JP v Minister of Employment and Social Development

JP v Minister of Employment and Social Development Collection Old Age Security (OAS) and Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) Decision date 2024-07-03 Neutral citation 2024 SST 768 Reference number AD-24-433 Member Kate Sellar Division Appeal Division Decision Application for leave to appeal refused Related decisions SST - JP v Minister of Employment and Social Development - 2024 SST 769 - 2024-03-21 - General Division Subjects Appeal Division - Leave to appeal - No grounds of appeal Guaranteed Income Supplement - Eligibility Late appeals - Extension of time Decision Content Citation: JP v Minister of Employment and Social Development, 2024 SST 768 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal Decision Applicant: J. P. Respondent: Minister of Employment and Social Development Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated March 21, 2024 (GP-23-1461) Tribunal member: Kate Sellar Decision date: July 3, 2024 File number: AD-24-433 On this page Decision Overview Issues Analysis Conclusion Decision [1] I’ve given the Claimant an extension of time for her late appeal. However, I’m refusing to give the Claimant leave (permission) to appeal. This means that the appeal will not proceed. These are the reasons for my decision. Overview [2] In January 2011, the Claimant started receiving the Allowance for the Survivor (ALWS) benefit. In November 2015, the ALWS became the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS). In August 2017, the Claimant submitted a GIS renewal form for July 2017 to June 2018. She stated that she was a widow. [3] The Claimant remarried in July 2018. [4] The Minister of Employment and Social Development (Minister) says that the Claimant didn’t tell them she got remarried. So, between August 2018 and August 2020, she received more GIS than she should have. [5] The Claimant says she called the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) in 2018 to tell them she was remarried so the Minister should have known. She says she and her husband also filed their taxes together for the 2018 tax year, so the Minister should have known she was married. [6] In July 2020, the Minister found a possible difference in the Claimant’s marital status between the information they had for her GIS and the information she sent to the CRA. Because of this, the Minister sent her a questionnaire about her marital status. [7] The Claimant filled in the questionnaire and sent it back to the Minister, advising them she got married in July 2018. Since the Claimant said she was married, on August 31, 2020, the Minister sent her and her husband new GIS applications to fill in. The Minister received the Claimant’s final version of that application on November 18, 2020. [8] On March 30, 2023, the Minister sent the Appellant a letter telling her that from August 2018 onward, she wasn’t entitled to get the GIS because it’s based on a couple’s total income. They told her they stopped paying her the GIS as of August 2020. They also told her she owed the Minister $9,584.69 because they paid her the GIS from August 2018 to August 2020 as if she was single, but she was married. The Claimant asked the Minister to reconsider. The Minister maintained the same position in a reconsideration letter in May 2023. [9] The Claimant appealed to this Tribunal. The General Division dismissed the Claimant’s appeal. The General Division explained that the law says that the Claimant must tell the Minister about any change in her marital status. As a result, the Claimant received benefits for between August 2018 and August 2020 that she wasn’t entitled to. The General Division explained that it doesn’t have the ability to change the amount of overpayment the Claimant needs to return. Issues [10] The issues in this appeal are: a) Was the application to the Appeal Division late? b) If the application was late, can the Claimant have an extension of time to appeal? c) If the Claimant can have an extension of time to appeal, is there an arguable case that the General Division made an error that would justify giving the Claimant permission to appeal? d) Does the application set out evidence that wasn’t presented to the General Division? Analysis The application was late. [11] The law says that a claimant must bring the appeal to the Appeal Division within 90 days after the day the Tribunal communicated the General Division decision to the claimant.Footnote 1 [12] The General Division decision is dated March 21, 2024. It appears that the Tribunal communicated its decision by mail (not email). The Claimant says (and I accept) that she received the decision on March 26, 2024.Footnote 2 The Appeal Division received the Claimant’s appeal by mail on June 26, 2024.Footnote 3 [13] The Tribunal received the request for permission to appeal only a couple days after the end of the 90-day period set out in the law. I’m giving the Claimant an extension of time to appeal. [14] I can give the Claimant an extension of time if the Claimant has a reasonable explanation for the delay.Footnote 4 [15] In my view, the explanation is clear without requesting more information from the Claimant. I infer that the Claimant may not have been able to anticipate fully which day of the week the mail would arrive in Ottawa based on when she sent it from her home province. Misjudging which day the mail might arrive in Ottawa by a matter of days is a reasonable explanation for being late in this circumstance. The Claimant has the necessary extension of time to appeal. I’m not giving the Claimant permission to appeal. [16] I can give the Claimant permission to appeal if the application raises an arguable case that the General Division: didn’t follow a fair process; acted beyond its powers or refused to exercise those powers; made an error of law; made an error of fact; or made an error applying the law to the facts.Footnote 5 [17] I can also give the Claimant permission to appeal if the application sets out evidence that wasn’t presented to the General Division.Footnote 6 [18] Since the Claimant hasn’t raised an arguable case and hasn’t set out new evidence, I must refuse permission to appeal. The Claimant hasn’t raised an arguable case for an error by the General Division [19] The Claimant disagrees with the General Division decision. She points out that she did everything that she thought she was supposed to do. She told a government representative by phone that she had remarried in July 2018. She says the representative explained that nothing would change with her benefits until she filed her taxes, and that if anything else was required, the government would contact her.Footnote 7 [20] The Claimant hasn’t raised an arguable case for an error by the General Division. I’m satisfied that there’s no arguable case here that the General Division ignored or misunderstood the Claimant’s evidence about advising the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) about her marital status. The General Division discussed this evidence specifically in its decision.Footnote 8 [21] I’m satisfied that there’s no arguable case here that the General Division got the law wrong. [22] First, the General Division explained that the OAS Act required the Claimant to tell the Minister about the change in her marital status.Footnote 9 The General Division also referenced a decision from the Federal Court. In that case, the Court found it was reasonable for the Minister’s office to decide it hadn’t made an error when it failed to ask a claimant about the marital status the claimant had reported to the CRA.Footnote 10 This case helps to show that reporting the change in marital status to CRA doesn’t have any automatic impact when it comes to the need to report information to the Minister for GIS purposes. [23] Second, the General Division explained that once it decides that the Claimant received amounts that she wasn’t entitled to, the General Division cannot take steps to forgive the overpayment the Minister assesses. I see no possible error in that statement about the General Division’s powers. No new evidence [24] The Claimant hasn’t provided any evidence that wasn’t already presented to the General Division. Accordingly, new evidence can’t form the reason for granting the Claimant permission to appeal. [25] I’ve reviewed the record.Footnote 11 I’m satisfied that the General Division didn’t ignore or misunderstand any other evidence in a way that could have impacted the outcome for the Claimant. Conclusion [26] I gave the Claimant an extension of time to appeal. However, I’ve refused the Claimant permission to appeal. This means that the appeal will not proceed. Footnotes Footnote 1 See section 52(1) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act (Act). Footnote 2 See AD1-1. Footnote 3 See the date stamp on AD1-1. Footnote 4 See section 52(2) of the Act and sections 6,7 and 27 in the Social Security Tribunal Rules of Procedure. Footnote 5 See section 58.1(a) and (b) in the Department of Employment and Social Development Act (Act). Footnote 6 See section 58.1(c) in the Act. Footnote 7 See AD1-2. Footnote 8 See paragraphs 7, 12-13, 25-27 and 31 in the General Division decision. Footnote 9 See paragraph 27 in the General Division decision and section 15(9) of the OAS Act. Footnote 10 See Barry v Canada (Attorney General), 2010 FC 1307. Footnote 11 For more on this type of review, see Karadeolian v Canada (Attorney General), 2016 FC 615.