Appeal for Credit Split Dismissed Due to Timing Issues

Citation: JP  v  [NAME] and TK , 2026  [NAME]  181 Social Security Tribunal of Canada General Division – Income Security Section Decision Appellant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] ([NAME]) [NAME]: T. K. Representative: [NAME] Decision under appeal: [NAME] reconsideration decision dated March 5, 2025 (issued by Service Canada) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: In person Hearing date: February 4, 2026 Hearing participants: Respondent’s representative [NAME]’s representative Decision date: February 5, 2026 File number: GP-25-907 On this page Decision Overview Matters I have to consider first What the Appellant must prove Reasons for my decision Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] The appeal is dismissed. [ 2 ] The Appellant, J. P., isn’t eligible for a [NAME] ( [NAME] ) division of unadjusted pensionable earnings (credit split). [ 3 ] This decision explains why I am dismissing the appeal. Overview [ 4 ] The Appellant and [NAME] were in a common-law relationship. They separated in August 2018. The Appellant applied for a credit split in May 2024. Footnote 1 The [NAME] (Minister) denied her application. It said she applied for the credit split too late after separating from [NAME]. Footnote 2 [ 5 ] The Appellant disagrees with the Minister’s decision. She appealed the Minister’s decision to the General Division of the Social Security Tribunal (Tribunal). She says she was with [NAME] for 16 years. She should be entitled to the credit split. Matters I have to consider first The Appellant wasn’t at the hearing [ 6 ] A hearing can go ahead without an appellant if they got the notice of hearing. Footnote 3 [ 7 ] I decided that the Appellant got the notice of hearing. The Tribunal sent it to her by email on January 12, 2026. She is deemed to have gotten it the next day. Footnote 4 [ 8 ] I recognize the Appellant made a request to reschedule the hearing on January 30, 2026. Footnote 5 On February 3, 2026, the Tribunal member told her that her hearing would go forward as scheduled, if she didn’t get a decision on the rescheduling request before the date of the hearing. [ 9 ] I didn’t make a decision on the rescheduling request before the hearing. The Appellant didn’t attend the hearing. So, the hearing took place when it was scheduled, without her. The Appellant’s request to reschedule the hearing [ 10 ] The Appellant asked to reschedule the hearing. I decided not to because it wasn’t necessary for a fair hearing. The Appellant’s request to reschedule [ 11 ] The Appellant asked me to reschedule the hearing on January 30, 2026. She said that she was dealing with family and legal matters. She said she could not handle this appeal until she resolved some of her other issues. Footnote 6 [ 12 ] On February 2, 2026, I sent a letter to the parties asking for their position on if it was necessary to reschedule the hearing to allow for a fair hearing. Footnote 7 [ 13 ] On February 3, 2026, the Appellant responded that this appeal should be adjourned until after May 2026. This is because she has a court proceeding with [NAME] then. Footnote 8 The Minister and [NAME]’s positions [ 14 ] At the hearing, the Minister’s representative said they had no issue with rescheduling the hearing. But, their position on if the Appellant is entitled to the credit split would not change. [ 15 ] At the hearing, [NAME]’s representative said [NAME] doesn’t think it is necessary or fair to reschedule the hearing. This is because. There have already been a number of delays in scheduling the hearing. The court proceeding is unrelated to this appeal. The court proceeding may be postponed which may delay this appeal further. The outcome of this appeal won’t change, even if the hearing was rescheduled. [NAME] doesn’t intend on signing a waiver to allow the credit split. Why I decided not to reschedule the hearing [ 16 ] I can only reschedule a hearing if it is necessary for a fair hearing. Footnote 9 I decided that the hearing would still be fair, even if it wasn’t rescheduled. I explain why next. [ 17 ] The Appellant has had time to prepare for the hearing. The hearing has been rescheduled multiple times since September 2025. Footnote 10 There have been no new documents submitted since then relating to the main issue in this appeal. [ 18 ] I told the parties in December 2025, that a hearing would be scheduled for January or February 2026. Footnote 11 The Appellant had the chance to tell me when she was not available for a hearing. Footnote 12 She didn’t. A new notice of hearing was sent on January 12, 2026. She didn’t ask to adjourn until a couple of days before the scheduled hearing. [ 19 ] The Appellant has another proceeding ongoing relating to her separation from [NAME]. However, that proceeding is scheduled months from the date of the Tribunal hearing – in May 2026. So, she should be able to participate in this appeal. [ 20 ] Delaying this appeal for the court proceeding isn’t necessary. I could not ask the Appellant how the proceeding may impact this appeal at the hearing because she did not to attend. But [NAME] and his representative said that the May 2026 proceeding will not impact this appeal. They said the proceeding is unrelated to if the Appellant is entitled to a credit split. It is about other matters relating to their separation. What the Appellant must prove [ 21 ] The Appellant must show she applied for the credit split within four years of living separate and apart from [NAME]. [ 22 ] The law says that when a common-law relationship ends, a person must make an application for a credit split within four years of living separate and apart. Footnote 13 [ 23 ] There is an exception to the rule about the four-year time limit to apply. The exception applies when both former common-law partners agree in writing to proceed with the credit split, although the four-year time limit has ended. Footnote 14 Reasons for my decision [ 24 ] The Appellant isn’t entitled to a credit split from her relationship with [NAME]. I explain the reasons for my decision next. When did the Appellant and [NAME] separate? [ 25 ] The Appellant and [NAME] separated in August 2018. [ 26 ] In the Appellant’s application, she said their common law union ended in August 2018. Footnote 15 [NAME] agreed with this date at the hearing. Did the Appellant apply for a credit split within four years separating? [ 27 ] The Appellant didn’t apply for the credit split within four years of separating. [ 28 ] The Appellant applied for a credit split in May 2024. She and [NAME] separated in August 2018. May 2024 is over four years after August 2018. Is there an agreement to waive the four-year deadline? [ 29 ] There isn’t an agreement to waive the four-year deadline. So, the exception to the rule doesn’t apply. [ 30 ] There isn’t evidence of an agreement in the appeal file. [NAME] confirmed there is no such agreement at the hearing. [ 31 ] If the parties later agree to a credit split though the four-year limit has passed, the Appellant can reapply and give that information to Service Canada. Footnote 16 The Appellant’s other arguments [ 32 ] I also reviewed the Appellant’s other arguments. Footnote 17 I explain them next. [ 33 ] The Appellant says that other people she knows applied for the credit split and the Minister approved them. [ 34 ] I can’t make a decision on the Appellant’s appeal based on what happened with other people’s applications. I can only apply the rules to her application. [ 35 ] I also note that the rule for credit splitting is different for former married spouses. There isn’t a deadline to apply unless the other party has died. Footnote 18 [ 36 ] The Appellant says the earliest she could apply for the credit split was at age 60. [ 37 ] There isn’t an age limit to apply for a credit split. The Appellant may be referring to the law about applying for a retirement pension. That law says she can apply for a retirement pension when she turns 60 years old. Footnote 19 [ 38 ] The Appellant says Service Canada didn’t even know about the four-year rule and no one told her to apply earlier. If she knew, she would have applied. [ 39 ] I can’t comment on the conversations the Appellant may have had with Service Canada. I don’t have the power to do so. [ 40 ] If the Appellant has a concern about the information she did or didn’t get from Service Canada and how it may have impacted the outcome of her application, she can address it with Service Canada directly. The Tribunal isn’t involved in that process. [ 41 ] Also, the Federal Court says the Minister doesn’t have to tell people about a potential entitlement to benefits. Canadians are expected to apply for the benefits for which they might be eligible. Footnote 20 [ 42 ] The Appellant says there are financial implications if I don’t allow her appeal. [ 43 ] I don’t have equitable jurisdiction. This means I don’t have the power make a decision based on financial reasons. Footnote 21 I can only follow what the law says. [ 44 ] Based on the facts in this appeal, and what the law says, the Appellant applied too late after she and [NAME] separated. There isn’t a waiver showing she can proceed with a credit split even though the four-year time limit has passed. So, her application for the credit split can’t be approved. Conclusion [ 45 ] I find the Appellant isn’t eligible for a [NAME] credit split. [ 46 ] This means the appeal is dismissed. Footnotes Footnote 1 See GD2-5 to 7. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See GD2-8 to 9, GD2-17 to 18, and GD3 for the Minister’s position. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 Section 58 of the Social Security Tribunal Rules of Procedure sets out this rule. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 Section 22(3) of the Social Security Tribunal Rules of Procedure sets out this rule. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 I will discuss this next. See GD25. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 See GD25. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 See GD26-1. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 See GD27. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 Section 43(3) of the Social Security Tribunal Rules of Procedure sets out this rule. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 See GD0, and GD5 to GD-23. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 See GD22. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 See GD22. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 See section 55.1(1)(c)(ii) of the [NAME]. Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 See section 55.1(1)(c)(ii) of the [NAME]. Return to footnote 14 referrer Footnote 15 See GD2-6. Return to footnote 15 referrer Footnote 16 See GD2-10 for an example of a credit split waiver. Return to footnote 16 referrer Footnote 17 See GD1-4 to 5. Return to footnote 17 referrer Footnote 18 See subparagraph 55.1(1) of the [NAME]. Return to footnote 18 referrer Footnote 19 See subparagraph 44(1)(a) of the [NAME]. Return to footnote 19 referrer Footnote 20 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2011  FC  689 at paragraphs 72 and 73. Return to footnote 20 referrer Footnote 21 See Miter  v  Canada (Attorney General) , [1995] FCJ No 1320. Return to footnote 21 referrer