The Estate of PM v Minister of Employment and Social Development

The Estate of PM v Minister of Employment and Social Development Collection Other Canada Pension Plan (CPP) Decision date 2023-06-23 Neutral citation 2023 SST 847 Reference number AD-23-303 Member Kate Sellar Division Appeal Division Decision Application for leave to appeal refused Related decisions SST - The Estate of PM v Minister of Employment and Social Development - 2023 SST 848 - 2023-01-13 - General Division Subjects Appeal Division - Leave to appeal - No grounds of appeal CPP - Death benefit Decision Content Citation: The Estate of PM v Minister of Employment and Social Development, 2023 SST 847 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Leave to Appeal Decision Applicant: The Estate of P. M. Respondent: Minister of Employment and Social Development Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated January 13, 2023 (GP-22-1092) Tribunal member: Kate Sellar Decision date: June 23, 2023 File number: AD-23-303 On this page Decision Overview Issues I’m not giving the Claimant permission to appeal Conclusion Decision [1] I’m refusing permission to appeal. The appeal will not proceed. These reasons explain why. Overview [2] P. M. (the Contributor) died in January, 2022. [3] R. M. is the Contributor’s mother. She represents the Contributor’s estate. I will refer to her as the Claimant. [4] The Claimant applied for the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) death benefit. The Minister of Employment and Social Development (Minister) denied the Claimant’s application. The Claimant appealed to this Tribunal. [5] The General Division dismissed the Claimant’s appeal because the Contributor didn’t make enough CPP contributions to allow the Claimant to receive a death benefit. Issues [6] The issues in this appeal are: a) Can the Claimant have permission to appeal so that she can challenge the denial of the death benefit as being discriminatory under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? b) Does the Claimant have an arguable case on appeal that the General Division made an error that would justify giving her permission to appeal? c) Has the Claimant set out new evidence that would justify giving her permission to appeal? I’m not giving the Claimant permission to appeal [7] I can give the Claimant permission to appeal if their 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 1 [8] I can also give the Claimant permission to appeal if their application sets out evidence that wasn’t presented to the General Division.Footnote 2 [9] The Claimant cannot have permission to appeal because she wants to bring a Charter challenge. Since the Claimant has no other arguable case on appeal and she hasn’t set out new evidence, I must refuse permission to appeal. The Claimant cannot have permission to appeal so that she can bring a Charter case. [10] The Claimant argues that the General Division’s decision is wrong and that she should receive the death benefit. She points out that the Charter requires that everyone receive equal treatment without discrimination.Footnote 3 [11] She says that failing to provide her with the death benefit discriminates against the Contributor and treats him differently by denying his family the death benefit when others have received it. She says that because the Contributor was young when he died, he couldn’t meet the requirements for contributing to the CPP through work. [12] The problem here is that the Claimant didn’t raise a Charter argument at the General Division. She only argued at the General Division that the Minister should have paid the death benefit, not that the failure to pay was a violation of the Charter. [13] I can only give permission to appeal based on the criteria I outlined above in paragraph 7. The Claimant didn’t raise (and therefore the General Division didn’t address) any Charter arguments. There are no Charter arguments in the file that would lead me to find that the General Division might have failed to provide a fair process or made any error of fact, law, or mixed law and fact. [14] I cannot grant the Claimant permission to appeal so that she can bring a Charter case. The Claimant hasn’t set out any new evidence that would justify granting permission to appeal. [15] The Claimant hasn’t set out any new evidence that the General Division didn’t have, so that cannot form the basis for granting permission to appeal either. The Claimant has outlined only a new argument that there has been a Charter violation. She has not set out any new evidence in support of that notion that would justify granting permission to appeal.Footnote 4 [16] I’m satisfied that the General Division didn’t ignore or misunderstand the evidence in this appeal.Footnote 5 The Claimant’s son was a young person who contributed to his community: he volunteered sorting food at the food bank and assisted at Meals on Wheels. He also did general labour work. The General Division reviewed the evidence and concluded that he didn’t have the contributions to the CPP he needed for the Claimant to receive the death benefit.Footnote 6 I see no possible errors in the General Division’s decision that the Claimant may have missed. Conclusion [17] Permission to appeal is refused. This means that the appeal will not proceed. Footnotes Footnote 1 See sections 58.1(a) and (b) in the Department of Employment and Social Development Act (Act). Footnote 2 See section 58.1(c) of the Act. Footnote 3 See AD1. Footnote 4 The Claimant had an opportunity to provide more information about her appeal after a case conference. She included no new evidence that would justify granting permission to appeal. See AD4. Footnote 5 For more on the Appeal Division’s role in identifying possible errors before dismissing a request for permission to appeal, see Karadeolian v Canada (Attorney General), 2016 FC 615. Footnote 6 See paragraphs 10 to 14 in the General Division decision.