Estate of EJ v Minister of Employment and Social Development

Estate of EJ v Minister of Employment and Social Development Collection Old Age Security (OAS) and Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) Decision date 2024-04-19 Neutral citation 2024 SST 914 Reference number GP-22-175 Member Connie Dyck Division General Division Decision Appeal dismissed Subjects OAS - Challenge of income determination Decision Content Citation: Estate of EJ v Minister of Employment and Social Development, 2024 SST 914 Social Security Tribunal of Canada General Division – Income Security Section Decision Appellant: Estate of E. J. Respondent: Minister of Employment and Social Development Decision under appeal: Minister of Employment and Social Development reconsideration decision dated November 23, 2021 (issued by Service Canada) Tribunal member: Connie Dyck Type of hearing: Videoconference Hearing date: April 3, 2024 Hearing participants: Appellant’s representative Respondent’s representative Decision date: April 19, 2024 File number: GP-22-175 On this page Decision Overview Reasons for my decision Conclusion Decision [1] The appeal is dismissed because there is nothing for the Social Security Tribunal (Tribunal) to decide. [2] This decision explains why I am dismissing the appeal. Overview [3] The Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) is a monthly benefit for people who get an Old Age Security (OAS) pension. How much they get for the GIS (or whether they get it at all) usually depends on their income from the year before. [4] The Appellant received the GIS in the years 2007 to 2017. [5] In December 2019, the Minister of Employment and Social Development (Minister) said the Appellant had not declared her foreign pension income from 2006 to 2016.Footnote 1 This resulted in an overpayment of $24,803.37. [6] The Appellant passed away in June 2020.Footnote 2 [7] The Appellant’s representative appealed the Minister’s decision to the Tribunal’s General Division. Reasons for my decision [8] The Minister said the Appellant had not declared her foreign pension income from 2006 to 2016. This foreign income and the change in her marital status created an overpayment. [9] The Tribunal had to refer the appeal to the Tax Court of Canada (Tax Court). This is because only the Tax Court can decide appeals about income.Footnote 3 [10] The Appellant’s representative discontinued the appeal at the Tax Court.Footnote 4 Both parties agreed that there were no further issues in the appeal for the Tax Court of Canada to determine, as the Minister of Labour and Seniors had wholly remitted the balance of the overpayment of the benefits at issue and abandoned collection on the overpayment pursuant to subsection 37(4) of the Old Age Security Act. [11] Because of this, the Tax Court considered the appeal to be dismissed.Footnote 5 [12] The Appellant’s representative agrees there is no longer an issue related to the overpayment.Footnote 6 I don’t have the power to decide the remaining issues raised by the Appellant’s representative [13] The Appellant’s representative raised a number of valid concerns at the hearing. These concerns included: Delays in providing the reconsideration decision. Delays in providing responses. The lack of reasons provided in the reconsideration decision. Inconsistent information given by the representative of Service Canada regarding information received from the Canada Revenue Agency. [14] The Minister’s representative addressed them to the best of his ability. I understand the Appellant’s representative’s frustration. I agree a situation such as this appeal, would be difficult for seniors to navigate. However, these issues and any requested changes for the future, are outside of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. [15] The Appellant’s representative disagreed with the Tribunal Member’s decision to allow the Minister to file information that was not previously made available to the Appellant. However, as explained in the decision of April 8, 2022,Footnote 7 the parties may file documents or submissions within 365 days after the day on which the appeal is filed.Footnote 8 [16] The documents filed by the parties were not late, therefore I didn’t have to consider any other factors.Footnote 9 [17] The Appellant’s representative also wanted a better understanding regarding information available to Service Canada from Canada Revenue Agency (CRA). Specifically, whether Service Canada receives information from CRA regarding marital status. The Minister’s representative provided some explanations at the hearing. However, no matter what information Service Canada receives from CRA regarding marital status, the Federal Court of Canada decided a pensioner’s obligation to report their marital status requires more than notifying CRA. An appellant is required to notify the Minister of Employment and Social Development Canada.Footnote 10 [18] The Tribunal also doesn’t have the jurisdiction to award costs to either party. Conclusion [19] There is no longer any issue related to the overpayment of the GIS benefit for the Tribunal to decide. [20] This means the appeal is dismissed. Footnotes Footnote 1 GD2-22. Footnote 2 GD1-11. Footnote 3 See section 28(2) of the Old Age Security Act (OAS Act). Footnote 4 See GD28. Footnote 5 See section 16.2 of the Tax Court of Canada Act. Footnote 6 See GD3. Footnote 7 GD8. Footnote 8 Social Security Regulation 27(1) in force at that time. Footnote 9 These factors are found in Section 42(2) of the Social Security Tribunal Rules of Procedure. Footnote 10 Barry v Canada (Attorney General), 2010 FC 1307.