Claimant's Appeal for GIS Overpayment Denied by Social Security Tribunal

Citation: NR  v  [NAME] and AR , 2026  [NAME]  357 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Leave to Appeal Decision Applicant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] A. R. Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated April 20, 2026 (GP-25-1958) Tribunal member: [NAME] Decision date: June 25, 2026 File number: AD-26-423 On this page Decision Overview Issues Analysis Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] I am refusing the Applicant permission to appeal. I see no basis for this appeal to proceed. These are the reasons for my decision. Overview [ 2 ] The Applicant is a 76-year-old retiree. In June 2016, he applied for the Guaranteed Income Supplement ( GIS ). Footnote 1 In his application, he indicated his marital status as “married.” Service Canada, the Minister’s public facing agency, approved the application at the married rate. [ 3 ] At the time, the Applicant’s wife, the Added Party, was not receiving the GIS or its subsidiary benefit, the GIS Allowance. Seven years later, she applied for the Allowance, and it was approved with an effective date of May 2022. Footnote 2 [ 4 ] Service Canada then informed the Applicant that his wife’s approval for the Allowance had resulted in an overpayment to him in the amount $5,909.91 for the period from July 2022 to December 2023. Footnote 3 This amount was later offset by an increase in the Applicant’s GIS from July 2021 to June 2023. [ 5 ] The Applicant appealed Service Canada’s recalculation to the Social Security Tribunal. He did not explicitly dispute the recalculation, but he objected to what he viewed as an assessed GIS overpayment being applied to his OAS pension without his knowledge. He also asked for the overpayment assessment to be reversed on humanitarian grounds. [ 6 ] The Tribunal’s General Division held a hearing in writing and dismissed the appeal. It found that, because the Applicant’s income had gone down after June 2021, Service Canada rightly his GIS payments adjusted upwards, bringing his account into balance. It also found that it had no authority forgive the assessed overpayment on humanitarian grounds. [ 7 ] The Applicant then requested permission to appeal from the Tribunal’s Appeal Division. He suggested that he hadn’t been told the hearing before the General Division would proceed in writing, and he expressed disagreement with the outcome. [ 8 ] The Tribunal sent the Applicant a letter reminding him of the grounds of appeal and asking him for more information. Footnote 4 He replied with a letter denying any disagreement with how the Minister recalculated his GIS entitlement. He also expressed puzzlement that Service Canada could make reassess payments and make withdrawals “without communication.” Footnote 5 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 if they present 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 6 [ 10 ] The Applicant did not produce any new evidence, so my task was to decide whether the General Division might have made a mistake that fell into one of the specified categories. Analysis [ 11 ] Although I sympathize with the Applicant, I can’t allow his appeal to go forward. That’s because he hasn’t met any of the grounds of appeal. I don’t see an arguable case that the General Division misinterpreted the applicable law, misconstrued the available evidence, or otherwise acted unfairly. The Applicant requested a hearing in writing [ 12 ] In his notice of appeal to the General Division, the Applicant requested an in-person hearing. However, he later changed his mind and left the following message with the Tribunal: “I am not available for any kind of meeting, only emails. I'm going to be out of the country for 5-6 months.” Footnote 7 [ 13 ] Later the same day, a Tribunal navigator reached out to the Applicant, as documented by the following telephone memo: “I called [the Applicant] to confirm and he wants his hearing in writing now. I explained he would not get a chance to talk with the decision maker directly and he agreed that via email is best.” Footnote 8 [ 14 ] After that, the Tribunal sent the Applicant two letters informing him that his hearing would be in writing. Footnote 9 Both letters said that the Tribunal would issue its decision after specified filing deadlines had passed. [ 15 ] Based on this record, I don’t see an arguable case that the General Division acted unfairly by proceeding in writing or by failing to give the Applicant due notice of the hearing format. The Applicant did not contest the Minister’s recalculation [ 16 ] The Applicant has repeatedly said that he takes no issue with how the Minister recalculated his GIS but with how that recalculation was communicated to him. [ 17 ] I don’t see an arguable case that the General Division erred in dismissing the Applicant’s concerns. The rules governing entitlement GIS entitlement are complex, but I reviewed the Minister’s calculations in detail, and I was able to understand how it determined that the Applicant had been overpaid by nearly $6,000 in 2022−23. Footnote 10 I don’t see how the Minister’s calculations were wrong or how the General Division erred in endorsing them. [ 18 ] The Applicant is clearly unhappy that the Minister assessed him an overpayment, and he wants it reversed because he is on a tight budget. But he had an opportunity to make this point at the General Division, and the General Division concluded that there was nothing it could do to help him. It found that it could not overlook the law and grant the Applicant relief on compassionate grounds. It found that only the Minister had the discretion to forgive all or part of an overpayment. [ 19 ] The Applicant has not identified any specific flaws in the above analysis. Instead, he is repeating essentially the same points he made at the General Division, Ultimately, his submissions amount to a complaint that the General Division didn’t give him the result he wants. But that is not enough to advance his appeal. Conclusion [ 20 ] Based on the evidence before it, the General Division had reason to dismiss the Applicant’s appeal. I understand that this is not the outcome the Applicant wants, but he hasn’t raised an arguable case that the General Division committed an error.

Accordingly, I’m refusing him permission to appeal. Footnotes Footnote 1 See the Applicant’s application for the GIS date-stamped June 3, 2016, GD2-11. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See Service Canada’s letter to the Added Party dated December 28, 2023, GD2-16. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See Service Canada’s letters to the Applicant dated December 28, 2023 (GD2-19) and October 4, 2025 (GD2-21). Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See the Tribunal’s letter dated June 8, 2026. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 See the Applicant’s letter dated June 16, 2016, AD1B-2. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 See section 58.1(b) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act . Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 See telephone conversation log dated January 9, 2026. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 See Navigator GD- IS call history checklist dated January 9, 2026. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 See the Tribunal’s letter dated January 13, 2026 (GD5) and February 17, 2026 (GD8) Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 I reviewed the Minister’s explanations set out in its submissions dated February 16, 2026 (GD6) and February 17, 2026 (GD7). Return to footnote 10 referrer