Claimant's CPP Pension Increase Appeal Rejected by Social Security Tribunal

OUTCOME: Dismissed

Citation: CG  v  [RESPONDENT] and [NAME] , 2026  [NAME]  157 Social Security Tribunal of Canada General Division – Income Security Section Decision Appellant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] [RESPONDENT] and [NAME] reconsideration decision dated May 21, 2025 (issued by Service Canada) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: In person Hearing date: March 23, 2026 Hearing participants: No one appearing Decision date: April 1, 2026 File number: GP-25-1425 On this page Decision Overview What I have to decide Matters I have to consider first Reasons for my decision Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] The appeal is dismissed. [ 2 ] The Appellant, [APPELLANT]., isn’t eligible for an increased [NAME] ( [NAME] ) retirement pension. This decision explains why I am dismissing the appeal. Overview [ 3 ] The Appellant applied for a [NAME] retirement pension on November 29, 2021. She said she wanted her pension to start in January 2022 which is the month after her 65th birthday. Footnote 1 [ 4 ] The [RESPONDENT] and [NAME] (Minister) granted the application. On December 14, 2021, the Minister sent the Appellant a letter saying she would receive $791.39 per month. [ 5 ] In August 2024, the Appellant asked the Minister to reconsider the amount of her pension. She said the amount was wrong because of fraud. She said $2500 was missing from her June 2007 contributions. Footnote 2 [ 6 ] The Minister reconsidered the amount of the Appellant’s pension. It said the Appellant’s pension amount was calculated correctly. [ 7 ] The Appellant appealed the reconsideration decision to the Social Security Tribunal’s General Division. What I have to decide [ 8 ] I have to decide if the Appellant is entitled to an increased [NAME] retirement pension. Matters I have to consider first The Appellant wasn’t at the hearing [ 9 ] A hearing can go ahead without the Appellant if she got the notice of hearing. Footnote 3 I decided that the Appellant got the notice of hearing because the Tribunal sent it to her the same way the first notice of hearing was sent to her – by e-mail. She gave the Tribunal authorization to communicate with her by e-mail on September 18, 2025. [ 10 ] The Appellant e-mailed the Tribunal on January 16, 2026, after she got the first notice of hearing Footnote 4 on January 14, 2026. She told the Tribunal she wasn’t available for a hearing on the chosen date of February 4, 2026. Footnote 5 [ 11 ] The Appellant didn’t give any alternate dates, so on January 19, 2026, the Tribunal e-mailed her six alternate dates with two different times on each of the dates except one. The Tribunal asked that she choose one. Footnote 6 [ 12 ] The Appellant didn’t answer the Tribunal’s e-mail to choose a new date. So, on February 6, 2026, the Tribunal sent a new notice of hearing to the Appellant and picked a date from the list they sent the Appellant on January 19, 2026. Footnote 7 [ 13 ] The Appellant didn’t contact the Tribunal between January 19, 2026, and the hearing date of March 23, 2026. Just as this decision was about to be sent out, the Appellant contacted the Tribunal. This was more than a week after the hearing. She still didn’t explain why she didn’t come to the hearing. So, I didn’t reschedule it. [ 14 ] Because e-mailed documents are considered received by parties the day after they are sent, the Tribunal considered the Appellant to have received the new notice of hearing on February 7, 2026. So, the Appellant had more than six weeks’ notice of the hearing. [ 15 ] So, the hearing took place when it was scheduled, but without the Appellant. Reasons for my decision [ 16 ] The Appellant says the reason for her appeal is lying. While she doesn’t give details, she later says she made two contributions to [NAME] in the total amount of $2500.00 that are missing from the Minister’s calculations. She provides no proof. Footnote 8 [ 17 ] The Appellant provides some calculations in one of her submissions, but she didn’t come to the hearing so I could not ask her to explain them. [ 18 ] The Appellant sent in several other submissions in which she made many allegations against politicians and the Tribunal. Footnote 9 [ 19 ] I have to make my decision based on the legislation. So, the only matter I can decide is whether the Appellant is entitled to an increased amount of [NAME] retirement pension. The Minister didn’t find any evidence of missing deposits from the Appellant [ 20 ] The Minister found no evidence of missing deposits made by the Appellant. The fraud allegations the Appellant makes are unclear. Because she didn’t attend the hearing, I could not ask her for more information. The Minister’s calculations are correct [ 21 ] The Minister explains their calculations in their submissions. Footnote 10 [ 22 ] An appellant’s contributory period runs from the later of the month after their 18th birthday or January 1, 1966, to the earlier of: the month prior to the effective date of their retirement pension the month of their 70th birthday the month of their death Footnote 11 [ 23 ] I agree with the Minister who says correctly that the Appellant’s contributory period was from January 1975 (a month after her 18th birthday) to December 2021 (a month before the effective date of her retirement pension). I also agree that this totals 564 months. [ 24 ] Section 48 of the [NAME] explains how to calculate the amount of a person’s [NAME] retirement pension. [ 25 ] After finding the total number of months in the Appellant’s contributory period, the Minister does what the law tells them to do. The Minister deducts 96 months of low or no earnings, which means there are 468 months left in the Appellant’s contributory period (564-96 = 468). This benefits the Appellant because the Appellant’s total pensionable earnings are then divided by fewer months which means she has a higher average for her monthly pensionable earnings. [ 26 ] Next, the Minister totals the Appellant’s monthly pensionable earnings. The Appellant’s total pensionable earnings are $1,386,298, which is $1,481,474 in present value. The Appellant didn’t dispute these amounts other than her allegation that there was $2500 missing, which I talked about earlier. [ 27 ] The Minister then figures out the Appellant’s average monthly pensionable earnings by dividing the total ($1,481,474) by the number of months (468). The Appellant’s [NAME] retirement pension is 25% of the average monthly pensionable earnings. In summary: $1,481,474 divided by 468 = $3165.54 25% of $3165.54 = $791.39 Footnote 12 [ 28 ] I agree with the Minister’s calculation of the Appellant’s monthly [NAME] retirement pension amount of $791.39. [ 29 ] The Minister explains why the amount the Appellant gets as [NAME] retirement pension now isn’t the same as this number. Since the Minister started paying the Appellant her [NAME] retirement pension the Appellant’s pension has gone up each year by the cost of living. As the Minister explains in the reconsideration decision letter by May 2025 the amount of the Appellant’s monthly pension had gone up to $879.91. Footnote 13 Conclusion [ 30 ] I find that the Appellant isn’t eligible for an increased [NAME] retirement pension amount. [ 31 ] This means the appeal is dismissed. Footnotes Footnote 1 The Minister’s submissions at GD24-3 say that the Appellant wanted her pension to start the month after her 66th birthday, but her birth certificate at GD2-21 shows she was born in [DATE]. She asked that her pension start in January 2022 which is the month after her 65th birthday. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See request for reconsideration at GD2-11. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 Section 58 of the Social Security Tribunal Rules of Procedure sets out this rule. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See first notice of hearing at GD0. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 See appellant’s email at GD30-1. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 See Tribunal’s January 19, 2026, email to the Appellant. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 See new notice of hearing at GD0A. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 See Appellant’s submissions at GD4. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 See for example, Appellant’s submissions at GD17, GD26, GD28, and GD29. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 See GD24. See also, GD2-5 for a fuller explanation. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 See section 49 of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 See Minister’s submissions at GD24-7. At the top of the page, the Minister says the average monthly pension is $3165.54 but at the bottom of the page, the Minister says $2,944.17. Despite this, their end number after the 25% is applied is the same as I find, specifically $791.39. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 See reconsideration decision letter at GD2-7. Return to footnote 13 referrer