SST Dismisses OAS Pension Appeal Over Residency Issues

OUTCOME: Dismissed

Citation: SA  v  [RESPONDENT] and [NAME] , 2026  [NAME]  267 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Decision Appellant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] [COUNSEL] under appeal: [NAME] decision dated June 4, 2025 (GP-23-809) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: Teleconference Hearing date: April 10, 2026 Hearing participants: Appellant Respondent’s representative Decision date: June 11, 2026 File number: AD-25-556 On this page Decision Overview Preliminary matters What I must decide Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] The appeal is dismissed. [ 2 ] The Appellant, [APPELLANT]., didn’t reside in Canada for as many years as he claims. He is eligible for a partial Old Age Security ( OAS ) pension of 14/40 as of November 2019. [ 3 ] The Appellant’s residency in Canada also makes him eligible for the Guaranteed Income Supplement ( GIS ) as of November 2019. But this is only if he meets the other eligibility requirements for the GIS , including the income requirement. Overview [ 4 ] The Appellant is an 84-year-old man who was born in Iran. He says that he left Iran illegally in 1982 and went to Spain. Footnote 1 In 1984, he immigrated to Canada with his then-spouse and [NAME]. Footnote 2 He became a Canadian citizen in January 1990. Footnote 3 [ 5 ] The Appellant applied for an OAS pension in August 2006. Footnote 4 The [RESPONDENT] and [NAME] (Minister) denied the application. That was because the Appellant didn’t provide the information and documents the Minister had asked for. Footnote 5 [ 6 ] The Appellant applied again for an OAS pension in 2008. Footnote 6 He also applied for the GIS . Footnote 7 [ 7 ] The Minister approved the OAS application of 2008. The Minister said the Appellant was eligible for a partial OAS pension of 15/40 effective April 2007. That was based on his residency in Canada from November 3, 1984, to August 15, 1992, and since August 1, 1999. Footnote 8 [ 8 ] The Minister also approved the Appellant’s application for the GIS . He began receiving that benefit in April 2007. Footnote 9 [ 9 ] In early 2019, the Minister informed the Appellant that his residency in Canada was under review. The Minister gave the Appellant a list of documents to provide. Footnote 10 [ 10 ] The Minister finished its review in 2020. The Minister concluded that the Appellant resided in Canada from November 3, 1984, to 1992 and since October 7, 2019. The Minister said that because the Appellant didn’t have 20 years of residency in Canada, he wasn’t eligible for the OAS pension he received from April 2007 to November 2018, and he wasn’t eligible for the GIS he received from April 2007 to August 2018. The Minister told the Appellant he would have to repay that money to the government, an amount totalling $99,999.00. Footnote 11 [ 11 ] In the same letter, the Minister said the Appellant’s recent application for the GIS could not be approved because the Appellant wasn’t residing in Canada. This is despite the Minister saying in that same letter that the Appellant had resumed residency in Canada in October 2019. Footnote 12 [ 12 ] The Appellant asked the Minister to reconsider its decision. He focused on the period after 1992 and explained what was happening in his life. He also pointed out that he began to rent an apartment in Canada on August 1, 1999. Footnote 13 [ 13 ] The Minister reconsidered and decided as follows: The Appellant showed an additional period of residency in Canada – from August 1, 1999, to February 7, 2006. The Appellant was still not eligible for the OAS pension he received from April 2007 to November 2018 or the GIS he received from April 2007 to August 2018. This is because he had stopped residing in Canada as of February 8, 2006, and so he didn’t have at least 20 years of residency in Canada as of April 2007. The Appellant was eligible for an OAS pension as of October 2019 because he had resumed residency in Canada as of that date. The Minister didn’t say how much of a pension the Appellant was eligible for. The Appellant’s eligibility for the GIS would be calculated after he provided proof of his foreign income from 2018 to 2021. Footnote 14 [ 14 ] The Appellant appealed the Minister’s reconsideration decision to the Social Security Tribunal’s [NAME]. The [NAME] dismissed the appeal. [ 15 ] The Appellant disagreed with the [NAME]’s decision. So, he asked the Appeal Division for leave (permission) to appeal. In November 2025, one of my colleagues gave the Appellant permission to appeal. [ 16 ] On April 10, 2026, I held a de novo hearing. A de novo hearing means I wasn’t looking at whether the [NAME] made a mistake. I was taking a fresh look at the case, as if it hadn’t been decided before. Preliminary matters I accepted some of the Appellant’s late documents [ 17 ] The Appellant filed late documents on March 9, 2026. Footnote 15 These documents were late because the filing period ended on January 21, 2026. I accepted these documents into the record. And I sent the parties a letter explaining why I accepted them. Footnote 16 [ 18 ] A few days before the hearing, the Appellant filed more documents. Footnote 17 I discussed these documents with the parties at the start of the hearing. I told the parties that I wasn’t going to accept the documents into the record. This is because all but one of them were already on file. Footnote 18 The document that wasn’t already on file was a bank statement that wasn’t relevant. On that document, the Appellant had underlined the amount of his [NAME] retirement pension that was deposited into his account on December 20, 2018. Footnote 19 The amount of the retirement pension isn’t relevant in this appeal. The Appellant didn’t stay until the end of the hearing [ 19 ] Near the end of the hearing and after [NAME] finished her oral argument, I asked the Appellant a question. He didn’t respond. I could see the Appellant was still connected to the teleconference and so I tried several times to get a response from him. But he didn’t reply. [ 20 ] About three minutes later, the Appellant (or someone on his behalf) either hung up the phone or got disconnected. Efforts were made to call the Appellant after that, but he could not be reached. [ 21 ] Because I didn’t know if the Appellant had intentionally ended his participation in the hearing, I was reluctant to continue with the hearing in his absence. I told [NAME] that I would write a letter to the parties after the hearing and that my letter would: ask the Appellant to explain what happened near the end of the hearing include a question I intended to ask [NAME] during the hearing [ 22 ] I sent my letter with questions on April 13, 2026. Footnote 20 [ 23 ] Both parties replied to my letter. The Appellant said he became ill during the hearing and required medical attention. Footnote 21 [NAME] provided a written response to the question I posed to the Minister in writing. Footnote 22 [ 24 ] After I learned that the Appellant had become ill near the end of the hearing, I had concerns about how much of the Minister’s oral argument he was able to hear before he became unwell. So, I wrote to the parties, and I gave the Appellant the following three options: The Appellant could reply in writing to the Minister’s written submissions including the Minister’s recent response to my post-hearing question. I noted that the Minister’s oral arguments that were made at the hearing closely aligned with the Minister’s written arguments that were already on file. I could schedule a continuation of the hearing to allow the Appellant to give his reply orally with an interpreter. I explained that if the Appellant chose this option, I would ask [NAME] to repeat her oral submissions. I could go ahead and decide the outcome of the appeal. I said I would do this if the Appellant didn’t want to reply to the Minister’s arguments. Footnote 23 [ 25 ] The Appellant said he didn’t want to respond to the Minister’s arguments and that he had nothing more to add. Footnote 24 So, I went ahead and made my decision. What I must decide [ 26 ] To get an OAS pension, [NAME] must meet several requirements. For example, [NAME] must be at least 65 years of age and must apply for the pension in writing. Footnote 25 [ 27 ] The requirement that is at issue in this appeal is residence in Canada. [ 28 ] I must decide if the Appellant has resided in Canada for enough years to qualify for an OAS pension. [ 29 ] To get a full OAS pension, the Appellant must prove he resided in Canada for at least 40 years after he reached age 18. Footnote 26 [ 30 ] If the Appellant doesn’t qualify for a full OAS pension, he may qualify for a partial OAS pension. A partial pension is based on the number of years out of 40 that [NAME] resided in Canada after they reached age 18. For example, [NAME] with 10 years of residence in Canada receives a partial pension of 10/40 (or one-quarter of the full pension). Footnote 27 [ 31 ] To get a partial OAS pension, the Appellant must prove he resided in Canada: for at least 10 years after he reached age 18 if he resided in Canada on the day before his application is approved or for at least 20 years after he reached age 18 if he didn’t reside in Canada on the day before his application is approved Footnote 28 [ 32 ] The Appellant has to prove his case. He has to prove it on a balance of probabilities. This means that he has to show it is more likely than not that he resided in Canada for enough years to qualify for a pension. What does residing in Canada mean? [ 33 ] Being present in Canada isn’t the same as residing in Canada. [ 34 ] [NAME] resides in Canada if they make their home and ordinarily live in any part of Canada. Footnote 29 [ 35 ] [NAME] is present in Canada when they are physically present in any part of Canada. Footnote 30 [ 36 ] When I am deciding whether the Appellant resided in Canada, I have to look at the overall picture and consider factors like the following: where he had property, like furniture, bank accounts, and business interests where he had social ties, such as friends, relatives, and membership in [NAME], [NAME], or [NAME] where he had other ties, such as 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 of Canada, where he went, and how much time he spent there what his way of life was like in Canada where he intended to live Footnote 31 [ 37 ] This isn’t a complete list. There may be other important factors to consider. I have to look at all the Appellant’s circumstances. Footnote 32 There are two periods of time in dispute [ 38 ] This appeal involves two periods of time in dispute. This is because the parties agree that the Appellant resided in Canada as follows: November 3, 1984, to August 15, 1992 August 1, 1999, to February 7, 2006, and Since October 7, 2019 [ 39 ] The two periods that are in dispute are as follows: August 16, 1992, to July 31, 1999, and February 8, 2006, to October 6, 2019 My findings [ 40 ] The Appellant hasn’t shown that he likely resided in Canada during either of the two disputed periods. I will now explain why, starting with the period from August 16, 1992, to July 31, 1999. The period from August 16, 1992, to July 31, 1999 [ 41 ] The Appellant said that he never gave up his residency in Canada. In other words, he said he continued to reside in Canada throughout this disputed period. Footnote 33 What the Appellant said about the time from August 1992 to July 1999 [ 42 ] For context, I will briefly explain what the Appellant said was happening just before August 1992. [ 43 ] The Appellant said that because of the recession in Canada in the early 1990s, he could not work. Footnote 34 So, he sold his home in April 1992 to pay off some debt. [ 44 ] The Appellant said that on May 15, 1992, he moved with his family to a [NAME]’s apartment and stayed in a furnished guest room. He stored his family’s household items in the [NAME]’s storage room. He said his [NAME]’s apartment continued to be his principal residence until July 31, 1999. He didn’t pay any rent during that time. Footnote 35 [ 45 ] The Appellant also said that in May 1992, he sent his then-spouse and his daughter to stay with relatives in Iran. Footnote 36 On August 15, 1992, he went to Iran to be with his family. He hoped to be able to bring them back to Canada at some point in the future. Footnote 37 [ 46 ] The Appellant described the events after August 15, 1992, as follows: After he arrived in Iran in August 1992, he was arrested for political reasons. He was put in jail. The [NAME] confiscated (took) his passports. Footnote 38 In the summer of 1993, he was released from prison and allowed to stay with his family in Iran. But as conditions of his release, he had to be “on call” and he wasn’t allowed to leave the city boundary. His family members acted as guarantors. Footnote 39 In 1994, the [NAME] allowed him to travel again and gave him a temporary travel document. But his family had to stay in Iran as guarantors to ensure the Appellant would return to Iran whenever he was called back. Footnote 40 He returned to Canada in August 1994. His then-spouse and daughter stayed in Iran. Footnote 41 Between 1994 and 1998, he went to Iran twice a year. That was because he had to present himself to [NAME] and because he had to take care of his family who were forced, as his guarantors, to stay in Iran. Each of his trips to Iran lasted four weeks. Footnote 42 Between 1994 and 1998, he went to the United States (US) once for two weeks. That was to visit his brother. In June 1998, he went to Iran and received his Iranian passport. His family was released as his guarantors, and a small part of his assets were released to him. There were conditions attached to all of this, including the requirement for him to present himself in Iran once a year. Footnote 43 In the summer of 1998, he returned to Canada with his then-spouse and his daughter. He registered his daughter in school. He lived off the released assets. Footnote 44 What the Minister says about the period from August 1992 to July 1999 [ 47 ] The Minister says the Appellant didn’t reside in Canada during this disputed period. The Minister says the Appellant didn’t provide any documentary evidence to support his claim of residency in Canada. The Minister also says it would be unreasonable to rely on the Appellant’s uncorroborated evidence of residency because he has a history of providing inaccurate statements about his absences from Canada. The Appellant didn’t reside in Canada from August 16, 1992, to July 31, 1999 [ 48 ] The Appellant hasn’t shown that he made his home and ordinarily lived in Canada during any part of the disputed period from August 16, 1992, to July 31, 1999. [ 49 ] First, the Appellant previously acknowledged that he lived in Iran for part of this time in dispute. For example, in his OAS application of August 2006, he said he lived in Iran from 1992 to 1994. Footnote 45 [ 50 ] Second, the Appellant didn’t have strong ties to Canada during this disputed period. His immediate family (his then-spouse and [NAME]) were in Iran for almost all this period. He didn’t own or rent property in Canada during this time. His belongings were in storage in a [NAME]’s apartment. He wasn’t working in Canada. And his way of life in Canada seemed most unsettled. [ 51 ] Third, the Appellant has provided hardly any documents to support his evidence about what was happening between August 1992 and July 1999. For example, the Appellant didn’t provide any documents from Iran about his detention there or about his travel restrictions. He also didn’t provide any documents that could show he was spending most of his time in Canada from August 1994 to July 1999. [ 52 ] The only supporting document the Appellant provided is a letter from a [COMPANY] that confirms the Appellant’s daughter attended that school from September 8, 1998, to June 30, 1999. Footnote 46 Even if I accepted that the Appellant’s then-spouse and daughter had returned to reside in Canada by September 1998, it wouldn’t be enough to show the Appellant was also residing in Canada. I don’t have any supporting evidence showing how much time he was spending here. [ 53 ] Lastly, I agree with the Minister that the Appellant has a history of providing inaccurate statements about his absences from Canada. This raises concerns about his credibility (the truthfulness of what he says). Because of this, I am reluctant to put much weight on what the Appellant says. Why I have credibility concerns about the Appellant’s evidence [ 54 ] The Appellant has given evidence that isn’t truthful. I will give some examples of inaccurate statements he has made about his absences from Canada. [ 55 ] The first example involves a questionnaire the Appellant signed on March 23, 2010. In that document, he said he had not been absent from Canada within the past year. Footnote 47 But records from the Canada Border Services Agency ([NAME]) show that he had just arrived in Canada from another country on March 21, 2010. Footnote 48 [ 56 ] The second example involves a questionnaire the Appellant signed on June 6, 2011. In that document, the Appellant said he had not been absent from Canada within the past year. Footnote 49 But records from the [NAME] show he had just arrived in Canada from another country on April 24, 2011. Footnote 50 [ 57 ] The third example involves a GIS application the Appellant signed on April 15, 2015. Footnote 51 In that document, the Appellant said he had not been absent from Canada for more than six consecutive months within the last 18 months. But his travel records show he was absent from Canada from January 2014 to April 7, 2015. Footnote 52 [ 58 ] The fourth example involves a Statement of Income the Appellant signed on April 18, 2017. In that document, the Appellant said he had not been absent from Canada for more than six consecutive months within the last 18 months. Footnote 53 But his travel records show he was in Iran from April 11, 2016, to October 26, 2016. Footnote 54 [ 59 ] The Appellant was given opportunities to explain the inconsistent statements. Footnote 55 He said he was sorry and that it wasn’t done intentionally. Footnote 56 [ 60 ] I acknowledge that people can sometimes make mistakes or have difficulty remembering things. When that happens, it can be difficult to put weight on what that person says because the evidence isn’t reliable. In this case though, I don’t think the inaccurate statements are about mistaken information or poor memory. Most of the examples I have given show the Appellant gave the inaccurate information about his absences within a short time of returning to Canada. The period from February 8, 2006, to October 6, 2019 [ 61 ] I will now look at the period from February 8, 2006, to October 6, 2019. What the Appellant said about the period from February 2006 to October 2019 [ 62 ] The Appellant said that he never gave up his residency in Canada and that he continued to reside in Canada throughout this disputed period. Footnote 57 He said his residency in Canada is supported by things like his rent, utilities and other expenses, OHIP coverage, and tax filings. Footnote 58 [ 63 ] For context, I will summarize what the Appellant said about the time leading up to February 2006. [ 64 ] The Appellant said the following: In December 2004, he sold a property he had been renovating (the [NAME]). The closing date was March 31, 2005. But the sale was conditional on him being able to move into the property and finish a bachelor unit. His deadline to finish the work was first set at December 31, 2005. It was later extended to March 31, 2006. Footnote 59 In January 2005, he moved into the [NAME] and paid monthly rent. At the same time, his daughter went away to university. Footnote 60 In April 2005, he went to Iran and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to establish some business ventures there. He stayed about five weeks. Footnote 61 In the summer of 2005, he went to Iran for about four or six weeks. That was because he had to do his yearly presentation and registration with the court. When he returned to Canada, he learned his spouse had moved out. He says their date of separation is August 1, 2005. Footnote 62 [ 65 ] This brings us to the start of the first disputed period. Some of what the Appellant said about this period is inconsistent. But I will summarize it anyway. The Appellant said the following about what happened in and after February 2006: In February 2006, his brother sent him a ticket to visit him in the US. He returned to Toronto on March 31, 2006. He stayed with a friend until April 9, 2006, when he returned to the US. Footnote 63 That same month (April 2006), he went to Iran for two weeks. Footnote 64 After the [NAME] closed, he moved to Y, an office space he had leased temporarily. Footnote 65 In April and May 2006, he stayed with a friend and registered his address as an apartment on Z in Toronto. Footnote 66 In June 2006, he sold his rental property at S. Footnote 67 In September 2006, his daughter decided to return to Toronto from university so that she could study dental hygiene. Footnote 68 On November 1, 2006, he rented an apartment on W with his daughter and they both moved there. His share of the rent was $500.00 a month. Footnote 69 He continued to live at W (but not always the same apartment) until August 31, 2015. Footnote 70 He divorced in July 2007. Footnote 71 In the spring of 2008, he went to Iran to try to get his assets back. Those assets were worth millions of dollars and had been unlawfully confiscated (taken) from him in Iran decades ago. Footnote 72 When he was in Iran, he stayed with his mother. Footnote 73 In February 2012, instead of receiving a full return of his assets, he was given a 25% share in a construction and [NAME] project in Iran. He thought this would be his only chance to recover some of his assets. Footnote 74 In June 2012, an [COMPANY] was registered in Iran. It received a contract to build and sell three high rise buildings. He was a shareholder and [NAME]. He was not an employee or otherwise on payroll. Footnote 75 In 2014, his 25% share of the construction project was estimated to be around two million Canadian dollars. He intended to bring that money to Canada and live the rest of his life in Canada. Footnote 76 In October 2015, he began living in an apartment on O in Toronto. He continued living there until at least October 2020. Footnote 77 On February 20, 2017, his mother passed away in Iran and he was named the executor of her estate. The estate matter took a lot of his time. Footnote 78 What the Minister said about the period from February 2006 to October 2019 [ 66 ] The Minister said the Appellant didn’t reside in Canada from February 8, 2006, to October 2019. The Minister said the Appellant spent significant amounts of time outside of Canada during this disputed period. The Minister calculated that from February 2006 to October 2019, the Appellant spent less than 15% of his time in Canada. What ties did the Appellant have to Canada from February 2006 to October 2019? [ 67 ] I will address the Appellant’s travel history shortly. First, I will acknowledge that the Appellant had some ties to Canada during this disputed time. His ties include the following: Property ties [ 68 ] The Appellant had ties to a rental property (S) that was owned by his former spouse. The Appellant likely helped manage the rental unit or units. That property was purchased in 2003 (before the disputed period) and sold in June 2006 (shortly after the disputed period began). Footnote 79 [ 69 ] The Appellant didn’t own a vehicle in Canada. But he was insured on a vehicle that was owned by his former spouse at least until 2008. Footnote 80 Family and social ties [ 70 ] The Appellant’s daughter was likely in Canada. The [APPELLANT] also likely had friends in Canada. [ 71 ] The Appellant provided evidence of his involvement with the B. His involvement seems to have dated back to 1986 and continued to at least March 2007. Footnote 81 The Appellant didn’t provide a lot of information about what his service for B involved. But this is still indicative of a social tie to Canada at least until 2007. Residential lease agreements [ 72 ] The Appellant had a tenancy agreement until March 31, 2006, so that he could finish some renovations on the property he sold in 2005. Footnote 82 After that, the Appellant and his daughter paid rent on a property managed by H. That seems to have been from November 2006 to August 31, 2015. Footnote 83 [ 73 ] The Appellant said that from 2015 to at least the end of the disputed period, he rented a room on O. There is a letter from a landlord dated January 2020 that says the [APPELLANT] had been a tenant since October 2015 and that his monthly rent, including utilities, was $500.00. Footnote 84 It is unclear where the [APPELLANT] lived in September 2015. Financial ties [ 74 ] The Appellant had financial ties to Canada. He had Canadian bank accounts, credit cards, and a CIBC personal line of credit. Footnote 85 [ 75 ] The Appellant also filed income tax returns in Canada, and he identified Ontario as his province of residence. Footnote 86 Business interests [ 76 ] The Appellant had some business interests in Canada during the disputed period. [ 77 ] He was a director of two [NAME]. One was incorporated in January 2004 and was called the A ([COMPANY]). It closed in about February 2016. Footnote 87 The other was incorporated in July 2004 and was called the V. Footnote 88 It is unclear when that company closed. Other ties [ 78 ] The Appellant had an Ontario driver’s license. The copy on file expired on March 3, 2008. Footnote 89 But he likely had it renewed after that. Footnote 90  He also received medical care in Ontario. Footnote 91 [ 79 ] He had a [NAME] account for internet, cable tv and a home phone from at least 2008 to 2010. Footnote 92 [ 80 ] The Appellant also had Canadian passports for most of the disputed time. Footnote 93 What conclusions can I draw from these ties to Canada? [ 81 ] Like I said before, the Appellant clearly had some ties to Canada during the disputed period. But I don’t consider them overly strong, especially when I consider the following: Some of the ties were likely carried over from previous residency in Canada. The Appellant said that he lived for much of the disputed time with his daughter. There is no evidence on file from the Appellant’s daughter that speaks to the living arrangements between them. It is also not clear from the tenancy agreements how many bedrooms each of their rental units had. The income tax returns may have been filed in Canada because the Appellant needed to file them to qualify for the GIS . The Appellant also had ties to the US and to Iran. For example, he got medical treatment in the US. Footnote 94 He had Iranian passports. Footnote 95 He had a bank account in Iran. Footnote 96 He had driving permits issued in Iran. Footnote 97 And he was an [NAME] in a large construction project in Iran, which began around 2012. Footnote 98 I have concerns about whether the Appellant has been forthright about the extent of his ties to the US and Iran. For example, the Appellant said that he didn’t rent or own property outside of Canada. Footnote 99 But because of the credibility concerns I explained earlier, I am reluctant to put much weight on what the Appellant said about his lack of property ties to other countries. [ 82 ] For these reasons, I have placed particular weight on the amount of time the Appellant has actually spent in Canada. The Federal Court of Canada has recognized that actual presence in Canada and the frequency of one’s absences from Canada will in most cases be a crucial factor. Footnote 100 The Appellant spent most of his time outside of Canada [ 83 ] The Minister prepared two charts showing the Appellant’s travel dates. One chart covers the period from February 8, 2006, to March 28, 2008, and shows the Appellant spent most of his time in the US. The other chart covers the period from March 2008 to October 2019 and shows the Appellant spent most of his time in Iran. Footnote 101 [ 84 ] I reviewed the charts along with the evidence on record and find the Minister’s charts are mostly accurate. I saw a few things that could be misleading, but this was only about where the Appellant was when he was not in Canada. [ 85 ] For example, the Minister’s first chart about the Appellant’s time in the US implies that the Appellant was in the US from April 9, 2006, to May 2, 2006. But the evidence shows he was in Iran from April 15, 2006, to April 28, 2006. Footnote 102 [ 86 ] The chart below shows the dates the Appellant was in Canada. The dates are very similar, but not identical, to the dates in the Minister’s charts. I have made slight changes to align with the evidence on record. I have provided page references for those changes. [ 87 ] The Appellant’s time in Canada is as follows: Stay in Canada Length of stay March 31, 2006, to April 9, 2006 10 days May 2, 2006, to May 5, 2006 4 days June 2, 2006, to June 7, 2006 6 days June 30, 2006, to July 5, 2006 6 days August 4, 2006, to August 10, 2006 7 days November 22, 2006, to November 28, 2006 7 days March 26, 2007, to March 31, 2007 6 days May 27, 2007, to June 2, 2007 7 days October 2, 2007, to October 7, 2007 6 days December 28, 2007, to March 25, 2008 Footnote 103 89 days January 9, 2009, to March 6, 2009 57 days March 21, 2010, to April 25, 2010 36 days April 24, 2011, to June 8, 2011 46 days February 6, 2012, to February 28, 2012 23 days September 13, 2013, to October 5, 2013 Footnote 104 23 days December 24, 2013, to December 29, 2013 6 days January 7, 2014, to January 12, 2014 6 days April 7, 2015, to April 17, 2015 Footnote 105 11 days March 29, 2016, to April 11, 2016 14 days October 26, 2016, to November 4, 2016 Footnote 106 10 days April 4, 2017, to April 22, 2017 19 days October 18, 2017, to October 28, 2017 Footnote 107 11 days April 5, 2018, to April 21, 2018 Footnote 108 17 days July 4, 2018, to July 18, 2018 15 days August 9, 2018, to September 8, 2018 Footnote 109 31 days October 10, 2018, to October 26, 2018 17 days November 1, 2018, to November 17, 2018 17 days April 17, 2019, to May 13, 2019 27 days May 22, 2019, to August 8, 2019 79 days October 7, 2019 Total time in Canada from February 8, 2006, to October 7, 2019 613 days Total length of time in dispute (February 8, 2006, to October 6, 2019) 4989 days or 13 years, 7 months and 29 days [ 88 ] The chart above shows the following: The Appellant spent far more time outside of Canada than in Canada during this disputed period. The Appellant had a pattern of absences from Canada. The absences were frequent and they were lengthy. The Appellant’s stays in Canada were more like short visits to Canada than periods of residency in Canada. The Appellant began spending more time in Canada in 2018, when he likely became aware that the Minister was questioning his residency in Canada. Footnote 110 But even then, he was only in Canada for a total of about 97 days in 2018. [ 89 ] Based on all of this, I am unable to find that the Appellant was ordinarily living and making his home in Canada during this disputed period. The Appellant isn’t eligible for protected residency What the law says about protected residency during [RESPONDENT] [ 90 ] The law says that certain absences from Canada shall be deemed not to have interrupted [NAME]’s residence in Canada. For example, if [NAME] was absent from Canada because they were working in another country, then that absence may be deemed not to have interrupted that person’s residence in Canada. In other words, the law protects that person’s residence in Canada despite the absence. Footnote 111 [ 91 ] But the law sets out strict rules for what types of absences are protected. [ 92 ] If [NAME] was absent from Canada because they were employed outside of Canada by a [NAME] as a representative or member, then the absence can only be protected if: the person was residing in Canada immediately before the absence during the [RESPONDENT] out of Canada the person had in Canada a permanent place of abode to which he intended to return or maintained in Canada a self-contained domestic establishment and the person returned to Canada within six months after the end of the [RESPONDENT] out of Canada or reached, while employed out of Canada, age 65. Footnote 112 What the Appellant said about the protected residency [ 93 ] The Appellant said that some of his absences from Canada should be protected because he was working outside of Canada for a [NAME] and/or as a self-employed Canadian businessman. Footnote 113 What the Minister said about the protected residency [ 94 ] The Minister said that the Appellant’s absences cannot be protected because of the following: The Appellant didn’t show he was residing in Canada at the outset of his alleged [RESPONDENT] outside of Canada. The Appellant didn’t show he retained a place of abode or a self-contained domestic establishment in Canada throughout his absence from Canada. The Appellant was not absent from Canada for [RESPONDENT] within any of the circumstances set out in sections 21(5)(a) or (b) of the [NAME] , including [RESPONDENT] by a [NAME]. The Appellant doesn’t qualify for protected residency [ 95 ] The Appellant’s argument is overly broad. He didn’t explain what type of work he did as a self-employed Canadian businessman. He described himself as such in the context of being an [NAME] in the large construction project in Iran. Footnote 114 But that has nothing to do with Canada. [ 96 ] He could be referring to his work for the [NAME], but the documents on file identify him as a director of each company. There are no supporting documents to show he was doing other work that might fall within the scope of self-[RESPONDENT] such as contract or consultancy work. [ 97 ] I also don’t see anything in the [NAME] that protects residency in Canada for those who are self-employed outside of Canada except perhaps for work that is done as a transport worker or work in lumbering, harvesting, fishing, or other seasonal type work. Footnote 115 But the Appellant didn’t say he was doing those types of jobs. [ 98 ] Given the Appellant’s role as a director for two companies that were incorporated in Ontario in 2004, I considered whether the Appellant was working outside of Canada for a [NAME]. But I can’t find he was. [ 99 ] First, section 21(5) of the [NAME] protects residency of [NAME] employed out of Canada by a “[NAME].” It is unclear whether “[NAME]” includes [NAME]. [ 100 ] Second, even if [NAME] fall within the scope of protection, there is not enough evidence to show the Appellant was employed out of Canada for either or both companies. [ 101 ] Aside from what the Appellant said, there is no supporting evidence that he was required as a director of either company to do his work outside of Canada during the disputed period. There is also no supporting evidence of the work he reportedly did outside of Canada or of when that work was done. [ 102 ] The Appellant made some [NAME] comments about business travel, but even then he gave evidence that seems inconsistent with him being employed out of Canada by a [NAME]. [ 103 ] For example, as I said before, the Appellant was the director of the A. The Appellant described the company as a business centre where offices, including time-share offices, were rented to a variety of businesses. His plan was to expand this business centre to the US and “around the Globe” to connect businesses with the world of trade. Footnote 116 [ 104 ] The Appellant said he went to Iran and the UAE for about five weeks in April 2005 to find ways to connect his company to the markets there. He also said he went back to Iran for two weeks in April 2006 to discuss the market with his “partners” in Iran. [ 105 ] But none of this shows the [APPELLANT] was employed out of Canada. More still, the Appellant gave evidence suggesting that his brother in Iran was representing the A there. Footnote 117 And the Appellant also implied that he, on his brother’s advice, was self-employed in Iran . I say this because the Appellant said that for his “safety in case of emergency” he had to register himself with “the [COMPANY] as self-employed there.” Footnote 118 [ 106 ] As another example, the Appellant was a director of V. This was a company designed to recruit nurses to Canada. [ 107 ] The Appellant filed documents showing that the company advertised its services in Kuwait in 2004 and perhaps India in 2004. Footnote 119 But that was before the start of the disputed period. The Appellant suggested that his trip to Iran in April 2006 may have also involved some work on behalf of V, but his evidence was vague. Footnote 120 [ 108 ] The Appellant mentioned another organization he was involved with. This is the G (G). This is an organization that was already in existence before the disputed period. It seems to have offered immigration-related services. The evidence about this organization is very thin. But, from what I see, one of the Appellant’s brothers in Iran was responsible for the work done in Iran. Footnote 121 I can’t make decisions based on financial hardship [ 109 ] The Appellant has argued financial hardship. The law doesn’t allow me to make decisions based on financial hardship or even compassion. Footnote 122 [ 110 ] The Minister has discretion, in certain circumstances, to forgive all or part of an overpayment. Footnote 123 However, I don’t have the same discretion. This means that only the Minister can reduce or cancel an overpayment for reasons such as undue hardship. Conclusion [ 111 ] The Appellant hasn’t shown that he resided in Canada in either of the two disputed periods. He has also not shown that his residency in Canada should be protected because he was working outside of Canada. [ 112 ] This means he is eligible for a partial OAS pension. [ 113 ] The Appellant is a Canadian citizen who turned 65 in July 2006. He applied for the pension in 2008. So, he met the last of the OAS eligibility requirements on October 7, 2019, when he resumed residency in Canada. This means the earliest the application could be approved is October 2019. Footnote 124 [ 114 ] At the time the application could be approved, the [APPELLANT] had 14 years of residency in Canada. This is based on his residency in Canada from November 3, 1984, to August 15, 1992, from August 1, 1999, to February 7, 2006, and as of October 7, 2019. [ 115 ] Payment of the pension starts in November 2019, the month after the application is approved. Footnote 125 [ 116 ] The Appellant’s residency in Canada makes him eligible for the GIS as of November 2019, provided he meets the other eligibility requirements for the GIS , including the income requirement. [ 117 ] The appeal is dismissed. Footnotes Footnote 1 See GD10-93. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See GD2-07, and GD10-28 to GD10-29. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See GD10-30 and GD10-34 to GD10-35. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See GD2-6 to GD2-10, GD10-74 to GD10-77 and GD10-79 to GD10-83. The Appellant applied for the OAS pension again in January 2007, but it was incomplete because he didn’t sign the application. See GD2-12. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 See GD10-86. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 The application is not on file. See GD2-1285, GD2-1483, and GD10-100. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 See GD2-43. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 See GD2-15 to GD2-18 and GD10-101 to GD10-104. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 See GD2-1483. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 See GD10-149. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 The Minister said the OAS pension overpayment was $28,606.27 and the GIS overpayment was $71,392.73. See GD10-170 to GD10-173. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 See GD10-171. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 See GD10-174 to GD10-176. Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 The Minister’s reconsideration decision from January 31, 2023, is at GD10-268 to GD10-271. Return to footnote 14 referrer Footnote 15 See AD5. Return to footnote 15 referrer Footnote 16 See AD6. Return to footnote 16 referrer Footnote 17 See AD7. Return to footnote 17 referrer Footnote 18 The documents are at GD10-311 to GD10-312, GD11-1, and AD1D-10. Return to footnote 18 referrer Footnote 19 See AD7-6. Return to footnote 19 referrer Footnote 20 See AD8. Return to footnote 20 referrer Footnote 21 See AD9. Return to footnote 21 referrer Footnote 22 See AD10. Return to footnote 22 referrer Footnote 23 See AD11. Return to footnote 23 referrer Footnote 24 See AD12. Return to footnote 24 referrer Footnote 25 See sections 3(1) and (2) and section 5(1) of the Old Age Security Act . The requirement to apply for the pension in writing has an exception. But that exception doesn’t apply here. See section 5(2) of the Old Age Security Act . Return to footnote 25 referrer Footnote 26 See section 3(1)(c) of the Old Age Security Act . Return to footnote 26 referrer Footnote 27 See section 3(3) of the Old Age Security Act . Return to footnote 27 referrer Footnote 28 See section 3(2)(b) of the Old Age Security Act . Return to footnote 28 referrer Footnote 29 See section 21(1)(a) of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 29 referrer Footnote 30 See section 21(1)(b) of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 30 referrer Footnote 31 [NAME])  v  [NAME] , 2005  FC  76. See also [NAME]  v  Canada ([NAME] [NAME]) , 2008  FC  1111 and [NAME]  v  Canada ([NAME] [NAME]) , 2013  FC  319. Return to footnote 31 referrer Footnote 32 [NAME])  v  [NAME] , 2005  FC  1277. Return to footnote 32 referrer Footnote 33 See GD10-105 and GD10-120. Return to footnote 33 referrer Footnote 34 See GD10-145. Return to footnote 34 referrer Footnote 35 See GD2-1444, GD10-30, GD10-109, GD10-112, GD10-119, GD10-174, GD10-267, and GD11-56. Return to footnote 35 referrer Footnote 36 See GD10-95, GD10-113, GD10-120, and GD11-56. Return to footnote 36 referrer Footnote 37 See GD10-44 and GD10-95. Return to footnote 37 referrer Footnote 38 See GD2-625 to GD2-626, GD10-96, GD10-105 to GD10-106, GD10-111 to GD10-112, GD10-260, and GD10-265. Return to footnote 38 referrer Footnote 39 See GD2-626, GD10-96, GD10-119, and GD11-56. Return to footnote 39 referrer Footnote 40 See GD2-626, GD10-112, GD10-119, and GD10-265. Return to footnote 40 referrer Footnote 41 See GD10-96, GD10-174, GD10-267, and GD11-56. Return to footnote 41 referrer Footnote 42 See GD2-626 and GD10-96. Return to footnote 42 referrer Footnote 43 See GD2-627, GD10-96, and GD11-57 Return to footnote 43 referrer Footnote 44 See GD2-627, GD10-96, GD10-174, and GD10-266. Return to footnote 44 referrer Footnote 45 See GD10-83. Return to footnote 45 referrer Footnote 46 See GD10-46. Return to footnote 46 referrer Footnote 47 See GD2-45 to GD2-46. Return to footnote 47 referrer Footnote 48 See GD2-563. Return to footnote 48 referrer Footnote 49 See GD2-69 to GD2-70. Return to footnote 49 referrer Footnote 50 See GD2-563. Return to footnote 50 referrer Footnote 51 See GD2-89. Return to footnote 51 referrer Footnote 52 See GD2-563 and GD2-620. Return to footnote 52 referrer Footnote 53 See GD2-93. Return to footnote 53 referrer Footnote 54 See GD2-563 Return to footnote 54 referrer Footnote 55 See GD14-1 to GD14-2 and AD11-2. Return to footnote 55 referrer Footnote 56 See GD15-45. Return to footnote 56 referrer Footnote 57 See GD10-120. Return to footnote 57 referrer Footnote 58 See GD10-134 and GD10-136. Return to footnote 58 referrer Footnote 59 See GD10-61 and GD10-97. Return to footnote 59 referrer Footnote 60 See GD2-565, GD10-61, GD10-97, and GD10-111. Return to footnote 60 referrer Footnote 61 See GD2-565 and GD10-61. Return to footnote 61 referrer Footnote 62 See GD2-28, GD2-42, GD2-566, GD10-61, and GD10-98. Return to footnote 62 referrer Footnote 63 See GD10-98 and GD10-146. Return to footnote 63 referrer Footnote 64 See GD10-98. Return to footnote 64 referrer Footnote 65 See GD10-267. The address of Y is the address that is registered to the A. See GD10-51. Return to footnote 65 referrer Footnote 66 See GD10-98 and GD15-65. Return to footnote 66 referrer Footnote 67 See GD10-98. Return to footnote 67 referrer Footnote 68 See GD10-98 and GD10-146. Return to footnote 68 referrer Footnote 69 See GD10-98 and GD10-146. Return to footnote 69 referrer Footnote 70 See GD10-176 and GD10-267. Return to footnote 70 referrer Footnote 71 See GD10-98. Return to footnote 71 referrer Footnote 72 See GD10-146. Return to footnote 72 referrer Footnote 73 See GD10-146. Return to footnote 73 referrer Footnote 74 See GD2-570 and GD10-147. Return to footnote 74 referrer Footnote 75 See GD2-571. Return to footnote 75 referrer Footnote 76 See GD10-148. Return to footnote 76 referrer Footnote 77 See GD10-151 to GD10-156 and GD10-176. Return to footnote 77 referrer Footnote 78 See GD10-136. Return to footnote 78 referrer Footnote 79 See GD10-98 and GD10-175. Return to footnote 79 referrer Footnote 80 See GD10-223 to GD10-224. Return to footnote 80 referrer Footnote 81 See GD2-577, GD2-669, GD10-36, GD15-52 and GD15-54. Return to footnote 81 referrer Footnote 82 See GD2-289 and GD2-566. Return to footnote 82 referrer Footnote 83 See GD2-50, GD2-74 to GD2-75, GD2-242, GD2-585, and GD10-72. Return to footnote 83 referrer Footnote 84 See GD2-635. Return to footnote 84 referrer Footnote 85 See GD10-281 to GD10-858. Return to footnote 85 referrer Footnote 86 See GD2-21, GD2-23, GD2-29, GD2-37, GD2-52, GD2-79, and GD2-85. Return to footnote 86 referrer Footnote 87 See GD2-571, GD2-670 and GD10-51. Return to footnote 87 referrer Footnote 88 See GD10-55. Return to footnote 88 referrer Footnote 89 See GD2-312 and GD10-222. Return to footnote 89 referrer Footnote 90 See GD2-316 to GD2-318 and GD2-998 to GD2-1000. Return to footnote 90 referrer Footnote 91 See GD2-691 to GD2-695, and GD10-248. Return to footnote 91 referrer Footnote 92 See GD2-427 to GD2-454. Return to footnote 92 referrer Footnote 93 He seems only to have been without a Canadian passport for short periods between renewals in April 2010 and April 2015. See GD2-155, GD2-184, GD2-725, GD2-770, and GD2-783. Return to footnote 93 referrer Footnote 94 See GD15-49. Return to footnote 94 referrer Footnote 95 See GD2-117, GD2-134, GD2-582, GD2-743, GD2-748, and GD11-21. Return to footnote 95 referrer Footnote 96 See GD2-281. Return to footnote 96 referrer Footnote 97 See GD2-527 and GD2-529. Return to footnote 97 referrer Footnote 98 See GD10-143 and GD10-275. Return to footnote 98 referrer Footnote 99 See GD10-153. Return to footnote 99 referrer Footnote 100 [NAME]  v  Canada ([NAME] [NAME]) , 2013  FC  437 at paragraph 34. Return to footnote 100 referrer Footnote 101 See AD4-8 to AD4-10. Return to footnote 101 referrer Footnote 102 See GD2-644 and GD10-98. Return to footnote 102 referrer Footnote 103 See GD2-650, GD2-704, and GD2-708. Return to footnote 103 referrer Footnote 104 See GD2-649. Return to footnote 104 referrer Footnote 105 See GD2-193. Return to footnote 105 referrer Footnote 106 See GD2-191. Return to footnote 106 referrer Footnote 107 See GD2-189. Return to footnote 107 referrer Footnote 108 See GD2-188. Return to footnote 108 referrer Footnote 109 See GD2-186. Return to footnote 109 referrer Footnote 110 See, for example, the Minister’s letter of June 2018 at GD2-96. Return to footnote 110 referrer Footnote 111 See sections 21(4) and (5) of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 111 referrer Footnote 112 See section 21(5) of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 112 referrer Footnote 113 See GD2-568 and GD10-273. Return to footnote 113 referrer Footnote 114 See GD2-114. Return to footnote 114 referrer Footnote 115 See sections 21(5)(b)(vii) and (viii) of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 115 referrer Footnote 116 See GD2-566. Return to footnote 116 referrer Footnote 117 See GD2-566. Return to footnote 117 referrer Footnote 118 See GD2-566. Return to footnote 118 referrer Footnote 119 See GD10-58 to GD10-60. Return to footnote 119 referrer Footnote 120 See GD2-566. Return to footnote 120 referrer Footnote 121 See GD2-566 and GD10-65. Return to footnote 121 referrer Footnote 122 [NAME])   v   [NAME] , 2004  FC  1567; [NAME]  v  Canada ([NAME] [NAME]) , 2008  FC  1046. Return to footnote 122 referrer Footnote 123 See section 37(4) of the Old Age Security Act . Return to footnote 123 referrer Footnote 124 See section 5(2) of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 124 referrer Footnote 125 Section 8(1) of the Old Age Security Act says that payments begin the month after the application is approved. Return to footnote 125 referrer