Claimant Denied Permission to Appeal SST Decision on OAS/GIS Overpayment

OUTCOME: Refused

[TRANSLATION] Citation: MH  v  [RESPONDENT] [NAME] , 2026  [NAME]  319 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Leave to Appeal Decision Applicant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] [NAME] decision dated February 11, 2026 (GP-25-1108) Tribunal member: [NAME] date: April 29, 2026 File number: AD-26-312 On this page Decision Overview Preliminary matter Issues I am not giving the Applicant permission to appeal Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] Permission to appeal is refused. The appeal won’t go ahead. Overview [ 2 ] The Applicant applied for an Old Age Security ( OAS  pension) in July 2009. Footnote 1 She stated that she was single. She applied for the Guaranteed Income Supplement ( GIS ) in October 2009. Footnote 2 In June 2010, the Minister started paying her the GIS . Footnote 3 [ 3 ] In May 2021, the Applicant told the Minister that she had been in a relationship for over 35 years and that she had been involuntarily separated since 2019. Footnote 4 The Minister started an investigation into the Applicant’s marital status after being told this information. [ 4 ] After carrying out its investigation, the Minister decided that the Applicant was in a common-law relationship from June 1985 to July 2019. That resulted in the Applicant being overpaid $77,378.11. Footnote 5 The Applicant asked for that decision to be reconsidered. Footnote 6 In a reconsideration decision letter, the Minister upheld its initial decision. Footnote 7 [ 5 ] The Applicant appealed to the Social Security Tribunal (Tribunal) on July 10, 2025. Footnote 8 On February 11, 2026, the [NAME] dismissed her appeal and stated that she was in a common-law relationship from June 2010 to July 2019. Footnote 9 On April 9, 2026, the Applicant asked the Appeal Division for permission to appeal. Footnote 10 Preliminary matter [ 6 ] In her application for permission to appeal, under section [translation] “5 – Documents,” the Applicant appears to have checked both the box [translation] “I do not intend to file any other documents” and the box [translation] “I will not be able to file the other documents before (year-month-day). Footnote 11 ” She also wrote April 31, 2026 [ sic ] next to that second statement. Finally, she seems to have crossed out the “X” she had put in the box saying she could not file the other documents before April 31, 2026 [ sic ]. [ 7 ] After reading the above, I wasn’t sure whether the Applicant meant to file any other documents. So, I asked the [NAME] on file to call her. She did that on April 22, 2026. The Applicant confirmed that she had no other documents to provide. Footnote 12 Issues [ 8 ] The issues are the following: a) Is there an arguable case that the [NAME] made an error in deciding that the Applicant was in a common-law relationship from June 2010 to July 2019? b) Does the application contain evidence that wasn’t provided to the [NAME]? I am not giving the Applicant permission to appeal [ 9 ] I can give the Applicant permission to appeal if her application raises an arguable case that the [NAME]: didn’t provide a fair process decided an issue it didn’t have the power to decide, or didn’t decide an issue it should have decided misinterpreted or applied the law incorrectly got the facts wrong Footnote 13 [ 10 ] I can also give the Applicant permission to appeal if her application contains evidence that wasn’t provided to the [NAME]. Footnote 14 [ 11 ] Since the Applicant hasn’t raised an arguable case and hasn’t presented any new evidence, I have to refuse permission to appeal. There is no arguable case that the [NAME] made an error in deciding that the Applicant was in a common-law relationship from June 2010 to July 2019 [ 12 ] The Applicant’s application for permission to appeal doesn’t raise an arguable case of error by the [NAME]. In fact, the application contains a somewhat disorganized list of arguments that the [NAME] addressed: that the Applicant wanted the Canada Revenue Agency to correct her marital status Footnote 15 that the Applicant was in fact a natural caregiver Footnote 16 that there seems to be a conflict between her and the son. She seems to spend more time on this in her application. Footnote 17 [ 13 ] In short, I am of the view that the arguments the Applicant raised don’t show an arguable case that the [NAME] made an error. [ 14 ] But I can’t limit myself to analyzing the arguments that the Applicant raised. I have to review the file and the [NAME] decision itself. I did that. Footnote 18 I am satisfied that there is no arguable case that the [NAME] overlooked or misinterpreted evidence that could support an arguable case of error on its part. [ 15 ] Finally, the Applicant didn’t provide any new evidence to the Appeal Division. Footnote 19 [ 16 ] Since the Applicant hasn’t raised an arguable case of error and hasn’t presented any new evidence, I have to refuse permission to appeal. Conclusion [ 17 ] Permission to appeal is refused. This means that the appeal won’t go ahead. Footnotes Footnote 1 This is at GD2-3. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See GD3-33. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See GD3-33. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See GD3-30. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 On April 30, 2024, at GD2-157. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 On December 27, 2024, at GD2-177. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 On June 18, 2025, at GD2-185. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 See GD1-1. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 See the [NAME] decision, at para 65. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 See AD01-1. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 See AD1-3. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 The [NAME] wrote a note in the file to document the phone call. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 See sections 58.1(a) and 58.1(b) of the Department of [RESPONDENT] [NAME]  ( DESD  Act). Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 See section 58.1(c) of the DESD  Act. Return to footnote 14 referrer Footnote 15 See AD1-3 and AD1-5, and paras 41 and 55 of the [NAME] decision. Return to footnote 15 referrer Footnote 16 See AD1-3 and para 26 of the [NAME] decision. Return to footnote 16 referrer Footnote 17 See AD1-3 to AD1-5, and paras 25 and 54 of the [NAME] decision. Return to footnote 17 referrer Footnote 18 For more information on this type of review by the Appeal Division, see [NAME]  v  Canada ([NAME] [NAME]) , 2016  FC  615. Return to footnote 18 referrer Footnote 19 See also para 7 above. Return to footnote 19 referrer