Social Security Tribunal Denies Leave to Appeal on CPP Pension

OUTCOME: Refused

Citation: CG  v  [RESPONDENT] [NAME] , 2026  [NAME]  152 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Leave to Appeal Decision Applicant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] General Division decision dated April 1, 2026 (GP-25-1425) Tribunal member: [NAME] date: May 14, 2026 File number: AD-26-308 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 is a 69-year-old retiree. She applied for a CPP retirement pension in November 2021. Footnote 1 She said that she wanted her pension to start in January 2022, the month after her 65th birthday. [ 3 ] Service Canada, the Minister’s public-facing agency, approved the application. It sent the Applicant a letter saying that she would receive $791.39 per month. Footnote 2 [ 4 ] In August 2024, the Applicant asked Service Canada to reconsider the amount of her pension. She alleged that Service Canada employees had fraudulently deducted $5,000 from her CPP account in 2007−08. Footnote 3 On reconsideration, Service Canada maintained its decision. Footnote 4 [ 5 ] The Applicant appealed to the Social Security Tribunal. The Tribunal’s General Division convened an in-person hearing, at which the Applicant failed to appear. In her absence, the General Division dispensed with an oral hearing and decided the appeal based on a review of the existing documentary record. In the end, the General Division dismissed the appeal. It found no evidence of fraud and nothing to indicate that Service Canada had calculated the Applicant’s pension incorrectly. [ 6 ] The Applicant then requested leave, or permission, to appeal the General Division’s decision. Footnote 5 She expressed her disagreement with the General Division’s decision and repeated her allegation of fraud against Service Canada. She said that, as a result of the alleged fraud, her OAS pension was $512.05 less than it should have been. [ 7 ] The Tribunal sent the Applicant a letter asking her to provide any additional evidence of fraud that she might have in her possession. Footnote 6 It also reminded her of the statutory grounds of appeal. [ 8 ] The Applicant has now responded with an email reiterating her claim that she is the victim of fraud. Footnote 7 She demanded that her CPP account be corrected immediately and alleged that Tribunal staff had treated her abusively over the telephone. [ 9 ] Having reviewed the record, I can’t allow his appeal to proceed. That’s because the Applicant hasn’t met any of the grounds of appeal. Issues [ 10 ] There’s 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 presents 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 8 [ 11 ] At this preliminary stage, I must decide whether the Applicant has produced new evidence or presented an arguable case that the General Division made some kind of mistake. Analysis The Applicant didn’t produce any new evidence [ 12 ] The Applicant submitted several documents in response to my request for additional evidence, including letters that she had previously written to Service Canada and other institutions. Footnote 9 Some of these letters had already been made available to the General Division, and none of them contained new information. More to the point, the letters are not really items of evidence but restatements of the unsubstantiated allegations that are the subject of her appeal. There’s no arguable case that the General Division made an error [ 13 ] 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 10 [ 14 ] The General Division found no evidence of fraud or missing CPP contributions. It found that Service Canada correctly calculated the monthly amount of the Applicant’s retirement pension. It went through Service Canada’s calculation in detail and concluded that the law had been followed every step of the way. [ 15 ] I don’t see an arguable case that the General Division made an error or otherwise acted unfairly in arriving at these conclusions. In particular, the General Division found no evidence that $5,000 of the Applicant’s CPP contributions had been misappropriated. I see no reason to second-guess that finding. [ 16 ] As an aside, I have reviewed our call logs, and I see nothing to substantiate the Applicant’s accusation that she was subjected to abuse from Tribunal staff. [ 17 ] To get permission to appeal, applicants must do more than just reargue their case. Ultimately, the Applicant’s submissions to the Appeal Division amount to a complaint that she didn’t get a desired result at the General Division. That by itself is not enough to advance her appeal. Conclusion [ 18 ] I am refusing the Applicant leave to appeal because she didn’t produce any new evidence or identify an error that the General Division may have made. [ 19 ] This means the appeal will not proceed. Footnotes Footnote 1 See the Applicant’s application for the CPP retirement pension dated November 29, 2021, GD2-66. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See Service Canada’s approval notice dated January 8, 2022, GD2-48. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See the Applicant’s request for reconsideration date-stamped August 23, 2024, GD2-11. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See Service Canada’s reconsideration decision letter dated May 21, 2025, GD2-4. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 See the Applicant’s leave to appeal application dated February 27, 2026, AD1. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 See the Tribunal’s letter dated April 21, 2026. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 See the Applicant’s email, with attachments, dated May 6, 2026, AD1C. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 See section 58.1(b) of the Department of [RESPONDENT] [NAME] . Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 See, among others, letters addressed to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (AD1C-4) and the Attorney General of Canada (AD1C-6). Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2016  FC  615. Return to footnote 10 referrer