Claimant Denied CPP Survivor Pension Due to Lack of Conjugal Relationship Proof

Citation: DS  v  [NAME] , 2026  SST  213 Social Security Tribunal of Canada General Division – Income Security Section Decision Appellant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] [NAME] Decision under appeal: [NAME] reconsideration decision dated March 12, 2025 (issued by Service Canada) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: Teleconference Hearing date: February 26, 2026 Hearing participants: Appellant Appellant’s brother Decision date: March 17, 2026 File number: GP-25-998 On this page Decision Overview What I have to decide Reasons for my decision The Appellant wasn’t cohabiting in a conjugal relationship Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] The appeal is dismissed. [ 2 ] The Appellant, D. S., isn’t eligible for a [NAME] ( [NAME] ) [NAME]’s pension after the death of J. S. [ 3 ] This decision explains why I am dismissing the appeal. Overview [ 4 ] A deceased contributor is someone who contributed to the [NAME] before they died. If they were married or had a common-law partner when they died, that person may be eligible for a [NAME]’s pension. [ 5 ] J. S. is the deceased contributor in this appeal. I will call her the contributor in this decision. She died in November 1994. [ 6 ] The Appellant applied for a [NAME]’s pension in October 2024. He said he was the common-law partner of the contributor when she died. [ 7 ] The Appellant previously applied unsuccessfully for the [NAME]’s pension in 1994, 1996, 2002, and 2009. Footnote 1 [ 8 ] The [NAME] (Minister) initially approved the Appellant’s application for a [NAME]’s pension. The Appellant asked for reconsideration because he wanted pension payments retroactive to the contributor’s death. Footnote 2 This triggered a marital status review. [ 9 ] On reconsideration, the Minister refused the application. Footnote 3 The Minister said the Appellant isn’t eligible for the [NAME]’s pension because he and the contributor weren’t common-law partners when she died. The Appellant appealed the Minister’s decision to the Social Security Tribunal’s General Division. [ 10 ] The Appellant says he and the contributor lived together in a conjugal relationship in the year before she passed away. [ 11 ] The Minister says that the Appellant and the contributor weren’t common-law partners in the year before her death. Evidence from 1992 to 1994 shows that the Appellant and the contributor were separated from 1992 onwards. This includes both documents that the Appellant signed and reports from his [NAME]. What I have to decide [ 12 ] The law says that only the [NAME] of a deceased contributor to the [NAME] is entitled to a [NAME]’s pension. Footnote 4 [ 13 ] The [NAME] defines “ [NAME] ” as the common-law partner or (if there is no common-law partner) the person who was married to the deceased contributor when they died. Footnote 5 I will explain more about this definition later. [ 14 ] I have to decide if the Appellant was the contributor’s [NAME]. He isn’t claiming that he was married to her when she died. This means I have to decide if he was her common-law partner when she died. [ 15 ] The Appellant must prove he was the contributor’s common-law partner when she died. He must prove this on a balance of probabilities (that it is more likely than not to be true). Reasons for my decision [ 16 ] I find that the Appellant was not married to the contributor when she died. He wasn’t her common-law partner either. This means the Appellant is not her [NAME]. He is not entitled to the [NAME]’s pension. [ 17 ] Here are the reasons for my decision. What “common-law partner” means [ 18 ] The [NAME] says a “ common-law partner ” is a person who was cohabiting with the contributor in a conjugal relationship for a continuous period of at least one year at the time of the contributor’s death. Footnote 6 The one-year period is the whole year immediately before the contributor’s death. It doesn’t matter if a couple lived together for a whole year (or more) at a different time. Footnote 7 [ 19 ] Two people can cohabit even if they don’t live under the same roof. Footnote 8 It’s also possible for them to live under the same roof and not cohabit. Footnote 9 In other words, I can’t just look at whether the Appellant and the contributor lived together. When I am deciding whether they were cohabiting in a conjugal relationship, I have to look at factors like: Footnote 10 their living and sleeping arrangements their financial arrangements their behaviour toward each other privately and in public how the community viewed their relationship [ 20 ] A couple doesn’t have to meet all of these factors. And they may meet them to varying degrees. I have to take a flexible approach in deciding whether there was a conjugal relationship at the relevant time. Footnote 11 The Appellant wasn’t cohabiting in a conjugal relationship [ 21 ] I find that the Appellant wasn’t cohabiting with the contributor in a conjugal relationship continuously for at least one year immediately before she died. The Appellant and the contributor were separated in 1993-1994 What the Appellant and his witness said [ 22 ] The Appellant and his brother, S. S., testified that the Appellant and the contributor lived together in the year before she died. They say that in 1994, the Appellant lived at his brother’s house in X. He had lost his driver’s licence and was on a different shift at the Y (the Y) than the contributor. His brother’s house was closer to the Y than the apartment in Z where the contributor was based. [ 23 ] The Appellant stated that the contributor and their children (born in 1983, 1985, and 1988) Footnote 12 spent a lot of nights at his brother’s house, and the Appellant would spend weekends in Z with the contributor and the children. The Appellant’s brother agreed with this. [ 24 ] At the hearing, for the first time the Appellant and his witness stated that for the year before the contributor’s death, the Appellant was doing odd jobs in carpentry. [ 25 ] Documents signed by the Appellant closer in time to the events in question tell a different story. [ 26 ] The Appellant’s 1994 application for the child rearing dropout provision stated that his separated spouse received the family allowance until her death. After that, the children came to live with him. Footnote 13 He also stated that he and the contributor had been separated for two years when she died. He had weekend visitation with the children. Footnote 14 [ 27 ] In 2002, the Appellant stated on his statutory declaration of common-law union that he and the contributor lived together from 1983 to 1993. He stated that the [COMPANY] took possession of the family home. After that, he and the contributor lived separately, but saw each other every day. Footnote 15 [ 28 ] On his 2009 application for [NAME]’s benefits, the Appellant stated that he and the contributor had been separated for two years. During that period, their three children were living with the contributor, but he had weekend visitation. Footnote 16 [ 29 ] In his 2024 [NAME]’s pension application, the Appellant stated that he lived with his brother from August to November 2024. Footnote 17 [ 30 ] When the Minister’s representative questioned the Appellant at the hearing about statements made on his various applications, he usually stated that only the signature was his – he had not filled in the form himself. When I asked him if he had any difficulty reading, he said he didn’t. I find that he is bound by the contents of the documents he signed. The Appellant’s [NAME] reported the couple were separated in 1992-1994 [ 31 ] In 1992 to 1994, two psychiatrists reported that the Appellant and the contributor had been separated since 1992. Footnote 18 [ 32 ] In March 1992, [NAME] reported that the Appellant and the contributor had lived together for eight years, not the 10 years that the Appellant later claimed. Footnote 19 [ 33 ] In May 1994, [NAME], family doctor, stated that the Appellant had depression secondary to his marital separation. Footnote 20 [ 34 ] In April 1994, [NAME], psychiatrist, stated that the Appellant got his children every other weekend. Footnote 21 [ 35 ] When the Minister’s representative asked the Appellant about his doctor’s statements, the Appellant stated that the [NAME] had misunderstood his account of his marital situation. I find it unlikely that three different [NAME] over two years would consistently misrepresent what the Appellant told them. I find it is more likely than not that the Appellant and the contributor were separated from 1992 to 1994. The Appellant was off work most of 1994 [ 36 ] In 1994, the Appellant spent little time at work. To the extent he was living with his brother, it was not because his brother’s house was close to his job. [ 37 ] In March 1994, Dr. [NAME] reported that the Appellant’s union sent him to the medical office because he was stressed out and missing a lot of work. In March 1994, [NAME] stated that the Appellant had been off work for a month. Footnote 22 [ 38 ] In March 1994, Dr. [NAME] stated that the Appellant was unable to work indefinitely due to depression. He had been admitted to hospital on March 27, 1994, with an overdose of his antidepressant. Footnote 23 [ 39 ] In December 1994, [NAME] reported that the Appellant returned to work in August 1994 but left after a couple of weeks. The Appellant stated that his employer, the [NAME], terminated his employment in September 1994. Footnote 24 [ 40 ] An [COMPANY] report stated that the Appellant worked for the Y until the end of August 1994. Footnote 25 [ 41 ] The appeal file contains no evidence of the Appellant doing small construction jobs like decks and fences in 1993 to 1994. Financial arrangements [ 42 ] The Appellant’s and the contributor’s financial arrangements do not support that that they were cohabiting in a conjugal relationship for the whole year immediately before the contributor died. [ 43 ] In his 2002 statutory declaration of common-law union, the Appellant stated that he and the contributor had signed a residential lease or mortgage and had joint [COMPANY] accounts. In addition, he had life insurance with the contributor as beneficiary. Footnote 26 [ 44 ] In February 1990, the Appellant and the contributor got a loan of about $11,000 for a car. Footnote 27 They also both got consumer loan life insurance. Footnote 28 [ 45 ] The Appellant and the contributor had a mortgage on a home on W in X. They defaulted on the mortgage payments. Footnote 29 The Appellant stated that his parents bought the house when the [COMPANY] put it up for sale. He moved in there with the three children right after the contributor passed away. He still lives at that address. [ 46 ] The death benefit application from the contributor’s mother stated that the contributor’s address was on V in Z, Ontario. Footnote 30 The Appellant testified that he lived there with the contributor, but produced no evidence for this. His [NAME] record him as living alone or with his brother. [ 47 ] There is no evidence of the Appellant having life insurance of which the contributor was the beneficiary. There is also no evidence that they had joint [COMPANY] accounts in the year before the contributor passed away or at any time. [ 48 ] The appeal file contains no information to show that the Appellant and the contributor had close financial ties in the year before her death. Behaviour toward each other in private [ 49 ] The Appellant’s and the contributor’s behaviour toward each other in private does not support that they were cohabiting in a conjugal relationship for the whole year immediately before the contributor’s death. [ 50 ] In March 1992, [NAME] reported that the Appellant was charged in the past with fighting with the contributor and was on probation for this. More recently, the Appellant became aware of the contributor having relationships at the workplace and they had arguments before he left her. Footnote 31 [ 51 ] In June 1992, [NAME] stated that the Appellant had gone to jail because he threatened his girlfriend’s boyfriend with a knife when he was drunk. (This girlfriend was not the contributor). Footnote 32 [ 52 ] In April 1994, [NAME] stated that the Appellant told her that the contributor had a baby by another man. Footnote 33 The child didn’t have the Appellant’s last name, The Appellant never asked for [NAME] children’s benefits for that child, who was born in [DATE]. The contributor’s brother S. H. did. Footnote 34 [ 53 ] The Appellant and the contributor both had relationships with other people in the two years before the contributor passed away. How the community viewed the relationship [ 54 ] The way the community viewed the Appellant’s and deceased contributor’s relationship does not support that they were cohabiting in a conjugal relationship for the whole year immediately before the contributor’s death. [ 55 ] On the death benefit application, the contributor’s mother stated that the contributor’s marital status was single. Footnote 35 On the death certificate, she listed herself as the contributor’s next of kin. Footnote 36 [ 56 ] The contributor’s family did not think that she and the Appellant were a common-law couple at the time the contributor died. Weighing the factors together [ 57 ] When I consider all of these factors together, I find that it is more likely than not that the Appellant didn’t cohabit with the contributor in a conjugal relationship for a continuous period of one year immediately before the contributor died in November 1990: No document from the 1990s states that the Appellant and the contributor lived together in the year before the contributor passed away. The Appellant lived for some time with his brother, but in 1994 it was not because he needed to live close to the Y. So there was no involuntary separation. There is no documentary evidence that the Appellant and the contributor had significant common financial interests in 1993-1994. Both parties were involved in relationships with other people in 1992 to 1994. The contributor’s mother listed herself on the death certificate as the contributor’s next of kin. [ 58 ] It is more than 30 years since the contributor passed away. It would be understandable if the memories of the Appellant and his witness had become unreliable. In fact, both of them either provided accounts at variance with the evidence from the 1990s, or said during their testimony that they didn’t remember clearly. Conclusion [ 59 ] I find that the Appellant wasn’t married to the contributor when she died. He wasn’t her common-law partner either. This means the Appellant isn’t a “[NAME]” as defined in the [NAME] . As a result, he isn’t eligible for a [NAME]’s pension. [ 60 ] This means the appeal is dismissed. Footnotes Footnote 1 See GD2-i-57 and 78 and GD2-xii-49, 66. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See GD2-i-8. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 The [NAME] (Minister) manages the [NAME] benefit programs for the Government of Canada. The Minister’s reconsideration decision is at GD 2-i-40. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See section 44(1)(d) of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 See section 42(1) of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 See section 2(1) of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 See JR  v  Minister (Employment and Social Development) , 2021  SST  113. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 [NAME]  v  Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development) , 2004  SCC  65. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 [NAME]  v  Canada (Minister of Social Development) , 2006  FC  1511. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2012  FC  556. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 See M  v  H , [1999] 2 SCR 3 at paragraphs 59 and 60. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 See GD2-ii-26. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 See GD2-iv-67. Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 See GD2-xii-68. Return to footnote 14 referrer Footnote 15 See GD2-1-78. Return to footnote 15 referrer Footnote 16 See GD2-xii-68. Return to footnote 16 referrer Footnote 17 See GD2-i-50. Return to footnote 17 referrer Footnote 18 [NAME], psychiatrist, GD2-ix-45 (1992), 48 (1994). See also [NAME], psychiatrist, GD2-xii-10 (1994). Return to footnote 18 referrer Footnote 19 See GD2-iii-56-57. Return to footnote 19 referrer Footnote 20 See GD2-vi-77. Return to footnote 20 referrer Footnote 21 See GD2-xii-30. Return to footnote 21 referrer Footnote 22 See GD2-xiii-10, 32. Return to footnote 22 referrer Footnote 23 See GD2-ix-55, 67. Return to footnote 23 referrer Footnote 24 See GD2-ix-75, and GD2-xii-40. Return to footnote 24 referrer Footnote 25 See GD2-x-19. Return to footnote 25 referrer Footnote 26 See GD2-i-78 Return to footnote 26 referrer Footnote 27 See GD1-i-51, 53. Return to footnote 27 referrer Footnote 28 See GD2-i-25. Return to footnote 28 referrer Footnote 29 See GD2-i-80. Return to footnote 29 referrer Footnote 30 See GD1-25. Return to footnote 30 referrer Footnote 31 See GD2-iii-56-57. Return to footnote 31 referrer Footnote 32 See GD2-ix-48. Return to footnote 32 referrer Footnote 33 See GD2-xii-32 and 53. Return to footnote 33 referrer Footnote 34 See GD2-xii-53. Return to footnote 34 referrer Footnote 35 GD2-xii-54 Return to footnote 35 referrer Footnote 36 See GD1-25. Return to footnote 36 referrer