SST Canada Rules Immigrant Eligible for Partial OAS Pension

OUTCOME: Allowed

Citation: SB  v  [RESPONDENT[NAME] , 2026  SST  307 Social Security Tribunal of Canada [NAME] Security Section Decision Appellant: [redacted] Representative: R. D. Respondent: [redacted] [RESPONDENT[NAME] reconsideration decision dated April 22, 2025 (issued by Service Canada) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: In person Hearing date: May 13, 2026 Hearing participants: Appellant Appellant’s representative Interpreter Decision date: June 15, 2026 File number: GP-25-1166 On this page Decision Overview What the Appellant must prove Reasons for my decision When payments start Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] The appeal is allowed. [ 2 ] The Appellant, S. B., is eligible for a partial Old Age Security ( OAS ) pension of 10/40. Payments start as of March 2024. [ 3 ] This decision explains why I am allowing the appeal. Overview [ 4 ] The Appellant was born in [DATE]. He lived there working as a farmer. The Appellant came to Canada on February 7, 2014. He was sponsored by his daughter when he immigrated. He now has permanent resident status. [ 5 ] The Appellant applied for an OAS pension on June 7, 2023. He said he wanted his pension to start as soon as he qualified. [ 6 ] The [RESPONDENT[NAME] (Minister) refused the Appellant’s application. Footnote 1 The Appellant appealed the Minister’s decision to the Social Security Tribunal’s [NAME]. [ 7 ] The Appellant says he has resided in Canada since he entered the country in February 2014. While he did travel to India annually for many years, he consistently spent more time in Canada then he did in India. Except for delays caused by the pandemic in 2020, he never stayed in India for more than six months at a time. [ 8 ] The Minister says the Appellant has greater ties to India, including ownership of a property there. It says that based on his pattern of regular travel to India and his ties to that country, he primarily resided there during the period in dispute. What the Appellant must prove [ 9 ] To receive a full OAS pension, the Appellant must prove he resided in Canada for at least 40 years after he turned 18. Footnote 2 This rule has some exceptions. But the exceptions don’t apply to the Appellant. Footnote 3 [ 10 ] If the Appellant doesn’t qualify for a full OAS pension, he might qualify for a partial pension. A partial pension is based on the number of years (out of 40) that [NAME] resided in Canada after they turned 18. For example, [NAME] with 12 years of residence receives a partial pension of 12/40 the full amount. [ 11 ] To receive a partial OAS pension, the Appellant has to prove he resided in Canada for at least 10 years after he turned 18. He must prove this on a balance of probabilities. This means that he has to show that it is more likely than not he resided in Canada during the relevant periods. Footnote 4 Reasons for my decision [ 12 ] I find that the Appellant is eligible for a partial OAS pension of 10/40. [ 13 ] The Appellant has resided in Canada for 12 years and 99 days. [ 14 ] I considered the Appellant’s eligibility from February 7, 2014, up to and including May 13, 2026. [ 15 ] I chose the first date because that’s the date the Appellant first came to Canada. [ 16 ] I chose the second date because it was the date of the hearing. [ 17 ] Payments start as of March 2024. Footnote 5 [ 18 ] Here are the reasons for my decision. The test for residence [ 19 ] The law says that being present in Canada isn’t the same as residing in Canada. “Residence” and “presence” each have their own definition. I must use these definitions in making my decision. [ 20 ] [NAME] resides in Canada if they make their home and ordinarily live in any part of Canada. Footnote 6 [ 21 ] [NAME] is present in Canada when they are physically present in any part of Canada. Footnote 7 [ 22 ] When I am deciding whether the Appellant resided in Canada, I must look at the overall picture and factors such as: Footnote 8 where he had property, like furniture, bank accounts, and business interests where he had social ties, like friends, relatives, and membership in religious groups, clubs, or professional organizations where he had other ties, like medical coverage, rental agreements, mortgages, or loans where he filed income tax returns what ties he had to another country how much time he spent in Canada how often he was outside Canada, where he went, and how much time he spent there what his lifestyle was like in Canada what his intentions were [ 23 ] This isn’t a complete list. Other factors may be important to consider. I have to look at all the Appellant’s circumstances. Footnote 9 The Appellant has resided in Canada since February 7, 2014 [ 24 ] The Appellant has resided in Canada since February 7, 2014. [ 25 ] Most of the Appellant’s immediate family resides in Canada. While he has a son who still lives in India, he has two children and several grandchildren living close to his home in Canada. His wife also lives with him in Canada. The evidence shows that while there are some family ties remaining in India, most of the Appellant’s family is in Canada. [ 26 ] The Appellant has friends in both India and Canada. There are local temples in both countries. He says he doesn’t regularly attend temple and social events in either country because he has medical conditions that affect his ability to regularly engage in social activity. [ 27 ] The Appellant owns a property in India. It is a farm that was passed down through his family for several generations. His son lives on the farm and maintains it since 2014. The Appellant didn’t sell the farm when he moved to Canada, because it will be passed to his children following a family tradition once he passes away. [ 28 ] The Appellant says the utility bills for the property in India are still in his father’s name and were never updated with his name when the property was transferred. There are no taxes payable for the property. The Appellant’s son takes care of all the expenses related to the property, because he lives there. [ 29 ] While the Appellant doesn’t directly own property in Canada, his wife is on title to their home jointly with his son. The Appellant and his wife rented an apartment for several years before his wife and son purchased their home. Their son is responsible for the utility bills of the home. [ 30 ] In relation to property, the Appellant still has some ties to India because he has a property there. But someone else is living on the property and is responsible for maintaining it. The Appellant didn’t keep it because he wants to live in India part-time. He kept it because he feels obliged to leave it as a legacy for his children in the future. [ 31 ] The Appellant has a bank account in India; Footnote 10 it has existed since before he came to Canada in 2014. He never closed it, but he doesn’t use it regularly. He says his son supports him financially when he is in India. [ 32 ] The Appellant has bank accounts in Canada. Footnote 11 He has had a Canadian cellphone since 2014. He files income tax returns each year regularly. Footnote 12 His son in Canada has supported him financially since 2014. The Appellant says it is a cultural expectation that sons should support their parents financially. [ 33 ] The Appellant hasn’t worked in Canada. He was 57 when he came to Canada and had been a farmer all his life. He spends his time in Canada helping to care for his grandchildren. He goes on walks, socializes with friends, and attends temple occasionally. [ 34 ] Based on the Appellant’s family, financial and social activities, he continues to have ties to both India and Canada. His ties to Canada appear to be stronger because he has more family here, and has rented and owned properties with his wife here that he lived in for most of the time since 2014. [ 35 ] The Appellant has spent more time in Canada then he has in India since 2014. The Minister says the Appellant split his time between the two countries, but that isn’t accurate. [ 36 ] The Appellant typically travelled to India in December or January, and returned in April or May. His trips lasted 140 days on average, which is less than 5 months. Footnote 13 I find that the Appellant spent most of his time each year in Canada, in other words he ordinarily lived in Canada. [ 37 ] There is one exception to the Appellant’s travel pattern, and it occurred in 2020 during the global pandemic. On this year the Appellant stayed in India for almost a full year from October 2019 to October 2020. The Appellant says that he got stuck in India because of the pandemic. [ 38 ] The Minister argued that staying in India was a personal choice for the Appellant, pointing out that he could have come home earlier with required mandatory medical testing and quarantine. [ 39 ] I don’t accept the Minister’s argument that delays caused by the pandemic were a personal choice. The argument is made without evidence of the Appellant’s medical risks, familial medical risks, knowledge of the information available to the Appellant in India, and the status of the pandemic restrictions in India at the relevant timeframe. [ 40 ] Framing this delay as a simple personal choice is inappropriate, and isn’t a sufficient reason to find that the Appellant stopped residing in Canada. As a reference, once the Appellant returned to Canada in October 2020, he remained at his home here for 14 months. [ 41 ] Overall, I find the Appellant spent more time in Canada on an annual basis then he did in India, except for during the 2020 pandemic. Given the circumstances of that time, I don’t find that his extended stay in India resulted in a break in his residency in Canada. [ 42 ] The evidence shows that the Appellant often spent seven to eight months of every year in Canada, where most of his family lived. He intended to live in Canada. [ 43 ] Given that the Appellant had a home in Canada, had significant family ties in Canada, and spent most of his time in Canada, I find that he has ordinarily resided in Canada since February 7, 2014. The Appellant qualified for a partial OAS pension in February 2024 [ 44 ] The Appellant qualified for a partial OAS pension of 10/40 on February 7, 2024. That is when he had resided in Canada for 10 years after he turned 18. (He was already 65 years old, was a legal resident of Canada, and had applied for the pension.) Footnote 14 [ 45 ] The Appellant began residing in Canada on February 7, 2014. He continued residing in Canada up to the hearing date. As of February 7, 2024, he had resided in Canada for 10 years after he turned 18. [ 46 ] The Appellant is eligible for a pension of 10/40 the full amount. This is because he had resided in Canada for 10 full years when he qualified. Footnote 15 When payments start [ 47 ] The Appellant’s pension starts in March 2024. [ 48 ] OAS pension payments start the month after the pension is approved. Footnote 16 The Appellant was 66 when he applied. When an application is received after [NAME] turns 65, the approval takes effect on the latest of the following dates: Footnote 17 one year before the day it was received—in this case, June 2022 the day the Appellant qualified for a pension after turning 65 and meeting the 10/20-year residence requirement—in this case, February 2024 the month before the day specified in writing by the Appellant—in this case, the Appellant asked for payments to start as soon as he qualified, which was February 2024, and the month before that is January 2024 [ 49 ] The latest of these dates is February 2024. That is the effective approval date. Payments start the following month, which is March 2024. Conclusion [ 50 ] The Appellant is eligible for a partial OAS pension of 10/40. [ 51 ] This means the appeal is allowed. Footnotes Footnote 1 The [RESPONDENT[NAME] (Minister) manages the [NAME] for the [NAME]. See the reconsideration decision at GD2-246. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See section 3(1)(c) of the Old Age Security Act  ( OAS Act). The Appellant also has to be at least 65 years old and a Canadian citizen or legal resident of Canada. And he must have applied for the pension. The Appellant has met these requirements. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See section 3(1)(b) of the OAS Act. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 [NAME]  v  Canada ([NAME] [NAME]) , 2013  FC  366. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 This is the earliest date payments could start. In some cases, the Minister and the Appellant may agree to have payments start later. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 See section 21(1)(a) of the Old Age Security Regulations  ( OAS Regulations). Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 See section 21(1)(b) of the OAS Regulations. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 [NAME])  v  [NAME] , 2005  FC  76. See also [NAME]  v  Canada ([NAME] [NAME]) , 2008  FC  1111; [NAME]  v  Canada ([NAME] [NAME]) , 2013  FC  319; and [NAME]  v  Canada ([NAME] [NAME]) , 2013  FC  366. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 [NAME])  v  [NAME] , 2005  FC  1277. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 See GD2-225. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 See GD1-4, GD1-6, and GD1-8. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 See GD1-11 to GD1-17. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 See GD2-79 and GD2-80. The Minister has listed these absences in its submissions at GD4-6 and has not raised any dispute over their accuracy. Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 Sections 3 to 5 of the OAS Act set out these requirements. Return to footnote 14 referrer Footnote 15 The period of residence is rounded down to the lower multiple of a year when it isn’t a multiple of a year. See section 3(4) of the OAS Act. Return to footnote 15 referrer Footnote 16 See sections 8(1) and (2) of the OAS Act. Return to footnote 16 referrer Footnote 17 See section 5(2) of the OAS Regulations. Return to footnote 17 referrer