Claimant Unsuccessful in Seeking Earlier Old Age Security Pension

Citation: CP  v  [NAME] , 2026  SST  363 Social Security Tribunal of Canada General Division – Income Security Section Decision Appellant: [redacted] Representative: A. P. Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: [NAME] reconsideration decision dated December 2, 2025 (issued by Service Canada) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: Videoconference Hearing date: June 9, 2026 Hearing participants: Appellant Appellant’s representative Decision date: June 24, 2026 File number: GP-26-327 On this page Decision Overview What the Appellant must prove Matters I must consider first Reasons for my decision Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] The appeal is dismissed. [ 2 ] The Appellant, C. P., isn’t eligible for an Old Age Security ( OAS ) pension before March 2024. [ 3 ] This decision explains why I am dismissing the appeal. Overview [ 4 ] The Appellant is 71 years old. He applied for an [NAME] on February 27, 2025, at the age of 70. Footnote 1 [ 5 ] The [NAME] (Minister) approved the Appellant’s application with payments starting as of March 2024. This was 11 months before he applied. [ 6 ] The Appellant appealed the Minister’s decision to the Social Security Tribunal’s General Division because he wanted his payments to start earlier. [ 7 ] The Appellant says he could not apply earlier because he was incapacitated between April 2019 and February 2025. He says he has mental and cognitive conditions that prevented him from being able to apply before February 2025. [ 8 ] The Minister says the law doesn’t allow the Appellant’s payments to start earlier than 11 months before he applied. There is a possible exception to this called the incapacity rule . But the Minister says the rule doesn’t apply to the Appellant. What the Appellant must prove [ 9 ] Generally, you aren’t eligible for [NAME] payments earlier than 11 months before you applied. Footnote 2 [ 10 ] There is an exception to this rule under the Old Age Security Act called the incapacity rule . If the incapacity rule applies, an application is considered to have been made earlier than it actually was. In that case, an appellant could be eligible for earlier [NAME] payments. [ 11 ] For the Appellant to succeed, he must prove it is more likely than not that the incapacity rule applies to him. This means he must prove that he was incapable of forming or expressing an intention to make an application before February 2025. The period of incapacity must be continuous. Footnote 3 [ 12 ] The legal test for incapacity is strict and narrow. It is not the same as the test for disability or having a medical condition. A person with a disability or medical condition may still be able to form or express an intention to apply for an [NAME]. Under the test for incapacity, it doesn’t matter whether you: Footnote 4 knew that the [NAME] existed knew that you had to apply for the pension didn’t think about applying for the pension could make, prepare, process, or complete an application by yourself [ 13 ] What matters is whether you were able to form or express an intention to apply. A person’s capacity to form or express an intention to apply for an [NAME] is generally no different than their capacity to form or express an intention to make other decisions in life. Footnote 5 Matters I must consider first [ 14 ] I allowed the Appellant’s representative to testify at the hearing. [ 15 ] The Appellant’s representative is his son. He was appointed as the Appellant’s power of attorney in August 2025. Footnote 6 [ 16 ] The Appellant’s representative said he wanted to provide information that his father may not understand or remember because of cognitive impairments. [ 17 ] I allowed the Appellant’s representative to testify because he is legally able to speak for and make decisions on behalf of the Appellant. It was also in the interests of fairness to allow him to provide evidence. Reasons for my decision [ 18 ] I find that the incapacity rule doesn’t apply to the Appellant. He was never incapacitated. What I must decide [ 19 ] To decide whether the Appellant meets the test for incapacity, I must consider the following matters: Footnote 7 what the Appellant says about why he didn’t apply earlier the Appellant’s evidence, including medical evidence, about the nature and extent of his limitations evidence of the Appellant’s activities during the period he says he was incapacitated, and what those activities show about his capacity to form or express an intention to apply for a disability pension What the Appellant says about why he didn’t apply earlier [ 20 ] The Appellant says he didn’t apply for an [NAME] earlier because he has cognitive impairments. He believes he suffers from dementia and that this condition made him incapable of forming or expressing an intention to apply for the pension at an earlier date. The Appellant’s medical evidence about incapacity [ 21 ] There is a medical certificate from [NAME], general practitioner, from February 2026. [NAME] says the Appellant has been treated for severe heart disease and that this condition ‘would have’ caused symptoms that include cognitive changes. [NAME] says this would have made the Appellant incapable of forming or expressing an intention to apply for an [NAME]. Footnote 8 [ 22 ] [NAME] confirmed that he isn’t the Appellant’s family doctor, didn’t treat him before October 2025, and doesn’t have access to his medical records before that date. [ 23 ] For these reasons, I don’t find [NAME]’s medical opinion is reliable or relevant. The doctor had no direct knowledge of the period when the Appellant says that he was incapacitated. The opinion wasn’t given based on a review of any reliable medical records. The significance of declaration of incapacity forms [ 24 ] The Appellant submitted a Declaration of Incapacity form completed by [NAME] on October 25, 2025. Footnote 9 It says the Appellant became incapacitated on April 24, 2019, due to heart failure and early onset dementia. [ 25 ] These forms aren’t determinative. They are just one factor for me to consider. Footnote 10 I don’t find the Declaration of Incapacity form of [NAME] to be compelling evidence that the Appellant was ever incapacitated. [ 26 ] [NAME] confirmed he wasn’t treating the Appellant when he supposedly became incapacitated. He doesn’t say how he came up with the date the incapacity began, considering he wasn’t treating the Appellant at the time. [ 27 ] There are no other medical records of [NAME] in the file, including after the date he completed the form. He works at the same clinic as [NAME], who previously indicated there were no medical records available to him before October 2025. [ 28 ] The Appellant wasn’t able to identify who [NAME] was and when he started receiving treatment with him. The Appellant’s representative confirmed the Appellant didn’t have a treating doctor for many years before he started seeing [NAME] in October 2025. The basis of [NAME]’s opinion is therefore unclear. [ 29 ] In addition to these concerns which call into question the reliability or [NAME]’s Declaration, there is no additional medical evidence of any kind from before October 2025 to suggest that the Appellant had any type of cognitive or mental impairment that affected his cognition and his ability to form or express intentions. [ 30 ] While there is medical evidence available during the period the Appellant claims he was incapacitated, it relates solely to the treatment of his heart condition. I will discuss this more below. [ 31 ] Beyond the two medical documents of [NAME] and [NAME], there is also no medical evidence after October 2025 to show that the Appellant has ever been assessed or treated for dementia or any type of cognitive impairment of any kind. The Appellant’s activities and what they show about incapacity [ 32 ] The Appellant provided his credit report, to show that he has financial debts. Footnote 11 He says that the report shows he was incapable of managing his financial affairs. [ 33 ] I don’t find the credit report compelling evidence of incapacity. There is no correlation between being in debt and being incapacitated. The credit report confirms that the Appellant opened several credit cards in 2022 and 2023, a time where he says he was incapacitated. Footnote 12 It also shows periods of time where he was making regular payments. [ 34 ] Applying for a credit card is no different than applying for an [NAME]. The Appellant’s ability to apply for and open credit cards shows that he had the capacity to form intentions in 2022 and 2023. [ 35 ] The Appellant also submitted his driving record. Footnote 13 He says it shows that he let his licence expire because of his medical condition and reduced cognition. The driving record doesn’t provide any reason for the expiry. It shows that the license expired on August 11, 2000, 19 years prior to the date the Appellant says he became incapacitated. [ 36 ] The Appellant told me he doesn’t remember why he stopped driving or when. He told me he didn’t have a vehicle. There are no medical records in the driving abstract or elsewhere that suggest the Appellant had difficulty with driving because of any medical symptoms at any point in time. [ 37 ] I don’t find the evidence of the Appellant’s driver license expiry in August 2000 is convincing evidence that he was incapacitated between April 2019 and February 2025. [ 38 ] The Appellant regularly sought medical treatment in 2024 for his heart condition. The medical records say he had trouble following instructions and taking his medication regularly. Footnote 14 [ 39 ] However, none of the treating [NAME] suggest a concern about the Appellant’s ability to understand and make decisions about his medical treatment. Footnote 15 The Appellant was alone during his medical appointments and didn’t require the help of someone to understand his [NAME] and make decisions. [ 40 ] The Appellant decided to refuse treatment in July 2024, and told [NAME] that he wanted to be able to assess how he felt without medication. He was able to agree to an alternate treatment plan. Footnote 16 The ability to make decisions and set goals for medical treatment is no different than being able to form an intention to apply for an [NAME]. [ 41 ] The Appellant’s representative told me that while he would often drive his father to medical appointments, he didn’t go inside the room during the consultations before 2025. This suggests that the Appellant’s representative had no reason to believe, during that period, that the Appellant may have been incapable of understanding or consenting to medical treatment. [ 42 ] In February 2024, a medical record from the emergency department assessed the Appellant’s psychiatric condition, and said he had a thought process that was clear and linear. Footnote 17 This suggests that the Appellant wasn’t incapacitated at that time. [ 43 ] The Appellant worked part-time throughout the period that he says he was incapacitated. He continues to work currently. He worked as a kitchen helper in a sushi restaurant. He confirmed that he worked three days per week, and usually took transit to work by himself. He never required time off work because of his mental capacity. Footnote 18 [ 44 ] The Appellant submitted an unsigned and unsworn letter from his employer. Footnote 19 It wasn’t on an official letterhead. I don’t find that it is reliable evidence for these reasons. The letter says the Appellant was given simple tasks and was always supervised at work. [ 45 ] I find that the Appellant’s consistent and ongoing work between 2019 to the present is significant evidence that the Appellant wasn’t incapacitated. Regardless of the need for supervision, he was trusted to work in a [NAME], and to make food to be served and sold to the public. [ 46 ] The Appellant’s work activity shows that he could regularly keep a schedule; that he was able to set a regular intention to go to work. He was also able to regularly set an intention to travel to work by transit on specific dates and times. The ability to set an intention to go to work or catch a bus is no different then being able to form an intention to apply for an [NAME]. [ 47 ] The Appellant confirmed that he got divorced in 2023. He was able to consent to the divorce requested by his wife. The ability to make this intention and sign the consent forms to grant a divorce request is like the ability to form other intentions and make other decisions in his life, including applying for the [NAME]. [ 48 ] The Appellant’s activities between April 2019 and February 2025 show that he wasn’t incapacitated. [ 49 ] While the Appellant’s representative was appointed as his power of attorney in August 2025, this was after the Appellant applied for the [NAME]. It doesn’t prove he was incapacitated before that time, and there is no medical evidence to show that the appointment was necessary before that time. The incapacity rule doesn’t apply to the Appellant [ 50 ] I find that the incapacity rule doesn’t apply to the Appellant. He hasn’t proven that he was incapacitated [ 51 ] There is no medical evidence to suggest any difficulty in making decisions of forming intentions between April 2019 and February 2025. [ 52 ] The medical evidence submitted by the Appellant related to incapacity was completed by [NAME] who didn’t treat the Appellant or have access to relevant medical records for the period of April 2019 to February 2025. I find that it isn’t reliable evidence. [ 53 ] The Appellant’s activities between April 2019 and February 2025 show that he was capable of making medical decisions, applying for credit cards, consenting to a divorce, and working continuously. The Appellant’s activities confirm that he wasn’t incapacitated. Conclusion [ 54 ] I find that the Appellant isn’t eligible for an [NAME] before March 2024 because he wasn’t incapacitated, and could form or express an intention to apply. [ 55 ] This means the appeal is dismissed. Footnotes Footnote 1 See GD2-3. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See section 8(2) of the Old Age Security Act . Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See section 28.1(1) of the Old Age Security Act . See also [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2018  FC  36; and [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2016  FC  1417. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2008  FCA  78; Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2016  FC  112; and [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2018  FC  51. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 [NAME]  v  Canada (Social Development) , 2008  FCA  86; Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2008  FCA  144; [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2021  FCA  211; and [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2022  FCA  47. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 See GD2-10. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2021  FCA  211 at paragraph 42. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 See GD3-2. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 See GD2-19. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2017  FC  531. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 See GD1-6. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 See GD1-9, GD1-11, GD1-13, GD1-15, and GD1-17. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 See GD4-4. Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 See GD2-30. Return to footnote 14 referrer Footnote 15 See GD2-28 to GD2-59. Return to footnote 15 referrer Footnote 16 See GD2-37. Return to footnote 16 referrer Footnote 17 See GD2-59. Return to footnote 17 referrer Footnote 18 The Appellant testified about this at the hearing. Return to footnote 18 referrer Footnote 19 See GD1-3. Return to footnote 19 referrer