Claimant Denied Permission to Appeal Retirement Pension Decision

Citation: RM  v  [NAME] , 2026  SST  283 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Leave to Appeal Decision Applicant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated February 11, 2026 (GP-25-1881) Tribunal member: [NAME] Decision date: April 9, 2026 File number: AD-26-141 On this page Decision Overview Issues Analysis Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] I am refusing the Applicant permission to appeal. This appeal will not be going forward. Overview [ 2 ] The Applicant is a 61-year-old resident of X, Saskatchewan. On December 30, 2024, he dropped off his application for a [NAME] ( [NAME] ) retirement application at his local Service Canada centre. Footnote 1 [ 3 ] Service Canada approved the Applicant’s application effective December 2024. Footnote 2 It later told the Applicant that it had deemed his application to have been received on November 15, 2024 — six weeks earlier than it was actually received — because of a postal disruption at the time. Footnote 3 [ 4 ] The Applicant disagreed with the start date of his retirement pension and thought that it should have started in September 2024, the month he turned 60. He appealed Service Canada’s decision to the Social Security Tribunal’s General Division. He said that he had wasted months trying to get information from Service Canada about credit splitting in the belief that he needed it to complete his retirement pension application. He claimed that someone at Service Canada had told him that his payments would be backdated to his 60th birthday. [ 5 ] The Tribunal’s General Division held an in-person hearing and dismissed the appeal. It decided that Service Canada had paid the Applicant the maximum retroactive amount permitted under the law. It also found that it had no authority to order Service Canada to remedy any erroneous advice that it might have given the Applicant. [ 6 ] The Applicant then requested leave, or permission, to appeal the General Division’s decision. Footnote 4 He expressed his disagreement with the General Division’s decision and said that he had new evidence. [ 7 ] The Tribunal sent the Applicant a letter asking him to describe in detail how the General Division erred in coming to its decision. Footnote 5 It also urged him to send in any new evidence that he might have, sooner rather than later. The Tribunal gave him two weeks to respond. At the Applicant’s request, the Tribunal later extended the response deadline to April 3, 2026. Footnote 6 [ 8 ] As of the date of this decision, the Tribunal has not heard from the Applicant. I have decided to address his request for permission to appeal based on the information in his application. Issues [ 9 ] There’s 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 7 [ 10 ] At this stage, I have to decide whether the Applicant produced new evidence or presented an arguable case that the General Division made some kind of mistake. Analysis [ 11 ] However much I may sympathize with the Applicant, I can’t allow his appeal to proceed. That’s because he hasn’t met any of the grounds of appeal. The Applicant didn’t produce any new evidence [ 12 ] The Applicant has not submitted any new information that was not available to the General Division. There’s no arguable case that the General Division made an error [ 13 ] I have reviewed the record, and I’m satisfied that the General Division didn’t misinterpret the applicable law, misconstrue the available evidence, or otherwise act unfairly. Footnote 8 [ 14 ] The General Division decided that December 2024 was the Applicant’s  retirement pension start date for the following reasons: The Applicant turned 60 in September 2024. He applied for the [NAME] retirement pension in November 2024. The law says that, for a qualified applicant under 65, the pension starts the month after the date of application. [ 15 ] I don’t see an arguable case that this analysis is wrong. As the General Division rightly noted, a [NAME] retirement pension is payable starting the latest of the following: the month an applicant turns 60; the month after an applicant applies if they were under 65 at the time of application; 11 months before the applicant applies if they were 65 or older at the time of application; or the month the applicant chooses in their application. Footnote 9 [ 16 ] Because the Applicant was under 65 years old when he applied, his retirement pension was payable the month after he applied. The month after he applied was December 2024. [ 17 ] I don’t see how the General Division erred in making these findings. What’s more, the Applicant hasn’t identified any specific flaws in the General Division’s decision or the process by which it came to that decision. He essentially repeats the arguments that he made at the General Division, but that is not enough to advance his appeal. The Tribunal has no authority to remedy administrative error or bad advice [ 18 ] The Applicant argues that the there was nothing in the [NAME] retirement pension application for to indicate that it was “time sensitive.” He has argued that he delayed applying while trying to get information about credit splitting. He has alleged that Service Canada told him, in error, that he could get his claim backdated. [ 19 ] The Applicant now seems to be suggesting that the General Division ignored what he alleges was misguidance from Service Canada. However, that’s not quite true: the General Division considered that allegation but decided there was nothing it could do about it. [ 20 ] Again, I don’t see an arguable case that the General Division made a mistake by coming to this conclusion. We can’t be sure what Service Canada actually told the Applicant. But even if it provided him with misleading information, the law doesn’t permit the General Division to override the legislation and direct the Minister to give him additional back payments. [ 21 ] This Tribunal is created by legislation and, as such, has only the powers granted to it by its governing statute. According to the  [NAME] , the Minister may take remedial action if he is satisfied that an applicant was denied a benefit because of erroneous advice or administrative error. Footnote 10 Use of the words “may” and “satisfied” in this provision suggests that such a decision is purely discretionary — the Minister doesn’t have to fix his mistake if he doesn’t think it is warranted. Case law says that administrative tribunals, such as this one, can’t force the Minister to revisit or reverse a decision that he has taken voluntarily. Footnote 11 In this case, since the Minister has never admitted to an error, the General Division couldn’t make him correct it. Conclusion [ 22 ] I am refusing the Applicant leave to appeal because he didn’t produce any new evidence or present an arguable case that the General Division made an error. [ 23 ] This means the appeal will not proceed. Footnotes Footnote 1 See the Applicant’s application for the [NAME] retirement pension signed on December 2, 2024, GD2-4. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See Service Canada’s approval letter dated January 18, 2025, GD2-12. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See Service Canada’s letter dated March 22, 2025, GD2-22. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See the Applicant’s leave to appeal application dated February 27, 2026, AD1. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 See the Tribunal’s letter dated March 6, 2026. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 See the Tribunal’s letter dated March 18, 2026. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 See section 58.1(b) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act . Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2016  FC  615. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 See section 67(3.1) of the [NAME]. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 See section 66(4) of the [NAME]. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 See  Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development)  v  [NAME] , 2003  FCA  278. Return to footnote 11 referrer