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

Decision

[1] I am dismissing the appeal.

[2] The Minister properly granted the Claimant a partial Old Age Security (OAS) pension at a rate of 25/40^th effective January 2016.

Overview

[3] The Claimant applied for an OAS pension on April 7, 2016.^{Footnote 1} The Minister granted the Claimant an OAS pension based on a residence period of 25 years in Canada effective January 2016.^{Footnote 2} The Claimant requested reconsideration of this decision. He argued that he should have received an OAS pension based on a residence period of 26 years in Canada rather than 25 years. The Minister advised the Claimant in a letter dated February 2, 2018 that it maintained its original decision to calculate his OAS pension based on 25 years of residence in Canada. The Claimant appealed this decision to the Social Security Tribunal.

Preliminary matters

[4] I decided to hear this appeal on the basis of the documents and submissions filed for the following reasons:

1. A further hearing is not required.
2. The issues under appeal are not complex.
3. There are no gaps in the information in the file or need for clarification. Both parties agree that the Claimant began residing in Canada on January 28, 1990.^{Footnote 3}
4. This method of proceeding requests the requirement under the Social Security Tribunal Regulations to proceed as informally and quickly as circumstances, fairness and natural justice permit.

Issue

[5] Did the Minister properly grant the Claimant a partial OAS pension at a rate of 25/40^th effective January 2016.

Analysis

[6] The OAS Act allows applicants to receive a partial pension when they are not eligible for a full pension. Applicants must have resided in Canada for a minimum of 10 years after the age of 18 but less than 40 years in order in order to receive a partial pension.^{Footnote 4} The calculation of a partial pension is 1/40^th of the full pension for each complete year of residence in Canada after the age of 18.^{Footnote 5}

The Minister properly granted the Claimant a partial OAS pension at a rate of 25/40^th effective January 2016

[7] The Claimant was born in India in December 1950.^{Footnote 6} He came to Canada on January 28, 1990.^{Footnote 7}

[8] The Minister submitted that the OAS pension is calculated based on each complete year of residence in Canada. Since the Claimant entered Canada on January 28, 1990, he did not spend the entirety of that year in Canada. As a result, the Minister was unable to award him an additional 40^th of his OAS pension. The Minister takes the position that the Claimant qualifies for a partial OAS pension effective January 2016 at a rate of 25/40^th because the Claimant had resided in Canada for 25 complete years after he turned 18.^{Footnote 8}

[9] The Claimant submitted that he spent almost all of 1990 in Canada. However, the OAS has a provision that calls for the rounding down of the number of years that somebody resides in Canada.^{Footnote 9} He argued that the requirement of having a complete year requirement is unfair and unreasonable. In particular, he believes that it is unfair to deprive him of a full year’s benefit for the rest of his life when he spent almost all of 1990 in Canada. He requested an exemption from the wording of the legislation. He wants an OAS pension paid at a rate of 26/40^th. In the alternative, he asked that his OAS pension be calculated based on his living 9,450 days in Canada.^{Footnote 10}

[10] I find that the Minister properly granted the Claimant a partial OAS pension at a rate of 25/40^th effective January 2016. The Minister is not required to calculate an OAS pension based on the exact number of days that the Claimant lived in Canada because the calculation of a partial OAS pension is based on complete years of residence in Canada.

[11] The Minister submitted that the Claimant entered Canada on January 28, 1990. The Claimant did not spend the entirety of that year in Canada and the Minister could not award the Claimant an additional 1/40^th of the OAS pension.^{Footnote 11} Although the Minister properly calculated the Claimant’s OAS pension, this aspect of its explanation may have caused confusion. The calculation of an OAS pension is based on the aggregate period that an applicant has resided in Canada after turning 18 and before the day the application is approved.^{Footnote 12} The aggregate period, not an individual year, is rounded down when calculating a partial pension. The aggregate period in this case runs from January 28, 1990, the date the Claimant began residing in Canada, to December 12, 2015, the day before the date on which the Minister approved the application. The Claimant had not resided in Canada for 26 complete years during his aggregate period. The Minister properly rounded down his aggregate period to 25 years and awarded him a partial pension at a rate of 25/40^th.

[12] The Minister properly granted the Claimant a partial OAS pension effective January 2016. The Minister received the Claimant’s OAS application on April 11, 2016, which was after the Claimant turned 65. In cases where the Minister receives an OAS application after a claimant turns 65, the Minister’s approval of the application is effective as of the latest of the following dates:

• the day that is one year before the day on which the application was received (April 2015),
• the day on which the applicant attained the age of 65 (December 13, 2015),
• the day on which the applicant became qualified for a pension (December 13, 2015),
• and the month immediately before the date specified in writing by the applicant (the Claimant did not specify a date in his application. He requested that that his pension start as soon as he qualified).^{Footnote 13}

[13] The Minister properly determined the effective approval date of the Claimant’s application as December 13, 2015, when he turned 65.^{Footnote 14} Under the OAS, his pension became payable the month after his approval date, in January 2016.^{Footnote 15}

[14] The Claimant requested an exemption from the legislation because the legislation is unfair. I am sympathetic to the Claimant’s plight, but the Tribunal’s role is defined by legislation and it only has the powers that are given to it by its governing statutes. I cannot alter the requirements set out in the OAS Act and so I cannot award him a partial OAS pension paid at a rate of 26/40^th.

Conclusion

[15] The appeal is dismissed.