Minister of Employment and Social Development v TL

Minister of Employment and Social Development v TL

The Appeal Division found the General Division erred by failing to apply CPP s.74(2) limiting retroactive DCCB to 11 months before application; applying that limit (with the mother's Feb 2019 CPP application deemed the child's application) confined entitlement to no earlier than March 2018, and the only months supported by evidence within that period were January–February 2019 and September–October 2019. The General Division did not err in excluding the intervening seven months as they were on-the-job training, not in-class instruction or a normal scholastic vacation.

Citation
2022 SST 664
Parties
Appellant/respondent: Minister of Employment and Social Development; Appellant/respondent: T. L.
Court
Social Security Tribunal of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Canada Pension Plan Disability Appeal / Appeal Division Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; Minister's appeal allowed and T. L.'s appeal dismissed; General Division decision varied to grant DCCB for January–February 2019 and September–October 2019.
Legal Topics
Canada Pension Plan, Disabled Contributor's Child's Benefit, Retroactivity, Full Time Attendance, Apprenticeship Training
Source Language
English
Social Security Administrative Law Pensions Canada Pension Plan Disabled Contributor's Child's Benefit Retroactivity Full Time Attendance Apprenticeship Training

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Minister of Employment and Social Development

Appellant/respondent

T. L.

Appellant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Canada Pension Plan Disability Appeal / Appeal Division Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the General Division ignored the CPP provision limiting retroactive DCCB payments to 11 months before application (s.74(2))
  2. 2 Whether the General Division improperly excluded school breaks from the claimant's DCCB entitlement

Ratio Decidendi

The Appeal Division found the General Division erred by failing to apply CPP s.74(2) limiting retroactive DCCB to 11 months before application; applying that limit (with the mother's Feb 2019 CPP application deemed the child's application) confined entitlement to no earlier than March 2018, and the only months supported by evidence within that period were January–February 2019 and September–October 2019. The General Division did not err in excluding the intervening seven months as they were on-the-job training, not in-class instruction or a normal scholastic vacation.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; Minister's appeal allowed and T. L.'s appeal dismissed; General Division decision varied to grant DCCB for January–February 2019 and September–October 2019.

Orders

  • Allow the Minister's appeal in part.
  • Dismiss T. L.'s appeal.