Old Age Security (OAS) and Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS)

Reasons and decision

Introduction

[1] On August 30, 2016, the General Division of the Social Security Tribunal of Canada (Tribunal) dismissed the Applicant’s appeal. The General Division had determined the following:

1. The Applicant had retired in 2011, which would affect the payment year of July 2012 to June 2013.
2. He produced his projected income statement for the year 2012 on July 14, 2014.
3. The projected income statement for the year 2012 was due by June 30, 2014, at the latest.
4. Since the Applicant did not comply with the time frames, the Respondent did not have the obligation to consider his application.

File Background

[2] The Applicant made an application for the Guaranteed Income Supplement in March 2014 for the year 2012 (and an application for the following year, which is not subject to this appeal).

[3] A projected income statement for the year 2012 was sent to him by the Respondent. The statement was completed and signed by the Applicant, and it was sent to the Respondent. It was received by the Respondent on July 14, 2014.

[4] The Respondent did not approve the statement because it was not produced within the time frames prescribed by the Old Age Security Act (OASA). The Applicant appealed this decision to the Tribunal in April 2015.

[5] On August 30, 2016, the General Division of the Tribunal rendered a decision on the record.

[6] The Applicant filed an application requesting leave to appeal to the Appeal Division on September 16, 2016.

Issue

[7] Does the appeal have a reasonable chance of success?

Law and analysis

[8] According to subsections 56(1) and 58(3) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act (Act), “An appeal to the Appeal Division May only be brought if leave to appeal is granted” and “The Appeal Division must either grant or refuse leave to appeal.”

[9] Subsection 58(2) of the DESDA provides that “[l]eave to appeal is refused if the Appeal Division is satisfied that the appeal has no reasonable chance of success.”

[10] According to subsection 58(1) of DESD Act the only grounds of appeal are the following:

1. a) the General Division failed to observe a principle of natural justice or otherwise acted beyond or refused to exercise its jurisdiction;
2. b) The General Division erred in law in making its decision, whether or not the error appears on the face of the record; or
3. c) The General Division based its decision on an erroneous finding of fact that it made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it.

[11] The Tribunal will grant leave to appeal if it is satisfied that the Applicant has demonstrated that at least one of the grounds appeal falls within the aforementioned grounds of appeal and that at least one of those grounds of appeal has a reasonable chance of success.

[12] This means that the Tribunal must be in a position to determine, in accordance with subsection 58(1) of the DESD Act, whether there is a question of law, fact or jurisdiction, or a question relating to a principle of natural justice, the answer to which might lead to the setting aside of the decision under review.

[13] According to his reasons for appeal, the Applicant argues that the General Division based its decision on an erroneous finding of fact that it had made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it.

[14] More specifically, the Applicant emphasizes that the [translation] “[t]he documents...identified as GD1-16 and GD2-14...clearly show that they were sent and received in March 2014” and “this document refers to incomes...from 2012 for the payments of the Guaranteed Income Supplement for the period of July 2013 to June 2014.”

[15] It is not up to the Member of the Appeal Division, who has to determine whether to allow the appeal, to reweigh and reassess the evidence submitted before the General Division. From my reading of the docket and the General Division’s decision, the reasons raised by the Applicant in his Application had already been raised before the General Division.

[16] Mere repetition of the arguments already made before the General Division is not sufficient to show that the appeal has a reasonable chance of success on one of the aforementioned grounds of appeal.

[17] An appeal to the Appeal Division is not a hearing on the merits of the Applicant’s application for the Guaranteed Income Supplement.

[18] The issue before the General Division was whether, according to subsection 14(5) of the OASA, the Applicant’s expected income statement for the year 2012 had been filed within the prescribed time frames.

[19] The following facts are not in dispute:

1. The Applicant produced an application for the Guaranteed Income Supplement for the year 2012 on March 24, 2014 (see GD2-14).
2. He completed a projected income statement for the year 2012 in July 2014, and the Respondent received it on July 14, 2014 (see GD2-10 and 11).

[20] In its decision, the Member of the General Division notes his review of the evidentiary record. He specifically notes the following at paragraph 6:

1. a) The Applicant advised the Respondent on March 24, 2014, that he had retired on June 11, 2011.
2. b) A projected income statement for the year 2012 was sent to them (by the Respondent).
3. c) The statement was completed and signed by the Applicant on July 9, 2014.
4. d) The statement was received by the Respondent on July 14, 2014.

[21] According to subsection 14(5) of the OASA, the projected income statement for the year 2012 was due “not later than the end of the payment period that is immediately after the current payment period.” It was therefore due on June 30, 2014, in the docket.

[22] For these reasons, the General Division determined that the Applicant had filed his statement late and that the Respondent was not obligated to consider his application.

[23] Regarding the errors alleged by the Applicant, I note the following:

1. The General Division examined the documents relevant to the file.
2. The General Division’s decision refers to the income statement.
3. The General Division found that the statement had been filed late and that it had been based on the income statement—not the application for the Supplement.

[24] It was not an error on the part of the General Division to find that the statement had been filed on July 14, 2014, i.e. late. It did not determine that the application had been filed in July 2014 (which would have been an error).

[25] I submit that the General Division did not base its decision on an erroneous finding of fact that it had made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it.

[26] The General Division’s decision refers to the sections of the OASA. The General Division applied the law to the Applicant’s situation.  The decision does not contain an error in law.

[27] For these reasons, the appeal has no reasonable chance of success.

Conclusion

[28] Leave to appeal is refused.