Claimant Denied Permission to Appeal Credit Split Case

Citation: JP  v  [NAME] and TK , 2026  [NAME]  178 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Leave to Appeal Decision Applicant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] T. K. Representative: [NAME] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated February 4, 2026 (GP-25-907) Tribunal member: [NAME] Decision date: May 18, 2026 File number: AD-26-369 On this page Decision Overview Issues Analysis Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] I am refusing the Applicant permission to appeal. I see no basis for this appeal to proceed. These are the reasons for my decision. Overview [ 2 ] The Applicant and [NAME] were in a [NAME]-law relationship for 18 years. They separated in August 2018, and the Applicant applied for a division of unadjusted pensionable earnings, also known as a [NAME] ) credit split, in May 2024. Footnote 1 [ 3 ] Service Canada, the Minister’s public-facing agency, denied the application. Footnote 2 It said that, after separating from [NAME], the Applicant applied for the credit split too late. [ 4 ] The Applicant appealed Service Canada’s denial to the Social Security Tribunal. The Tribunal’s General Division scheduled an in-person hearing, at which the Applicant failed to appear. After proceeding in the Applicant’s absence, it dismissed the appeal. It found that the Applicant had applied for the credit split well after the four-year deadline specified by law. [ 5 ] The Applicant is now requesting permission to appeal from the Tribunal’s Appeal Division. She disagrees with the General Division and alleges that it made mistakes and proceeded in a way that was unfair. Issues [ 6 ] There is no automatic right to appeal a General Division decision. The Appeal Division must first give permission to appeal. It will only do so if an applicant produces new evidence or presents an arguable case that the General Division proceeded in a way that was unfair; acted beyond its powers or refused to exercise those powers; or made an error of law or fact or some combination of the two. Footnote 3 [ 7 ] At this preliminary stage, I must decide whether the Applicant produced new evidence or presented an arguable case that the General Division made a mistake. Analysis [ 8 ] In requesting permission to appeal, the Applicant raised the following concerns: No one can be reasonably expected to know about the four-year deadline to apply for the credit split. The General Division unreasonably refused her request to adjourn the hearing to prepare for an upcoming trial against [NAME]. The General Division wrongly accepted [NAME]’s claim that the trial was unrelated to the credit split. [ 9 ] Having reviewed the record, I can’t allow the Applicant’s appeal to go forward. That’s because she hasn’t met any of the grounds of appeal. The Applicant hasn’t produced any new evidence [ 10 ] The Applicant hasn’t submitted evidence that the General Division didn’t already have.

Accordingly, there is no new evidence that would justify giving Applicant permission to appeal. The Applicant hasn’t raised an arguable case [ 11 ] I reviewed the law and the evidence that the General Division used to reach its decision. The Applicant did not raise an arguable case that the General Division made some kind of error. [ 12 ] The facts in this case are not in dispute: The Applicant and [NAME] stopped living together in August 2018. The Applicant did not apply for a credit split until May 2024. [NAME] has never waived the four-year deadline to apply for the credit split. [ 13 ] The law is also clear. The Minister may approve a credit split between [NAME]-law partners if they have been separated for more than one year and if the application is made within four years after the separation. The four-year deadline can be waived only if both partners agree to do so in writing. Footnote 4 [ 14 ] The deadline had expired by the time the Applicant applied for the credit split. She was required either to have applied for the credit split within four years of the end of her [NAME]-law relationship or to have obtained the written consent of [NAME]. The Applicant did not meet either requirement. [ 15 ] As for the Applicant’s specific complaints: The Applicant suggests that the General Division erred in failing to hold the government to account for not letting her know about the four-year deadline. I don’t see an argument for an error here. As the General Division rightly noted, Canadians are expected to apprise themselves of their rights and duties under the law: “The [NAME] cannot be construed so as to impose a positive obligation upon the Minister regularly to remind benefit recipients of [an] obligation…” Footnote 5 The Applicant accuses the General Division of unfairly refusing her request to adjourn the hearing. However, the record shows that the Applicant asked the Tribunal for a delay in proceedings only three business days before the scheduled hearing. This came after months of coordination among the parties to settle on a mutually agreeable hearing date. In the end, the General Division saw no reason for further delay, and it notified the Applicant in writing that the hearing would proceed as scheduled. On the appointed day, the Applicant did not appear, and I don’t see how the General Division acted unfairly in deciding to hold the hearing without her present. The General Division proceeded in the Applicant’s absence because it didn’t accept her reasons for wanting a delay. The Applicant said that she and [NAME] were going to trial in May 2026 and that there was “too much going on,” but the General Division accepted [NAME]’s argument that the trial involved a separate legal matter that would not impact the [NAME] appeal. The Applicant claims that this conclusion was “wrong,” but I don’t see an arguable case that this is so. In its role as trier of fact, the General Division is entitled to some leeway in how it weighs evidence. Footnote 6 In the absence of evidence otherwise, it was reasonable for the General Division to find no reason to adjourn the hearing until after the trial. Conclusion [ 16 ] I understand that this is not the outcome the Applicant wants, but she hasn’t met any of the ground of appeal. She hasn’t produced new evidence or raised an arguable case for a possible error by the General Division.

Accordingly, I’m refusing her permission to appeal. Footnotes Footnote 1 See the Applicant’s credit split application dated May 9, 2024, GD2-4. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See Service Canada’s initial denial letter dated November 20, 2024, GD2-8. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See section 58.1(b) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act . Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See section 55.1(1)(c) of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2011  FC  689. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2012  FCA  82. Return to footnote 6 referrer