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

Reasons and Decision

Overview

[1] The Appellant applied for an Old Age Security (“OAS”) pension. The Respondent granted the Appellant a full OAS pension, commencing the month after his 65th birthday. However, the Appellant requested a reconsideration, claiming that the OAS pension should commence earlier because of his dire financial situation. On reconsideration, the Respondent denied an earlier commencement date for the OAS pension. The Appellant appealed the reconsideration decision to the Social Security Tribunal (“Tribunal”) on August 31, 2018.

[2] This appeal involves the issue of whether an OAS pension can be paid to the Appellant prior to his 65th birthday on March X, 2019. The Appellant has cited a number of financial reasons for early payment of his OAS pension. 

[3] Subsection 53(1) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act (“DESD Act”) states that the General Division must summarily dismiss an appeal if satisfied that it has no reasonable chance of success.^{Footnote 1}

[4] The Tribunal has decided that this appeal has no reasonable chance of success, for the reasons set out below.

Evidence

[5] The Appellant was born on March X, 1954. The Respondent received his OAS pension application on April 23, 2018. The Appellant requested payment of his OAS pension as soon as he qualified or, if exceptional circumstances permitted, even earlier. Since then, he has made multiple submissions relating to dire financial need. Some of these pertained to caring for his mother, who ultimately passed away on June 30, 2013. However, many of his submissions related to his own difficulties in paying for his food, rent, and medication. His most recent evidence included a physician’s note stating that the Appellant could no longer afford his medication for financial reasons: his situation was described as urgent.^{Footnote 2} 

[6] In support of his appeal, the Appellant has referenced Quebec civil law, several Quebec statutes, and federal legislation other than the Old Age Security Act (the “OAS Act”). The scope of these submissions is very broad. Some of them refer to health, safety, and housing issues, while others refer to inadequacies of tax legislation.   

Submissions

[7] The Appellant was given notice in writing of the intent to summarily dismiss the appeal, and was allowed a reasonable period of time to make submissions, as required by section 22 of the Social Security Tribunal Regulations.

[8] The Appellant has made an exceptionally large number of submissions over the course of this appeal. While it is not realistic to set all of them out here, the main arguments can be distilled as follows:

1. He is in dire financial need, with various impacts including an inability to purchase his required medication;
2. He ought to receive his OAS pension early, on grounds analogous to those permitting the receipt of a Canada Pension Plan (“CPP”) pension or a Quebec Pension Plan (“QPP”) pension as early as age 60;
3. Other statutes permit the early receipt of benefits in exceptional circumstances, and those exceptions ought to apply to his OAS pension;
4. OAS rules can be changed by Members of Parliament for certain situations; and
5. He was told by a Respondent’s agent that an OAS pension could be paid early on the basis of financial hardship.

[9] The Respondent submitted that the OAS Act does not contain any provisions that would allow payment of the OAS pension before age 65.

Analysis

[10] 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 OAS Act: it has no inherent jurisdiction which would allow it to ignore the clear legislative provisions contained in the OAS Act.^{Footnote 3} For example, I could not order the Respondent to pay the Appellant an OAS pension early merely because I felt it would be unfair to make him wait until reaching age 65. My powers are limited to what is specifically set out in the OAS Act.

Applicable provisions of the OAS Act

[11] Section 3(1) of the OAS Act sets out the conditions under which a person may receive a full OAS pension. As the Appellant was not a pensioner and had not attained the age of 25 by July 1, 1977, a full OAS pension can only be paid if he meets the residential requirements and has reached age 65.^{Footnote 4} The Respondent has admitted that the Appellant meets the residential requirements for a full OAS pension. As a result, the Appellant is entitled to receive a full OAS pension upon reaching age 65.

[12] Payment of an OAS pension ordinarily commences in the first month after the application was approved. However, as the Appellant’s application was not approved in the month he applied, the approval date is determined by the Old Age Security Regulations (“OAS Regulations”).^{Footnote 5}   

[13] The Appellant’s application was received before his 65th birthday. As a result, the OAS Regulations say that the approval date for his application would be the latest of (i) the date his application was received; (ii) the date he reached age 65; and (iii) the date specified by him in writing.^{Footnote 6} As his application was received on April 23, 2018, and he wanted to receive the OAS pension as soon as possible, his approval date would therefore be his 65th birthday on March X, 2019. It follows that the Appellant is entitled to begin receiving his OAS pension in April 2019. This is the same as the commencement date given by the Respondent. To the extent that the Appellant’s submissions are not addressed by the above analysis, I will now consider whether any of them assist the Appellant.      

The Appellant’s submissions

[14] I accept that the Appellant is in dire financial need. However, there is nothing in the OAS Act or the OAS Regulations that permits the early payment of an OAS pension on the basis of need or otherwise. Similarly, the possibility of an early CPP retirement pension at age 60 exists solely because of specific provisions in the Canada Pension Plan. There are no similar provisions in the OAS Act or the OAS Regulations, nor can provisions of the Canada Pension Plan (or any other legislation) be selectively imported into the OAS Act or OAS Regulations.

[15] A government can pass legislation of general application to change the rules regarding OAS pensions. However, as of the date of this decision, no legislation has been enacted to lower the age at which an OAS pension might be received. Individual Members of Parliament (“MPs”) do not have the ability to change the rules for individual OAS pension claimants: MPs are not exempt from the law, nor can they order that the law not be applied in certain situations. Similarly, agents of the Respondent cannot order that the law not be applied in certain situations. From the Tribunal’s perspective, it is immaterial that an agent of the Respondent might have told the Appellant that he could receive an early OAS pension. There is no authority for the Respondent or its agents to make such a statement.

Summary of findings

[16] I have considerable sympathy for the Appellant, as he recently dealt with the death of his mother and is now facing his own health and financial concerns. However, the OAS Act and the OAS Regulations unequivocally establish that the Appellant cannot receive the OAS pension prior to April 2019. There are simply no provisions that permit earlier payment, nor is there any basis on which I could waive the current age requirement. Accordingly, I find that the appeal has no reasonable chance of success. It follows that I must summarily dismiss the appeal, pursuant to s. 53(1) of the DESD Act.

Conclusion

[17] The appeal is summarily dismissed.