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

Decision

I find that the evidence does not establish that a new material fact exists under section 66(1)(b) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act (Act).

Introduction

[1] This application involves a request to rescind or amend a decision of the General Division of the Social Security Tribunal (Tribunal). On November 26, 2019, the General Division found that the day before the deemed date of approval of the Old Age Security (OAS) pension—that is, April 6, 2015—the Appellant was not a resident of Canada under the Old Age Security Act. Given the Tribunal’s finding, the Appellant was not entitled to an OAS pension on the deemed date of approval of her application. The Appellant filed an application with the General Division to rescind or amend the April 16, 2020, decision under section 66 of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act (Act) (application to rescind or amend).

Issues

[2] I must determine whether the evidence presented in support of the application to rescind or amend establishes a new material fact under section 66(1)(b) of the Act.

[3] If I find that a new material fact exists under section 66(1)(b) of the Act, I must then decide whether the Appellant was a resident of Canada under the Old Age Security Act from November 19, 1999, until April 6, 2015—that is, the day before the deemed date of approval of her OAS pension—to be eligible to receive an OAS pension.

Applicable law

[4] Section 66(1) of the Act states:

66 (1) The Tribunal may rescind or amend a decision given by it in respect of any particular application if 

      (b) in any other case, a new material fact is presented that could not have been discovered at the time of the hearing with the exercise of reasonable diligence.

Documents presented as new facts

[5] The Appellant submitted the following documents in support of the application to rescind or amend:

• Health insurance card from the province of Alberta # x dated 2011/02/23
• Identity card from the province of Alberta # x issued on May 3, 2013
• Doctor’s letter dated March 3, 2020, showing medical services in Alberta between 2011 and 2015.
• Four bank statements (one from 2011, one from 2013, and two from 2015) with an address in Edmonton

Analysis

[6] The Appellant must prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the evidence filed in support of her application to rescind or amend establishes a new material fact under section 66(1)(b) of the Act.

[7] Before section 66(1)(b) of the Act came into effect in April 2013, the Federal Court of Appeal^{Footnote 1} set out the requirements evidence has to meet to be admissible as a “new fact” under former section 84(2) of the CPP:

1. It must establish a fact (usually a medical condition in the context of the CPP) that existed at the time of the original hearing but was not discoverable before the original hearing by the exercise of reasonable diligence (the “discoverability test”); and
2. The evidence must reasonably be expected to affect the results of the prior hearing (the “materiality test”).

[8] Furthermore, the Federal Court^{Footnote 2} found that an applicant must provide evidence of what steps were taken to find the new evidence and explain why this new evidence was not presented at the original hearing.

[9] Based on a review of all the documents the Appellant submitted in support of her application to rescind or amend, they were all dated before the November 26, 2019, decision, except the doctor’s letter showing the medical care, but those services were all provided before the decision.

[10] The Appellant noted in the grounds for her application to rescind or amend that she thought only her residence in Québec was relevant to determining her eligibility for the OAS pension. And she noted that she did not think that her eligibility for medical coverage in Alberta would be relevant, that she had not had the opportunity to present that evidence, and that she had not been asked about it.

[11] All the documents the Appellant presented existed at the time of the November 26, 2019, decision. The Appellant has not put forward any evidence that the documents she submitted as new material facts could not have been discovered with the exercise of reasonable diligence. There is no evidence that the Appellant had difficulty obtaining documents.^{Footnote 3}

[12] The documentary evidence indicates that the Appellant always indicated in the questionnaires that she went back to the temple in Québec when she returned to Canada between 2005 and 2015. Furthermore, according to the recording of the hearing, the Appellant was asked about her travels to and from Canada. She did not mention having lived elsewhere in Canada than Québec. She was also asked about her health between 2010 and 2015 because she did not have medical coverage in Québec. She responded that she did not have many health issues during that time. She never mentioned that she was under a doctor’s care in Edmonton. She was also asked several times where she has lived since arriving in Canada, and she always responded the monastery in Québec.

[13] Finally, the evidence presented in support of her application to rescind or amend would not have changed the decision because the Appellant stated in the documents already submitted and at the September 19, 2019, hearing that she had travelled abroad regularly and frequently and often for long periods during the period from January 1, 2006, to November 30, 2015.

Conclusion

[14] I find that the evidence does not establish that a new material fact exists under section 66(1)(b) of the Act.

[15] The application to rescind or amend is refused.