Claimant Entitled to Reconsideration After Missing Decision Letter

Citation: [NAME]  v  [NAME] , 2026  SST  44 Social Security Tribunal of Canada General Division – Income Security Section Decision Appellant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: [NAME] reconsideration decision dated July 22, 2025 (issued by Service Canada) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: Teleconference Hearing date: January 21, 2026 Hearing participants: Appellant Respondent Decision date: January 23, 2026 File number: GP-25-1660 On this page Decision Overview The appeals process What I must decide My Findings Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] The appeal is allowed. [ 2 ] The Appellant, S. M., is eligible for more time to ask the [NAME] (Minister) to reconsider its decision to deny her application for a [NAME] ( [NAME] ) retirement pension. [ 3 ] This decision explains why I am allowing the appeal. Overview [ 4 ] The Appellant is a retiree. She submitted an application for a [NAME] retirement pension in May 2023. On February 1, 2024, the Minister wrote to the Appellant that she had not included a signature in her application and that a signature had to be provided by March 1, 2024, otherwise the Minister would presume she no longer wanted a decision. [ 5 ] The Appellant says that she sent the requested information and waited for her pension to start. She understood that government decisions can take some time. However, by January 20, 2025, as she had still not received anything from the Minister, she called to ask about the status of her application. She was advised that the application was denied for a lack of a signature on March 25, 2024, and that a decision letter had been issued the same day. On January 31, 2025, the Appellant submitted a request for reconsideration. [ 6 ] The Minister says that the Appellant was late asking for reconsideration. It says that the denial of a retirement benefit was issued on March 25, 2024, as the Appellant failed to provide her signature within the time allotted by the Minister. The Minister says that it considered whether or not a late application for reconsideration should be allowed and determined that the Appellant had not met the test. As a result, it refused the Appellant’s request for a late application for reconsideration. The appeals process An appellant has 90 days to ask the Minister to reconsider a decision [ 7 ] If a person disagrees with a decision of the Minister, then that person ahs 90 days to ask the Minister to reconsider the decision. Footnote 1 [ 8 ] If a person waits more than 90 days before asking the Minister to reconsider its decision, then the request for reconsideration is considered late. What the Minister needs to consider when a request for reconsideration is late [ 9 ] The Minister can reconsider a decision even if the request for reconsideration is late. However, the Minister can  only  do so if the Minister is satisfied that: Footnote 2 here is a reasonable explanation for asking for more time; and the person has shown a continuing intention to ask for a reconsideration. The Minister’s discretion must be exercised judicially [ 10 ] The Minister’s decision to grant or refuse a late request for reconsideration is considered a discretionary decision. The Minister’s discretion must be exercised judicially. Footnote 3 [ 11 ] This means that the decision maker must  not  have: Footnote 4 acted in bad faith acted for an improper purpose or motive considered an irrelevant factor ignored a relevant factor or acted in a discriminatory way. What I must decide [ 12 ] I must decide if the Appellant’s request for reconsideration was late. [ 13 ] If the request was late, then I must decide if the Minister exercised its discretion in a judicial manner when it decided not to give the Appellant more time to appeal. [ 14 ] If the Minister didn’t exercise its discretion in a judicial manner, then I must decide if the Appellant should have more time to ask for a reconsideration. My findings The Appellant’s request for a reconsideration was not late [ 15 ] The Appellant’s request for a reconsideration was not late. In other words, the Appellant asked for a reconsideration in time. [ 16 ] The Minister has asserted in it’s letter to the Appellant Footnote 5 and in submissions to the Tribunal Footnote 6 that it sent a letter to the Appellant on March 25, 2024, explaining the decision to deny a retirement benefit. [ 17 ] However, in reviewing the reconsideration file, it is evident that there is no decision denying a retirement benefit. Typically, every reconsideration file has both the initial decision and a reconsideration decision. [ 18 ] When the matter was initially appealed to the Tribunal, the Coordinating Member requested from the Minister all correspondences that had been sent to the Appellant. On December 8, 2025, the Minister wrote back to the Member and advised that a thorough file search was conducted by both the Western and Atlantic regions. Footnote 7 However, no additional documents were found and all available documents were contained in the reconsideration file submitted to the Tribunal. Footnote 8 [ 19 ] At the oral hearing, I asked the Appellant about the correspondences she had received from the Minister. She confirmed that she had never received a decision letter dated March 25, 2024. She also told me that she keeps all her correspondences and has addressed them whenever anything has been requested of her. [ 20 ] I also heard from the Minister’s representative. The Minister’s representative explained that the Appellant’s file was initially handled by the [NAME] but due to workload issues, it was transferred and dealt with by [NAME]. The Minister’s representative confirmed that a thorough search for the March 25, 2024 decision letter had been conducted and that it was not located. The Minister’s representative also explained that because the file was handled by [NAME] when the March 25, 2024, decision letter was sent out, she was unable to confirm whether or not it existed. [ 21 ] I noted during the hearing, that other correspondences sent from [NAME] were contained in the Appellant’s file. For instance, there is correspondence dated February 1, 2024, from [NAME] to the Appellant. I questioned why this would be on the file but the March 25, 2024 decision letter would not be. The Minister’s representative told me that she was not sure why that was so. [ 22 ] In considering all of the facts, and in particular, the lack of an initial decision letter from March 25, 2024, I am satisfied that the Appellant never received this letter. Further, that the letter was actually never sent by the Minister. Footnote 9 As a result, I am also satisfied that her request for reconsideration is not late. Footnote 10 Conclusion [ 23 ] I find that the Appellant’s request is not late. The Minister was incorrect to deny the request for a reconsideration decision. [ 24 ] This means the appeal is allowed. Footnotes Footnote 1 See section 81(1) of the  [NAME] . Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See section 74.1(3) of the  [NAME] . Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See  Canada (Attorney General)   v   [NAME] , 2008  FCA  388. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See  Canada (Attorney General)   v   Purcell , [1996] 1  FC  644. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 GD2-20 Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 See GD4 Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 Both regions had conduct of this application for a period of time. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 See GD4-1 Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 In AD-25-378 the Tribunal wrote that an Applicant is presumed to have received notice of a decision. This case is different. I have determined that the decision letter was never sent. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 See section 81(1) of the  [NAME] . Return to footnote 10 referrer