Social Security Tribunal Dismisses GIS Overpayment Appeal

Citation: NR  v  [NAME_1] and AR , 2026  SST  358 Social Security Tribunal of Canada General Division – Income Security Section Decision Appellant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Added Party: [NAME_4]. Decision under appeal: [NAME_1] reconsideration decision dated October 4, 2025 (issued by Service Canada) Tribunal member: [NAME_2] Type of hearing: In Writing Decision date: April 20, 2026 File number: GP-25-1958 On this page Decision Overview What the Appellant must prove My findings Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] The appeal is dismissed. [ 2 ] The Appellant, [NAME_3]., wasn’t eligible for all the Guaranteed Income Supplement ( GIS ) benefits received from July 2022 to December 2023. [ 3 ] This decision explains why I am dismissing the appeal. Overview [ 4 ] This decision is about an overpayment. The Appellant [NAME_3]. applied for a GIS on June 3, 2016. This was approved and he started to receive payments in July 2015. He correctly noted in his application that his marital status was “married.” [ 5 ] At the time his benefit started, his wife, [NAME_4]. was not in payment. On April 25, 2023, Mrs. R. was approved for the Allowance with an effective date of May 2022. [ 6 ] This resulted in an underpayment to Mrs. R. in the amount of $10,493. However, and as a result, the Appellant was advised that his benefit had been recalculated as there was a resulting overpayment for his GIS in the amount of $5,909.91. [ 7 ] Subsequently, the Minister completed a further review and determined that the Appellant had an underpayment owed to him in the amount of $11,446.98. Footnote 1 The balance of the overpayment assessed against the Appellant following Mrs. R.’s application for the Allowance, was offset against this amount with a resulting amount owed to the Appellant of $5,537.07. [ 8 ] The Appellant says that he was never informed about the overpayment, was never told that an overpayment could be assessed against his OAS without his knowledge, and that because of his household income, he should be granted the appeal on humanitarian grounds. Footnote 2 [ 9 ] The Minister says that it calculated the Appellant’s entitlement correctly and that the Appellant received GIS supplement funds which he was not entitled to. Footnote 3 What the Appellant must prove [ 10 ] The Appellant is not disputing the Minister’s calculation. In other words, he acknowledges that his entitlement was not correctly calculated once his wife commenced receipt of the allowance. Instead, he says that he was not provided any warning and that his income is so low that having to repay the amount assessed would create a hardship. [ 11 ] To succeed with the appeal, the Appellant needs to show that he shouldn’t have to repay amounts owing to the government. My findings [ 12 ] From July 2022 to December 2023, the Appellant received more benefits than he was entitled to. That money would normally need to be repaid to the government. However, as the Minister noted in its submissions, because of an earlier reassessment, that had yet to be completed, the Appellant is now in a situation of underpayment. Because of the underpayment, the amount owing has been offset. The law says that excess benefits must be repaid to the government [ 13 ] The law says that if a person receives a benefit payment that they are not entitled to, or if a person receives a benefit payment that is more than what they are entitled to, then the person must repay that money to the government. Footnote 4 [ 14 ] In the Appellant’s case, he did nothing wrong. He correctly set out that he was married in his application. He reported his income accurately. However, because he is married, when his wife applied for an allowance, their marital income, increased by an amount equal to the allowance. Because of this, the Appellant was in a state of overpayment. [ 15 ] The Minister did not suggest in its submissions that the Appellant acted in a deceitful manner. Rather, it notes that it was required to reassess his rate of pay as a married person and in doing so, it determined that he had an overpayment. The Appellant is now in balance in his account [ 16 ] I note that while the Appellant did encounter an overpayment, his account is now in balance. In balance means that he no longer has any outstanding amount owing. This is because in 2021, the Appellant remitted an Option application. This was because he experienced a reduction in his income that year. The result, when recalculated by the Minister was an increase for that year in the amount of $11,446.98. Footnote 5 [ 17 ] Because of the recalculation, the Appellant’s account was rectified so that instead of an amount owing, the debt on his account has been erased. In other words, the account is now in balance. I don’t have jurisdiction to waive or forgive overpayments [ 18 ] In his appeal to the Tribunal, the Appellant asked for relief of the amount that was owing on humanitarian grounds. I note that the Minister has discretion, in certain circumstances, to forgive all or part of an overpayment. Footnote 6 However, I don’t have the same discretion. This means that only the Minister (and not this Tribunal) can reduce or cancel an overpayment for reasons such as undue hardship. I don’t have jurisdiction to make decisions based on compassion [ 19 ] The Appellant explained in his notice of appeal that he has limited earnings and as such expressed a plea on humanitarian grounds. I am sympathetic to these circumstances. If I had jurisdiction to make decisions on compassionate grounds, that would be such a case. However, I don’t have the jurisdiction to do so, regardless of how compelling those circumstances may be. Conclusion [20] [ 21 ] I find that the Appellant isn’t eligible for a reduction in the overpayment assessed against him by the Minister. [ 22 ] This means the appeal is dismissed. Footnotes Footnote 1 This was from a Reduction in Pension Income for the year 2021. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 GD1-4 Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 GD7-10 Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See section 37(1) of the Old Age Security Act. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 GD7-10 Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 See section 37(4) of the Old Age Security Act. Return to footnote 6 referrer