Claimant Granted Time Extension But Denied Permission To Appeal CPP Decision

OUTCOME: Refused

[TRANSLATION] Citation: BW  v  [RESPONDENT] [NAME] , 2026  [NAME]  337 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal Decision Applicant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] General Division decision dated January 19, 2026 (GP-25-764) Tribunal member: [NAME] date: June 17, 2026 File number: AD-26-364 On this page Decision Overview Issues Analysis Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] An extension of time to apply to the Appeal Division is granted, but permission to appeal is refused. The appeal won’t go ahead. Overview [ 2 ] The Applicant applied for a [NAME] ( [NAME] ) survivor’s pension and child’s benefit on September 27, 2024. Footnote 1 The Minister refused the Applicant’s application in its initial decision and on reconsideration. Footnote 2 [ 3 ] The Applicant filed his appeal to the Social Security Tribunal (Tribunal) on May 5, 2025. Footnote 3 On January 19, 2026, the General Division dismissed his appeal. Footnote 4 On May 1, 2026, the Applicant filed an application for permission to appeal to the Appeal Division. Footnote 5 On May 4, 2026, the Tribunal told the Applicant that his application was incomplete. On May 21, 2026, the Applicant completed his application for permission to appeal. Footnote 6 Issues [ 4 ] The issues are as follows: a) Was the application to the Appeal [NAME]? b) If so, should I extend the time for filing the application? c) Is there an arguable case that the General Division made an error in determining that the Applicant isn’t eligible for a [NAME] survivor’s pension? d) Does the application set out evidence that wasn’t presented to the General Division? Analysis The application was [NAME] [ 5 ] The General Division decision is dated January 19, 2026. I see in the Tribunal file that the decision was mailed to the Applicant on January 19, 2026. The Tribunal’s rules say that the Applicant is presumed to have received the decision 10 days later, so on January 29, 2026. Footnote 7 [ 6 ] The Applicant had until April 29, 2026, to apply for permission to appeal. Footnote 8 The Applicant submitted an incomplete application on May 1, 2026, and a complete application on May 21, 2026. [ 7 ] Also, the Applicant seems to admit that he was [NAME]. Footnote 9 [ 8 ] So, I find that the Applicant’s application for permission to appeal was [NAME]. I am extending the time for applying [ 9 ] When deciding whether to extend the time for applying, I have to consider whether the Applicant has a reasonable explanation for why his application is [NAME]. Footnote 10 [ 10 ] The Applicant’s application for permission to appeal didn’t mention the reasons for the delay. So, I wrote to the Applicant on June 1, 2026, asking why his application was [NAME]. I gave the Applicant until June 15, 2026, to give me his reasons. [ 11 ] The Applicant responded to the Tribunal on June 12, 2026, and gave two reasons for the delay: He moved in January 2026 and was [NAME] in accessing an email (presumably from the Tribunal) [translation] “that got into [his] spam folder.” Footnote 11 [ 12 ] I find that the Applicant’s explanation for his delay is reasonable, especially for a delay of two days if you consider the date of his incomplete application and even for a delay of 22 days if you consider the date of his complete application. So, I am extending the time for the Claimant to apply for permission to appeal. I am not giving the Applicant permission to appeal [ 13 ] I can give the Applicant permission to appeal if his application has raised an arguable case that the General Division: didn’t follow a fair process decided something it didn’t have the power to decide, or didn’t decide an issue it should have decided interpreted or applied the law incorrectly got the facts wrong Footnote 12 [ 14 ] I can also give permission to appeal if the Applicant’s application has evidence that wasn’t presented to the General Division. Footnote 13 [ 15 ] 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 General Division made an error in determining that the Applicant isn’t eligible for a [NAME] survivor’s pension [ 16 ] I am of the view that the Applicant’s application for permission to appeal doesn’t raise an arguable case of error on the part of the General Division. [ 17 ] The application essentially repeats the Applicant’s arguments that [NAME] was unable to contribute to the [NAME] or the [NAME] for at least 10 years because of circumstances beyond her control: [translation] “If she was unable to get the required number of years for her beneficiaries to receive a pension, it was because of two main factors that can be verified: the accidental death of [NAME] and having cancer for a long time.” Footnote 14 [ 18 ] The evidence for these factors was before the General Division. Footnote 15 The General Division addressed that in paragraph 6 of its decision, although it didn’t refer to those factors specifically. Footnote 16 [ 19 ] But the General Division doesn’t have to refer to every piece of evidence that it has. Footnote 17 Instead, it is presumed to have considered all of the evidence. However, the General Division can make an error of law if it doesn’t analyze the evidence judicially. This can happen if, for example, the General Division doesn’t mention important evidence or ignores major contradictions in the evidence. Footnote 18 [ 20 ] I am of the view that not specifically addressing the Applicant’s two arguments mentioned above isn’t enough to raise an arguable case that the General Division made an error of fact by ignoring evidence. [ 21 ] I don’t believe that this evidence is determinative or relevant to what the General Division should have decided. The General Division deals with the Applicant’s appeal at paragraphs 18 to 22 of its decision. Footnote 19 I see no error in the General Division findings. [ 22 ] In short, I am of the view that the arguments the Applicant raised don’t show an arguable case that the General Division made an error. [ 23 ] But I can’t limit myself to analyzing the arguments the Applicant raised. I have to review the record and the General Division decision itself, and I did. Footnote 20 I am satisfied that there is no arguable case that the General Division ignored or misinterpreted evidence that could support an arguable case of error on its part. The Applicant didn’t provide any new evidence [ 24 ] The application form for permission to appeal says, “I have evidence that the General Division didn’t have.” Footnote 21 The Applicant didn’t tick the box next to this statement but indicated that he [translation] “attached” two pieces of evidence, which he described on the same page as follows: Proof of their [NAME] son’s death [Translation] “Evidence of having breast cancer for a long time and of major expenses not covered by insurance” Footnote 22 [ 25 ] But the Applicant had raised the above before the General Division. Footnote 23 Also, the evidence of their [NAME] son’s death was in the General Division file. Footnote 24 Similarly, the evidence of the Applicant’s [NAME] wife’s breast cancer was in the General Division file. Footnote 25 This isn’t new evidence. Footnote 26 [ 26 ] I lack words to express sympathy for the Applicant, who has gone through terrible losses in recent years. But the fact remains that I have no equitable jurisdiction, which means that I can’t ignore the law and decide in favour of the Applicant because of the sympathy I feel for him. [ 27 ] Finally, I only have jurisdiction to decide whether there is an arguable case of error on the part of the General Division. I have no jurisdiction under the law to order the repayment of the contributions made by the Applicant’s [NAME] wife. Footnote 27 Conclusion [ 28 ] An extension of time to apply to the Appeal Division is granted, but permission to appeal is refused. This means that the appeal won’t go ahead. Footnotes Footnote 1 See GD2-7. This is the date the Minister received the application. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 The Minister’s initial decision was dated October 23, 2024; see GD2-19 and GD2-23. The Minister’s reconsideration decision letter was dated March 27, 2025; see GD2-25. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See GD1-1. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See AD1A-1. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 See AD01-1. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 See AD01B-1. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 See section 22(1) of the Social Security Tribunal Rules of Procedure (Rules), SOR/2022-256. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 See section 57(1.1) of the Department of [RESPONDENT] [NAME]  ( [NAME]), SC 2005, c 34. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 The Applicant says on page AD1C-1, [translation] “I have two main reasons for the delay.” Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 See section 27(2) ofthe Rules . Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 See AD1C-1. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 See sections 58(1)(a) and 58(1)(b) of the [NAME]. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 See section 58(1)(c) of the [NAME]. Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 See AD1B-6. Return to footnote 14 referrer Footnote 15 See footnotes 24 and 25 below. Return to footnote 15 referrer Footnote 16 See AD1A-2. Return to footnote 16 referrer Footnote 17 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2012  FCA  82 at para 10. Return to footnote 17 referrer Footnote 18 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2013  FC  498 at para 51. Return to footnote 18 referrer Footnote 19 See AD1A-4. Return to footnote 19 referrer Footnote 20 For more information on this type of review by the Appeal Division, see [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2016  FC  615. Return to footnote 20 referrer Footnote 21 See AD1B-6. Return to footnote 21 referrer Footnote 22 See AD1B-6. Return to footnote 22 referrer Footnote 23 See GD1-14. Return to footnote 23 referrer Footnote 24 See GD1-18 and following. Return to footnote 24 referrer Footnote 25 See GD1-22 to GD1-33 and following. Return to footnote 25 referrer Footnote 26 The Applicant submitted new sections dealing with their son’s death at AD1C-2 to AD1C-15. But these sections repeat what was previously filed at GD1-18 and following. Return to footnote 26 referrer Footnote 27 What the Applicant is asking at AD1-2, AD1B-1, AD1B-6, and AD1C-1. Return to footnote 27 referrer