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

Decision and Reasons

Decision

[1] The appeal is dismissed.

Overview

[2] H. S. (Claimant) is Jamaican. He came to Canada seasonally and worked on a farm, returning to Jamaica at the end of each work season. In 2013, he applied for an Old Age Securitypension. The Minister of Employment and Social Development refused the application because the Claimant was subject to Jamaican law and, therefore, could not be considered a Canadian resident when he worked in Canada. As a result, he was not eligible for the pension. The Claimant appealed this decision to the Tribunal. The Tribunal’s General Division summarily dismissed his appeal, finding that it had no reasonable chance of success.

[3] The Claimant’s appeal of the General Division decision is dismissed because the General Division did not make any errors in law or base its decision on an erroneous finding of fact. There is also no indication that the General Division failed to observe a principle of natural justice.

Preliminary matters

[4] This appeal was decided on the basis of the written record after the following was considered:

• The legal issue to be decided is straightforward.
• The Claimant’s submissions on appeal are clear and contain no gaps.
• The Claimant requested that the appeal be conducted in writing.
• The Social Security Tribunal Regulations require that proceedings be conducted as quickly as the circumstances and considerations of fairness and natural justice permit.^{Footnote 1}

Issues

[5] Did the General Division make an error in law when it decided that the Claimant was not eligible for an Old Age Securitypension?

Analysis

[6] The Department of Employment and Social Development Act (DESD Act) governs the Tribunal’s operation. It provides only three grounds of appeal that the Tribunal’s Appeal Division can consider. They are that the General Division failed to observe a principle of natural justice or made a jurisdictional error, made an error in law, or based its decision on an erroneous finding of fact made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it.^{Footnote 2} The Claimant contends that he worked both in Canada and Jamaica and did not contribute to both pensions at the same time. He believed that each country would be responsible for its pensions.

[7] The General Division decision summarized the evidence before it, including evidence that the Claimant came to Canada seasonally under an agreement to work in agriculture and that he returned to Jamaica each year at the end of the work season. The Claimant’s employment agreement states that he is subject to the laws of Jamaica. The Jamaican government provided a statement of the Claimant’s contributions to the Jamaican pension system. This covered the years that he worked in Canada. The General Division decision also refers to the Agreement Between the Government of Canada and the Government of Jamaica with Respect to Social Security, which states that any period during which a person who is subject, by reason of employment, to the legislation of Jamaica, shall not be treated as a period of residence in Canada. Based on this evidence, the General Division decided that the Claimant was not resident in Canada for Old Age Security Act purposes when he came here for seasonal work.

[8] The General Division correctly set out the applicable law, being the agreement between Canada and Jamaica mentioned above. It applied the law to the evidence before it. The General Division made no error in law.

[9] I have reviewed the General Division decision and the written record. The General Division did not overlook or misconstrue any important information. It made no erroneous findings of fact.

[10] There is no suggestion that the General Division failed to observe a principle of natural justice.

Conclusion

[11] The appeal is dismissed. The General Division made no error under the DESD Act.