Social Security Tribunal Rejects CPP Pension Appeal

OUTCOME: Refused

Citation: FM  v  [RESPONDENT] [NAME] , 2026  [NAME]  315 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Leave to Appeal Decision Applicant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] General Division decision dated January 25, 2026 (GP-25-1138) Tribunal member: [NAME] date: April 29, 2026 File number: AD-26-338 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 retiree who has lived and worked in Canada since the mid-1990s. In January 2025, just as he was turning 70, Service Canada automatically enrolled him for a Canada pension Plan ( CPP ) retirement pension. Footnote 1 The Minister determined that the Applicant was entitled to receive $315.35 a month, effective February 2025. [ 3 ] The Applicant thought that he was entitled to more. He appealed Service Canada’s determination of his monthly pension amount to the Social Security Tribunal. The Tribunal’s General Division held a hearing by videoconference and dismissed the appeal. It saw nothing to indicate that the Minister had calculated the Applicant’s pension incorrectly. [ 4 ] The Applicant is now requesting leave, or permission, to appeal the General Division’s decision. Footnote 2 He alleges that, in coming to its decision, the General Division made the following errors: It failed to consider his “unlawful” removal from his bank job; and It failed to consider his CPP contributions from his part-time job. [ 5 ] However, I can’t allow the Applicant’s appeal to proceed. That’s because he hasn’t met any of the grounds of appeal. Issues [ 6 ] 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 3 [ 7 ] At this stage, I have to decide whether the Applicant 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 [ 8 ] The Applicant submitted many documents with his request for permission to appeal. However, none of them were new, and all of them were previously available to the General Division. There’s no arguable case that the General Division made an error [ 9 ] 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 4 [ 10 ] The General Division 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 Service Canada complied with the law every step of the way. [ 11 ] I don’t see an arguable case that the General Division made an error or otherwise acted unfairly in arriving at this conclusion. [ 12 ] The Applicant argues that the General Division ignored the circumstances of his dismissal and the contributions from his subsequent part-time job. That does not appear to be true. The Applicant raised these points before the General Division, but the presiding member found they had no bearing on how his pension was to be calculated. As trier of fact, that was her prerogative and, again, I don’t see an arguable case that she made a mistake in discounting what appeared to be irrelevant information. [ 13 ] Ultimately, the Applicant’s submissions amount to a complaint that the General Division didn’t give him his desired result. That by itself is not enough to advance his appeal. Conclusion [ 14 ] I am refusing the Applicant leave to appeal because he didn’t produce any relevant new evidence or identify an error that the General Division may have made. [ 15 ] This means the appeal will not proceed. Footnotes Footnote 1 See Service Canada’s approval notice dated January 6, 2025 (GD2-17) and its reconsideration decision letter dated March 19, 2025 (GD2-6). Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See the Applicant’s leave to appeal application received April 23, 2026, AD1-1. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See section 58.1(b) of the Department of [RESPONDENT] [NAME] . Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2016  FC  615. Return to footnote 4 referrer