CE v Minister of Employment and Social Development

CE v Minister of Employment and Social Development

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to show an arguable case: there was no evidence of procedural unfairness or bias, the General Division did not err in treating the application as requesting payment the month after the 65th birthday, and the General Division correctly recalculated the pension after the Minister corrected the birthdate (the original higher amount arose from an actuarial adjustment linked to an incorrect start date).

Citation
2021 SST 36
Parties
Applicant / Claimant: C. E.; Respondent / Minister: Minister of Employment and Social Development
Court
Social Security Tribunal of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Canada Pension Plan Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to Appeal Division
Outcome
Application to the Appeal Division refused
Legal Topics
Canada Pension Plan, Leave to Appeal, Procedural Fairness, Actuarial Adjustment, Benefit Calculation, Bias
Source Language
English
Social Security Administrative Law Pensions Tribunal Practice Canada Pension Plan Leave to Appeal Procedural Fairness Actuarial Adjustment +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C. E.

Applicant / Claimant

Minister of Employment and Social Development

Respondent / Minister

Procedural Posture

Canada Pension Plan Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to Appeal Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the General Division process was procedurally unfair or biased
  2. 2 Whether the General Division overlooked the claimant's request that pension start at age 65
  3. 3 Whether the General Division miscalculated the claimant's monthly CPP retirement pension

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to show an arguable case: there was no evidence of procedural unfairness or bias, the General Division did not err in treating the application as requesting payment the month after the 65th birthday, and the General Division correctly recalculated the pension after the Minister corrected the birthdate (the original higher amount arose from an actuarial adjustment linked to an incorrect start date).

Court Disposition

Application to the Appeal Division refused

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal refused