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

Decision

[1] I am dismissing both of the Claimant’s appeals (GP-20-586 and GP-20-976).

[2] I have decided the Minister can change its August 2015 decision to pay a full Old Age Security (OAS) pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) to the Claimant, L. L. I explain this at paragraphs 41 to 80 of this decision.

[3] I agree with the Minister that the Claimant stopped residing in Canada in September 1999. I explain this at paragraphs 85 to 103 of this decision. This affects his OAS pension and GIS entitlement in two ways:

• First, the Claimant is not eligible for a full OAS  pension. He is eligible for a pension of 32/40ths of the full amount. Because of this, he received more than he was entitled to from July 2014 to February 2020.
• Second, the Claimant was never eligible to receive the GIS. It should not have been paid to him.

[4] The OAS Act says the Claimant owes a debt to the Crown for the overpayments. The Minister has a discretionary power to forgive all or part of what the Claimant owes. I don’t have authority to review any decision the Minister makes about that. I explain this at paragraphs 28 to 31 of this decision.

File references

[5] The Claimant’s Tribunal file is made up of four different appeals:

• GP-18-271: the Claimant’s original GIS appeal file
• AD-19-786: the Appeal Division file for the original GIS appeal
• GP-20-586: the Claimant’s second GIS appeal
• GP-20-976: the Claimant’s OAS appeal.

[6] When I refer to a document in a footnote, I also give the file where it can be found.

Background

[7] The Claimant was born in Canada in June 1949. He lived in Winnipeg. In the late 1990s, he started spending time in the United States and the Dominican Republic. Since 2004, he has spent most of his time in the Dominican Republic, where he is the property manager at a vacation condominium complex. He has returned to Canada from time to time.

[8] In February 2014, the Claimant returned to Canada after he was shot and beaten during a robbery at the complex. He went back to the Dominican Republic that September. He returned to Canada a few times after that. He is currently in the Dominican Republic.

The Claimant’s OAS and GIS applications

[9] The Claimant applied for an OAS pension and a GIS in May 2014. In the application, he gave his son’s address as his home address. He said he had lived in Canada all his life except for September 20, 1999, to February 11, 2014, when he lived in the Dominican Republic.^{Footnote 1}

[10] The Minister approved the Claimant’s application in August 2015. The Minister awarded the Claimant a full OAS pension, with payment effective July 2014, which was the month after the Claimant turned 65.^{Footnote 2} The Minister also approved the Claimant’s GIS, to start July 2014. The Claimant received a lump sum for payment of both benefits, retroactive to July 2014.^{Footnote 3}

The Minister’s decision about the Claimant’s GIS

[11] There are two decisions in this appeal. The first concerns the Claimant’s GIS (the GIS appeal).

[12] The GIS is a monthly supplement for OAS pensioners with low incomes. It can’t be paid to someone who has been absent from Canada or who has stopped residing in Canada for six consecutive months, not counting the month they left.^{Footnote 4}

[13] In November 2015, the Minister started investigating whether the Claimant was entitled to receive the GIS.^{Footnote 5} The Minister suspended the Claimant’s GIS as of June 2016, pending the outcome of the investigation.^{Footnote 6}

[14] In October 2016, the Minister decided the Claimant did not reside in Canada, so he should not have been paid the GIS. The Minister demanded the Claimant repay the $15,009.10 he had received from July 2014 to May 2016.^{Footnote 7} The Minister maintained this decision on reconsideration.^{Footnote 8}

[15] The Claimant appealed that decision to the General Division of the Social Security Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed his appeal, because it decided the Claimant had not been a resident of Canada since 1999.^{Footnote 9}

[16] The Claimant appealed to the Tribunal’s Appeal Division. The Appeal Division allowed the appeal, because the General Division had not considered whether the Minister had the power to change its initial August 2015 decision that approved the Claimant’s GIS.

[17] The Appeal Division sent the appeal back to a different member of the General Division, with directions to decide whether the Minister had the power to change its August 2015 approval decision, and to reassess the Claimant’s residence as required.^{Footnote 10} That is one of the appeals I deal with in this decision.

The Minister’s decision about the size of the Claimant’s OAS pension

[18] The second appeal is about the size of the Claimant’s OAS pension (the OAS appeal).

[19] The size of a person’s OAS pension is based on how many years they resided in Canada after their 18^th birthday. To receive a full pension, they need 40 years of residence. To receive a partial pension, they need at least 10 years of residence. The amount of a partial pension is based on the number of years out of 40 that a person resided in Canada after turning 18. For example, a person with 15 years of residence gets 15/40ths of the full amount.^{Footnote 11}

[20] The Claimant asked how 40 years of residence can be required if the OAS application doesn’t say so.^{Footnote 12} He also said he was told that he only needed 20 years of residence in Canada to receive a full pension.^{Footnote 13}

[21] The Claimant is right that the OAS application doesn’t mention the 40 year requirement. He may have been given the wrong information. But the law is what is written in the OAS Act. It is not based on what is on an application form or in statements made by government employees. As I explain later, the Minister has discretion to deal with erroneous advice, but I do not.

[22] In October 2018, the Minister started to reassess the Claimant’s residence in Canada.^{Footnote 14} In February 2020, the Minister decided the Claimant was not entitled to the full OAS pension he had been receiving since July 2014. Instead, he was entitled to a pension of 32/40ths. This was based on 32 full years of residence from June 1967 (when the Claimant turned 18) to September 1999 (when the Minister said the Claimant stopped residing in Canada).^{Footnote 15}

[23] The Claimant appealed the OAS decision to the Tribunal’s General Division. I joined the Claimant’s OAS appeal with his GIS appeal. This decision is about both appeals.

I decided the appeals on the basis of the documents and submissions in the file

[24] I decided the appeals on the basis of the documents and submissions in the file.^{Footnote 16}

[25] I had all the information I needed to make a decision. The Claimant didn’t want a hearing, and the Minister didn’t object.^{Footnote 17} So, I decided that no further hearing was required.

What I have to decide

[26] First, I have to decide if the Minister has the power to investigate the Claimant, change its August 2015 decision, and demand the Claimant repay the OAS pension and GIS amounts he wasn’t eligible to receive. That includes deciding if the Tribunal can raise this issue on its own.

[27] If the Minister can change the August 2015 decision, I have to decide when the Claimant resided in Canada after his 18^th birthday, and how that affects the size of his OAS pension and his eligibility for GIS for the period July 2014 to May 2016.

[28] If the Minister can’t change the August 2015 decision, I don’t have to decide anything about the size of the Claimant’s OAS pension. But I have to decide if the Claimant was eligible to receive GIS after August 2015, up to May 2016.

What I can’t decide

[29] I don’t have authority to decide if the Minister should forgive any debt the Claimant has to repay if he received benefits he was not entitled to.

[30] The Claimant argued that he should not have to repay the debt because it would cause him financial hardship, and because the Minister made a mistake in paying him despite knowing about his residence in the Dominican Republic.^{Footnote 18}

[31] The Minister has a discretionary power to waive an overpayment if it will cause undue hardship, or if it was the result of an administrative error.^{Footnote 19} In March 2020, the Minister decided not to waive the overpayment for the Claimant’s OAS pension and his GIS.^{Footnote 20}

[32] The Claimant can’t appeal that decision to the Tribunal. If the Claimant is unhappy with that decision, he has to apply for judicial review at the Federal Court of Canada. The Minister’s March 2020 decision letter told him that.^{Footnote 21} The Appeal Division referred him to those instructions in April 2020.^{Footnote 22} So did the General Division, in June 2020.^{Footnote 23}

Reasons for my decision

I have to decide the issue of whether the Minister has the power to change its decision

[33] The Minister argued that I should not consider this issue. I don’t agree.

[34] The Appeal Division allowed the Claimant’s GIS appeal because, in its view, the General Division had wrongly assumed the Minister had the power to change the August 2015 decision. The Appeal Division said the Claimant had raised this issue and, even if he did not, justice required the General Division to raise it.

[35] The Appeal Division also said the General Division made an error in law because it did not explain why it was not following a decision the Appeal Division made in BR v Minister of Employment and Social Development (BR).^{Footnote 24} BR said that, once the Minister has decided a person has resided in Canada long enough to qualify for an OAS pension, it can’t change its mind about the person’s residence, at least up to the date of the decision.^{Footnote 25}

[36] In the present appeal, the Minister said the Claimant did not raise the issue of the Minister’s powers: the Appeal Division did. The Minister made a detailed submission about why the Appeal Division was wrong to do this. The Minister argued that, since the Claimant has never made submissions about the Minister’s authority to investigate and change its initial decision, I shouldn’t consider the issue.^{Footnote 26}

[37] There is a simple answer to that. In this case, I have to consider the issue because the Appeal Division directed me to do so.

[38] The Appeal Division can send a matter back to the General Division with directions about how to reconsider it.^{Footnote 27} That is what happened here. The Appeal Division sent the Claimant’s GIS appeal back to the General Division with these directions: “… the General Division will have to decide whether the Minister had the power to change its August 2015 approval decision.”^{Footnote 28}

[39] If the Minister disagreed with the Appeal Division’s directions, the Minister should have applied for judicial review under the Federal Courts Act.

[40] Because the Minister did not apply for judicial review, the Appeal Division decision is final.^{Footnote 29}

[41] The Appeal Division’s directions only concerned the Claimant’s GIS appeal, because the Appeal Division was not considering the Claimant’s OAS appeal. However, it doesn’t make any sense to consider the issue for GIS purposes, but not for OAS pension purposes. Failing to do so will only prolong these appeals, to no one’s benefit.

The Minister can change its initial decision to approve the Claimant for a full OAS pension

[42] I have decided the Minister can change its initial decision to approve the Claimant for a full OAS pension.

[43] In deciding this, I did not follow BR or similar decisions. I looked at the words in the OAS Act, in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense. I considered whether my interpretation of the words fit with the object and scheme of the Old Age Security Act (OAS Act), and with Parliament’s intention.^{Footnote 30}

[44] I decided that sections 5(1), 34, and 37 of the OAS Act give the Minister the power to investigate the Claimant’s eligibility, change its initial decision about whether he qualified for a full OAS pension, and require him to repay amounts he was not entitled to receive.

I did not follow the decision in BR

[45] Until the decision in BR, the Tribunal accepted that the Minister could change its initial decisions about a person’s residence. As far as I can tell, it was never an issue at the Federal Court or the Federal Court of Appeal, either.

[46] Tribunal members do not have to follow Appeal Division decisions. But the Tribunal should strive to be consistent, so that like cases are treated alike. Since BR, most decisions by the General Division and the Appeal Division that considered this issue have agreed with BR. They found the OAS Act does not give the Minister the authority it claims.^{Footnote 31}

[47] The Minister argued that despite this, the Tribunal doesn’t have a consensus or a consistent approach to the issue of whether the Minister can change an initial eligibility decision after an investigation. Whether or not this is the case, I don’t have to follow Tribunal decisions just for the sake of consistency if I disagree with them, as long as I explain why.^{Footnote 32}

[48] I am not following BR or the decisions that agree with it. Here is why: in my view, they do not place enough emphasis on how important residence in Canada is to fulfilling the object of the OAS Act. In addition, in deciding the OAS Act does not authorize the provisions of the Old Age Security Regulations (OAS Regulations) that the Minister relies on, they overlook the wording in section 5(1) and section 34 of the OAS Act.

The object and scheme of the OAS Act is to pay benefits based on residence in Canada

[49] The object and scheme of the OAS Act is to pay benefits based on residence in Canada.

[50] Elizabeth Charron is a senior legislation officer for Old Age Security Policy and Legislation at Employment and Social Development Canada. Her report describes the object and scheme of the OAS Act.^{Footnote 33} The report is supported by articles, reports of parliamentary committees, and House of Commons debates. I accept Ms. Charron as an expert on the history and purpose of the OAS legislation, and on the practice and policy used in carrying out the OAS program.

[51] The OAS Act is altruistic and fulfills a broad-minded social goal.^{Footnote 34} Its purpose is to provide people 65 and over with an income to help reduce poverty in that age group. But the foundation of the program is residence in Canada.^{Footnote 35}

[52] The eligibility requirements for an OAS pension show how important residence is. The amount of the pension is based on the number of years a person has resided in Canada. To be eligible for any pension at all, they must have resided in Canada for at least 10 years after they turned 18. Whether a pension can be paid outside Canada depends on how long the person has resided in Canada.^{Footnote 36}

[53] The Federal Court of Canada recognized the importance of residence to the OAS Act. It said “… the OAS Act provides benefits, first and foremost, to residents of Canada … the legislative scheme is focussed on paying benefits to persons living their retirements in Canada.^{Footnote 37}

[54] The Court also recognized this was Parliament’s intention. In describing the changes to the OAS Act that introduced the current residence requirements, it said “[t]he right to a pension was to be linked mainly to years of residence in Canada after age 18.”^{Footnote 38}

Sections 5(1) and 37 of the OAS Act give the Minister the power to change its decision

[55] Section 5(1) and section 37 of the OAS Act give the Minister the authority to investigate and reassess the Claimant’s eligibility, decide that he should not have been awarded a full OAS pension in August 2015, and demand that he pay back the difference between the full pension and what he was actually entitled to.

[56] Section 5(1) of the OAS Act says no pension may be paid to any person unless:

• the person is qualified under section 3(1) or (2) (the age and residence requirements),
• the person has applied for the pension, and
• the application has been approved.^{Footnote 39}

[57] The way I read section 5(1), these three requirements are separate. There is no other reason to mention the age and residence requirements again. They are already set out in section 3(1) and (2). Their inclusion here means there is an ongoing prohibition against paying a pension to a person who does not meet the requirements, even if the person applied for a pension, and the Minister approved the application.

[58] The Minister’s approving an application does not qualify the person for all time under section 3(1) or (2). All it means is the Minister was satisfied at that time that the person was qualified.

[59] If it turns out that the person did not reside in Canada as the Minister initially determined, then they are not qualified for all of the pension they received. Because of section 5(1), the part of the pension that was based on the years when they did not reside in Canada can’t be paid to them.

[60] This doesn’t only apply to future payments. It also applies to payments that have already been made.

[61] This is because section 37 of the OAS Act says a person has to return a benefit they have received if they are not entitled to it, or if they have received more than they are entitled to. These amounts create a debt which the Minister can recover in court or by deducting it from other benefits.^{Footnote 40}

[62] Section 37 recognizes there will be situations where a person is paid something they are not entitled to receive. It does not limit the obligation to repay to certain circumstances. It does not exempt payments that are made after a pension application is first approved.

[63] It follows, then, that the Minister has the power to re-examine its decision to pay a benefit, to see if the person was entitled in the first place.

[64] A person is not entitled to receive a pension if the law says it can’t be paid to them. So when someone receives a larger OAS pension than they should have because they did not qualify under the residence requirements, they have to pay it back, even if their application was approved. This means the Minister can change its initial decision.

Section 34 of the OAS Act authorizes sections 23 and 26 of the OAS Regulations

[65] Section 34 of the OAS Act authorizes section 23 and section 26 of the OAS Regulations. These regulations give the Minister the power to investigate a beneficiary’s eligibility and suspend payment of the benefit at any time. These powers support the power to change an initial decision.

[66] Section 34(f) of the OAS Act allows regulations that set out the information and evidence that beneficiaries have to make available. A beneficiary is a person whose application has been approved.^{Footnote 41}

[67] Therefore, section 34(j) authorizes section 23 of the OAS Regulations, which says the Minister can “at any time” investigate the eligibility of a person to receive a benefit. The Minister can “at any time before or after approval of an application” require an applicant or a beneficiary to make further information available regarding their eligibility to receive the benefit.

[68] Section 34(j) of the OAS Act allows regulations that provide for the suspension of payment of a benefit during an investigation into the eligibility of a beneficiary, and the reinstatement or resumption of payment.

[69] Therefore, section 34(j) authorizes section 26 of the OAS Regulations, which says the Minister may suspend payment of a benefit while it investigates a person’s eligibility. It says the Minister shall suspend payment of a benefit where it appears the beneficiary is ineligible. The suspension continues until the Minister is satisfied the person is eligible for the benefit.

[70] Section 34(j) does not specifically say the Minister can decide not to reinstate or resume payment. I don’t find that significant. A suspension can be permanent.^{Footnote 42}

[71] If, on investigation, the Minister is satisfied the person is not eligible, it follows that payment will never resume. Otherwise, the Minister would always have to reinstate or resume payment, even if it decided the person wasn’t eligible. That would be in direct contravention of section 5(1) of the OAS Act.

Sections 23 and 26 carry out the purposes and provisions of the OAS Act

[72] Besides being specifically authorized by sections 34(f) and (j) of the OAS Act, sections 23 and 26 of the OAS Regulations are valid because they are carrying out the purposes and provisions of the OAS Act.

[73] Section 34 of the OAS Act says the government can make regulations “for carrying the purposes and provisions of this Act into effect.” It gives a list of regulations the government can make. But the list is not exhaustive. Section 34 says the list is “without restricting the generality of the foregoing.” This means a regulation can authorize something that is not listed, as long as the regulation is for carrying out the purposes and provisions of the OAS Act.

[74] The purpose of the OAS Act is to provide an income supplement to seniors with a significant residential attachment to Canada. Its provisions specifically say the Minister cannot pay a pension to a person who does not have the required residence.^{Footnote 43} If that happens, the person has to pay it back.^{Footnote 44}

[75] The Interpretation Act says that “[e]very enactment is deemed remedial, and shall be given such fair, large and liberal construction and interpretation as best ensures the attainment of its objects.”^{Footnote 45}

[76] My interpretation of the OAS Act best ensures the attainment of its object, which is to pay benefits to seniors based on the number of years they have resided in Canada after their 18^th birthday.

The OAS Act gives the Minister the power to change its GIS decision

[77] For the same reasons, I have decided the OAS Act gives the Minister the authority to reassess the Claimant’s eligibility, decide that he should not have been paid GIS from June 2014 to May 2016, and demand that he pay it back. The only difference is that the prohibition against payment is in section 11(7) of the OAS Act, rather than section 5(1).

[78] Section 11(7) of the OAS Act says the GIS can’t be paid to a pensioner who is absent from Canada, or stops residing in Canada, for six consecutive months.^{Footnote 46} If the law says the GIS can’t be paid to someone, it means they aren’t entitled to it.

[79] As I explained above, section 37 of the OAS Act says a person has to return a benefit they have received if they are not entitled to it. The amount owing is a debt to the Crown.^{Footnote 47} This rule applies to GIS payments, because the GIS is a benefit.^{Footnote 48}

[80] Section 37 does not limit in any way the obligation to repay. In particular, it does not exempt payments that are made after a GIS application is first approved. It follows that the Minister has the power to reassess its decision to pay the Claimant’s GIS for any period, to see if he was entitled to receive it in the first place.

[81] As I also explained above, section 34 of the OAS Act authorizes section 23 and section 26 of the OAS Regulations. Section 23 sets out the Minister’s powers to investigate a person’s eligibility “at any time before or after approval of an application.” Section 26 sets out the Minister’s power to suspend a benefit. The suspension continues until the Minister determines the person is eligible. That means a suspension can be permanent.

The Claimant’s residence affects his OAS pension and GIS

[82] Because I decided the Minister could change the August 2015 decisions that approved the Claimant’s full OAS pension and payment of the GIS, I had to decide if the Minister’s new decisions about the Claimant’s residence were correct.

[83] The Claimant’s residence matters, because it affects the size of his OAS pension and whether he was entitled to the GIS that was paid to him from July 2014 to May 2016.

[84] To receive a full OAS pension, the Claimant needed 40 years of residence in Canada between ages 18 and 65.^{Footnote 49}

[85] To receive the GIS from July 2014 to May 2016, the Claimant had to reside in Canada during this period and not be absent for more than six consecutive months.^{Footnote 50} The Claimant had to meet both these conditions to receive the GIS – that is, if he did not reside in Canada, it didn’t matter if he came to Canada frequently and was never absent for more than six months.

The test for residence

[86] There is a difference between presence in Canada and residence in Canada. A person is present in Canada if they are physically present. They reside in Canada if they make their home and ordinarily live in any part of Canada.^{Footnote 51}

[87] To decide if the Claimant resided in Canada, I have to look at things like:

• lifestyle and ties in Canada (personal property, social ties, medical coverage, driver’s license, rental lease, tax records, etc.) compared to ties in another country;
• regularity and length of stays in Canada;
• frequency and length of absences from Canada.^{Footnote 52}

The Claimant stopped residing in Canada in September 1999

[88] There is no dispute about where the Claimant resided before September 1999. He resided in Canada. I agree with the Minister about the Claimant’s residence after that. I have decided the Claimant stopped residing in Canada in September 1999.

[89] In his OAS application of May 2014, the Claimant said his home address was on X in Winnipeg. He said he lived in the Dominican Republic from September 20, 1999, to February 11, 2014.^{Footnote 53}

[90] In April 2015, the Minister asked the Claimant to complete a residence questionnaire showing all his departures and entries into Canada.^{Footnote 54} The questionnaire directed the Claimant to show all places he had resided in and outside Canada since June 12, 1967, which was his 18^th birthday.

[91] In his response of July 20, 2015, the Claimant said he had travelled many times to the Dominican Republic. He said he resided in Canada from June 1967 to present, except for the following periods, when he resided in Cabarete, Dominican Republic:

• March 23, 2005, to July 1, 2006
• September 2007, to July 2008
• February 2009, to September 24, 2011
• January 2012, to February 11, 2014
• September 23, 2014, to February 18, 2015.

[92] The Claimant said he had returned to Canada in February 2014 for medical reasons, he did not plan to move to the Dominican Republic permanently, and he considered X in Winnipeg to be his permanent place of residence.^{Footnote 55}

[93] On that basis, the Minister decided the Claimant met the 40 year requirement for a full OAS pension, and also met the residence and presence requirements to be paid GIS.^{Footnote 56}

[94] However, when the Minister began reviewing the Claimant’s residence, questions arose about where he lived from September 1999 on. The Claimant has never denied that he left Canada at that time, and that since then he has been travelling or living elsewhere. But he seems to be suggesting that his ties to the Dominican Republic aren’t as strong as the Minister claims, and that his ties to Canada and regular visits here should add up to residence for OAS purposes. He also suggested that, if he had known the requirement was 40 years rather than 20, he would have written something different on his application form.^{Footnote 57}

[95] I recognize that someone can consider Canada “home” despite having established themselves in a different country. But a person’s emotional attachment to a place does not determine where they reside. When I look at the relevant factors in the Claimant’s case, it is obvious to me that after September 1999, his ties were elsewhere. His connection to Canada was not sufficient for me to find he resided here after that.

[96] The story the Claimant has told consistently is that he left Canada with his wife in the late 1990s. He still owned a home in Winnipeg, but his son lived in it. The Claimant and his wife travelled around Florida, Texas, and the Dominican Republic. They did not have a fixed address. They rented “here and there.” They often came back to Canada for “weddings, funerals, grandkids.”^{Footnote 58}

[97] The Claimant said that between 1999 and 2004 he returned to Canada about two to four months every year. He travelled between Alberta, British Columbia, and Manitoba, visiting friends and family.^{Footnote 59}

[98] Eventually the Claimant sold his home in Winnipeg. Based on his statements, it was sometime between 2002 and 2006.^{Footnote 60} After that, he stayed in his son’s home on X or in a motor home whenever he was in Canada. He uses his son’s address as his “place of residence.”^{Footnote 61}

[99] Around 2004, the Claimant and his wife bought a property in Cabarete, Dominican Republic. They developed a condominium complex and started operating it as a vacation rental business.^{Footnote 62} News articles from 2014 said the Claimant and his wife lived in the Dominican Republic.^{Footnote 63} Internet posts written by the Claimant’s wife described how they lived in Texas for five years before moving to the Dominican Republic in 2004, and how since then they have made the Dominican Republic their home and operated their business there.^{Footnote 64}

[100] The Claimant now says that he doesn’t actually own the property, as he has been the victim of a fraud.^{Footnote 65} But he hasn’t provided anything to counter the most logical conclusion to draw from all the evidence, which is that the Claimant has not made his home and ordinarily lived in Canada since September 1999, the most precise date he gave for when he left.

[101] The Claimant may have had a nomadic existence before settling in the Dominican Republic in 2004, but his ties to Canada were not strong enough for me to be able to say he still resided here after September 1999. He did not work or pay taxes. He spent only a few months a year here, staying with friends or family in different provinces. While he still owned a house for a time, his son lived in it. He did not provide evidence of any other ties to Canada.

[102] The Claimant returned to Canada for medical treatment in February 2014, after he was attacked during a robbery. He went back to the Dominican Republic that September. He has returned a few times since then, but there is nothing to persuade me that he re-established his home in Canada up to May 2016.

[103] May 2016 is the last date I considered. This is because the Claimant’s OAS pension entitlement of 32 years was established as of June 2014, when he turned 65 and asked for his pension to begin. The GIS decision he appealed only concerned his GIS entitlement up to that date.

[104] The Minister does not have to prove the Claimant did not reside in Canada. The Claimant has to prove on a balance of probabilities (or, that it is more likely than not) that he resided in Canada for the time he claims.^{Footnote 66} He has not done so.

The Claimant was entitled to a partial OAS pension of 32/40ths

[105] The Claimant was entitled to a partial OAS pension of 32/40ths.

[106] The amount of a partial pension is calculated based on the number of years out of 40 that a person resided in Canada after turning 18.^{Footnote 67} The Claimant qualified for an OAS pension when he turned 65 in June 2014. At that time, he had 32 full years of residence in Canada after turning 18. His period of residence was from June 1967 to September 1999.

The Claimant was not entitled to GIS

[107] Because the Claimant did not reside in Canada after September 1999 – and in particular, did not reside in Canada in 2014 through May 2016 – he was not entitled to receive the GIS from July 2014 to May 2016.

Conclusion

[108] The appeals are dismissed.