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

Decision

[1] I’m refusing the Claimant leave (permission) to appeal. The appeal will not go ahead. These are the reasons for my decision.

Overview

[2] K. S. (Claimant) applied for an Old Age Security (OAS) pension in March 2015.^{Footnote 1} In June and again in July that year, the Minister of Employment and Social Development (Minister) asked for more information.^{Footnote 2} The Claimant didn’t respond. In December 2015, the Minister wrote again, explaining that it cancelled the Claimant’s application because it wasn’t complete.^{Footnote 3}

[3] In June 2020, the Claimant asked the Minister to reconsider its decision.^{Footnote 4} Before the Minister responded to that request, the Claimant submitted a second application for an OAS pension on October 2, 2020.^{Footnote 5}

[4] On November 18, 2020, the Minister sent a letter saying it was denying the Appellant’s reconsideration request from June 2020.^{Footnote 6} A few days later, on November 21, the Minister sent another letter saying the Claimant’s second application had been approved effective November 2019.^{Footnote 7}

[5] The Claimant appealed to this Tribunal because she wants her OAS payments to start earlier. The General Division dismissed the appeal, finding that the Claimant’s payments started as early as the OAS Act allowed under the circumstances.

Issues

[6] The issues in this appeal are the following:

1. a) Is there an arguable case that the General Division made an error of fact by ignoring the reasons the Claimant didn’t follow up on her 2015 OAS application?
2. b) Does the application set out evidence that wasn’t presented to the General Division?

I’m not giving the Claimant permission to appeal

[7] I can give the Claimant permission to appeal if their application raises an arguable case that the General Division:

• didn’t follow a fair process;
• acted beyond its powers or refused to exercise those powers;
• made an error of law;
• made an error of fact;
• made an error applying the law to the facts.^{Footnote 8}

[8] I can also give the Claimant permission to appeal if their application sets out evidence that wasn’t presented to the General Division.^{Footnote 9}

[9] Since the Claimant hasn’t raised an arguable case and hasn’t set out new evidence, I must refuse permission to appeal.

There’s no arguable case that the General Division made an error of fact by ignoring the evidence about the Claimant’s reasons for failing to follow up on the 2015 OAS application.

[10] The Claimant argues that the General Division should have found that her OAS benefits started earlier than November 2019, given that she first applied in March 2015. She agrees that she didn’t respond to the Minister’s requests for more information to complete that 2015 application. She argues that the additional information wasn’t necessary. She also explained why she didn’t respond to the Minister’s request. The Claimant was experiencing a sad and difficult time in her life after her husband’s death.^{Footnote 10}

[11] The Claimant hasn’t raised an arguable case for an error of fact by the General Division, so I can’t give her permission to appeal. The General Division only had the jurisdiction to hear an appeal of the Minister’s reconsideration decision on the second application she made.^{Footnote 11} So even though the Claimant had reasons for not following up on that first application, the General Division couldn’t consider those reasons to change the date her payments started.

No new evidence

[12] The Claimant hasn’t provided any new evidence, so that is not a basis on which I can grant permission to appeal either.

[13] I’m satisfied that the General Division didn’t ignore or misunderstand any of the facts.^{Footnote 12} The General Division had to apply the OAS Act and its regulations. The Claimant’s OAS application was approved on October 2, 2019. As a result, the earliest payments could start was November 2019.^{Footnote 13} The General Division applied the OAS Act to the Claimant’s situation. There was no other path to any earlier start date for the OAS benefits that the General Division could consider in this appeal.

Next Steps

[14] The Claimant once argued the Minister lost an application she made in June 2020. If the Claimant wants the Minister to investigate that possible administrative error, she can raise that directly with Service Canada.^{Footnote 14} This Tribunal doesn’t have the jurisdiction to decide things about possible administrative errors by Service Canada.^{Footnote 15}

Conclusion

[15] I refused to give the Claimant permission to appeal. This means that the appeal will not proceed.