RO v Minister of Employment and Social Development and RM

RO v Minister of Employment and Social Development and RM

S. is not the Added Party's child for CPP/DCCB purposes because she is neither biological nor legally adopted by him, there is insufficient evidence of an 'in fact' adoption or of the Added Party having custody and control or of 'maintaining' S. since July 2017; the 2013 court order and evidence show the Appellant has exclusive custody and day-to-day care of R., who lives with her, therefore the Appellant is entitled to the DCCB for R. from July 2017 and neither party is entitled to the DCCB for S.

Citation
2021 SST 240
Parties
Appellant (claimant): R. O.; Minister: Minister of Employment and Social Development; Added Party: R. M.
Court
Social Security Tribunal of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 April 2021
Procedural Posture
Canada Pension Plan Disabled Contributor's Child's Benefit Appeal / Social Security Tribunal General Division Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Disabled Contributor's Child's Benefit, Custody and Control, Adoption in Fact, Entitlement and Maintenance
Source Language
English
Canada Pension Plan Social Security Family Law Administrative Law Disabled Contributor's Child's Benefit Custody and Control Adoption in Fact Entitlement and Maintenance

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 7 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R. O.

Appellant (claimant)

Minister of Employment and Social Development

Minister

R. M.

Added Party

Procedural Posture

Canada Pension Plan Disabled Contributor's Child's Benefit Appeal / Social Security Tribunal General Division Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether S. is the disabled contributor's child for the purposes of the DCCB
  2. 2 Whether the Appellant or the Added Party had custody and control of R. since July 2017
  3. 3 Whether S. was adopted 'in fact' by the Added Party or otherwise in the custody and control of the Added Party

Ratio Decidendi

S. is not the Added Party's child for CPP/DCCB purposes because she is neither biological nor legally adopted by him, there is insufficient evidence of an 'in fact' adoption or of the Added Party having custody and control or of 'maintaining' S. since July 2017; the 2013 court order and evidence show the Appellant has exclusive custody and day-to-day care of R., who lives with her, therefore the Appellant is entitled to the DCCB for R. from July 2017 and neither party is entitled to the DCCB for S.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Appellant is entitled to the disabled contributor's child benefit (DCCB) on behalf of R. from July 2017 onward
  • Neither the Appellant nor the Added Party is entitled to the DCCB on behalf of S.