Seasonal Worker's Retirement and GIS Eligibility

OUTCOME: Allowed

[TRANSLATION] Citation: CF  v  [RESPONDENT] and [NAME] , 2026  SST  302 Social Security Tribunal of Canada General Division – Income Security Section Decision Appellant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] M. T. Decision under appeal: [RESPONDENT] and [NAME] reconsideration decision dated September 3, 2024 (issued by Service Canada) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: In person Hearing date: April 8, 2026 Hearing participants: Appellant Appellant’s witness Respondent’s representative Decision date: April 22, 2026 File number: GP-25-1313 On this page Decision Overview Matter I have to consider first Reasons for my decision Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] The appeal is allowed. [ 2 ] The Appellant, [APPELLANT]., separated from her job in August 2020. [ 3 ] As a result, for the period from September 2020 to June 2021, the [RESPONDENT] and [NAME] (Minister) had to calculate the amount of the Appellant’s Guaranteed Income Supplement ( GIS ) using an estimate of her income. This included her [RESPONDENT] income for the year she separated from her job, that is, 2020. Overview [ 4 ] The Appellant applied for an [NAME] ) pension and a GIS in January 2020. She asked that her pension start as soon as she became eligible. She also said that she planned to retire in August 2020, the month she would turn 65. Footnote 1 [ 5 ] The Appellant completed a statement of estimated income after retirement on September 14, 2020. In that statement, she said that she had retired on August 28, 2020, that it was a seasonal job, and that she wasn’t going to go back to that job. Footnote 2 In a questionnaire sent to the Minister on April 15, 2021, she confirmed that she had permanently stopped working. Footnote 3 [ 6 ] On May 5, 2021, the Minister found that the Appellant was eligible for the GIS as of September 2020. She said that she retired in August 2020. Because of this, the Minister calculated the amount she was eligible for based on her [RESPONDENT] income for the year she retired, that is, 2020. This was instead of using her [RESPONDENT] income for the base calendar year, that is, 2019. Footnote 4 This way of calculating income for GIS purposes is commonly referred to as the option . I will come back to the method of calculating the option later in the reasons. [ 7 ] Following this decision, the Minister asked the Appellant to complete a statement of estimated income after retirement for the year 2021. In that statement, submitted on May 20, 2021, she said that she had retired from a seasonal job on August 28, 2020, but that she had gone back to it on May 6, 2021. Footnote 5 [ 8 ] In November 2022, the Minister decided that the option previously given to the Appellant, based on her separating from her job in August 2020, had to be cancelled because she hadn’t permanently ended her job in 2020. This meant that the GIS  amount could not be calculated based on the 2020 income. Rather, it had to be calculated based on the income for the base calendar year, that is, 2019. Since the 2019 income was excessive, the Minister found that the Appellant had to pay back $1,652.49. This amount corresponds to the GIS  payments she received from September 2020 to June 2021. Footnote 6 The Minister confirmed this decision on reconsideration. Footnote 7 [ 9 ] The Appellant acknowledges that she went back to work for the same employer from May to July 2021. But she says that she actually retired in August 2020. She went back to work part time to help out her employer, who was having difficulty replacing her. [ 10 ] The Minister argues that, when it comes to seasonal work, the option is available only when the work stoppage is permanent . In other words, the Minister says that the circumstances surrounding the work stoppage aren’t relevant when a person goes back to work for a seasonal employer. Going back to work for the same employer cancels the option that was already given. Matter I have to consider first [ 11 ] On April 15, 2026, a week after the April 8, 2026, hearing, the Appellant submitted an additional document. It is found at [NAME]. This document consists of a Tax Credit for Career Extension form from Revenu Québec [Quebec’s taxation authority] for the year 2025, in addition to written arguments. She argues that she meets the conditions to get the tax credit, and that Revenu Québec acknowledges that she is allowed to work after she retires. [ 12 ] I refused the late document because it isn’t relevant. Tax credits and benefits under the Old Age Security Act  ( [NAME]) are part of separate plans. Whether the Appellant is eligible for a specific tax credit isn’t relevant to finding whether she is eligible for the GIS . Reasons for my decision The GIS  option and calculation [ 13 ] The GIS is a monthly benefit for those receiving an OAS  pension who have little or no income. The GIS  amount varies depending on the [NAME]’s income. Those whose income exceeds the threshold established by the law aren’t eligible for the GIS . [ 14 ] Eligibility for the GIS is normally established for payment periods of 12 months, from July 1 to June 30. [ 15 ] Normally, the GIS amount is calculated based on income for the entire fiscal year before a payment period. This fiscal year is called the base calendar year . Footnote 8 For example, for the payment period from July 1, 2020, to June 30, 2021, the base calendar year is 2019. [ 16 ] But the GIS  program recognizes that, when a person retires or their pension income decreases, it would be problematic to calculate the GIS  amount based on their income for the base calendar year. In these circumstances and under the law, income for the year they retire or their pension income decreases ( the current year ) might be considered, instead of the income for the base calendar year. [ 17 ] This calculation method is commonly referred to as the option . [ 18 ] When a person separates from their job, they might submit an estimate of their income for the current year. Footnote 9 The GIS is then calculated based on this income estimate. The law also provides for an adjustment mechanism that allows the GIS  amount to be retroactively adjusted based on actual income once it becomes available. Footnote 10 [ 19 ] It should be noted that the mechanism of the option I have just described doesn’t arise from literally interpreting the current version of the [NAME]. Changes made to the law in 2007 removed the link between the statement of estimated income and the calculation of the GIS . Footnote 11 The current version of the law says that a person might submit a statement of estimated income for the current year under certain circumstances. But, according to a literal interpretation of the law, the GIS always has to be calculated based on the income for the base calendar year. This also affects the adjustment provision. According to a literal interpretation of the law, this provision compares the estimated income for the current year with the actual income for the base calendar year. [ 20 ] But the courts upheld the validity of the option mechanism. This was because, among other reasons, a literal interpretation of the law would lead to an absurd result that is inconsistent with the purpose of the provisions. Those provisions establish a person’s right to submit a statement of estimated income for the current year when they separate from their job or lose their pension income. Footnote 12 Since the parties agree on the validity of the method used to calculate the option, I won’t elaborate further on this issue. Separation from [RESPONDENT] [ 21 ] The issue giving rise to this appeal is how to find whether a person separated from their job under section 14(2) of the [NAME], and, in particular, from a seasonal job. [ 22 ] I didn’t find any decisions that have addressed this issue before. [ 23 ] In my view, when deciding whether a person separated from their job under section 14(2) of the [NAME], all the circumstances have to be considered. These circumstances include the employee’s and employer’s intention and conduct, in addition to the [RESPONDENT] relationship. [ 24 ] When a person goes back to work for their [NAME], the circumstances surrounding that return might also be relevant. But going back to work for the same employer doesn’t necessarily mean that the person hadn’t previously separated from their job. I note that the calculation method under the [NAME] considers any income earned when going back to work through the adjustment mechanism. [ 25 ] The relevant point in time for the analysis is when the claimant says that they separated from their job. But the circumstances surrounding a return to work might be relevant to this review. [ 26 ] I acknowledge that there are certain characteristics specific to seasonal work. In particular, seasonal work might be temporary in nature, and the [RESPONDENT] relationship might end between each work season. [ 27 ] But I disagree with the Minister that, when it comes to a person in a seasonal job, they have to permanently separate from their job to be eligible to have their GIS calculated based on the option. [ 28 ] I find that, in all cases , the separation from [RESPONDENT] has to be analyzed based on a review of all the specific circumstances of the [NAME]. The Appellant separated from her job in August 2020 [ 29 ] The evidence shows that the Appellant separated from her job on August 28, 2020. [ 30 ] At the hearing, the Appellant said that she started working in a seasonal position at X in 1982. She started working at the [NAME] in 2002 as an office clerk and billing manager. [ 31 ] The Appellant said that she worked full time, normally from March to September. Footnote 13 She also said that she normally received [RESPONDENT] ( [NAME] ) benefits between work seasons. [ 32 ] She said that she had told her employer during the 2020 work season that she wanted to retire in August 2020, and that her last day of work was August 28, 2020. She said that she ended her work season earlier than usual because she had always intended to retire when she turned 65. I note that the Appellant turned 65 in August 2020. [ 33 ] The Appellant says that she didn’t receive [NAME]  benefits after leaving in August 2020 because she considered herself to be retired. Footnote 14 [ 34 ] She also said that, at the time, she didn’t intend to go back to work for her employer. [ 35 ] All the evidence supports the Appellant’s testimony. [ 36 ] The documents on file show that the Appellant received [NAME]  benefits in 2020. Footnote 15 At the hearing, the Minister’s representative said that he believed these benefits were received before, rather than after, the 2020 work season. [ 37 ] A. B., [NAME] manager at X, testified at the hearing that she had been told during the 2020 work season that the Appellant would be retiring at the end of August 2020. Footnote 16 She testified that she understood the Appellant was leaving permanently and didn’t intent to go back to work. [ 38 ] [NAME]. [NAME]. testified that she had arranged for the final amounts owed to the Appellant to be paid. She had taken the required steps to make the employer’s contributions to the Appellant’s pension plan eligible. She also said that she had hired a replacement in the months after the Appellant left. Footnote 17 [ 39 ] I note that the Appellant also submitted an exchange of emails dated August 2020 between employees at X. In the email exchange, they were talking about offering her a package because she was retiring. Footnote 18 [ 40 ] I find that the evidence shows that the Appellant and her employer considered she had retired in August 2020. [ 41 ] The circumstances surrounding the Appellant going back to work for her employer in May 2021 support the finding that she had stopped working in August 2020. [ 42 ] At the hearing, the Appellant said that the person hired to replace her had become ill, and that her [NAME] hadn’t been able to fill the position. After her employer asked her multiple times, she agreed to go back to work in May 2021. Footnote 19 [ 43 ] In addition, the Appellant testified that she negotiated new conditions of [RESPONDENT] when she went back to work in May 2021. She had previously worked full time as an office clerk and billing manager. But when she went back to work in May 2021, she worked part time, two days a week, and handled only billing. Also, her hourly rate was increased. The Appellant submitted payroll records confirming her new hourly rate and the hours she worked after going back in May 2021. Footnote 20 [ 44 ] [NAME]. B.’s testimony at the hearing fully supports what the Appellant says about the circumstances surrounding her going back to work. Footnote 21 [ 45 ] Considering all the circumstances, I find that the Appellant established that she had separated from her job on August 28, 2020, under section 14(2) of the [NAME]. [ 46 ] So, she was eligible for her GIS to be calculated as of the month after, that is, September 2020, using the method for calculating the option under section 14(2) of the [NAME]. This method considers [RESPONDENT] income for the current year, not [RESPONDENT] income for the base calendar year. Conclusion [ 47 ] I find that the Appellant separated from her job on August 28, 2020. This means that she was eligible for her GIS to be calculated as of the month after, that is, September 2020, using the method for calculating the option under section 14(2) of the [NAME]. [ 48 ] This means that the appeal is allowed. Footnotes Footnote 1 See GD2-3 to GD2-11. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See GD2-12 and GD2-13. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See GD2-21. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See GD2-22 and GD2-23. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 See GD2-24 and GD2-25. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 See GD2-27 and GD2-28. It should be noted that, at the same time, the Minister gave the Appellant an option based on a reduction in hours as of May 2021. Based on this calculation, she became eligible for the GIS as of June 2021. The Minister applied $37.50 to the amount she had to pay back, resulting in a remaining overpayment of $1,614.99. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 See GD2-41 to GD2-43. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 See sections 10, 12, and 12.1 of the Old Age Security Act  ( [NAME]). Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 See section 14(2) of the [NAME]. This statement also has to include pension income received after the month of separation from [RESPONDENT], in addition to some other income from the base calendar year. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 See section 18 of the [NAME]. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 [NAME]  v  Canada ([RESPONDENT], [NAME]) , 2024 TCC 83 at paras 81 to 95. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 [NAME]  v  Canada ([RESPONDENT] and [NAME]) , 2017 TCC 44 at paras 26 to 38. See also [NAME]  v  [NAME] , 2010 TCC 5; [NAME]  v  Canada ([RESPONDENT], [NAME]) , 2024 TCC 83; and [NAME]  v  [NAME] , 2007 TCC 561. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 See GD1-7. Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 See GD1-22. Return to footnote 14 referrer Footnote 15 See GD2-14. Return to footnote 15 referrer Footnote 16 See GD1-20. Return to footnote 16 referrer Footnote 17 See GD1-7. Return to footnote 17 referrer Footnote 18 See GD15-3 and GD15-4. Return to footnote 18 referrer Footnote 19 See GD1-21 to GD1-23. Return to footnote 19 referrer Footnote 20 See GD2-3 to GD2-14. Return to footnote 20 referrer Footnote 21 See GD1-20. Return to footnote 21 referrer