Canada Case Law

AA v Minister of Employment and Social Development

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

Leave to appeal is refused because the claimant failed to raise an arguable case of error: no credible evidence that the General Division breached natural justice or that the decision was authored or backdated by someone else; no jurisdictional error because there was no reconsideration decision on child‑rearing dropout or DCCB for the General Division to hear; and no factual error in respect of the Ivadec occupational therapist report because it lacked sufficient probative value to show continuous incapacity for forming or expressing an intention to apply.

Source excerpt

• Leave to appeal
• Natural justice (bias and decision-maker integrity)
• Jurisdiction of tribunal
• Capacity to apply and retroactive benefits
• Child‑rearing dropout
• Disabled contributor's child benefit (dccb)

Read case analysis

RW v Minister of Employment and Social Development

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

Because the estates had not applied for the CPP death benefits and the appellant applied as next-of-kin, the Minister lacked legal authority to pay the benefits to the estates; the Minister ignored relevant factors and thus failed to exercise its discretion judicially, so the Tribunal substitutes the decision the Minister should have made and awards the death benefits to the appellant; the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to decide the separate set-off issue regarding overpayments.

Source excerpt

• Cpp death benefit
• Overpayment and set-off
• Reconsideration
• Ministerial discretion
• Next-of-kin entitlement

Read case analysis

SS v Minister of Employment and Social Development

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

Leave to appeal refused because the appeal was filed more than one year after the Minister's April 2, 2012 reconsideration decision, the statutory one-year limit admits no exceptions, the applicant did not raise an arguable case of legal or factual error by the General Division, and the additional evidence submitted did not relate to the timeliness issue and could not change the outcome.

Source excerpt

• Leave to appeal
• Time limit/statutory limitation
• Reconsideration
• Procedural fairness
• Disability benefits

Read case analysis

JB v Minister of Employment and Social Development

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

Leave to appeal refused because the applicant failed to raise an arguable case of error by the General Division on facts or natural justice and submitted no evidence that was not already before the General Division; the General Division had considered the disputed evidence and the Tribunal lacks power to compel witnesses.

Source excerpt

• Leave to appeal
• Procedural fairness
• Natural justice
• Evidence
• Residence requirement
• Eligibility for oas

Read case analysis

MH v Minister of Employment and Social Development

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

The appellant's reconsideration request was 643 days late; although the Minister failed to seek targeted information and thus did not act judicially in denying an extension, the appellant could not show a reasonable chance of success because the CPP requires the DUPE in these circumstances and contains no provision to reverse it due to the former partner's death or alleged misconduct; therefore no extension of time was warranted and the appeal is dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Division of unadjusted pensionable earnings (dupe)
• Reconsideration
• Extension of time
• Judicial exercise of discretion
• Procedural requirements

Read case analysis

FJ c Ministre de l’Emploi et du Développement social

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

The Minister failed to exercise discretion judicially by imposing an excessively strict 'exceptional circumstances' standard and by ignoring relevant medical and situational factors; on fresh review the appellant met all four statutory s.74.1 criteria for an extension after 365 days and accordingly is granted additional time and the Minister is ordered to reconsider the disability pension application.

Source excerpt

• Extension of time/late review
• Judicial exercise of discretion
• Procedural fairness
• Statutory interpretation of s.74.1

Read case analysis

Abramowitz v. Canada (Attorney General)

Court

Federal Court

Judicial review dismissed: the Federal Court held the Appeal Division reasonably refused leave to appeal because the OAS cancellation request was statute-barred.

• Judicial review
• Reconsideration
• Statute-bar
• Time limits
• Automatic enrolment
• Erroneous advice/administrative error

Read case analysis

BW v Minister of Employment and Social Development

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

On the balance of probabilities the Appellant established residence in Canada on July 1, 1977 and continuous residence from at least 2011 to March 2021 based on comprehensive documentary and testimonial evidence; therefore the Appellant meets the statutory criteria for a full 40/40 OAS pension and the Tribunal sets the effective approval date as February 2021 with payments to commence March 2021, and the Minister must reconsider GIS eligibility.

Source excerpt

• Old age security
• Guaranteed income supplement
• Residence requirement
• Eligibility
• Effective date of payments

Read case analysis

Oakley v. Bounty Print Limited

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

Applying Bardal factors and pandemic context, 24 months is reasonable notice; objectively, Plaintiff failed to mitigate by refusing a reasonably comparable external offer (ADR) and by declining a genuine recall to his former job, therefore damages in lieu of notice terminate as of May 2, 2022; Defendants breached statutory and fiduciary duties by failing to issue a Statement of Termination under the Pension Benefits Act and Plaintiff is entitled to consequential recovery of reasonable legal fees incurred before the Deputy Superintendent; Plaintiff failed to prove loss in pension value and fai…

Source excerpt

• Wrongful dismissal
• Mitigation of damages
• Reasonable notice
• Pension benefits administration
• Breach of fiduciary duty
• Aggravated damages

Read case analysis

DL v Minister of Employment and Social Development

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

Appellant was not a Canadian citizen and had lost permanent resident status on April 25, 2001, and therefore was not legally resident in Canada on the relevant date (the day before she ceased to reside on March 18, 2004); accordingly she fails the legal resident requirement for OAS and the appeal is dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Old age security eligibility
• Legal resident requirement
• Residence calculation
• Loss of permanent resident status
• Deportation

Read case analysis