Social Security Tribunal Rules Reconsideration Request Was Timely

Citation: [NAME]  v  [NAME] , 2026  [NAME]  323 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Decision Appellant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] [NAME] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated October 18, 2025 (GP-24-2091) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: In Writing Decision date: April 30, 2026 File number: AD-26-14 On this page Decision Overview The parties agree on the outcome of the appeal Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] The appeal is allowed. The Appellant made his reconsideration request for his [NAME] ( [NAME] ) retirement pension within the allowed statutory period. The Respondent shall now make a reconsideration decision, without delay, on the start date and amount of the Appellant’s [NAME] retirement pension. Overview [ 2 ] I will refer to the Appellant, R. F., as the “Claimant” in this decision. I will refer to the respondent, the [NAME], as the “Minister.” [ 3 ] The Claimant applied for a [NAME] retirement pension in January 2023. In his application, he said he wanted his [NAME] retirement pension to start in May 2023. That was when he would reach age 70. Footnote 1 On May 6, 2023, the Minister granted him a [NAME] retirement pension in the monthly amount of $1,837.35, with payments starting in May 2023 (the May 2023 Decision). Footnote 2 The May 2023 Decision appeared to align with both the law and the Claimant’s wishes. [ 4 ] The Claimant wanted to defer his [NAME] retirement pension until his 70th birthday because he continued to have a high income after age 65. This had tax implications for him. He wanted to defer his pension for as long as possible. Deferring his pension would also increase the monthly pension by a factor called the actuarial adjustment rate. He took the same approach to his Old Age Security ( OAS ) pension, which has a similar deferral incentive. [ 5 ] On May 31, 2024, the Claimant received a letter from the Minister about his OAS pension application. In that letter, the Claimant learned that his OAS pension’s actuarial adjustment rate was only 35.40%. This was slightly less than the expected maximum of 36.00%, because his OAS pension was only deferred by 59 months. [NAME] pension payments usually start the month after reaching age 65. As a result, he learned that he should have asked for his [NAME] pension payments to start in June 2023 instead of May 2023. Footnote 3 [ 6 ] The Claimant asked the Minister to reconsider the May 2023 Decision and adjust his [NAME] retirement pension start date to June 2023. The Minister received that request on June 5, 2024 (June 2024 Request). Footnote 4 However, in a September 2024 reconsideration decision (September 2024 Decision), the Minister said it could not consider the June 2024 Request. The Minister said this was because it received the June 2024 Request more than 90 days after the Claimant was notified of the May 2023 Decision. Footnote 5 [ 7 ] The Claimant appealed the September 2024 Decision to the Social Security Tribunal (Tribunal). The Tribunal’s General Division dismissed his appeal. He then applied to the Tribunal’s Appeal Division for leave to appeal the General Division’s decision. One of my Appeal Division colleagues granted him leave to appeal. He requested a hearing in writing. Footnote 6 [ 8 ] I must decide whether the Claimant requested a reconsideration of the May 2023 Decision within 90 days of being notified of that decision. If he didn’t, I must decide if the Minister exercised its discretion judicially when it denied his late reconsideration request. If the Minister didn’t exercise its discretion judicially, I must further decide if the Claimant should have more time to ask for a reconsideration. [ 9 ] I find that the Claimant was not notified of the May 2023 Decision until May 31, 2024. As the Minister received his reconsideration request on June 5, 2024, he made that request within the applicable 90-day period. This means I do not need to address the other issues listed above. The parties agree on the outcome of the appeal [ 10 ] On April 7, 2027, the Minister made a concession on the central issue in this appeal. The Minister conceded that the Claimant submitted his reconsideration request (the June 2024 Request) within the 90-day period prescribed by the [NAME] . The Minister based this concession on the fact that the Minister’s written May 2023 Decision was incomplete, as it did not give the Claimant enough information to determine that he disagreed with that decision. Footnote 7 [ 11 ] This was the same position taken by the Claimant. Footnote 8 This means the parties agree that the appeal should be allowed. I accept the proposed outcome [ 12 ] The Minister’s concession is supported by the evidence and the law. [ 13 ] The [NAME] states that a benefit applicant may request a reconsideration of the Minister’s decision on that benefit within 90 days of receiving written notice of that decision. Footnote 9 [ 14 ] The evidence supports a finding that the May 2023 Decision was incomplete and did not provide enough information to the Claimant to determine whether he wanted to dispute that decision. In the circumstances of this case, the Minister should have provided at least some details of how it calculated the pension. The May 2023 Decision gave no such details. Footnote 10 [ 15 ] This means the Minister had not properly notified the Claimant of the May 2023 Decision. The Claimant did not receive enough information about the May 2023 Decision until May 31, 2024. Footnote 11 He then immediately wrote the June 2024 Request, which disputed the May 2023 Decision. The Minister received the June 2024 Request on June 5, 2024. Footnote 12 This was only five days after the Minister properly notified him of the May 2023 Decision. [ 16 ] The Claimant requested a reconsideration of the May 2023 Decision within 90 days of being properly notified of that decision. This means the Minister must make a reconsideration decision on the merits of his [NAME] retirement pension concern, as set out in the June 2024 Request. The [NAME] requires the Minister to make the reconsideration decision without delay. Footnote 13 [ 17 ] While this resolves the current appeal, I will briefly address two related issues. No finding on the merits of the June 2024 request [ 18 ] While I find that the Claimant made the June 2024 Request on time, I cannot make a finding on the underlying merits of that request. I only have the authority to make findings about the issues decided in the reconsideration decision and then appealed from a decision of the Tribunal’s General Division. Footnote 14 In this case, the reconsideration decision is the September 2024 Decision. The September 2024 Decision only addressed the lateness of the June 2024 Request. The General Division also pointed out this lack of jurisdiction. Footnote 15 No finding on the Claimant’s OAS pension [ 19 ] The Claimant also asked for a reconsideration decision about his OAS pension. He first made that request in the June 2024 Request, but the September 2024 Decision only addressed the [NAME] retirement pension issue. It said nothing about the Claimant’s OAS pension. Footnote 16 [ 20 ] It is not clear to me why the Minister hasn’t made a reconsideration decision about the Claimant’s OAS pension. The Claimant has expressed his desire for an OAS reconsideration decision many times. Footnote 17 [ 21 ] Upon learning of the Minister’s concession in this appeal, the Claimant asked the Tribunal to address a similar concern with his OAS pension. Footnote 18 However, I cannot do that. As noted above, my authority is limited to matters addressed in a reconsideration decision and then appealed from a decision of the Tribunal’s General Division. I see no reconsideration decision about his OAS pension, let alone a decision from the General Division on that topic. [ 22 ] I have considerable sympathy for the Claimant’s situation. He has waited a long time for some finality with the issues he first raised in 2024. However, I cannot exceed my jurisdiction. I can only remind the Minister of the statutory requirement to provide a reconsideration decision without delay. Conclusion [ 23 ] The appeal is allowed. The Minister shall now make a reconsideration decision, without delay, on the start date and amount of the Claimant’s [NAME] retirement pension. Footnotes Footnote 1 See GD2-4 and GD2-5. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See GD2-11. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See GD2-14 to GD2-15 and GD4-14. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See GD2-14. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 See GD2-16. This is based on section 81 of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 See AD1-4. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 See AD7-1. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 See AD1-10 to AD1-11. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 See section 81(1)(b) of the [NAME] . See also section 74.2 of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 See GD2-11. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 See GD4-14. The Minister’s letter was dated May 24, 2024. However, the Claimant did not receive it until May 31, 2024: see GD4-17. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 See GD2-14. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 See section 81(2) of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 See sections 81 and 82 of the [NAME] . See also section 55 of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act . Return to footnote 14 referrer Footnote 15 See GD7-3. Return to footnote 15 referrer Footnote 16 See GD2-16 and GD4-17 to GD4-18. Return to footnote 16 referrer Footnote 17 See, for example, GD4-4, GD4-5, GD8-1, GD8-4, GD10-2, AD4-1 to AD4-7, and AD6-1. Return to footnote 17 referrer Footnote 18 See AD11-1. Return to footnote 18 referrer