Social Security Tribunal Rejects Late Appeal Extension Request

OUTCOME: Refused

Citation: QS  v  [RESPONDENT] [NAME] , 2026  [NAME]  260 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Extension of Time Decision Applicant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] General Division decision dated April 4, 2025 (GP-25-233) Tribunal member: [NAME] date: March 24, 2026 File number: AD-26-130 On this page Decision Overview Issue Analysis Conclusion Decision [ 1 ]  I am refusing the Applicant an extension of time in which to apply for leave to appeal. This appeal will not be going forward. Overview [ 2 ] The Applicant is an 81-year-old retiree. He immigrated to Canada in 1999 and applied for an Old Age Security ( OAS ) pension in 2013. Service Canada, the Minister’s public facing agency, approved the Applicant for a partial pension, effective April 2011. The Applicant was later approved for the Guaranteed Income Supplement (supplement). [ 3 ] In November 2016, Service Canada received information that the Applicant had been spending much of his time outside Canada. Following an investigation, Service Canada terminated the Applicant’s OAS pension and supplement and assessed him with an overpayment totalling nearly $98,000 for the period April 2012 to August 2017. Footnote 1 [ 4 ] In a letter dated March 1, 2024, Service Canada upheld its decision on reconsideration. Footnote 2 [ 5 ] On February 6, 2025, past the 90-day filing deadline, the Applicant appealed Service Canada’s reconsideration decision to the Social Security Tribunal. In a decision dated April 4, 2025, the Tribunal’s General Division determined that the appeal was late and refused to grant the Applicant more time to appeal. [ 6 ] On February 23, 2026, the Applicant applied for leave, or permission, to appeal the General Division’s decision. Footnote 3 He alleged that the General Division had acted unfairly. He indicated that he would be forwarding additional evidence later. [ 7 ] On March 5, 2026, the Tribunal sent the Applicant a letter noting that his request for leave to appeal appeared to be late. It asked him to explain the delay and to describe in detail how the General Division had treated him unfairly. Footnote 4 It also urged him to send in any new evidence sooner rather than later. [ 8 ] On March 13, 2026, the Applicant submitted a letter dated April 11, 2025, addressed to “whom it may concern.” Footnote 5 In it, the Applicant wrote that he had provided all required documents and asked that his benefits be restarted. Issue [ 9 ] I must decide whether the Applicant’s request for leave to appeal was filed on time and, if not, whether he had a reasonable explanation for being late. Analysis [ 10 ] An application for leave to appeal must be made to the Appeal Division within 90 days after the day on which the decision was communicated to the applicant. Footnote 6 The Appeal Division may allow further time within which an application for leave to appeal is to be made, but in no case may an application be made more than one year after the day on which the decision was communicated to the applicant. Footnote 7 The Applicant’s application for leave to appeal was late [ 11 ] In this case, the General Division issued its decision on April 4, 2025. That same day, it was sent to the Applicant by email. In his application requesting leave to appeal, the Applicant acknowledged that he had received the General Division’s decision on the day it was sent. [ 12 ] The Applicant had until July 3, 2025 to file an application requesting leave to appeal. He did not do so until February 23, 2026 — more than seven months later. I find that the Applicant’s request for leave to appeal was late. The Applicant did not offer a reasonable explanation for the delay [ 13 ] When an application for leave to appeal is submitted late, the Tribunal may grant the applicant an extension of time if they have a reasonable explanation for the delay. Footnote 8 In deciding whether to grant an extension of time, the interests of justice must be served. Footnote 9 [ 14 ] Having reviewed the record, I find that the Applicant didn’t have a reasonable explanation for being late. [ 15 ] The application form for requesting leave to appeal invites late applicants to explain why they may have missed the 90-day deadline. The Applicant left that section blank. I then sent a letter to the Applicant specifically asking him why he was late. His response completely ignored the question. [ 16 ] I considered whether language may have been in factor in the Applicant’s late appeal and his failure to address my question. English appears to be the Applicant’s second language, but that hasn’t previously prevented him from making lucid written submissions to both [NAME] and the Tribunal. Refusing an extension won’t result in an injustice [ 17 ] I am also satisfied that no injustice will be done by ending this matter now. In his application requesting leave to appeal, the Applicant circled a bullet to indicate that, in his view, the General Division had proceeded in a way that was unfair. But he did not describe precisely how the General Division proceeded unfairly, nor did he point any specific errors that the General Division may have made in coming to its decision. Footnote 10 [ 18 ] In response to my request for additional information, the  Applicant submitted a copy of a letter that he supposedly sent on April 11, 2025 — only a week after the General Division issued its decision. However, the letter says nothing about the main issue in the present proceeding — whether the Applicant had a reasonable explanation for his late request for leave to appeal to the Appeal Division. [ 19 ] I take it that the Applicant intends the letter as proof that he submitted an appeal to the General Division on time. However, it fails in this purpose too. That’s because it does not appear to be a valid appeal to the General Division: it was not addressed to the Tribunal and, according to a date stamp on its lower left corner, it appears to have been submitted to a Service Canada Centre in Ste. Thérèse, Québec. [ 20 ] Service Canada is not the same thing as the Social Security Tribunal. When the Tribunal sent the Applicant the General Division’s decision, it also attached instructions on how to request leave to appeal. Those instructions contained a link to a web page that clearly listed email and postal addresses for the Tribunal. [ 21 ] In sum, even if the Applicant had had a reasonable explanation for being late to the Appeal Division, he probably wouldn’t have succeeded in his appeal anyway. His letter of April 11, 2025, might qualify as new evidence, but all it does is show that, for no good reason, he sent his appeal to the General Division to the wrong place. Conclusion [ 22 ] The Applicant’s request for leave to appeal to the Appeal Division was late, and he did not provide a reasonable explanation for the delay. For this reason, I am refusing him an extension of time in which to apply for leave to appeal. [ 23 ] This appeal will not proceed. Footnotes Footnote 1 See Service Canada’s initial decision letter dated December 13, 2021, GD2-148. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See Service Canada’s reconsideration decision letter dated March 1, 2024, GD2-209. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See the Applicant’s application for leave to appeal to the Appeal Division date-stamped February 23, 2026, AD1. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See the Tribunal’s letter dated March 5, 2026. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 See the Applicant’s submission dated March 13, 2026, AD1B. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 See section 57(1)(b) of the  Department of [RESPONDENT] [NAME] ( DESDA ). Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 See section 57(2) of the DESDA . Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 See section 27 of the Social Security Tribunal Rules of Procedure . Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 See Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2012  FCA  204. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 The grounds of appeal are set out in section 58.1 of the DESDA . Return to footnote 10 referrer