MM v KM and Minister of Employment and Social Development

MM v KM and Minister of Employment and Social Development

The Appeal Division dismissed the appeal because the General Division correctly interpreted s.75 CPP to require awarding the DCCB to the single person who, on the balance of the evidence, has actual day-to-day custody and control (proximity and responsibility), and the Minister's policy of awarding the benefit to a disabled contributor with any minimal custody/control is incompatible with the statutory text, context and purpose; the General Division also did not breach procedural fairness and properly weighed the evidence concluding K.M. had custody and control.

Citation
2022 SST 575
Parties
Applicant: M. M.; First Respondent: K. M.; Second Respondent: Minister of Employment and Social Development
Court
Social Security Tribunal of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Canada Pension Plan (cpp) Disability Appeal / Appeal Division Appeal From General Division Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; General Division decision upheld
Legal Topics
Disabled Contributor's Child's Benefit (dccb), Custody and Control Interpretation, Statutory Interpretation, Procedural Fairness, Overpayment Forgiveness
Source Language
English
Canada Pension Plan Social Security Administrative Law Family Law Disabled Contributor's Child's Benefit (dccb) Custody and Control Interpretation Statutory Interpretation Procedural Fairness +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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M. M.

Applicant

K. M.

First Respondent

Minister of Employment and Social Development

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Canada Pension Plan (cpp) Disability Appeal / Appeal Division Appeal From General Division Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What constitutes 'custody and control' for payment of the DCCB under s.75 CPP
  2. 2 Whether the General Division committed procedural unfairness by its questioning and conduct of the hearing
  3. 3 Whether the Minister's policy of paying DCCB to a disabled contributor with any minimal custody/control is consistent with s.75

Ratio Decidendi

The Appeal Division dismissed the appeal because the General Division correctly interpreted s.75 CPP to require awarding the DCCB to the single person who, on the balance of the evidence, has actual day-to-day custody and control (proximity and responsibility), and the Minister's policy of awarding the benefit to a disabled contributor with any minimal custody/control is incompatible with the statutory text, context and purpose; the General Division also did not breach procedural fairness and properly weighed the evidence concluding K.M. had custody and control.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; General Division decision upheld

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and General Division decision dated October 28, 2021 is upheld