J. C. v. Minister of Employment and Social Development

J. C. v. Minister of Employment and Social Development

The CPP requires payment of the DCCB to the person who has custody and control of a child under s.75; the evidence established the mother was the child's primary caregiver and had custody and control since age three despite a joint custody order, and the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to provide remediation for erroneous Service Canada advice under s.66(4); therefore the appellant was not entitled to the DCCB and the appeal must be dismissed.

Citation
2016 SSTGDIS 20
Parties
Appellant: J. C.; Added Party: G.T.; Appellant's Daughter: S. C.
Court
Social Security Tribunal of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Canada Pension Plan Disabled Contributor's Child Benefit (dccb) Overpayment Appeal / Appeal to Social Security Tribunal (general Division) From Reconsideration Decision; Hearing by Teleconference; Final Decision on Entitlement
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Canada Pension Plan, Disabled Contributor's Child Benefit, Custody and Control, Overpayment, Ministerial Remedial Powers
Source Language
English
Social Security Administrative Law Family Law Pensions Canada Pension Plan Disabled Contributor's Child Benefit Custody and Control Overpayment +1 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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J. C.

Appellant

G.T.

Added Party

S. C.

Appellant's Daughter

Procedural Posture

Canada Pension Plan Disabled Contributor's Child Benefit (dccb) Overpayment Appeal / Appeal to Social Security Tribunal (general Division) From Reconsideration Decision; Hearing by Teleconference; Final Decision on Entitlement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was entitled to receive the DCCB paid for the period August 2010 to December 2013
  2. 2 Whether the appellant had "custody and control" of the child for purposes of s.75 CPP
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal can provide remedial relief for erroneous advice or administrative error under s.66(4) CPP

Ratio Decidendi

The CPP requires payment of the DCCB to the person who has custody and control of a child under s.75; the evidence established the mother was the child's primary caregiver and had custody and control since age three despite a joint custody order, and the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to provide remediation for erroneous Service Canada advice under s.66(4); therefore the appellant was not entitled to the DCCB and the appeal must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appellant is not entitled to the DCCB for S. C. for the period August 2010 to December 2013.
  • The Respondent's reconsideration decision is confirmed and the overpayment of $9,135.61 stands; recovery as determined by the Respondent (deduction of $253.77 from monthly disability payments) is to proceed.