Claimant Partially Successful in OAS Pension Appeal

OUTCOME: Allowed in Part

[TRANSLATION] Citation: SZ  v  [RESPONDENT] and [NAME] , 2026  [NAME]  226 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Decision Appellant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] [COUNSEL] [NAME] and [COUNSEL] under appeal: General Division decision dated June 20, 2025 (GP-24-810) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: In person Hearing date: April 2, 2026 Hearing participants: Appellant Respondent’s representative Decision date: June 1, 2026 File number: AD-25-589 On this page Decision Overview Issue Analysis Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] The appeal is allowed in part. [ 2 ] As of April 2, 2026, the Appellant had 16 years and 298 days of residence in Canada. Overview [ 3 ] The Appellant applied for an [NAME] ) pension on December 5, 2014. Footnote 1 In this application, he said that he wanted to apply for the Guaranteed Income Supplement ( GIS ). Footnote 2 Under the [NAME] between Canada and Italy, the [RESPONDENT] and [NAME] (Minister) approved his application for a partial OAS  pension of 13/40, as of March 2014. Footnote 3 [ 4 ] On June 29, 2016, the Appellant asked that the Minister’s initial decision be reconsidered. Footnote 4 In a reconsideration decision letter, the Minister upheld its initial decision. Footnote 5 [ 5 ] The Appellant appealed to the Social Security Tribunal (Tribunal) on May 2, 2024. Footnote 6 On June 19, 2025, the General Division dismissed his appeal. Footnote 7 On September 16, 2025, he asked the Appeal Division for permission to appeal, and it was given to him on November 12, 2025. Footnote 8 Issue [ 6 ] To receive a full OAS  pension, the Appellant has to prove he resided in Canada for at least 40 years after he turned 18. Footnote 9 This rule has some exceptions. But the exceptions don’t apply to him. Footnote 10 [ 7 ] If the Appellant doesn’t qualify for a full OAS  pension, he might qualify for a partial pension. A partial pension is based on the number of years (out of 40) that a person resided in Canada after they turned 18. [ 8 ] For example, a person with 12 years of residence receives a partial pension of 12/40 the full amount. To receive a partial OAS  pension, the Appellant has to prove he resided in Canada for at least 10 years after he turned 18. Footnote 11 [ 9 ] As I noted above, the Minister, under the [NAME] between Canada and Italy, already gave the Appellant an OAS  pension of 13/40. So, for him to succeed, he has to prove to me that he was a resident of Canada for a period of more than 13 years after he turned 18. [ 10 ] I note that the Minister has accepted a period of 13 years and 103 days of residence. I will come back to this below. [ 11 ] So, the issue is the following: Did the Appellant have more residence in Canada during the periods the Minister disputed? Analysis [ 12 ] I found that the Appellant had 16 years and 298 days of residence in Canada. Here is why. What the Appellant has to prove [ 13 ] The factors that I have to weigh to find whether the Appellant had periods of residence in Canada were set out by the Federal Court in Canada ([NAME])  v  [NAME] : Footnote 12 ties in the form of personal property social ties in Canada other ties in Canada (medical coverage, driver’s licence, rental lease, tax records, etc.) ties in another country regularity and length of stay in Canada, and the frequency and length of absences from Canada the person’s mode of living, or whether the person living in Canada is sufficiently deep rooted and settled [ 14 ] The burden of proving periods of residence in Canada is on the Appellant. Footnote 13  He has to prove this on a balance of probabilities. As of April 2, 2026, the Appellant had 16 years and 298 days of residence in Canada [ 15 ] I find that, as of April 2, 2026, the Appellant had 16 years and 298 days of residence in Canada. Periods of residence in Canada that the Minister accepts [ 16 ] The Minister accepts that the Appellant resided in Canada during the following periods: [APPELLANT], 1986, to February 15, [APPELLANT], totalling 11 years and 10 days from November 15, [APPELLANT], to February 15, 2001, totalling 2 years and 93 days [ 17 ] So, the Minister recognizes that the Appellant had 13 years and 103 days of residence in Canada. Footnote 14 Given the Minister’s admission, I won’t analyze the evidence for those periods any further. So, I count that he had 13 years and 103 days of residence in Canada, before moving on to analyze the disputed periods. Disputed periods [ 18 ] So, the Minister disputes whether the Appellant resided in Canada during the following periods: from February 16, [APPELLANT] from February 16, 2001, to the April 2, 2026, hearing [ 19 ] So, I will apply the [NAME] factors set out above to these periods. The Appellant wasn’t a resident of Canada from December 1, 2002, to April 2, 2006 The two names that the Appellant uses [ 20 ] At the outset, I will briefly say that I don’t hold it against the Appellant in any way that he used two names in his life. I readily accept his explanation that he used a pseudonym as a journalist for a significant part of his life. Footnote 15 As a result, documents on file, both official and unofficial, appear to alternate between his two names. I also accept his explanations that official documents were issued to him under the two names he used. Footnote 16 [ 21 ] I am of the view that there is no evidence of bad faith or wrongdoing on the part of the Appellant in using a pseudonym, in addition to his birth name. Also, the Minister doesn’t raise this as one of its arguments. So, I read the documents on file without distinguishing between the Appellant’s birth name and his pseudonym. I don’t hold the use of this pseudonym against him in any way. Ties in the form of personal property [ 22 ] The evidence suggests that the Appellant kept his properties and personal papers in Canada. Footnote 17 The fact that he kept some personal property in Canada could argue for a finding of residence in Canada. But, and I will come back to this point, he owned a residence in Italy and one in Croatia during the disputed period. The Appellant’s social ties in Canada versus in Italy [ 23 ] The evidence shows that the Appellant has a son in Italy and a daughter in Canada. He has a grandchild in Italy, and his daughter was expecting a child in Canada. His mother lived in Italy until she died last [APPELLANT]. He has a few friends in Quebec and has had a few partners there. I believe that this factor doesn’t argue either for or against a finding that he was a resident of Canada. Other ties in Canada (medical coverage, driver’s licence, rental lease, tax records, etc.) and ties in Italy [ 24 ] The Appellant held a Quebec driver’s licence throughout the disputed period. Footnote 18 He also says that he had a health insurance card during that period. Footnote 19 He always filed his taxes in Canada. Footnote 20 [ 25 ] The Appellant is a Canadian citizen, but he is also an Italian citizen. He says that he lost his Italian citizenship for a period of time. The evidence isn’t entirely clear as to how long this period lasted. But it seems that, for most of the disputed period, he was both a Canadian and an Italian citizen. Footnote 21 He held both Canadian and Italian passports during the disputed period. He hasn’t held an Italian passport since only 2022. Footnote 22 [ 26 ] There is no rental lease on file. It appears that the Appellant rarely had a written lease for his accommodations in Canada. There is also no evidence that he used [NAME], such as [NAME] or Hydro-Québec , during the disputed period. Footnote 23 [ 27 ] I believe that, taken as a whole and given the ambiguity, the above factors don’t argue for a finding that the Appellant was a resident of Canada. Regularity and length of stays in Canada, and the frequency and length of absences from Canada [ 28 ] I am of the view that the evidence relating to this factor is rather difficult to determine, and it isn’t very reliable. [ 29 ] First, the Appellant’s statements regarding his trips are rather contradictory and not clear. In a questionnaire completed in 2019, he listed many trips to Ukraine, but he didn’t seem to note any trips to Italy. Footnote 24 [ 30 ] Later, when the Tribunal asked him about his stays outside Canada since the [APPELLANT] 2000, the Appellant said that he could not remember them accurately. He listed only a few trips since 2013, presumably to Italy, even though this wasn’t specifically said. Footnote 25 [ 31 ] It seems reasonably established that the Appellant travelled to Italy during the disputed period, either for family reasons or for work. He worked for his father’s business. But there is little evidence of this, except for trips he took for medical reasons in the 2010s. I will come back to this. [ 32 ] Also, some of the factors the Minister relies on to support its finding that there was no residence don’t seem very convincing to me: In an interview with [APPELLANT]. [APPELLANT]., the son of the Appellant’s landlord at the time, he allegedly said that the Appellant had left on a [translation] “long trip.” This doesn’t say much, since a long trip for some could mean two to three weeks, while for others it could mean many months. When searching for the Appellant’s Facebook page, one is found under his pseudonym. The search shows that he [translation] “lives in X,” in Italy. Without additional context, I find this evidence to be rather weak. The Canada Border Services Agency’s travel history suggests 16 trips outside Canada between May 2001 and April 2014. Nothing here specifies how long each trip lasted, and that would be a rather important piece of information. [ 33 ] I find that the evidence doesn’t allow me to establish with any degree of precision when the Appellant was present in Canada and when he was absent. [ 34 ] Given this, and given that, in my view, the other factors are ambiguous, the factor of the Appellant’s mode of living is likely to be decisive in this case. The person’s mode of living, or whether the person living in Canada is sufficiently deep rooted and settled [ 35 ] I find that, for most of the disputed period, except for a period that I will address in the following section, the Appellant didn’t have a mode of living that was sufficiently deep rooted and settled in Canada. [ 36 ] The Appellant clearly testified, both in his written arguments on file and at the hearing, that he believed this to be the case. He repeated many times that he had been a Canadian citizen for almost 40 years. In addition, he filed statements from many people in support of his position: [NAME]. S. Footnote 26 A. M. Footnote 27 E. F. Footnote 28 [NAME].

V. Footnote 29 J. M. Footnote 30 M. D. Footnote 31 [ 37 ] These are people who knew the Appellant and who attest to his accommodations in Canada, specifically that he was [translation] “physically resident” in those accommodations. They also refer to his [translation] “trips.” But none of the statements appear to specify how long those trips lasted. Many statements also refer to properties the Appellant owned in Italy and Croatia. [ 38 ] [NAME]. also testified at the hearing about the different accommodations the Appellant had rented from his father and him over the years. He also testified that the rent was always paid in cash, and that the Appellant had paid his father the rent in euros until his father died in 2022. [ 39 ] These statements show ties between the Appellant and Canada. He does, in fact, have some ties in Canada. But I believe that other pieces of evidence on file allow me to find that he didn’t have a mode of living that was sufficiently deep rooted and settled in Canada. [ 40 ] First, the Régie de l’assurance-maladie du Québec [[NAME]] ([NAME]) record of the Appellant’s medical visits is on file, covering the period from January 1, 1996, to April 17, 2014. Footnote 32 This type of record is often used in cases like this one to prove that a person was a resident of Canada: Frequent and consistent medical visits in Canada tend to prove residence in Canada. [ 41 ] But, from 2003 to 2014, the record shows only 2 visits: a visit in February 2005 and another in March 2011. Between 2003 and 2014, when the Appellant was between 54 and 65 years old, it seems unlikely to me that he would have needed to see doctors only twice in 11 years. Also, the Appellant’s medical visits were consistent up until September 2002. There were almost no visits after that. Finally, a letter from an optician on file shows that there were 5 eye exams between 2004 and 2014, that is, 1 every 2 years. Footnote 33 I find that this doesn’t seem to be enough to counteract how weak the evidence is regarding his medical visits. Footnote 34 [ 42 ] In fact, it is rather likely that the Appellant had almost no medical visits in Quebec because he tended to get care in Italy. I reiterate that it is unlikely that a 54-[APPELLANT]-old man, who had consistent medical visits up until September 2002, would no longer need to see a doctor after that. So, the evidence shows that many trips were taken to Italy in recent years to treat cancer or pancreatitis. Footnote 35 [ 43 ] The Appellant says that he chose the [NAME] because it offered him [translation] “prompt interventions and treatments.” Footnote 36 He also says that he was able to receive free medical care in Italy. Footnote 37 I agree, but this shows his ties in Italy rather than in Canada. [ 44 ] I also note that, for a long time, the Appellant paid his rent in Canada not only in cash, but also in euros. At the hearing, he testified that he kept his euros from his trips: [translation] “When I go on my trip, I come back with money.” He also testified that his rent was 300 euros per month. [ 45 ] In my view, the fact that the Appellant had so many euros in Canada, where transactions are made in dollars, reflects significant ties to Italy. This likely shows that he was frequently in Italy. But, as I noted above, the evidence of when he was present or absent is difficult to determine. [ 46 ] Also, in the 2000s, and for what seems to have been a few years, the Appellant worked for his father’s business in Italy. Footnote 38 He doesn’t appear to have had any job in Canada during the disputed period. Footnote 39 [ 47 ] Finally, during the disputed period, the Appellant never owned any property in Canada. He owned a property in Italy from 2013 to 2025, having inherited it from his father. Footnote 40 He also appears to have owned properties in Croatia. Footnote 41 [ 48 ] I believe that the above factors, taken as a whole, show that the Appellant had more significant ties to Italy than to Canada for most of the disputed period. Whether it be for health care, euros, working for his father, or owning property in Italy and Croatia, I find that he chose to have ties elsewhere. [ 49 ] So, I find that the Appellant didn’t have a mode of living that was sufficiently deep rooted and settled in Canada. He wasn’t a resident of Canada for the disputed period, except for the period that I will address in the next section. The Appellant was a resident of Canada from February 16, [APPELLANT], and from February 16, 2001, to November 30, 2002 [ 50 ] There is an exception to the above: One piece of evidence on file leads me to find that the Appellant was, in fact, a resident of Canada for the periods from February 16, [APPELLANT], and from February 16, 2001, to November 30, 2002. [ 51 ] In fact, a letter from the [NAME] dated February 19, 2015, said that the Appellant received last-resort financial assistance benefits from December 12, 1995, to November 30, 2002. Footnote 42 [ 52 ] The Minister denied that the Appellant was a resident of Canada during those periods. It said that he was [translation] “frequently absent from Canada and wasn’t able to provide enough evidence of residential ties in Canada.” Footnote 43 [ 53 ] The Appellant testified that he had [translation] “never been outside Quebec during that period; it was mandatory to sign and submit the statement to get it.” He was referring to [NAME]. Footnote 44 He also wrote that he had to provide a signed document every month to receive these last-resort benefits. Footnote 45 [ 54 ] The Appellant said in a statement on file that he received social welfare until the end of 2003. At the hearing, he testified that he lived on [NAME] until 2005, and that he travelled only for short periods during that time. [ 55 ] I noted above that the evidence of when the Appellant was present in Canada or absent from it during the disputed periods is tenuous. This applies to both parties. The evidence of when he was present in Canada or absent from it makes it difficult to find that he resided here for most of the periods the Minister disputes. But I accept his statement that he had to be present every month to provide a signed document to get last-resort benefits. [ 56 ] Also, the [NAME]’s record of visits shows that medical visits were consistent during this period, up until September 2002. Footnote 46 The evidence of when the Appellant was absent during this period is simply too tenuous to counteract the above. [ 57 ] So, I am adding the following periods of residence in Canada for the Appellant: [redacted] from February 16, 2001, to November 30, 2002, totalling 653 days or 1 [APPELLANT] and 288 days This amounts to a total of 3 years and 195 days. [ 58 ] The Minister already recognized periods of residence in Canada totalling 13 years and 103 days. This means that, by adding this period of 3 years and 195 days to those periods, I get a total of 16 years and 298 days of residence in Canada for the Appellant. Conclusion [ 59 ] As of April 2, 2026, the Appellant had 16 years and 298 days of residence in Canada. [ 60 ] This means that the appeal is allowed in part. Footnotes Footnote 1 This is found at GD2-301. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See GD2-304. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See GD2-317. See also GD6-3 at para 10. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See GD2-327. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 See GD2-337. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 See GD1-1. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 See AD1-11. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 See AD1-1. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 See section 3(1)(c) of the Old Age Security Act  ( OAS  Act). The Appellant also has to be at least 65 years old and a Canadian citizen or legal resident of Canada. And he must have applied for the pension. The Appellant has met these requirements. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 See section 3(1)(b) of the OAS  Act. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 To the extent that he resided in Canada on the day before his application was approved, in accordance with section 3(2)(b) of the OAS  Act, or to the extent that the [NAME] between Canada and Italy applies. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 See Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development)  v  [NAME] , 2005  FC  76. Also, this list of factors doesn’t cover everything. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 Periods of residence have to be proven on a balance of probabilities, as set out in [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2013  FC  366. Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 I checked the Minister’s calculations at GD2-308 and GD2-319, and they are correct. The Minister appears to have used the same calculation in the reconsideration decision letter at GD2-337. But, rather than just years and days, the calculation is expressed in years, months, and days: 13 years, 3 months, and 13 days. Return to footnote 14 referrer Footnote 15 In addition, this is what the Appellant answered to question 2 at GD11-3. Return to footnote 15 referrer Footnote 16 See the Appellant’s answers to questions 3 and 10 at GD11-3 and GD11-4. Return to footnote 16 referrer Footnote 17 See the Appellant’s answer to question 41 at GD11-10. Return to footnote 17 referrer Footnote 18 See GD2-96 and following. See also the answer to question 57 at GD11-13. Return to footnote 18 referrer Footnote 19 See the answers to question 54 at GD11-12. Return to footnote 19 referrer Footnote 20 See the answer to question 32 at GD11-8. Return to footnote 20 referrer Footnote 21 Also, see the Appellant’s answers to questions 21 and 22 at GD11-6 and GD11-7. His testimony at the hearing didn’t clarify this point for me. It is possible that he lost the Italian citizenship only in 1999 and 2000, but this wasn’t clear. Also, see GD2-353, where he says that he had renounced his Italian citizenship. But the rest of the evidence seems to show that he lost it because he was a Canadian citizen. Return to footnote 21 referrer Footnote 22 See the answer to question 61 at GD11-14. Return to footnote 22 referrer Footnote 23 A letter from [NAME] dated May 9, 2014, suggests that the Appellant was a [NAME] customer between October 1988 and March 1991, but not since then. Return to footnote 23 referrer Footnote 24 See GD2-333. Return to footnote 24 referrer Footnote 25 See the answer to question 59 at GD11-13. Return to footnote 25 referrer Footnote 26 It is dated February 19, 2015. See GD2-295, GD2-325, and GD2-341. Return to footnote 26 referrer Footnote 27 It is dated February 25, 2015. See GD2-296, GD2-321, GD2-324, and GD2-357. Return to footnote 27 referrer Footnote 28 It is dated February 24, 2015. See GD2-297, GD2-326, and GD2-358. Return to footnote 28 referrer Footnote 29 It is dated March 2, 2015. See GD2-300. Return to footnote 29 referrer Footnote 30 It is dated February 18, 2015. See GD2-359. Return to footnote 30 referrer Footnote 31 It is dated February 25, 2015. See AD14-4. Return to footnote 31 referrer Footnote 32 See GD2-62 to GD2-66. Return to footnote 32 referrer Footnote 33 See GD2-178. Return to footnote 33 referrer Footnote 34 The Appellant did submit bank statements to try to support a finding of residence in Canada. But, from 2007 to 2010, there appears to be very little activity. From 2011 to 2014, there is moderate activity, but sometimes there are long periods with no activity. I don’t believe that these statements support a finding that the Appellant was a resident of Canada. Return to footnote 34 referrer Footnote 35 See the answer to question 23 at GD11-7. Return to footnote 35 referrer Footnote 36 See GD7-5. Return to footnote 36 referrer Footnote 37 See the answer to question 56 at GD11-12. Return to footnote 37 referrer Footnote 38 See the answer to question 53 at GD11-12. Return to footnote 38 referrer Footnote 39 See GD2-205. Return to footnote 39 referrer Footnote 40 See the answer to question 20 at GD11-6. Return to footnote 40 referrer Footnote 41 See the investigation report dated September 10, 2014, at GD2-281. See also the sworn statements at GD2-295, GD2-296, and GD2-359. Return to footnote 41 referrer Footnote 42 See GD2-298 and GD2-323. Return to footnote 42 referrer Footnote 43 See AD13-8. Return to footnote 43 referrer Footnote 44 See GD11-11. Return to footnote 44 referrer Footnote 45 See GD2-327. Return to footnote 45 referrer Footnote 46 See GD2-63 and GD2-64. Return to footnote 46 referrer