Claimant's Request for Reconsideration of CPP Credit Split Denied

Citation: LS v [NAME] , 2025  [NAME]  34 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Leave to Appeal Decision Applicant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated October 7, 2025 (GP-25-766) Tribunal member: [NAME] Decision date: January 20, 2026 File number: AD-26-2 On this page Decision Overview Issues Analysis Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] Leave (permission) to appeal is refused. I see no basis for this appeal to go forward. Overview [ 2 ] The Applicant was married for 16 years, and he and his wife divorced in 2004. The Applicant’s former wife applied for a [NAME] ( [NAME] ) credit split in March 2021, and the Minister approved the application in October of that year. Footnote 1 [ 3 ] The Applicant’s former wife died in December 2023. At the time, she was 59 years old and had not yet started to receive a [NAME] retirement pension. [ 4 ] In March 2024, the Applicant asked the Minister to reconsider its decision to split his credits with his now-deceased ex-wife. The Minister refused the request, because it came more than a year after the credit split was approved. [ 5 ] The Applicant appealed the Minister’s refusal to the Social Security Tribunal’s General Division. He said that he didn’t know about the deadlines to ask for reconsideration. He added that he would have asked for reconsideration earlier if he had understood the system. [ 6 ] The General Division held a hearing teleconference and dismissed the appeal. The General Division found that the Minister had not exercised its discretion judicially when it refused the Applicant an extension of time to request reconsideration. However, the General Division also found that the Applicant still wasn’t entitled to an extension, because his case had no reasonable chance of success. [ 7 ] The Applicant is now asking the Appeal Division for permission to appeal. In doing so, he makes the following points: He has paid taxes all his life. He had no idea about the deadline to request reconsideration. He finds it unfair that missing the deadline has cost him $200 per month. His late former wife never received any [NAME] retirement pension payments. A Service Canada official once assured him that the credit split would amount to no more than trading money from one pension account to another with net zero effect: “Nobody would take anything from anybody.” Issues [ 8 ] There is 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 2 [ 9 ] At this preliminary stage, I have to decide whether the Applicant produced new evidence or presented an arguable case that the General Division made a mistake. Analysis [ 10 ] However much I may 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. The Applicant hasn’t produced any new evidence [ 11 ] The Applicant hasn’t submitted evidence that the General Division didn’t already have.

Accordingly, there is no new evidence that would justify giving Applicant permission to appeal. [ 12 ] Furthermore, I’ve reviewed the record, and I’m satisfied that the General Division didn’t ignore or misunderstand the evidence about the Applicant’s credit split or the circumstances around his request for reconsideration. Footnote 3 The Applicant hasn’t raised an arguable case [ 13 ] The Applicant hasn’t raised an argument that would justify giving him permission to appeal. [ 14 ] In essence, the Applicant’s is seeking to appeal because (i) he wasn’t aware of the reconsideration deadlines and (ii) he finds the rules governing [NAME] credit splits unfair. However, neither complaint is a valid ground of appeal. There’s no arguable case that the General Division erred in assessing the Minister’s refusal to extend the reconsideration filing deadline [ 15 ] The Minister granted the credit split on October 5, 2021. The Applicant did not submit a request for reconsideration until March 21, 2024—almost 2½ years later. [ 16 ] As the General Division rightly noted, a person who is dissatisfied with a Ministerial decision has 90 days to ask the Minister to reconsider it. Footnote 4 According to the Cananda Pension Plan Regulations , the Minister may allow a longer period to request reconsideration if it is satisfied that (i) there is a reasonable explanation for requesting a longer period and (ii) the person has demonstrated a continuing intention to request a reconsideration. Footnote 5 [ 17 ] If the request for reconsideration is made more than 365 days after the person was notified of the decision, the Minister must also be satisfied that (iii) the request has a reasonable chance of success and (iv) no prejudice would be caused to any party by allowing a longer period to make the request. Footnote 6 [ 18 ] The Minister must consider all four criteria and be satisfied that all of them have been met. Footnote 7 [ 19 ] In this case, the Applicant never denied receiving the Minister’s notice of credit split, nor did he ever deny that his request for reconsideration was late. The issue for the General Division was whether the Minister considered the Applicant’s late request in the way required by the law. [ 20 ] The General Division reviewed the record and found that, in reviewing the four regulatory criteria, the Minister considered an irrelevant factor—the fact that the Applicant’s former wife was now deceased. Footnote 8 In fact, there is nothing in the law that prohibits reversal of a credit split because one of the spouses has died. [ 21 ] From that, the General Division concluded that the Minister had failed to exercise its decision-making authority in a non-judicial manner. I see nothing to indicate that the General Division erred in coming to that conclusion. There’s no arguable case that the General Division erred in determining whether the Applicant’s request had a reasonable chance of success [ 22 ] The General Division then made its own decision about whether Applicant, despite being late, should have had more time to request reconsideration. In the end, it concluded that the Applicant was not entitled to an extension, because his request didn’t have a reasonable chance of success. [ 23 ] I don’t see an arguable case that the General Division erred in coming to that conclusion. [ 24 ] As the General Division rightly noted, all four regulatory criteria must be met where a claimant submits their request for reconsideration more than a year after the Minister issued its initial decision. If they fail to meet only one, then their claim ends. [ 25 ] The General Division correctly interpreted the law around [NAME] credit splitting. It determined that, if a divorce has been granted and one of the former spouses applies for a credit split, then a credit split is mandatory, no matter when the application was made. Footnote 9 The Federal Court of Canada has explained the mandatory nature of the credit split this way: A plain reading of subsection 55.1(1)(a) provides that the Minister was required to perform the credit split upon notification of the divorce judgment and receipt of the required information. The use of “shall” means it is imperative for the Minister to perform the credit split. “Shall” confers no residual discretion on the decision-maker… Footnote 10 [ 26 ] The General Division cited another Federal Court case to find that, after a credit split occurs, it doesn’t matter whether one of the spouses dies before receiving their pension. Footnote [ADDRESS] also suggested that there are only two situations in which a credit split can be cancelled once it’s done: The first is where benefits are payable to both former spouses subject to the credit split and the credit split would mean that the amount of benefits payable to both former spouses would decrease. But there was no evidence in this case that the credit split led to such an outcome. The second is where the former spouses have entered into a spousal agreement in which they agreed to opt out of the mandatory credit split regime. But there was nothing in this case to indicate that the Applicant ever entered into such an agreement with his former spouse. [ 27 ] The Applicant argues that it’s unfair his [NAME] pension was reduced, even though [NAME] will never benefit from the pension credits that were reallocated from his account. I see his point, but there wasn’t anything the General Division could do about it. Under the law as written, the Minister had no choice but to approve a credit split and, once done, it was final. [ 28 ] Finally, the Applicant suggests that the Minister gave him bad advice about the financial implications of [NAME]’s credit split. That’s certainly possible, but he hasn’t produced any evidence to support that claim, and this Tribunal doesn’t have independent access to any recordings, if they exist, of his discussions with Service Canada officials. [ 29 ] In any event, the Canada Pension Plan makes it clear that the Minister’s administrative errors or erroneous advice are matters left to the Minister, and only the Minister, to correct at its discretion. This means that such errors or advice, even if proven, are beyond the jurisdiction of both the [NAME]. In this case, the Minister has not admitted to misleading the Applicant and has thus not seen fit to take any corrective action. [ 30 ] The Applicant is in effect asking the Tribunal to force the Minister to do the “right thing” and cancel the credit split. Unfortunately, neither the General Division nor the Appeal Division have the authority to give the Applicant what he wants. Footnote 12 Conclusion [ 31 ] I understand that this is not the Applicant’s preferred outcome, but he hasn’t produced new evidence or raised an arguable case for a possible error by the General Division.

Accordingly, I’m refusing him permission to appeal. Footnotes Footnote 1 See Service Canada’s record indicating a notice of entitlement was sent to the Applicant on October 5, 2021. Return to footnote 1 Footnote 2 See section 58.1(b) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act . Return to footnote 2 Footnote 3 For more on the need for this kind of review, see [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2016  FC  615. (https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2016/2016fc615/2016fc615.html?resultId=718d0ab46b3144eaae3fef880a1da67f&searchId=2026-01-20T10:12:35:441/5976ac5b1d3645eda81d7cefa2a87dbb) Return to footnote 3 Footnote 4 See Canada Pension Plan, section 81(1). Return to footnote 4 Footnote 5 See Canada Pension Plan Regulations , section 74.1(3). Return to footnote 5 Footnote 6 See Canada Pension Plan Regulations , section 74.1(4). Return to footnote 6 Footnote 7 [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2018  FC  467. (https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2018/2018fc467/2018fc467.html?resultId=ba90550d70cf49b3b0eb0aed114e331f&searchId=2026-01-20T10:10:10:663/919b425cdc63496d90b69964ec5c3d4d) Return to footnote 7 Footnote 8 See the Minister’s letter dated April 14. 2025, GD2-35. As the General Division correctly noted, a Supreme Court of Canada case lists five factors that determine whether a decision-maker has exercised their discretionary decision-making authority in a judicial manner—see Canada (Attorney General) v [NAME], 2008  FCA  388. (https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2008/2008fca388/2008fca388.html?resultId=c1475117b1a6469da25223d92f19937f&searchId=2026-01-20T10:11:48:391/ba3da9d715d14ec897dab626730ceba5) Return to footnote 8 Footnote 9 See Canada Pension Plan , section 55.1(a). Return to footnote 9 Footnote 10 [NAME]   v  Social Security Tribunal of Canada , 2022  FC  1124. (https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2022/2022fc1124/2022fc1124.html) Return to footnote 10 Footnote 11 [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General),  2020  FC  744. See also, [NAME] v [NAME] , 2024  [NAME]  909. (https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/[NAME]/doc/2024/2024sst909/2024sst909.html) Return to footnote 11 Footnote 12 The courts have consistently held that an administrative tribunal is not a court but a statutory decision-maker and therefore not empowered to provide any form of equitable relief. See Pincombe v Canada (Attorney General) , [1995] F.C.J. No. 1320 (F.C.A.), among other cases. Return to footnote 12