Eligibility for Partial Old Age Security Pension Confirmed

Citation: FY  v  [NAME] , 2026  SST  169 Social Security Tribunal of Canada General Division – Income Security Section Decision Appellant: [redacted] Representative: Y. Y. Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: [NAME] reconsideration decision dated June 30, 2025 (issued by Service Canada) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: Videoconference Hearing date: March 31, 2026 Hearing participants: Appellant Appellant’s representative Respondent’s representative Interpreter Decision date: April 20, 2026 File number: GP-25-1247 On this page Decision Overview What the Appellant must prove Reasons for my decision The Appellant qualified for a partial OAS pension in October 2024 When payments start Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] The appeal is allowed. [ 2 ] The Appellant, F. Y., is eligible for a partial Old Age Security ( OAS ) pension of 10/40. Payments start as of November 2024. [ 3 ] This decision explains why I am allowing the appeal. Overview [ 4 ] The Appellant was born in China on November 19, 1954. [ 5 ] She submitted a first application for the OAS pension and the GIS benefits on January 2, 2019. Footnote 1 The [NAME] (Minister) refused her application. The Minister said the Appellant had resided in Canada for only five years and 26 days since her 18th birthday. The Appellant did not request a reconsideration of the decision. [ 6 ] She submitted a second application for the OAS pension and GIS benefits on January 22, 2024. Footnote 2 She said she wanted her pension to start in February 2023. [ 7 ] She arrived in Canada in 2010. She became a permanent resident on October 30, 2011. In her application, she said that she lived in Canada from: October 16, 2010, to October 2, 2015 October 12, 2016, to October 3, 2017 September 20, 2018, to November 26, 2022 Since May 16, 2023 [ 8 ] The Minister refused the Appellant’s application. Footnote 3 The Minister determined that the Appellant had resided in Canada for six years and 22 days from October 30, 2011, to October 4, 2015, and since May 16, 2023. Therefore, she hadn’t resided in Canada for 10 years to be eligible for the OAS pension. [ 9 ] The Appellant appealed the Minister’s decision to the Social Security Tribunal’s General Division. What the Appellant must prove [ 10 ] To receive a full OAS pension, the Appellant has to prove she resided in Canada for at least 40 years after she turned 18. Footnote 4 This rule has some exceptions. But the exceptions don’t apply to the Appellant. Footnote 5 [ 11 ] If the Appellant doesn’t qualify for a full OAS pension, she might qualify for a partial pension. A partial pension is based on the number of years (out of 40) that a person resided in Canada after they turned 18. For example, a person with 12 years of residence receives a partial pension of 12/40 the full amount. [ 12 ] To receive a partial OAS pension, the Appellant has to prove she resided in Canada for at least 10 years after she turned 18. But, if the Appellant didn’t reside in Canada the day before her application might have been approved, she has to prove she already has at least 20 years of residence. Footnote 6 [ 13 ] The Appellant has to prove she resided in Canada. She has to prove this on a balance of probabilities. This means that she has to show that it is more likely than not she resided in Canada during the relevant periods. Footnote 7 Reasons for my decision [ 14 ] I find that the Appellant is eligible for an OAS pension. She resided in Canada for at least 10 years after she turned 18. [ 15 ] I considered the Appellant’s eligibility from October 5, 2015, up to and including May 15, 2023. [ 16 ] I chose the first date because that is the date the Minister determined the Appellant stopped residing in Canada. [ 17 ] I chose the second date because that is the date the Minister determined the Appellant started to reside once again in Canada. [ 18 ] Here are the reasons for my decision. The test for residence [ 19 ] The law says that being present in Canada isn’t the same as residing in Canada. “Residence” and “presence” each have their own definition. I have to use these definitions in making my decision. [ 20 ] A person resides in Canada if they make their home and ordinarily live in any part of Canada. Footnote 8 [ 21 ] A person is present in Canada when they are physically present in any part of Canada. Footnote 9 [ 22 ] When I am deciding whether the Appellant resided in Canada, I have to look at the overall picture and factors such as: Footnote 10 where she had property, like furniture, bank accounts, and business interests where she had social ties, like friends, relatives, and membership in religious groups, clubs, or professional organizations where she had other ties, like medical coverage, rental agreements, mortgages, or loans where she filed income tax returns what ties she had to another country how much time she spent in Canada how often she was outside Canada, where she went, and how much time she spent there what her lifestyle was like in Canada what her intentions were [ 23 ] This isn’t a complete list. Other factors may be important to consider. I have to look at all the Appellant’s circumstances. Footnote 11 When the Appellant resided in Canada [ 24 ] The Appellant resided in Canada in the following periods: October 30, 2011, to October 4, 2015 September 20, 2018, to May 16, 2023 (and continues to live in Canada) [ 25 ] The Appellant didn’t reside in Canada from October 5, 2015, to September 19, 2018. [ 26 ] I will now discuss each period, starting with the earliest one. For each period, I will explain why I have decided that the Appellant did or didn’t reside in Canada. The Appellant resided in Canada from October 2011 to October 2015 [ 27 ] The Minister decided the Appellant started to reside in Canada on October 30, 2011, to October 4, 2015. So that period isn’t in dispute. I see no reason to make a different finding. The Appellant didn’t reside in Canada from October 2015 to September 2018 [ 28 ] The Appellant didn’t reside in Canada from October 5, 2015, to September 19, 2018. [ 29 ] I determined that the Appellant didn’t reside in Canada during this period because: a) she left for a period of more than one year (from October 5, 2015, to October 11, 2016) b) she then returned to Canada and stayed for only 11 months (from October 12, 2016, to October 3, 2017) c) she left again for another period of 11 months, until September 20, 2018 [ 30 ] I considered whether the rules of deemed residence applied to the Appellant’s absence during this period. The law says a person’s residence or presence in Canada continues even if they are absent for a long time, and their absence doesn’t interrupt their residence or presence in Canada if: Footnote 12 the person resides in Canada their absence was temporary they weren’t absent for more than one year [ 31 ] The Appellant has to meet all three requirements. She doesn’t meet the third requirement because she was absent from Canada for more than one year from October 5, 2015, to October 11, 2016. [ 32 ] When she returned to Canada on October 12, 2016, although the Appellant lived with her daughter and she had furniture in Canada, the Appellant did not establish ties to Canada. She stayed for 11 months and left again for China for almost one year. [ 33 ] During this three-year period (October 2015 to September 2018), the Appellant spent 23 months in China and 11 months in Canada. [ 34 ] In China, she returned to a condo that she owned. The Appellant resided in Canada from September 2018 to May 2023 [ 35 ] The Appellant resided in Canada from September 20, 2018, to May 16, 2023. [ 36 ] On September 20, 2018, the Appellant returned to Canada and lived with her daughter. [ 37 ] In a questionnaire dated and signed on July 22, 2024, and at the hearing, the Appellant said that she lived with her daughter who temporarily works in the United States. Footnote 13 She doesn’t have any other family members in Canada, but she has friends. She has furniture and her personal belongings in Canada. She filed income tax returns from 2011 to 2023, and she has had coverage from the [NAME] since 2011. [ 38 ] In China, she owns a condo and she has furniture. She doesn’t have any utility services in her name, but she has a bank account and life insurance. She doesn’t have family. She returns to China for vacation. [ 39 ] From 2018 to 2023, the Appellant visited her daughter in the United States on two occasions for periods of up to seven months. She also vacationed in Mexico with her daughter for one week. She was in the United States from September 10, 2020, to April 26, 2021, and from October 2, 2022, to May 16, 2023. [ 40 ] I don’t consider that these periods of absence interrupted her residence. Her absences were temporary and for less than one year. [ 41 ] Also, during this period, she had medical appointments in Quebec except in 2018 and 2022. Footnote 14 [ 42 ] The Appellant also submitted two letters from neighbours. [ 43 ] One neighbour said that she has known the Appellant since 2014 and although there is a language barrier, they manage to communicate. Footnote 15 The Appellant is the same age as her mother-in-law, who is from Colombia. They communicate with each other using a translation app on their phones. The Appellant has a garden in her yard, and each year she generously shares fresh, organic vegetables with them. She also shares oriental food that she prepares. Although the neighbour said that the Appellant occasionally travels, she always saw her as a resident and neighbor, not as a visitor in Canada. [ 44 ] Another neighbour said that she has known the Appellant since 2017. They became closer through the [NAME]. Footnote 16 The Appellant actively participates in many of the events. She often takes the lead in organizing food preparation for the meetings and gatherings. Outside of the club, they have a close friendship frequently sharing recipes, shopping for groceries together, and celebrating holidays such as Christmas and Chinese New Year. They have a mutual understanding that comes from sharing a similar cultural background while living in Canada. [ 45 ] Based on the evidence, the Appellant was living in Canada at her daughter’s house, she had medical visits, filed income taxes and she had social ties from September 2018 to May 2023, notwithstanding her two trips to the United States and a short vacation in Mexico. I believe that the Appellant established Canadian residence during this period. The Appellant qualified for a partial OAS pension in October 2024 [ 46 ] The Appellant qualified for a partial OAS pension of 10/40 on October 15, 2024. That is when she had resided in Canada for 10 years after she turned 18. (She was already 65 years old, was a legal resident of Canada, and had applied for the pension.) Footnote 17 [ 47 ] As of October 15, 2024, the Appellant had resided in Canada for 10 years after she turned 18: From October 30, 2011, to October 5, 2015, she resided in Canada for three years, 11 months and six days. From September 20, 2018, to May 16, 2023, she resided in Canada for four years, seven months and 27 days. As of May 17, 2023, the Appellant had to reside in Canada for another year, four months and 29 days to reach 10 years of residence. She reached those 10 years on October 15, 2024. [ 48 ] The Appellant is eligible for a pension of 10/40 of the full amount. This is because she had resided in Canada for 10 full years when she qualified. Footnote 18 When payments start [ 49 ] OAS pension payments start the month after the pension is approved. Footnote 19 The Appellant was 69 when she applied. When an application is received after a person turns 65, the approval takes effect on the latest of the following dates: Footnote 20 one year before the day it was received—in this case, January 2023 the day the Appellant qualified for a pension after turning 65 and meeting the 10-year residence requirement—in this case, October 2024 the month before the day specified in writing by the Appellant—in this case, the Appellant specified February 2023, and the month before that is January 2023 [ 50 ] The latest of these dates is October 2024. That is the effective approval date. Payments start the following month, which is November 2024. Conclusion [ 51 ] The Appellant is eligible for a partial OAS pension of 10/40. [ 52 ] This means the appeal is allowed. Footnotes Footnote 1 See page GD2-3. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See page GD2-21. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 The [NAME] (Minister) manages the Old Age Security programs for the Government of Canada. See the reconsideration decision at GD2-101. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See section 3(1)(c) of the Old Age Security Act  ( OAS Act). The Appellant also has to be at least 65 years old and a Canadian citizen or legal resident of Canada. And she must have applied for the pension. The Appellant has met these requirements. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 See section 3(1)(b) of the OAS Act. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 See section 3(2) of the OAS Act. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2013  FC  366. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 See section 21(1)(a) of the Old Age Security Regulations  ( OAS Regulations). Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 See section 21(1)(b) of the OAS Regulations. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 See Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development)  v  [NAME] , 2005  FC  76. See also [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2008  FC  1111; [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2013  FC  319; and [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2013  FC  366. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 See Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development)  v  [NAME] , 2005  FC  1277. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 See section 21(4)(a) of the OAS Regulations. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 See page GD2-42. Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 See pages GD2-72 and GD2-73. Return to footnote 14 referrer Footnote 15 See page GD1-11. Return to footnote 15 referrer Footnote 16 See page GD1-15. Return to footnote 16 referrer Footnote 17 Sections 3 to 5 of the OAS Act set out these requirements. Return to footnote 17 referrer Footnote 18 The period of residence is rounded down to the lower multiple of a year when it isn’t a multiple of a year. See section 3(4) of the OAS Act. Return to footnote 18 referrer Footnote 19 See sections 8(1) and (2) of the OAS Act. Return to footnote 19 referrer Footnote 20 See section 5(2) of the OAS Regulations. Return to footnote 20 referrer