Social Security Tribunal Rules Claimant Was Common-Law Partner

[TRANSLATION] Citation: [NAME_1]  v  [NAME_2] , 2026  SST  320 Social Security Tribunal of Canada General Division – Income Security Section Decision Appellant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: [NAME_2] reconsideration decision dated June 18, 2025 (issued by Service Canada) Tribunal member: [NAME_3] of hearing: Teleconference Hearing date: February 4, 2026 Hearing participants: Appellant Respondent’s representative Decision date: February 11, 2026 File number: GP-25-1108 On this page Decision Overview What the Appellant has to prove Matters I have to consider first Reasons for my decision Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] The appeal is dismissed. [ 2 ] The Appellant, [NAME_1]., wasn’t eligible for the Guaranteed Income Supplement ( GIS ) as if she was single from June 2010 to October 2019. [ 3 ] This decision explains why I am dismissing the appeal. Overview [ 4 ] The Appellant is 79 years old. In July 2009, she applied for an [NAME_13] ) pension. Footnote 1 In her application, she said that she was single. She applied for the GIS in October 2009. Footnote 2 [ 5 ] The Minister started paying her the GIS as if she was single in June 2010. Footnote 3 [ 6 ] On May 18, 2021, the Appellant spoke with Service Canada to say that she had been in a relationship with [NAME_5]. for over 35 years, and that they had been involuntarily separated since 2019. Footnote 4 After this call, Service Canada carried out an investigation into her marital status. [ 7 ] On April 30, 2024, the Minister decided that the Appellant had been [NAME_5].’s common-law partner since her benefits started in June 2010 until [NAME_5]. left their home in July 2019. Footnote 5 So, the amount of the Appellant’s GIS should have been calculated as if she had been a common-law partner since her benefits started in October 2019. That is three months after the conjugal relationship ended. As a result, the Appellant had to pay back $77,378.11. That amount is the GIS  payments that were overpaid from June 2010 to October 2019. [ 8 ] The Minister confirmed this decision on reconsideration on June 18, 2025. Footnote 6 [ 9 ] The Appellant appealed the Minister’s decision to the Social Security Tribunal’s General Division. [ 10 ] The Appellant argues that she was never [NAME_5].’s common-law partner. She acknowledges that they lived together for many years but says they were only roommates. [ 11 ] The Minister, for its part, says that the documentary evidence and the Appellant’s statements establish that she and [NAME_5]. were in a common-law relationship for the entire relevant period. What the Appellant has to prove [ 12 ] For the Appellant to succeed, she has to prove that she was single during the relevant period. She has to prove this on a balance of probabilities. Matters I have to consider first [ 13 ] I accepted a document that the Minister provided after the hearing. Footnote 7 I gave the Appellant a chance to respond. She didn’t respond. Reasons for my decision [ 14 ] I find that the Appellant and [NAME_5]. were cohabiting in a common-law relationship from June 2010 to July 2019. [ 15 ] Here are the reasons for my decision. The GIS is based on income [ 16 ] The GIS is a monthly benefit for people who get an OAS  pension and have little or no income. Footnote 8 [ 17 ] If the person is single, the amount of their GIS is calculated based on the person’s income alone. I will call this the single rate . [ 18 ] If the person is in a common-law relationship, the amount of their GIS is calculated based on the couple’s combined income. Footnote 9 I will call this the common-law rate . This rate is usually lower than the single rate. When a person who was in a common-law relationship separates, the amount of their GIS is calculated based on the single rate starting in the third month after the month of separation. Footnote 10 What “cohabiting in a conjugal relationship” means [ 19 ] The Old Age Security Act  ( OAS  Act)says that a common-law partner is a person who “is cohabitating with [an appellant] in a conjugal relationship.” Footnote 11 [ 20 ] Several court decisions explain what “cohabiting in a conjugal relationship” means. Although some of these decisions are about the Canada Pension Plan , they are relevant because the Canada Pension Plan defines “common-law partner” the same way as the OAS  Act. Footnote 12 [ 21 ] These decisions tell us that two people can cohabit even if they don’t live under the same roof. Footnote 13 They also say it’s possible to be separated yet still live in the same household. Footnote 14 [ 22 ] When I am deciding whether the Appellant and [NAME_5]. were cohabiting in a conjugal relationship, I have to look at factors like: their living and sleeping arrangements their financial arrangements their behaviour toward each other privately and in public the help they gave each other in the home how the community viewed their relationship Footnote 15 [ 23 ] A couple doesn’t have to meet all of these factors. And they may meet them to varying degrees. I have to take a flexible approach in deciding whether there was a conjugal relationship. Footnote 16 The Appellant was cohabiting in a conjugal relationship [ 24 ] I find that the Appellant was cohabiting with [NAME_5]. in a conjugal relationship during the entire relevant period. [ 25 ] At the hearing, the Appellant said that she and [NAME_5]. met in 1984. She said they first lived in the same home in 1984 or the year after. They stopped living together permanently in July 2019 after [NAME_5].’s son got a power of attorney for him and set up his move to a seniors’ residence. She hasn’t spoken to [NAME_5]. since he left. [ 26 ] The Appellant says that she was never [NAME_5].’s partner. She argues that since 1984, they have only been roommates and have never shared a room. [NAME_5]. got Parkinson’s disease, she also became his natural caregiver. Footnote 17 [ 27 ] I note that the address history Service Canada got shows that the Appellant and [NAME_5]. reported addresses that matched from July 2009 to September 2010, and from January 2012 to July 2019. Footnote 18 During this period, they lived together in eight homes. [ 28 ] At the hearing, the Appellant acknowledged that she lived at the same address as [NAME_5]. during those periods. What the Appellant told Service Canada [ 29 ] The Appellant said she was [NAME_5].’s common-law partner many times in her communications with Service Canada. [ 30 ] She first called Service Canada in 2021 on May 18, 2021, to say that she had been in a common-law relationship with [NAME_5]. for over 35 years and that they had been involuntarily separated since 2019. Footnote 19 [ 31 ] The Appellant kept this position during the investigation. [ 32 ] On June 8, 2021, she sent Service Canada a statutory declaration of common‑law union stating that she was in a common-law relationship with [NAME_5]. from May 1984 to August 2019. Footnote 20 [ 33 ] On the same day, she provided an involuntary separation statement saying that she and her partner started living apart in July 2019. [ 34 ] In a questionnaire sent to Service Canada on December 13, 2022, the Appellant said that she and [NAME_5]. weren’t only roommates during the relevant period and that they had been involuntarily separated since 2019. Footnote 21 She also said that they lived a [translation] “shared life” from 1984 to 2019. Footnote 22 [ 35 ] Finally, in a phone call on September 2, 2023, the Appellant confirmed that she had been in a common-law relationship with [NAME_5]. for 35 years and that she had been involuntarily separated since 2019. She also said that they were a [translation] “real couple.” Footnote 23 [ 36 ] I note that it wasn’t until after the Minister gave its decision in April 2024 that the Appellant changed her position about her relationship with [NAME_5]. At the hearing, she said that before she mistakenly believed that two people automatically became common-law partners after living together for a year. [ 37 ] I don’t accept the Appellant’s explanation. I recall that she said in past statements that she and [NAME_5]. weren’t only roommates and that they were a real couple and shared a life. The documentary evidence about the Appellant’s relationship with [NAME_5]. [ 38 ] The documentary evidence that the Appellant provided and the evidence from the investigation support a finding that the Appellant and [NAME_5]. were common-law partners during the relevant period. [ 39 ] The Appellant provided a document establishing that [NAME_5]. named her as the beneficiary of his supplementary death benefit in January 2009. Footnote 24 At the hearing, the Appellant said that she didn’t know why [NAME_5]. named her as the beneficiary or whether she was still the beneficiary. I didn’t find this explanation convincing. I note that it was the Appellant herself who provided this document to Service Canada. [ 40 ] The Appellant also provided a document stating that she was insured as [NAME_5].’s partner under his dental care insurance plan in May 2019. Footnote 25 At the hearing, the Appellant acknowledged that she was insured as [NAME_5].’s partner during the relevant period. [ 41 ] Information from the Canada Revenue Agency ( [NAME_4] ) shows that the Appellant stated being [NAME_5].’s common-law partner from 2011 to 2018. I note that retroactive changes to marital status were made in 2019 and 2022. Footnote 26 At the hearing, the Appellant denied stating that she was [NAME_5].’s common-law partner with the [NAME_4] . I also note that she made a request to the [NAME_4] in January 2026. She said that she was never [NAME_5].’s common-law partner and asked for her marital status to be corrected for 2010 to 2017. [ 42 ] Finally, the file also has a request to the [NAME_4] dated May 2024. In that request, the Appellant claimed the disability tax credit in relation to [NAME_5]. Footnote 27 In that claim, she stated that she was [NAME_5].’s common-law partner from 2011 to 2019. When I asked her about this, she again stated that she mistakenly thought, at the time, that she was [NAME_5].’s common-law partner. As I said earlier, I don’t accept this explanation. [ 43 ] I place a lot of weight on this documentary evidence that shows that the Appellant and [NAME_5]. behaved like common-law partners during the entire relevant period. I don’t accept the Appellant’s explanation that she said she was [NAME_5].’s common‑law partner because she misunderstood what a common-law relationship means. How the Appellant describes her relationship with [NAME_5]. [ 44 ] In my review, I also considered how the Appellant and [NAME_5]. cohabited in their home. The Appellant’s testimony about the many parts of her relationship with [NAME_5]. didn’t convince me that she was single. [ 45 ] The Appellant testified that she helped [NAME_5]. a lot, especially after he got Parkinson’s disease in about 2007. She said she went with him to his medical appointments and helped him take his medications. Footnote 28 In 2017, she got a power of attorney for [NAME_5]. Footnote 29 [ 46 ] The Appellant also testified that she was the one who took care of the chores in the home and the cooking when she was living with [NAME_5]. She was also the one who made sure the bills and rent were paid on time. [ 47 ] The help that she gave [NAME_5]. and the way they shared household tasks show that she and [NAME_5]. were in a conjugal relationship. [ 48 ] As for their financial arrangements, the Appellant testified that she had never been financially dependent on [NAME_5]., or him on her. She said that they split the rent and the bills for their many homes equally. [ 49 ] She said the homes she shared with [NAME_5]. during the period in question were rented. She provided a copy of a 2019 lease they both signed. Footnote 30 She also said that she and [NAME_5]. didn’t co-own any property during that period and that the furniture in their homes belonged to her. [ 50 ] But she also testified that [NAME_5]. often ran out of money and that she had to cover the full cost of housing. He could pay her back later. I recall that the Appellant benefited from [NAME_5].’s dental insurance as his partner and that she was named in 2009 as the beneficiary of his death benefits. She also testified that she was a beneficiary under [NAME_5].’s will. Overall, the way the Appellant and [NAME_5]. handled the financial part of their relationship suggests that they were in a conjugal relationship. [ 51 ] I acknowledge that the Appellant testified that she and [NAME_5]. never shared a bedroom. They didn’t do social activities together. Her social circle didn’t view her as [NAME_5].’s common-law partner, and she never met [NAME_5].’s family. [ 52 ] But overall, I find that the way the Appellant described her relationship with [NAME_5]. doesn’t support her claim that she was single during the relevant period. What I gave little weight to in the file [ 53 ] I acknowledge that some evidence on file suggests that the Appellant and [NAME_5]. weren’t common-law partners during the relevant period. [ 54 ] In particular, [NAME_5].’s son told Service Canada that his father and the Appellant were never common-law partners. But the file shows that [NAME_5].’s son and the Appellant were on bad terms and had many conflicts, including one about whether she should receive tax credits related to [NAME_5]. Footnote 31 The Appellant also testified that she took legal action against [NAME_5].’s son. As a result, I place little weight on the statement that [NAME_5].’s son made. [ 55 ] The Appellant provided a letter from the accountant who handled her request to change her marital status with the [NAME_4] in January 2026. She wrote that the Appellant and [NAME_5]. weren’t in a conjugal relationship, that they didn’t do any activities together, and that they didn’t share a bedroom. She also wrote that a friend allegedly told the Appellant that two people automatically become common-law partners when they live together for 12 months. [ 56 ] At the hearing, the Appellant said that she didn’t know this person before asking the [NAME_4] to change her marital status, and that this person relied on her own statements to write the letter. As a result, I place little weight on this letter. [ 57 ] I also considered the fact that [NAME_5]. told the [NAME_4] that he was in a common-law relationship only from 2011 to 2012, Footnote 32 and that the Appellant and [NAME_5]. didn’t report to the Régie de l’assurance maladie du Québec [[NAME_6]] that they were in a common-law relationship during the relevant period. Footnote 33 Considering the many statements and efforts the Appellant and [NAME_5]. made showing that they were common-law partners during the relevant period, I place little weight on this evidence. [ 58 ] Finally, I considered the fact that the Appellant and [NAME_5]. co-owned a house that they sold in 2004. Footnote 34 The deed of sale said that [NAME_5]. was divorced and that the Appellant was single. I placed little weight on these points because they go back many years before the relevant period. Analysis of the evidence as a whole [ 59 ] After analyzing the evidence as a whole, I find that the Appellant and [NAME_5]. were cohabiting in a common-law relationship during the entire relevant period. [ 60 ] I place a lot of weight on the fact that, before the Minister gave its decision, the Appellant repeatedly and clearly told Service Canada, including through a statutory declaration, that she and [NAME_5]. were common-law partners during the entire relevant period. [ 61 ] The documentary evidence about the period they cohabited also shows that the Appellant and [NAME_5]. cohabited in a conjugal relationship. I place a lot of weight in particular on the evidence showing that the Appellant was covered as [NAME_5].’s partner under his dental insurance plan, that she was named as the beneficiary of [NAME_5].’s death benefits in 2009, that she got a power of attorney for [NAME_5]. in 2017, and that she told the [NAME_4] she was [NAME_5].’s common-law partner. [ 62 ] Finally, the way the Appellant described her relationship with [NAME_5]. doesn’t support her claim that she was single. Specifically, she helped him a lot during the period in question and handled a larger part of the household chores. [ 63 ] I acknowledge that the Appellant and [NAME_5]. didn’t live in the same home from September 2010 to January 2012. That was for about 16 months. In [NAME_7]  v  Canada , the Supreme Court acknowledged that a period of physical separation didn’t end a common-law relationship “if there was a mutual intention to continue” Footnote 35 and that “a common-law relationship ends when either party regards it as being at an end and, by his or her conduct, has demonstrated in a convincing manner that this particular state of mind is a settled one.” Footnote 36 [ 64 ] There is nothing on file that allows me to find that the Appellant and [NAME_5]. behaved in a way that showed the common-law relationship ended during that period. I am of the view that their common-law relationship continued until July 2019, when [NAME_5]. went to live in a seniors’ residence and stopped communicating with the Appellant. Conclusion [ 65 ] I find that the Appellant and [NAME_5]. were common-law partners from June 2010 to July 2019. So, the Minister has to calculate the amount of the Appellant’s GIS as if she was in a common-law relationship from June 2010 to October 2019. That is three months after the conjugal relationship ended. [ 66 ] This means that the appeal is dismissed. Footnotes Footnote 1 See GD2-3 and GD2-4. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See GD3-33. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See GD3-33. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See GD3-30. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 See GD2-157 to GD2-159. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 See GD2-185 and GD2-186. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 See GD-7. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 There are other requirements, but they aren’t relevant to this case. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 See section 12 of the Old Age Security Act  ( OAS  Act). Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 See section 15(4.2) of the OAS  Act. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 See section 2 of the OAS  Act. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 See section 2 of the OAS  Act and section 2 of the Canada Pension Plan . Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 [NAME_7]  v  Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development) , 2004  SCC  65 at para 42. Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 [NAME_8]  v  Canada (Social Development) , 2006  FC  1511. Return to footnote 14 referrer Footnote 15 [NAME_9]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2012  FC  556. Return to footnote 15 referrer Footnote 16 See M  v  H , [1999] 2 SCR 3 at paras 59 and 60. Return to footnote 16 referrer Footnote 17 See GD1-4. Return to footnote 17 referrer Footnote 18 See GD2-104 and GD7. Return to footnote 18 referrer Footnote 19 See GD3-30. Return to footnote 19 referrer Footnote 20 See GD2-14. Return to footnote 20 referrer Footnote 21 See GD2-20. Return to footnote 21 referrer Footnote 22 See GD2-22. Return to footnote 22 referrer Footnote 23 See GD2-93 and GD2-94. Return to footnote 23 referrer Footnote 24 See GD2-24 and GD2-25. Return to footnote 24 referrer Footnote 25 See GD2-21. Return to footnote 25 referrer Footnote 26 See GD2-90 and GD2-118. Return to footnote 26 referrer Footnote 27 See GD2-160 to GD2-174. Return to footnote 27 referrer Footnote 28 See GD1-4. Return to footnote 28 referrer Footnote 29 See GD2-59. Return to footnote 29 referrer Footnote 30 See GD2-26 and GD2-27. Return to footnote 30 referrer Footnote 31 See GD2-74 and GD2-160. Return to footnote 31 referrer Footnote 32 See GD2-72. Return to footnote 32 referrer Footnote 33 See GD2-95, GD2-96, and GD2-109. Return to footnote 33 referrer Footnote 34 See GD2-39 to GD2-46. Return to footnote 34 referrer Footnote 35 [NAME_7]  v  Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development) , 2004  SCC  65 at para 42. Return to footnote 35 referrer Footnote 36 [NAME_7]  v  Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development) , 2004  SCC  65 at para 42. Return to footnote 36 referrer