Appeal for Higher Combined Pension Rejected by Social Security Tribunal

Citation: VT v [NAME] , 2026  [NAME]  90 Social Security Tribunal of Canada General Division – Income Security Section Decision Appellant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: [NAME] reconsideration decision dated January 7, 2025 (issued by Service Canada) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: In Writing Decision date: February 5, 2026 File number: GP-25-870 On this page Decision Overview What I must decide The role of the Tribunal Reasons for my decision Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] The appeal is dismissed. [ 2 ] The Appellant, [NAME]., isn’t eligible for a higher combined [NAME] ( [NAME] ) survivor’s pension and retirement pension benefit. [ 3 ] This decision explains why I am dismissing the appeal. Overview [ 4 ] The Appellant’s husband, [NAME]., passed away on September 12, 2024. The Appellant was 89 years old at the time of her husband’s death, and was already receiving a [NAME] retirement pension. [ 5 ] The Appellant applied for the [NAME] survivor’s pension on October 11, 2024. Footnote 1 The [NAME] (Minister) approved her application on November 16, 2024. The Appellant started getting a combined [NAME] survivor’s pension and retirement pension as of October 2024. Footnote 2 [ 6 ] The Appellant asked the Minister to explain how her combined pension was calculated. She was unsatisfied with the Minister’s explanation. She also believes that the amount she receives is unfair, because she says she doesn’t receive much more than a person who hasn’t worked, and is receiving the Guaranteed Income Supplement ( GIS ). [ 7 ] The Appellant appealed the Minister’s decision to the Social Security Tribunal’s General Division (Tribunal). What I must decide [ 8 ] I must decide whether the Minister made a mistake when calculating the Appellant’s combined pension. The role of the Tribunal [ 9 ] It’s important for the Appellant to understand the Tribunal’s role and my powers as a member. [ 10 ] The Appellant wants the Minister to explain why the amount she receives is fair, in comparison to amounts other people may receive for the GIS . She believes she should be entitled to receive higher amounts based on the number of years she worked. [ 11 ] I asked the Minister to explain how the Appellant’s combined pension was calculated. Footnote 3 The Minister complied with the request. Footnote 4 However, I can’t require the Minister to respond to the Appellant’s comments and requests about the GIS . The GIS isn’t an issue in this appeal. There is no evidence before me related to the GIS . [ 12 ] The calculations for the amount a person receives for a pension, or for the GIS , are outlined in laws that are passed by parliament. Neither the Tribunal, nor the Minister, have the power to override the requirement to follow those calculations that are prescribed by law. [ 13 ] The Tribunal doesn’t make arguments or explanations on behalf of the Minister. The Tribunal’s role is to make decisions about disputes between the Minister and appellants. Therefore, it’s not my place to explain to the Appellant whether the amount she receives is fair, in comparison to another hypothetical person. [ 14 ] I don’t have equitable jurisdiction. This means I don’t have the power to change the amount the Appellant receives because I want to help her, or I think it would be fair. I must follow what the law says, and decide if the Minister made a mistake when it calculated the amount the Appellant receives for her combined pension. That is the only issue I’m able to decide in this appeal. Reasons for my decision [ 15 ] The Appellant isn’t eligible for a higher combined pension amount. [ 16 ] The Appellant initially took issue with the amount used to calculate her benefits. She said the Minister used an incorrect amount ($1,295.98) in its calculations. She filed evidence that her husband was receiving $1,296.71 in [NAME] retirement benefits at the time of his death. Footnote 5 [ 17 ] The Minister filed submissions confirming that the law requires it to use the base amount of the retirement benefit the Appellant’s husband was receiving, when it calculates her combined pension. Footnote 6 The Minister provided a full breakdown of it’s combined pension calculation. Footnote 7 [ 18 ] The Appellant confirmed that she now agrees the Minister has properly calculated her combined pension. She agrees that this issue is no longer in dispute. Footnote 8 [ 19 ] I reviewed the Minister’s calculation and didn’t identify any errors. The Minister followed the correct formula to calculate the amount of the combined pension. [ 20 ] Therefore, I find that the Appellant isn’t entitled to a higher combined [NAME] and survivor pension. Conclusion [ 21 ] I find that the Appellant isn’t eligible for a higher combined pension. [ 22 ] This means the appeal is dismissed. Footnotes Footnote 1 See GD2-10. Return to footnote 1 Footnote 2 See GD2-18. Return to footnote 2 Footnote 3 See GD5. Return to footnote 3 Footnote 4 See GD6. Return to footnote 4 Footnote 5 See GD1-4 and GD1-12. Return to footnote 5 Footnote 6 See GD6-5. Return to footnote 6 Footnote 7 See GD2-20. Return to footnote 7 Footnote 8 See GD7-3. Return to footnote 8