceed with a decision in writing.

[8] At the Case Conference, the Estate raised an argument that he was looking to obtain a lump sum benefit and not a CPP disability benefit. I asked him whether he was looking to obtain a death benefit. However, he advised he had applied an received this benefit. I was not able to determine any particular benefit that he may be seeking to have granted. However, the application in which this appeal stems from is for a CPP disability benefit. As a result, my decision focuses on entitlement to a disability benefit.

Reasons for my decision

The CPP sets out the requirements for a disability benefit application

[9] The CPP sets out the no benefit is payable to any person under the CPP unless an application has been made by him or on his behalf and the benefit has been approved.Footnote 1

[10] The CPP further sets out that an estate may make an application within 12 months after the death of that person by the estate.Footnote 2 However, disability benefit applications are not allowed to be made by an estate.Footnote 3

[11] As the Minister set out in it’s submission to the Tribunal, it is when the individual completes the consent for Service Canada to obtain personal information and makes it clear as to what benefit is being applied for and it is signed that gives Service Canada the ability to obtain information for the determination if the application qualifies for CPP disability benefits.Footnote 4

[12] Absent a consent form, that is contained in the application for benefits, there is no ability for the Minister to date protect an application. As the application was note date protected. The Estate’s completed application received by the Minister on January 27, 2023, was not valid. It was not valid, because H. R. had already passed away.

Conclusion

[13] I find that the Estate isn’t eligible for a CPP disability benefit.

[14] This means the appeal is dismissed.

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.