The Estate of DL v Minister of Employment and Social Development

The Estate of DL v Minister of Employment and Social Development Collection Other Canada Pension Plan (CPP) Decision date 2024-03-19 Neutral citation 2024 SST 899 Reference number GP-23-1985 Member James Beaton Division General Division Decision Appeal dismissed Featured decisions Yes Subjects CPP - Death benefit Summary: The Appellant was born on June 6, 1951, and passed away on June 27, 2022. The Appellant’s daughter, M.H., applied for the Canada Pension Plan death benefit on the Appellant’s behalf. The Minister of Employment and Social Development (the Minister) refused the Appellant’s application. The Appellant appealed the Minister’s decision to the General Division. M.H. represented the Appellant in the appeal proceedings. A death benefit may only be paid if a deceased person contributed to the Canada Pension Plan for enough years. A deceased person can meet this requirement in one of two ways. One option is to make 10 years of contributions to the Canada Pension Plan. The other option is for the deceased person to contribute to the Canada Pension Plan for at least 1/3 of the years included either wholly or partly within their contributory period. The General Division found that the Appellant’s contributory period was from November 1978 to September 2006. It determined that her contributory period included 29 whole or partial years, from 1978 up to and including 2006. The General Division found that the Appellant’s Record of Earnings showed that she only contributed to the Canada Pension Plan in seven years. It determined that the Appellant wasn’t eligible for a death benefit. The appeal was dismissed. Decision Content Citation: The Estate of DL v Minister of Employment and Social Development, 2024 SST 899 Social Security Tribunal of Canada General Division – Income Security Section Decision Appellant: The Estate of D. L. Representative: M. H. Respondent: Minister of Employment and Social Development Decision under appeal: Minister of Employment and Social Development reconsideration decision dated September 19, 2023 (issued by Service Canada) Tribunal member: James Beaton Type of hearing: In writing Decision date: March 19, 2024 File number: GP-23-1985 On this page Decision Overview What I have to decide Reasons for my decision Other matters Conclusion Decision [1] The appeal is dismissed. [2] The Appellant, the Estate of D. L., isn’t eligible for a Canada Pension Plan (CPP) death benefit. This decision explains why I am dismissing the appeal. [3] In the rest of this decision, I will refer to the Appellant as if I am referring to D. L. personally, even though the Appellant is technically her estate. Overview [4] The Appellant was born on June 6, 1951, and passed away on June 27, 2022. The Appellant’s daughter, M. H., applied for the CPP death benefit on the Appellant’s behalf.Footnote 1 The Minister of Employment and Social Development refused the Appellant’s application. The Appellant appealed the Minister’s decision to the Social Security Tribunal’s General Division. Ms. Harrison represented the Appellant in the appeal proceedings. What I have to decide [5] I have to decide whether the Appellant is eligible for a CPP death benefit. Reasons for my decision [6] A death benefit may only be paid if a deceased person contributed to the CPP for enough years.Footnote 2 [7] A deceased person can meet this requirement in one of two ways.Footnote 3 One option is to make 10 years of contributions to the CPP. The other option is for the deceased person to contribute to the CPP for at least 1/3 of the years included either wholly or partly within their contributory period. To calculate the number of years in the Appellant’s contributory period, I need to figure out when her contributory period began, when it ended, and whether any months in between can be excluded. When did the Appellant’s contributory period begin? [8] An appellant’s contributory period begins with the latest of these dates:Footnote 4 a) January 1966 b) the month after the appellant turned 18 [9] The Appellant turned 18 in June 1969. The month after that was July 1969. The latest date is July 1969. [10] So the Appellant’s contributory period began July 1969. When did the Appellant’s contributory period end? [11] An appellant’s contributory period ends with the earliest of these dates:Footnote 5 a) the last month of the year in which the appellant turned 65 b) the month the appellant died c) the month before the appellant started getting a retirement pension [12] The Appellant turned 65 in June 2016; December 2016 was the last month of that year. She died in June 2022. She started getting a retirement pension in July 2016; the month before that was June 2016.Footnote 6 The earliest of these dates is June 2016. [13] So the Appellant’s contributory period ended in June 2016. Can any months be excluded from the Appellant’s contributory period? [14] Any months when an appellant was considered disabled under the Canada Pension Plan can be excluded from their contributory period.Footnote 7 [15] The Appellant was considered disabled under the Canada Pension Plan beginning in October 2006. She received a CPP disability pension from February 2007 (following a mandatory four-month waiting period) until she started getting a retirement pension in July 2016.Footnote 8 So the months of October 2006 to June 2016 are excluded from her contributory period.Footnote 9 [16] Any months when an appellant was a family allowance recipient can also be excluded from their contributory period.Footnote 10 [17] The Appellant was a family allowance recipient from March 1967 to October 1978.Footnote 11 Those months are excluded from her contributory period. What was the Appellant’s contributory period? [18] By putting all of these rules together, I find that the Appellant’s contributory period was from November 1978 to September 2006. Her contributory period includes 29 whole or partial years, from 1978 up to and including 2006. [19] One-third of 29 years is roughly 9.7 years. This is rounded up to 10 years.Footnote 12 In this case, both options for qualifying for a death benefit require at least 10 years of contributions. Did the Appellant make at least 10 years of CPP contributions? [20] The Appellant’s Record of Earnings shows that she only contributed to the CPP in seven years: 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006.Footnote 13 She doesn’t qualify for a death benefit under either option. [21] The Appellant’s representative says the Appellant contributed to the CPP in other years while she was working in Ontario, but the Minister only considered contributions from when the Appellant worked in Manitoba.Footnote 14 The representative provided the Appellant’s tax returns from 1988 to 2016 to support her argument.Footnote 15 [22] Those tax returns match the information in the Record of Earnings. The only difference is that the Record of Earnings shows no CPP contributions in 2007, whereas the 2007 tax return shows contributions of $192.55.Footnote 16 [23] Since 2007 was after the Appellant’s contributory period ended, those contributions can’t be considered. I can only consider contributions that the Appellant made during her contributory period.Footnote 17 Even if I could consider those contributions, the Appellant still would not have the required 10 years of contributions. [24] The Appellant might have been able to increase her years of contributions by applying for a division of unadjusted pensionable earnings (DUPE), also known as a credit split. This is when the CPP contributions of a divorced or separated couple are combined and divided equally between them. The Minister must process a DUPE when it receives certain information. [25] The Appellant was divorced. However, I understand that the Minister didn’t receive the information it needed in order to process a DUPE. And the Appellant’s representative chose not to provide that information or apply for a DUPE when I invited her to do so.Footnote 18 Other matters [26] The Minister filed a document (GD11) after the deadline. I accepted the document anyway.Footnote 19 The document doesn’t add anything to the evidence already in the file. However, it may help the Appellant’s representative better understand the Appellant’s contributions to the CPP. It also notes, correctly, that the Appellant’s representative would need to contact the Canada Revenue Agency if she believes that the amounts on the Record of Earnings are incorrect. I don’t have the power to change the Appellant’s Record of Earnings.Footnote 20 Conclusion [27] I find that the Appellant isn’t eligible for a death benefit. [28] This means the appeal is dismissed. Footnotes Footnote 1 See GD2-4. Footnote 2 See section 44(1)(c) of the Canada Pension Plan. Footnote 3 See section 44(3) of the Canada Pension Plan. Footnote 4 See section 49 of the Canada Pension Plan. Section 2(2) explains how to calculate a person’s age. Footnote 5 See sections 44(3)(a) and 49(b) of the Canada Pension Plan. Footnote 6 See GD4-1. Footnote 7 See section 49(c) of the Canada Pension Plan. Footnote 8 See GD4-1, and GD8-4 and 5. Footnote 9 There is some debate about whether the four-month waiting period can be excluded. However, since the Minister excluded it, and this is favourable to the Appellant, I will exclude it as well. Footnote 10 See section 49(d) of the Canada Pension Plan. Footnote 11 See GD2-85 and GD4-3 to 6. Footnote 12 See Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development) v Skoric, [2000] 3 FCR 265 (FCA). Footnote 13 See GD2-84. Footnote 14 See GD9. Footnote 15 See GD2-19 to 83. I don’t have the Appellant’s tax returns from before 1988. However, the Tribunal doesn’t have the power to change a Record of Earnings even if tax returns show something different from the Record of Earnings. See section 97(1) of the Canada Pension Plan and MM v Minister (Employment and Social Development), 2017 SSTGDIS 54. Footnote 16 See GD2-60. Footnote 17 See section 44(3) of the Canada Pension Plan. Footnote 18 See GD4-1, GD5, and GD6. Footnote 19 Section 42(2) of the Social Security Tribunal Rules of Procedure (Rules) sets out what factors I must consider when deciding whether to accept late evidence. Under section 8(5) of the Rules, I can apply these factors to late submissions (arguments) as well, even though these aren’t considered evidence. Section 5 of the Rules defines “evidence.” Footnote 20 See section 97(1) of the Canada Pension Plan and MM v Minister (Employment and Social Development), 2017 SSTGDIS 54.