Canada Case Law

KW v Minister of Employment and Social Development and Estate of GV

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

Leave to appeal refused because the applicant produced no new evidence and failed to identify any arguable error of law, fact, or process by the General Division; the General Division's factual conclusion that the applicant was in a continuing common-law relationship was reasonable and entitled to deference.

Source excerpt

• Old age security
• Guaranteed income supplement
• Canada pension plan
• Overpayment
• Common-law spouse determination
• Leave to appeal

Read case analysis

MA v Minister of Employment and Social Development

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

Permission to appeal was refused because the Applicant failed to raise an arguable case that the General Division erred and submitted no new evidence; the General Division correctly applied the OAS Act and Regulations in counting CNESST compensation as income and adequately considered the Minister's calculations and explanations.

Source excerpt

• Old age security
• Guaranteed income supplement
• Overpayment recovery
• Worker's compensation income
• Leave to appeal standards

Read case analysis

DB v Minister of Employment and Social Development

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

The appeal is dismissed because the Appellant failed to prove, with sufficient objective medical evidence, that he had a severe and prolonged disability during the relevant coverage periods: he was ineligible for the regular CPP disability pension because he commenced a retirement pension in July 2023 and did not cancel within six months, and he failed to establish that he developed a severe and prolonged disability after retirement and within the PRDB coverage period (July 1, 2023 to hearing date).

Source excerpt

• Cpp disability pension
• Post-retirement disability benefit (prdb)
• Coverage period
• Severe and prolonged disability
• Eligibility and burden of proof

Read case analysis

KK v Minister of Employment and Social Development

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

Issue estoppel precludes reconsideration of the period February 20, 2017 to October 29, 2019 because the same issue was previously decided in final decisions involving the same parties; the Appellant is found to have been resident only from June 26, 2023 onwards, giving a total of 7 years and 352 days residency as of May 15, 2025, which is insufficient for OAS eligibility.

Source excerpt

• Residence for oas eligibility
• Issue estoppel / res judicata
• Partial pension calculation
• Evidence standard (balance of probabilities)

Read case analysis

FA v Minister of Employment and Social Development

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

Claimant failed to establish a continuous period of incapacity before May 4, 2020; contemporaneous medical records show episodic vertigo with improvement by April/August 2019 and neurophysiological opinion recommending activity, later retrospective opinions lack sufficient contemporaneous detail, therefore the statutory test for incapacity under s.28.1 OAS was not met and backdating is not permitted.

Source excerpt

• Incapacity
• Backdating
• Eligibility
• Evidence and burden of proof

Read case analysis

KM v Minister of Employment and Social Development

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, a severe disability by December 31, 2014: contemporaneous medical records indicated episodic and manageable conditions with no functional restrictions, and the appellant did not make sincere, reasonable efforts to obtain suitable alternative employment.

Source excerpt

• Canada pension plan
• Disability
• Severe disability
• Prolonged disability
• Work capacity
• Alternative employment

Read case analysis

Matheson v. Matheson

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Family-law trial on division of assets after separation: the court divided sale proceeds, pensions and RRIFs, dismissed occupational rent, and granted a divorce.

• Date of separation
• Division of family assets
• Occupational rent
• Order for sale and holdback
• Rrsp/rrif spousal rollover
• Cpp division

Read case analysis

Non Chhom v. Green

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The appeal is dismissed because the trial judge acted within judicial discretion and applicable law: the occupation rent order was reasonable and supported by Griffiths factors; the trial judge provided sufficient assistance to the self-represented appellant and was not obliged to correct procedural defaults; and the Alberta pension’s capitalized value crystallized pre-marriage and did not increase for equalization.

Source excerpt

• Spousal support
• Equalization
• Matrimonial home
• Occupation rent
• Self-represented litigant assistance
• Pension valuation

Read case analysis

LH v Minister of Employment and Social Development

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

On the balance of probabilities the Appellant and M. G. were in a continuous conjugal cohabiting relationship from at least May 2002 to October 2018 based on decades of shared shelter, shared domestic services, joint financial arrangements, the Appellant's provision of intimate personal care, and testamentary provisions in M. G.'s will; therefore the Appellant was not entitled to GIS at the single rate and the Minister's overpayment determination stands.

Source excerpt

• Guaranteed income supplement eligibility
• Common-law partnership
• Benefit overpayment and recovery
• Tribunal procedure

Read case analysis

CT v Minister of Employment and Social Development

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

Applying OAS Act provisions and the multi-factor test for a conjugal relationship, the Tribunal found there was no mutual intention to live in a marriage-like relationship of some permanence from January 20, 2013; despite continued co-residence until September 1, 2017, the parties lived separate lives (separate bedrooms, avoided each other, evidence of ex-husband's girlfriend, documentary indications) and therefore the appellant was separated under the OAS Act from January 20, 2013 and was ineligible for ALW for August 2015 to October 2018.

Source excerpt

• Allowance (alw) eligibility
• Separation under oas act
• Cohabitation vs co-residence
• Overpayment recovery

Read case analysis