Social Security Tribunal Dismisses OAS Pension Appeal for Lack of Proper Notice

OUTCOME: Dismissed

Citation: [APPELLANT] and [NAME]  v  DS , 2026  [NAME]  306 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Decision Appellant: [redacted] [NAME] Respondent: [redacted] [NAME] decision dated August 29, 2025 (GP-25-428) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: Videoconference Hearing date: April 2, 2026 Hearing participants: Appellant’s representative Respondent Decision date: April 20, 2026 File number: AD-25-754 On this page Decision Overview Preliminary issue Issues Analysis Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] The appeal is dismissed. The Respondent does not need to cancel the Old Age Security ( OAS ) pension that started in June 2018, as it never lawfully started then. However, I cannot determine whether his [NAME] lawfully started on a later date. Overview [ 2 ] This appeal is about how an [NAME] can lawfully start through the auto-enrolment process. It is one of several such appeals that the Appeal Division of the Social Security Tribunal (Tribunal) has recently considered. [ 3 ] I will refer to the Appellant, the [APPELLANT] and [NAME], as the “Minister.” I will use the term “Minister” throughout this decision, even though Service Canada is the name of the entity that provides services on the Minister’s behalf. [ 4 ] The Respondent turned 65 in May 2018. The following month, the Minister automatically approved him for an [NAME]. As he was still working and had a high income then, his [NAME] was completely clawed back. Thus, despite being “paid” an [NAME], he never received any money. [ 5 ] The Respondent said he was never notified of the approval. He only learned of it in April 2023, when he contacted the Minister to ask if his [NAME] would start when he turned 70 in May 2023. He then learned his [NAME] had actually started in June 2018, although all of it had been clawed back. Footnote 1 [ 6 ] The Respondent said it had always been his intention to start receiving his [NAME] at age 70. The later start date meant that his monthly pension amount would be higher, and fewer payments would be clawed back. He asked the Minister to cancel his pension and then start it in June 2023. Footnote 2 The Minister refused the request, because the Respondent made it more than six months after the first payment date. Footnote 3 [ 7 ] The Respondent appealed the Minister’s refusal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal’s [NAME] held an in-person hearing and allowed the appeal. It found that the Minister didn’t notify the Respondent of its intention to automatically enrol him for the [NAME], as required by law. Footnote 4 [ 8 ] The Minister didn’t agree with the [NAME]’s decision. The Minister applied to the Tribunal’s Appeal Division, which granted him permission to appeal. This matter then proceeded to a de novo hearing. Preliminary issue [ 9 ] The Respondent submitted a series of questions to the Tribunal on April 3, 2026, after the hearing had finished. Footnote 5 I did not add the list of questions to the file or share it with the Minister. This is because the hearing had already been completed and I saw no basis on which I could admit the letter into evidence or consider it a submission. Nor did I respond to the legal questions contained in that letter. The Tribunal cannot give a party legal advice. Issues [ 10 ] The ultimate question in this appeal is whether the Respondent may cancel the [NAME] that started in June 2018. However, I must first decide whether the Minister gave him adequate notice under the law of its intention to automatically enrol him for an [NAME]. I will now set out the legal and factual backdrop. Legal and factual backdrop [ 11 ] For many years, seniors had to complete and submit an application if they wanted to receive an [NAME]. But this changed in 2013, with some amendments to the Old Age Security Act ( OASA ). These changes allowed the automatic enrolment of some people when they reached age 65. The changes also allowed people to defer receiving their [NAME] until age 70, so that they could receive a higher monthly pension amount in exchange for starting their pension later. Footnote 6 [ 12 ] This deferral had clear advantages for some people, such as the Respondent, who continued working after age 65 and did not yet require the support of the [NAME]. This is because part, or all, of an [NAME] could be clawed back if the [NAME] had a sufficiently high income. The Respondent was one of those recipients. If he deferred his pension until age 70, his monthly [NAME] from that point would be considerably higher than if he had started it at age 65. [ 13 ] On May 18, 2017, the Minister prepared a letter to the Respondent (the May 2017 Letter). The May 2017 Letter set out the Minister’s intention to automatically enrol him for an [NAME]. It also included the information that the Minister relied upon in making that enrolment decision. This information included: Footnote 7 His age (reaching age 65 in May 2018) His status as a Canadian citizen or a [NAME] The fact he had lived in Canada for at least 40 years since the age of 18 [ 14 ] The Respondent took no steps in response to the May 2017 Letter. He does not recall receiving the May 2017 Letter. The Minister then automatically enrolled him for the [NAME]. Payments would have started in June 2018, but the Respondent’s latest income information showed that he still had a high income. As a result, his entire [NAME] was clawed back. This meant he received no [NAME] money, even though he was “paid” an [NAME]. [ 15 ] This continued for several years. As the Respondent continued working, his high income continued to cause a full claw back of his [NAME]. After the end of each tax year, he would receive a [NAME] slip for the [NAME]. It would show that his full [NAME] was “paid” to him, but also that the full amount of his pension was clawed back as income tax. This happened for each tax year from 2018 through 2022. Footnote 8 [ 16 ] The Respondent said he did not examine the [NAME] slips each year. He said his wife put them in a box, along with all his other tax slips, and delivered them to his tax preparer. Footnote 9 He said he did not learn that his [NAME] had started until he called the Minister on April 3, 2023. He called the Minister that day to see when his [NAME] would start. This ultimately led to the present appeal. Analysis [ 17 ] The Minister’s auto-enrolment program might have provided the required notice to the Respondent, but that does not mean it actually did so. It does not matter that the Respondent does not recall receiving it. The Minister only has to send the notice. The Minister does not have to prove that it was received . However, I also find that the Minister has not proven it sent that notice to the Respondent. This means the Respondent didn’t need to cancel his [NAME] within six months of its 2018 start date because his pension never lawfully began. [ 18 ] The Tribunal’s [NAME] also found in favour of the Respondent. However, I made my decision for different reasons. I will now explain this in more detail. [ 19 ] Other decisions by the Tribunal’s Appeal Division are not binding on the Tribunal. However, they can have persuasive value. In my analysis below, I will make frequent reference to a comprehensive December 2025 decision by the Appeal Division called [NAME] . Footnote 10 [NAME] was also concerned with [NAME] auto-enrolment for a [NAME] with high income. That [NAME] did not recall receiving the initial notice of auto-enrolment either. While other factual details in [NAME] are not quite identical, many of the same issues arise. [ 20 ] Section 3(1) of the OASA says that a full [NAME] may be paid to a person who has reached age 65 and has resided in Canada after age 18 for at least 40 years. [ 21 ] The OASA ’s automatic enrolment provisions make things easier for potential OAS recipients. They take away the need to make an application. However, those provisions also require the Minister to notify potential OAS recipients of its intention to automatically enrol them. This gives people like the Respondent a chance to opt out of automatic enrolment. The applicable parts of the OASA ’s section 5 are as follows: (4) The Minister may, on the day on which a person attains 65 years of age, waive the requirement referred to in subsection (1) for an application if the Minister is satisfied, based on information that is available to him or her under this Act, that the person is qualified under subsection 3(1)…for the payment of a pension. (5) If the Minister intends to waive the requirement for an application in respect of a person, the Minister shall notify the person in writing of that intention and provide them with the information on which the Minister intends to rely to approve the payment of a pension. … (7) The person may, before the day on which they attain 65 years of age, decline a waiver of the requirement for an application by notifying the Minister in writing of their decision to do so. [ 22 ] Section 4.1 of the OASA adds that if the information mentioned in section 5(4) of the OASA contains the “prescribed information”, the person is presumed to be entitled to the [NAME]. Sections 21(8)(b) and 22(2) of the Old Age Security Regulations (OASR) contain the prescribed information. Those sections of the OASR say the prescribed information is: Footnote 11 (i) a current address in Canada, (ii) at least 40 years of unadjusted pensionable earnings above the basic exemption under the Canada Pension Plan or Quebec Pension Plan , and (iii) income tax returns filed as a resident of Canada for at least 40 years and for the most recent calendar year. [ 23 ] The [NAME] decision found that these factors would lead to auto-enrolment for people who currently live in Canada and had worked in Canada for 40 or more years. Footnote 12 [ 24 ] The [NAME] decision added that the notice of intent sent to persons selected for automatic enrolment must, at a minimum, include the following information: the person has a current address in Canada, the person is about to turn 65, and the person has resided in Canada after age 18 for 40 years or more. A notice omitting one of these items would fail to meet the requirements of section 5(5) of the OASA . Footnote 13 I accept the above findings from the [NAME] decision. [ 25 ] Once payment of an [NAME] starts, the [NAME] has a six-month window to cancel their pension. After those six months pass, there is no way to opt out. Footnote 14 This is important because the Respondent did not take any action about his [NAME] until nearly five years had passed since the Minister purported to start paying him. [ 26 ] The Minister’s main position is that it sent the required notice to the Respondent. The Minister said it did not need to prove that the Respondent received the notice. [ 27 ] The Respondent disputes that he received the notice, although he later appeared to concede that receipt of the notice wasn’t required. Footnote 15 Instead, he made several arguments about why his [NAME] still shouldn’t have started at age 65. In my view, his only relevant argument was that the Minister had not proven it had sent the notice. Did the Minister give the Respondent adequate notice of its intention to automatically enrol him for the [NAME]? [ 28 ] I find that the Minister did not give the Respondent adequate notice of its intention. [ 29 ] For the [NAME], giving adequate notice has two elements. The first element is whether the notice contains the required information. The second element is whether that notice was actually given. Did the notice contain the required information? [ 30 ] I find that the notice contained the required information. The notice was contained in the May 2017 Letter. [ 31 ] The May 2017 Letter met the requirements identified above. It was sent to the Respondent at his long-time Canadian address. It indicated that the Respondent would reach age 65 in May 2018. It said he was a Canadian citizen or a [NAME]. It also said he had lived in Canada for at least 40 years since age 18. [ 32 ] While the May 2017 Letter would have constituted sufficient notice, I still need to decide whether that notice was actually given. Was the notice actually given to the Respondent? [ 33 ] On a balance of probabilities, I find that the Minister did not give notice to the Respondent. I will now explain why. [ 34 ] Firstly, I accept the central findings set out in [NAME] about whether notice needs to be demonstrably received. In [NAME] , the Tribunal’s Appeal Division engaged in a thorough statutory interpretation process to reach the following conclusion: Footnote 16 …as long as the Minister can show that [it] sent at least one valid notice of intent to the Respondent, whether by regular mail or other means, it will have fulfilled its notice requirements. [ 35 ] As noted above, the May 2017 Letter would have been valid . However, I find that the Minister has not proven that it sent the May 2017 Letter to the Respondent. [ 36 ] I accept that the Minister generated the May 2017 Letter. It has been present in the Tribunal file since at least April 2025. I also see even earlier references to it in the Minister’s communication logs. For example, the Minister’s log entry for September 7, 2023, mentions that a notice of enrolment was sent on May 18, 2017. Footnote 17 This corresponds to the date of the May 2017 Letter. [ 37 ] However, there is a difference between generating a letter and actually sending it to the intended [NAME] at his address. [ 38 ] Several times in 2024, the Respondent did not dispute that the Minister sent the May 2017 Letter. Footnote 18 He later changed his position on this issue. Footnote 19 He suggested that he based his initial admissions on an incomplete understanding of the law. However, I do not need to make a finding about this change in position. Whether the Minister sent him the May 2017 Letter is a question of fact. On that question, the burden of proof rests with the Minister. [ 39 ] At the Appeal Division hearing, the Minister submitted that the existence of the May 2017 Letter is sufficient proof that it was sent. I agree that the letter’s existence is relevant. The Minister has also previously asserted that it was sent to the Respondent’s address and was not returned as undeliverable. Footnote 20 However, I also see evidence which leaves considerable uncertainty about whether the letter was sent to the Respondent at the correct address. [ 40 ] The file contains two versions of a document called “ [NAME].” This document contains automatic enrolment data for the Respondent. Each version gives information such as the exact date the Respondent was selected for that process. But each version also contains a section called “Address”. The only information in that section is a field called “Correspondence Address.” On one of the document versions, that field is blank . Footnote 21 Another version gives the Respondent’s long-time address. Footnote 22 [ 41 ] This difference between two otherwise identical documents introduces considerable doubt that the May 2017 Letter was sent to the Respondent’s address . This does not mean the Minister has to prove that the Respondent received it. But the Minister must persuade the Tribunal that it sent the letter to the correct address. [ 42 ] A similar issue arose in [NAME] . In that decision, the Tribunal ultimately found that a missing address in one version of the Minister’s correspondence log prevented the Minister from succeeding in that appeal. The Tribunal noted that the small discrepancy called into question the reliability of the Minister’s data management system. It created doubt that the applicable notice letter was actually sent to the claimant at her address. Footnote 23 [ 43 ] When making that persuasive finding in [NAME] , the Tribunal referred to a recent decision of the Federal Court called [NAME] . Federal Court decisions are binding on the Tribunal. The [NAME] case had some factual similarities to the current appeal, although it was not identical. In [NAME] , the Federal Court said: Footnote 24 It is correct that the Minister is not obligated to demonstrate that Mr. [NAME] received the special notification letter. The Minister need only demonstrate that the letter was sent ( [NAME] at paras. 11, 13). However, in my view, the record does not demonstrate that the special notification letter was sent to Mr. [NAME]. [ 44 ] In [NAME] , the Federal Court went on to suggest that additional evidence might be required in such cases. That evidence could take the form of an affidavit in which a Minister’s employee described the letter generation process and how letters were physically sent. Footnote 25 In my view, producing a witness with knowledge about that process might achieve the same thing. [ 45 ] In this appeal, the Minister did not produce a witness at the hearing. Nor did the Minister file an affidavit attesting that the May 2017 Letter was actually sent to the Respondent’s address rather than merely being generated (or sent to a blank address). Usually, that level of verification would not be required. But, as noted above, the competing versions of the “ [NAME]” document here create significant doubt that the May 2017 Letter was sent to the Respondent’s address. [ 46 ] Ultimately, I find that the Minister has not proven that the May 2017 Letter was sent to the Respondent at the Respondent’s address. This means that the Respondent was not validly enrolled by the automatic process set out in section 5 of the OASA . [ 47 ] I must stress that I based this finding on the specific facts before me in this appeal. Had the “Correspondence Address” field in each version of the “ [NAME]” document contained the Respondent’s proper address, for example, my finding on this issue would likely have been quite different. My finding might also have been different if a sworn affidavit or a witness had been produced about the letter generation and mailing process. However, those elements were not present. Is the Respondent entitled to cancel the [NAME] that started in June 2018? [ 48 ] I do not need to answer this question. The Respondent’s [NAME] did not validly start in June 2018, for the reasons above. So, he does not need to cancel it. [ 49 ] However, this appears to raise another issue. If the Respondent’s [NAME] did not validly start in June 2018, when did it begin? When does the Respondent’s [NAME] start? [ 50 ] I cannot determine when, or if, the Respondent’s [NAME] began. I will now explain why. [ 51 ] The Tribunal does not have sweeping jurisdiction over all matters relating to OAS pensions. The Appeal Division can hear appeals from the [NAME]. But the [NAME] can only dismiss, allow, rescind, or vary a decision of the Minister (in whole or in part), or give the decision that the Minister should have given. In turn, the Minister’s decision must have been a reconsideration decision under the OASA . Footnote 26 [ 52 ] This appeal flows from the Minister’s reconsideration decision dated January 28, 2025. That decision was concerned solely with whether the Respondent could cancel the [NAME] for which he was automatically enrolled. It did not determine when, or if, he had also made a valid application for the [NAME]. Footnote 27 The reconsideration decision’s failure to address that issue is critical. [ 53 ] According to the OASA , a person must apply for an [NAME] before it can be approved. And it must be approved before he can receive it. Assuming the person is eligible and approved, the OASA says that the [NAME] cannot be paid for any period before the day on which the application was received. The OASR adds that an application must be made on an application form. The application is deemed to have been made only when the Minister receives it. Footnote 28 [ 54 ] For the Respondent, the only potential waiver of the application requirement is the automatic enrolment process that was at the heart of the above analysis. However, the application waiver in that process can only take place when the person reaches age 65. Footnote 29 That date has long since passed for the Respondent. [ 55 ] All this is important because the approval date for an application made after age 65 is the latest of the following dates: Footnote 30 (a) the date that is one year before the day on which the application was received, (b) the day on which the applicant attained the age of 65 years, (c) the day on which the applicant became qualified for a pension in accordance with sections 3 to 5 of the Act, and (d) the month immediately before the date specified in writing by the applicant. [ 56 ] In this case, I see nothing in the reconsideration decision about when or if the Minister received an [NAME] application from the Respondent. This means I do not have the jurisdiction to determine when or if payment of an [NAME] ought to have started because of an application by the Respondent. [ 57 ] The Minister should decide if and when the Respondent applied for the [NAME]. The Minister may have done that already. If the Respondent is unhappy with the decision, he may dispute it in the usual way. That could eventually include an appeal to the Tribunal. The principle of res judicata doesn’t appear to preclude him from raising that issue in the future, as the Tribunal has not made any findings on it. Conclusion [ 58 ] The appeal is dismissed. The Respondent does not need to cancel the [NAME] that the Minister purported to pay as of June 2018. That pension never lawfully started. However, I cannot make any findings on when or if the Respondent’s [NAME] ought to have started because of an application by him. Footnotes Footnote 1 See GD2-20. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See GD2-25 to GD2-26. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See GD2-48 to GD2-50. There were intervening decisions about the lateness of the Respondent’s reconsideration request (see GD2-31 and GD2-41), but they are not relevant to this appeal. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See AD1-9. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 This document was indexed as AD8. The letter also contained a request for a copy of the hearing recording. The Tribunal provided a copy of the recording to both parties, as per its usual procedures. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 See sections 5(4) and 7.1 of the Old Age Security Act ( OASA ). Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 See GD2-21. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 See GD4-42 to GD4-51. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 See, for example, GD2-17. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 [APPELLANT] and [NAME]  v  [NAME] , 2025  [NAME]  1377. While other Tribunal decisions are not binding, they can be persuasive. I will refer to this decision as [NAME] in later footnotes. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 For a more detailed discussion of this, see [NAME] at paragraphs 22-24. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 [NAME] , at paragraph 25. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 [NAME] , at paragraphs 22-26. Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 See section 9.3(1) of the OASA and section 26.1 of the Old Age Security Regulations (OASR). Return to footnote 14 referrer Footnote 15 See, for example, AD7-14. Return to footnote 15 referrer Footnote 16 [NAME] , at paragraph 46. The reasoning for this conclusion is set out in more detail in [NAME] at paragraphs 27-45. Return to footnote 16 referrer Footnote 17 See GD2-20. Return to footnote 17 referrer Footnote 18 See, for example, GD4-9, GD4-88, and GD4-112. Return to footnote 18 referrer Footnote 19 See, for example, AD2-19 and AD7-2. Return to footnote 19 referrer Footnote 20 See GD2-48. Return to footnote 20 referrer Footnote 21 See GD2-5 to GD2-6. Return to footnote 21 referrer Footnote 22 See GD4-37. Return to footnote 22 referrer Footnote 23 [NAME] , at paragraphs 62-66. While other Tribunal decisions are not binding, they can be persuasive. Return to footnote 23 referrer Footnote 24 [NAME]  v  Canada ([NAME] [NAME]) , 2020  FC  415, at paragraph 51. The “ [NAME] ” reference is to the Federal Court decision in [NAME]  v  Canada ([NAME] [NAME]) , 2020  FC  1150, at paragraphs 11 and 13. Return to footnote 24 referrer Footnote 25 [NAME]  v  Canada ([NAME] [NAME]) , 2020  FC  415, at paragraph 60. Return to footnote 25 referrer Footnote 26 See sections 54(1) and 55 of the Department of [APPELLANT] and [NAME] . See also section 28(1) of the OASA . Return to footnote 26 referrer Footnote 27 See GD2-48 to GD2-50. Return to footnote 27 referrer Footnote 28 See section 5(1) of the OASA and sections 2(1), 3(1), and 3(2) of the OASR. Section 35 of the OASA appears to give wide latitude to the Minister in determining what constitutes a valid application form. Return to footnote 28 referrer Footnote 29 See section 5(1) of the OASA . Return to footnote 29 referrer Footnote 30 See section 5(2) of the OASR. Return to footnote 30 referrer