Credit Split Appeal Denied: Late Submission and Lack of New Evidence

Citation: [NAME]  v  [NAME] and [NAME] , 2026  [NAME]  340 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Extension of Time Decision Applicant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] K. P. Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated December 29, 2025 (GP-25-1439) Tribunal member: [NAME] Decision date: June 19, 2026 File number: AD-26-327 On this page Decision Overview Issues Analysis Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] I am refusing the Applicant permission to appeal. This appeal will not be going forward. Overview [ 2 ] The Applicant was married to the late M. S. for 37 years. M. S. was killed in a car accident on November 12, 2021. [ 3 ] The Applicant applied for a [NAME] ( [NAME] ) credit split on November 15, 2024. Footnote 1 Service Canada, the Minister’s public facing agency, denied her application because it was submitted more three years after the death of her husband. [ 4 ] The Applicant appealed Service Canada’s decision to the Social Security Tribunal. The Tribunal’s General Division held a hearing by teleconference and dismissed the appeal. It found there was no way to waive the three-year limitation on credit split applications. [ 5 ] The General Division issued its decision on December 29, 2025. The same day, the Tribunal sent the decision to the Applicant by regular mail. [ 6 ] On April 14, 2026, the Tribunal received the Applicant’s request for leave to appeal to the Appeal Division. Footnote 2 As this request appeared to be filed past the 90-day filing deadline, the Tribunal asked the Applicant to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay. Footnote 3 [ 7 ] The Applicant responded with a letter claiming that her request for leave to appeal was late because she had encountered difficulty sending it by fax. Footnote 4 Issues [ 8 ] At this stage, I have to consider the following questions: Was the Applicant’s request for leave to appeal filed on time? If the request for leave to appeal was late, is there a reasonable explanation for the delay? If there is a reasonable explanation for the delay, does the Applicant meet any grounds of appeal? Analysis The Applicant’s request for leave to appeal was late [ 9 ] An application for leave to appeal must be made to the Appeal Division within 90 days after the day on which a decision is communicated to an applicant. Footnote 5 The Appeal Division may allow further time within which an application for leave to appeal is to be made, but in no case may an application be made more than one year after the day on which the decision was communicated to the applicant. [ 10 ] In this case, the General Division issued its decision on December 29, 2025. That same day, it, like all the Tribunal’s correspondence with the Applicant, was sent by regular mail to the residential address she had provided. [ 11 ] According to the Social Security Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure , a document is considered to have been received 10 days after it was sent by regular mail. The Applicant said that she did not receive the General Division’s decision until the week of January 12, 2026. Footnote 6 It’s not clear why it would have taken so long for the decision to reach its intended recipient. In the absence of an explanation, I find that the General Division decision was received on January 8, 2026. [ 12 ] However, the Tribunal did not receive the Applicant’s request for leave to appeal until April 14, 2026 — 96 days later and nearly a week past the 90-day filing deadline. [ 13 ] I find that the Applicant’s request for leave to appeal was late. The Applicant did not have a reasonable explanation for the delay [ 14 ] When an application for leave to appeal is submitted late, the Tribunal may grant the applicant an extension of time if they have a reasonable explanation for the delay. Footnote 7 In deciding whether to grant an extension, the interests of justice must be served. Footnote 8 [ 15 ] In her application requesting leave to appeal, the Applicant referred to “fax problems.” She said that had been trying to “fax paperwork Monday and Tuesday.” [ 16 ] In her response to my request for further information, the Applicant said that her application was late because she had encountered difficulty getting through by fax for two days. [ 17 ] However, even if this is true, it doesn’t help the Applicant. Had she succeeded in transmitting a fax two days earlier, on April 12, 2026, then she still would have submitted her application four days late. The Applicant wouldn’t have qualified for leave to appeal anyway [ 18 ] Because the Applicant had no reasonable explanation for missing the filing deadline, I don’t have to decide whether her application met the grounds of appeal. However, I think it is only fair to explain to the Applicant that, even if she had filed her application on time, her appeal would have still failed. The Appeal Division initially focuses on new evidence or potential errors [ 19 ] There’s no automatic right to appeal a General Division decision. The Appeal Division must first grant leave 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 9 [ 20 ] At this initial stage, I would have had to decide whether the Applicant produced new evidence or presented an arguable case that the General Division made a mistake. The Applicant didn’t produce any relevant new evidence [ 21 ] The Applicant’s request for leave to appeal was accompanied by many documents that appear not to have been available to the General Division. Footnote 10 Among other things, they included: An email dated December 7, 2021 from [NAME], mutual fund advisor M. S.’s CRA notices of assessment for the income tax years 2019 and 2020 M. S.’s handwritten will dated January 4, 2012, leaving his estate to the Applicant Various testimonial letters from friends and associates of M. S. [ 22 ] These items all constituted new evidence, but none of them were relevant to the issues at hand: whether the Applicant missed the three-year deadline for spouses of deceased contributors to apply for a credit split and, if so, whether there was any way under the law for her to get an extension. [ 23 ] Instead, much of the material submitted by the Applicant seemed intended to show that her husband was not cohabiting with [NAME] when he died. I presume this was meant to undermine [NAME]’s claim that she was M. S.’s rightful survivor at the time of his death. Footnote 11 [ 24 ] But I don’t see how any of this new material has bearing on whether the Applicant applied for the credit split within the three-year deadline or, if not, whether there was some way to waive the deadline. In any case, it is an undisputed fact that the Applicant was still married to M. S. when he died, making it irrelevant, for the purpose of applying for the credit split, whether she, or anyone else, was cohabiting with him at the time. [ 25 ] Leave to appeal is granted if a claimant provides evidence that was not presented to the General Division. On the face of it, this language is broad, but case law has endorsed a more restrictive interpretation of what is meant by “evidence” in this context. [ 26 ]  In a recent case called  [NAME] , the Federal Court found it reasonable for the Appeal Division to refuse leave if the new evidence presented is irrelevant or arguably irrelevant. Footnote 12  In doing so, it relied on this statement from the Supreme Court of Canada: “It is a basic or bedrock concept of law that for evidence to be admissible in a proceeding it must be relevant.” Footnote 13 There’s no arguable case that the General Division made an error [ 27 ] I have reviewed the record, and I’m satisfied that the General Division didn’t misinterpret the applicable law, misconstrue the available evidence, or otherwise act unfairly. Footnote 14 [ 28 ] In her request for permission to appeal, the Applicant admitted that she submitted her  credit split application three days after the deadline. However, she said the had sent it in as soon as she could, having come down with COVID-19 during the first two weeks of November 2024. [ 29 ] However much I may sympathize with the Applicant, I can’t allow her appeal to go forward. That’s because she hasn’t demonstrated that the General Division might have made an error. [ 30 ] The General Division decided that the Applicant was ineligible for the credit split because her application was late. It based its decision on the following factors: The [NAME] says that, in the cases of spouses who have been living separate and apart for a period of one year or more, a credit split application must be made within three years of the death of a contributor. Footnote 15 The Applicant was still married to M. S. when he died on November 12, 2021, although they had separated in either May or September 2019. Footnote 16 The Applicant applied for the credit split on November 14, 2024 — three years and two days after her husband’s death. There was no mechanism under the law by which the Minister or the Tribunal could grant her an extension. [ 31 ] There’s no arguable case that, in making these findings, the General Division committed a legal or factual error or otherwise violated a principle of procedural fairness. Ultimately, the Applicant’s submissions amount to a complaint that the General Division didn’t arrive at the result she wanted. However, that is not enough to advance her appeal. Conclusion [ 32 ] The Applicant’s request for leave to appeal was late, and I saw no reason to waive the 90-day deadline, because she did not offer a reasonable explanation for the delay. But even if I had extended the deadline, I would have still refused the Applicant permission to appeal. That’s because she didn’t produce any relevant new evidence or present an argument that the General Division made an error. [ 33 ] This means her appeal will not proceed. Footnotes Footnote 1 See the Applicant’s credit split application date-stamped November 15, 2024, GD2-10. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See the Applicant’s leave to appeal application dated April 14, 2026, AD1. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See the Tribunal’s letter to the Applicant dated April 24, 2026. The deadline to provide the requested information was subsequently extended at the Applicant’s request. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See the Applicant’s letter dated May 19, 2026, AD1B. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 See section 57(1)(b) of the  Department of Employment and Social Development Act ( DESDA ). Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 See the Applicant’s application for leave to appeal, AD1-3. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 See section 27 of the Social Security Tribunal Rules of Procedure . Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 See Canada (Attorney General)  v  Larkman , 2012  FCA  204. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 See section 58.1(b) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act . Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 See documents enclosed with the Applicant’s request for leave to appeal, AD1-10 to AD1-31. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 The Applicant pursued a separate and unsuccessful claim that she, and not [NAME], was entitled to the [NAME] survivor’s pension – see the Appeal Division decision, [NAME]  v  [NAME] and [NAME] , 2025  [NAME]  1298. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2026  FC  36. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 See R  v  [NAME] , 2008  SCC  37. Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2016  FC  615. Return to footnote 14 referrer Footnote 15 [NAME] , section 55.1(1)(b)(ii). Return to footnote 15 referrer Footnote 16 For this information, the General Division relied on the Applicant’s own disclosures in her application for the credit split — see GD2-12. Return to footnote 16 referrer