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

Decision

[1] Permission to appeal is refused. The appeal won’t go ahead.

Overview

[2] On June 9, 2014, the Applicant signed an Old Age Security (OAS) pension application.^{Footnote 1} On July 28, 2024, the Minister of Employment and Social Development (Minister) approved his application and paid him an OAS pension retroactively to July 2013.^{Footnote 2}

[3] I note that the Applicant answered “yes” to question 11 on the application: “If your Old Age Security pension application is approved, do you want to apply for the Guaranteed Income Supplement?”^{Footnote 3}

[4] It also wasn’t until March 2022 that the Applicant sent the Minister a form specific to the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS).^{Footnote 4} The Minister approved this application on October 28, 2022, and granted retroactivity from April 2021.^{Footnote 5} The Applicant asked the Minister to reconsider this decision to get greater retroactivity.^{Footnote 6} The Minister upheld its initial decision in a reconsideration letter.^{Footnote 7}

[5] The Applicant appealed to the Social Security Tribunal (Tribunal) on April 26, 2024.^{Footnote 8} On June 19, 2025, the General Division found that the Applicant wasn’t eligible for greater GIS retroactivity. The Applicant asked for permission to appeal this decision to the Appeal Division.^{Footnote 9}

Issues

[6] The issues are as follows:

1. a) Is there an arguable case that the General Division made an error about the Applicant’s eligibility for greater GIS retroactivity?
2. b) Does the application contain evidence that wasn’t before the General Division?

I am not giving the Applicant permission to appeal

[7] I can give permission to appeal if the Applicant has an arguable case that the General Division:

• didn’t provide a fair process
• decided an issue it didn’t have the power to decide, or didn’t decide an issue it should have decided
• misinterpreted or misapplied the law
• made a mistake about the facts^{Footnote 10}

[8] I can also give permission to appeal if the Applicant’s application contains evidence that wasn’t before the General Division.^{Footnote 11}

[9] Since the Applicant hasn’t raised an arguable case and hasn’t presented any new evidence, I must refuse permission to appeal.

There is no arguable case that the General Division made an error of law, fact, or mixed law or fact about the Applicant’s eligibility for greater GIS retroactivity

[10] The Applicant essentially raised five grounds of appeal in support of an arguable case for error on the part of the General Division:

• The General Division allegedly accepted that the Applicant applied for the GIS in 2014 and that the 11-month retroactivity regulations didn’t apply.
• The Applicant argues that he completed the Application for the Old Age Security Pension (SC-ISP-3000), where he answered “yes” to the question, “If your application for the Old Age Security pension is approved, do you want to apply for the Guaranteed Income Supplement?”^{Footnote 12} He says that this should be enough to constitute a GIS application.
• In addition, according to the Applicant, the OAS pension application and the information sheet attached to it (SC-ISP-3000A) didn’t indicate that there was a subsequent process other than to answer “yes” to the above question.^{Footnote 13}
• According to the Applicant, there was no follow-up by the Minister about his GIS application, as there should have been according to the information sheet.^{Footnote 14}
• According to the Applicant, he didn’t receive the Minister’s forms and, in addition, form SC-ISP-3025 was created on June 18, 2020. The Applicant implies that this form didn’t exist when he applied in 2014.

[11] I will deal with the Applicant’s grounds of appeal in turn.

The General Division didn’t accept that the Applicant had applied for the GIS in 2014 and that the 11-month retroactivity rules didn’t apply

[12] According to the Applicant’s first ground of appeal, the General Division allegedly accepted that he had applied for the GIS in 2014 and that the 11-month retroactivity rule didn’t apply.

[13] The Applicant relies on the following sentence from the General Division decision: “So, the 11-month retroactivity doesn’t apply because he applied for the GIS in 2014 at the same time as his pension application.”^{Footnote 15} The Applicant seems to see this as an admission by the General Division.

[14] This sentence is in a section of the decision called “The parties’ position.” The title speaks for itself about the content of the section. That sentence is at the end of paragraph 14 of the decision, where the General Division begins to summarize the Applicant’s position. The General Division continues to summarize the Applicant’s position at paragraphs 15, 16, and 20, and summarizes the Minister’s position at paragraphs 17 to 19.

[15] I note that the General Division hasn’t yet started its analysis in these paragraphs. The analysis starts at paragraph 21 of its decision. Before this paragraph, the General Division hasn’t made any findings.

[16] There is no doubt in my mind that, as to the above sentence relied on by the Applicant, at paragraph 14 of the decision, the General Division was merely summarizing the Applicant’s position. It didn’t accept that the Applicant was correct on this point.

[17] In my view, the Applicant’s first ground of appeal doesn’t raise an arguable case for error.

I see no arguable case for error when the General Division found that the OAS application wasn’t enough to constitute a GIS application

[18] For this second ground of appeal, the Applicant argues that he completed the OAS pension application form (SC-ISP-3000), where he answered “yes” to the question, “If your application for the Old Age Security pension is approved, do you want to apply for the Guaranteed Income Supplement?” He says that this should be enough to constitute a GIS application. The General Division made an error in finding otherwise.

[19] The General Division summarized the Applicant’s argument at paragraph 14 of its decision. Also, at paragraphs 21 to 27 of its decision, the General Division reviewed the applicable legislation and found that answering “yes” to a question on the OAS pension application wasn’t enough to constitute a GIS application.^{Footnote 16} The General Division found that the Minister required an additional and specific form:^{Footnote 17}

Even though the future pensioner is asked whether they want to apply for a GIS as part of their OAS pension application, and to check the “yes” box, this isn’t the GIS application itself. The application form for the OAS pension is entitled “Application for the Old Age Security Pension.” The GIS application forms are labelled differently.

[20] I see no arguable case for error in the General Division’s reasoning. Its reasoning is careful and exhaustive and appears to be in line with the applicable legislation, which it cites correctly. Its reasoning is also consistent with the Tribunal’s only other decision on this matter, an earlier General Division decision.^{Footnote 18}

[21] In my view, the Applicant’s second ground of appeal doesn’t raise an arguable case for error.

I see no arguable cause for error when the General Division found that the Old Age Security Act takes precedence over what is stated on a pension application

[22] For this third ground of appeal, the Applicant argues that the General Division made an error by not considering that the OAS pension application and attached information sheet (SC-ISP-3000A) didn’t indicate that there was a subsequent process separate from answering “yes” to the above question.

[23] But the General Division addressed this ground of appeal in its decision:^{Footnote 19}

I also understand that the Appellant isn’t satisfied with the wording or instructions concerning the GIS on the OAS pension application. But, as noted, I have to interpret and apply the provisions in the manner set out in the OAS Act and Regulations. What is stated on the OAS pension application doesn’t take precedence over the OAS Act.

[24] Similarly, I don’t see an arguable case for error in the General Division’s reasoning. As I said above, it correctly cited the applicable legislation, and I believe its reasoning is consistent with it.

[25] Also, I note that the Tribunal doesn’t have jurisdiction when it comes to erroneous advice or administrative error. The Old Age Security Act is specific on this issue—it is the Minister’s exclusive jurisdiction.^{Footnote 20}

[26] In my view, the Applicant’s third ground of appeal doesn’t raise an arguable case for error.

I see no arguable case for error when the General Division found that the Minister doesn’t have an obligation to follow up

[27] For this fourth ground of appeal, according to the Applicant, the General Division made an error by not considering that the Minister didn’t follow up on his GIS application, as was also apparent from the information sheet attached to the OAS pension application.

[28] The General Division summarized the Applicant’s argument at paragraph 16 of its decision. But, further on, the General Division found as follows: “In addition, the Minister isn’t required by law to routinely send a GIS application to potential eligible applicants. It is the applicant’s responsibility to apply for the GIS.”^{Footnote 21} Further on in its decision, the General Division concluded: “There is no requirement for the Minister to follow up.^{Footnote 22}”

[29] I see no arguable case for error in the General Division’s reasoning. I also believe that what it said above is correct.

[30] Again, I note that the Tribunal doesn’t have jurisdiction when it comes to erroneous advice or administrative error. This is the Minister’s exclusive jurisdiction.^{Footnote 23}

[31] In my view, the Applicant’s fourth ground of appeal doesn’t raise an arguable case for error.

I see no arguable case for error when the General Division found that the Minister didn’t neglect to send the forms, including form SC-ISP-3025

[32] Finally, for this fifth ground of appeal, according to the Applicant, the General Division made an error by not considering that he didn’t receive the Minister’s forms. Also, form SC-ISP-3025 was created on June 18, 2020. So, the Applicant implies that this form didn’t exist when he applied in 2014.

[33] The General Division summarizes the Applicant’s argument at paragraph 15 of its decision. The General Division also concludes as follows:^{Footnote 24}

Also, the Minister sent the GIS application forms in July 2014. I understand that it is unfortunate that the Appellant didn’t receive them, but the Minister didn’t neglect to send them. There is no requirement for the Minister to follow up. And I can’t consider the Appellant’s problems with the postal service.

[34] The General Division also noted that an application is made only when it is completed by an applicant, on the prescribed application form, and received by the Minister.^{Footnote 25} So, the General Division’s findings here are consistent with the evidence before it.^{Footnote 26}

[35] Finally, as for the existence of form SC-ISP-3025, which the Applicant says wasn’t created until June 18, 2020, it appears from the evidence on file that it was this form (most likely an earlier version, given the date of June 18, 2020) that the Minister sent to the Applicant.^{Footnote 27}

[36] I believe that what the General Division said above is correct. I see no arguable case for error in the General Division’s reasoning. So, in my view, the Applicant’s fifth and final ground of appeal doesn’t raise an arguable case for error.

[37] In short, I am of the view that the Applicant’s grounds of appeal don’t raise an arguable case for error on the part of the General Division.

[38] I also reviewed the record.^{Footnote 28} I am satisfied that there is no arguable case that the General Division ignored or misinterpreted other evidence that could support an arguable case for error on the part of the General Division.

[39] Finally, the Applicant didn’t submit any new evidence to the Appeal Division.^{Footnote 29}

[40] Since the Applicant hasn’t raised an arguable case and hasn’t presented any new evidence, I must refuse permission to appeal.

Conclusion

[41] Permission to appeal is refused. This means that the appeal won’t go ahead.