SST Partially Allows Residency Appeal for OAS and GIS Benefits

OUTCOME: Allowed in Part

[TRANSLATION] Citation: AC  v  [RESPONDENT] and [NAME] , 2026  [NAME]  249 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Decision Appellant: [redacted] Representative: M. O. Respondent: [redacted] [RESPONDENT] and [NAME] under appeal: General Division decision dated January 22, 2025 (GP-23-191) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: Videoconference Hearing date: January 20, 2026 Hearing participants: Appellant Appellant’s representative Respondent’s representatives Decision date: March 18, 2026 File number: AD-25-281 On this page Decision Overview Issue Analysis Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] The appeal is allowed in part. [ 2 ] I am of the view that the Appellant wasn’t a resident of Canada from March 13, 1997, to May 7, 2017. But I find that he was a resident of Canada from May 8, 2017, up until the hearing on January 20, 2026. Overview [ 3 ] The Appellant applied for an Old Age Security ( OAS ) pension on January 3, 1996. Footnote 1 The [RESPONDENT] and [NAME] (Minister) approved his application for a partial pension of 18/40. It also approved that the Guaranteed Income Supplement ( GIS ) be paid as of February 1996. [ 4 ] But the Minister then investigated the Appellant’s residence, and it found that he hadn’t been residing in Canada since March 13, 1997. He was no longer eligible for the GIS as of October 1997. This resulted in an overpayment. Footnote 2 The Appellant asked for this decision to be reconsidered. Footnote 3 In a Reconsideration Decision Letter , the Minister upheld its initial decision. Footnote 4 [ 5 ] The Appellant appealed to the Social Security Tribunal (Tribunal) on January 24, 2023. Footnote 5 The Tribunal’s General Division found that he wasn’t a resident of Canada from March 13, 1997, up to the day of the hearing. Footnote 6 On March 20, 2025, the Appellant applied for permission to appeal to the Appeal Division. Footnote 7 I gave him permission to appeal. Footnote 8 On May 2, 2025, the Minister asked to know the reasons for my decision, and I gave them that same day. Footnote 9 Issue [ 6 ] For you to receive the GIS while receiving an OAS  pension, you have to be a resident of Canada. Footnote 10 [ 7 ] So, the issue is as follows: Was the Appellant a resident of Canada at any time during the period from March 13, 1997, to the January 20, 2026, hearing. If so, when? Analysis [ 8 ] I found that the Appellant wasn’t a resident of Canada from March 13, 1997, to May 7, 2017. But I found that he was a resident of Canada from May 8, 2017, up until the hearing on January 20, 2026. This is why. What the Appellant has to prove [ 9 ] The factors that I have to weigh to find whether the Appellant was a resident of Canada were set out by the Federal Court in Canada ([NAME])   v   [NAME]: Footnote 11 ties in the form of personal property social ties in Canada other ties in Canada (medical coverage, driver’s licence, rental lease, tax records, etc.) ties in another country regularity and length of stay in Canada, and the frequency and length of absences from Canada the person’s mode of living, or whether the person living in Canada is sufficiently deep rooted and settled [ 10 ] The burden of proving residence in Canada is on the Appellant. Footnote 12  He has to prove this on a balance of probabilities. The Appellant wasn’t a resident of Canada from March 13, 1997, to May 7, 2017 The Appellant’s testimony wasn’t useful [ 11 ] The Appellant testified at the hearing. He seemed like a nice and sincere man, but he was mainly confused. This is understandable, given that he is 95 years old. Footnote 13 Also, when he started testifying, he said that he was 96 years old, and that he was going to be 97. [ 12 ] The Appellant’s representative argued that he was confused, and that this could be misunderstood as him not being credible. But the problem isn’t so much whether his testimony is credible, but rather whether it is reliable. [ 13 ] For example, the Appellant testified that he had six children. He wasn’t able to say exactly how many were in Canada. His representative argued that he had three in Canada, two in France, and one in Israel. Also, he allegedly told the Minister in 2018 that he had only one child in Canada, who was incarcerated at the time, and that the others were in France and Israel. Footnote 14 So, I don’t know exactly where his children live. [ 14 ] Under cross-examination, the Minister’s representative asked the Appellant about an imprisonment sentence in 1997. For context, the Minister found that he was no longer a resident of Canada since March 13, 1997. This was because he had completed a sentence for abducting his children at the time. [ 15 ] Before that, the Minister had also investigated the Appellant’s residence. He allegedly told the [NAME] at the time that he had gone back to Canada only to be tried for abduction, and that he intended to leave after his incarceration to go live in Israel. Footnote 15 At the hearing, he admitted in his testimony that he abducted his children, and he allegedly also admitted this to the Minister in July 2019. Footnote 16 [ 16 ] Also, the Appellant testified that he had never gone to prison. But there is a letter on file from him addressed to an [NAME] for the Minister in 1997. In this letter, he listed his address as the [translation] “[COMPANY]” in Rivière-des-Prairies . Footnote 17 He allegedly also admitted to the Minister in 2019 that he had been incarcerated for six months. Footnote 18 [ 17 ] The Appellant said that he had passports from three countries: Canada, Israel, and France. He allegedly also has children in each of those three countries. This is where the problem starts. The Minister alleges that he has spent a significant amount of time in those countries since March 13, 1997. [ 18 ] I don’t believe that the Appellant lied in his testimony. But he has serious memory issues, so his testimony can’t be relied on. His difficulties at the hearing were significant enough that his representative had to end his testimony quickly. I sympathize with him. It is very unfortunate, and above all, it is beyond his control. [ 19 ] But the Appellant’s testimony wasn’t useful. [ 20 ] It is common for [NAME] of a certain age to experience cognitive difficulties in cases involving the Old Age Security Act. In these cases, documentary evidence can often be very useful in trying to make sense of the situation. There is little documentary evidence for this period, and it doesn’t prove the Appellant’s residence in Canada [ 21 ] The documentary evidence on file is rather unusual. Here is what is missing from the file: statements of account for utilities such as electricity, heating, cable television, and cell phone bank statements Footnote 19 credit card statements There are very few tax returns, only for the years 2001 and 2011, even though the Appellant testified that he filed his tax returns in Canada every year. Footnote 20 [ 22 ] This evidence, often found in files of this type, can help establish that you were a resident of Canada. [ 23 ] There is no actual housing lease on file. But there is evidence that the Office municipal d’habitation de Montréal [[NAME]] (OMHM) allocated housing to the Appellant on September 14, 2011. Footnote 21 There are also lease-renewal notices on file, up to October 2019. Footnote 22 Finally, the [NAME] [rental commission] gave a decision cancelling the lease as of October 28, 2019. Footnote 23 The Appellant testified that he hadn’t been living in that housing unit since 2018. [ 24 ] The Minister alleges that the Appellant never actually lived in that housing unit. A third party was living there, and the OMHM allegedly told him about this. The Appellant allegedly told the Minister in July 2019 that it was his friend and partner who had signed the offer for that housing unit in 2011. Footnote 24 The Minister also alleges that the Appellant’s representative showed it a lease that he had signed for a housing unit in France. The lease was for three years starting in September 2014. Footnote 25 [ 25 ] Given how unclear the details are regarding that specific residence of the Appellant, other things should be focused on. As for the Appellant’s family ties, as I said above, it is difficult to know where his children are. He did have a wife as of 2005. He married in Montréal in August 2005. Footnote 26 But she appears to have been living in Israel since then, and it seems that she has never lived in Canada. It appears that the spouses had a religious divorce, but it isn’t clear exactly when this happened. These family ties don’t help establish that the Appellant was a resident of Canada. [ 26 ] Also, the following things are missing from the file: a list of comings and goings; a statement from the Appellant, something that is often found in files of this type; and plane tickets. There is a history of his passages that the Canada Border Services Agency provided, covering the period from August 1, 2000, to September 1, 2020. Footnote 27 But it is impossible to determine his actual comings and goings by reading the report. Also, the passports that he submitted don’t allow for any findings to be made, either because they aren’t complete or because they are difficult to read. Footnote 28 [ 27 ] Finally, the Appellant provided a history of his medical services that the Régie de l’assurance maladie du Québec [[NAME]] (RAMQ) had covered. Footnote 29 This history is often useful in cases where residency is an issue. But visits to the doctor weren’t frequent before 2017: There were 3 visits in March 1997. Then there were 2 visits in August and September 2000. There were no visits until 2002. Then there was a visit in May and another visit in October. There were no visits until October 2003. Then there were 9 visits between October 31, 2003, and February 2004. There were no visits until 2005. Then there were 2 visits in February and May. There were no visits until another visit in June 2006. There were no visits until 2007. Then there was a visit in January, a visit in April, and another visit in July. There were no visits until November 2009. There were no visits until October 2011. There were no visits until July 2012. There were no visits until May 2013. Then there was a visit in June and another visit in August 2013. There were no visits between August 2013 and September 2016. There were 4 visits in September 2016. Then there were none until May 7, 2017. [ 28 ] From March 1997 to just before September 2016, I count 28 visits in about 20 years, an average of just over 1 visit per year. There were even 3 at the beginning of March 1997. This is significant, but the visits are so far apart that I can’t infer from them that the Appellant was a resident of Canada. Also, there were no visits for many years, including in 2001, 2008, 2010, 2014, and 2015. [ 29 ] The RAMQ provided a [COMPANY] that were covered, from January 1, 1997, to April 13, 2025. This history strengthens this finding. Footnote 30 Between 1997 and 2016, that is, for 20 years, the Appellant visited the [NAME] only 9 times. These records don’t prove that he was a resident of Canada during that period. [ 30 ] Finally, I am of the view that, on a balance of probabilities, the documentary evidence, like the testimonial evidence at the hearing, doesn’t prove that the Appellant was a resident of Canada from March 13, 1997, to May 7, 2017. The Appellant was a resident of Canada from May 8, 2017, to January 20, 2026 [ 31 ] Unfortunately, the Appellant’s testimony isn’t more useful for this period than it was for the period before. The evidence that often helps establish residence in Canada is also missing: There are no statements of account for utilities such as electricity, heating, cable television, and cell phone. There are no bank account or credit card statements. There are no tax returns, despite what the Appellant testified. But there are notices of assessment from [NAME] [Quebec’s taxation authority] for the years 2020 through 2022. Footnote 31 There is no list of the Appellant’s comings and goings. [ 32 ] I find that the Appellant was a resident of Canada during that period for the following reason: In my opinion, there is new evidence, not found for the previous period, that establishes his residence in Canada. [ 33 ] First, as of May 2017, the history of services that the RAMQ covered shows that visits became much more frequent, continuing through December 2024: Footnote 32 6 visits in 2017 4 visits in 2018 17 visits in 2019 1 visit in 2020 and 2021 6 visits in 2022 5 visits in 2023 4 visits in 2024 [ 34 ] I count 43 visits by the Appellant to the doctor over 8 years. This is more than 5 per year, unlike the period before, when the average was just over 1 visit per year. And it is possible that the fact there were almost no visits in 2020 and 2021 was because of the pandemic. Also, his visits to the doctor during this period also seem to be farther apart than those before May 2017. [ 35 ] And, as for the previous period, the [COMPANY] that were covered strengthens my finding, if not the finding that the Appellant was a resident of Canada. Footnote 33 In fact, as of May 2017, he visited the [NAME] very frequently, almost every month of every year. While his [NAME] visits from 1997 to 2016 took up half a page in the file, the visits from 2017 to 2024 cover 22 pages. Footnote 34 [ 36 ] Also, for this period, the Appellant submitted a statement of last-resort financial assistance benefits that he had been receiving monthly since June 2018. Footnote 35 I give significant weight to the statements I have just addressed, and I find that they, on their own, justify a finding different from the one made for the previous period. [ 37 ] But there is more. The Appellant submitted a letter from a [COMPANY] called [NAME], confirming that he has been a client of that centre since 2017. He has been using their food bank since 2017, and he has been participating in a meal-sharing program since May 2020. Unfortunately, this shows that the Appellant’s lifestyle is unstable. But it also shows that he was a resident of Canada during that period. [ 38 ] The Appellant also submitted sworn statements dated 2025 from three witnesses: [NAME] has known him since 2001, another since 2018, and another since 2022. Footnote 36 They all testified that he lived on [ADDRESS] in Montréal, and that he had memory problems. They said that he kept in touch with some of his children in Canada, though they didn’t specify how many. Finally, they testified that they helped him get to [NAME], the [NAME], and the hospital. [ 39 ] The sworn statements are a little vague and similar. But, given that there are three of them, and given how long the witnesses said they had known the Appellant, I am of the view that they help establish that he was a resident of Canada during that period. [ 40 ] Finally, the Appellant submitted a report from a [NAME]. This report seems to show that there was little activity before 2017, but that activity became more regular after that. Footnote 37 [ 41 ] So, I believe that this evidence supports my finding that the Appellant has been a resident of Canada since May 8, 2017, when he first visited a doctor and a [NAME] in 2017. He continued to be a resident up until the hearing. Conclusion [ 42 ] In my view, the Appellant wasn’t a resident of Canada from March 13, 1997, to May 7, 2017. But I am of the view that he was a resident of Canada from May 8, 2017, up until the hearing on January 20, 2026. [ 43 ] This means that the appeal is allowed in part. Footnotes Footnote 1 See GD2-243. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See the letter dated May 6, 2020, at GD2-13. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 This was on October 14, 2020. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 This was on November 7, 2022. See GD2-3. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 See GD1-1. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 See para 67 of the General Division decision, given on January 20, 2025. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 See AD01-1. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 This was on April 28, 2025. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 See AD02-1. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 See section 11(7)(d) of the Old Age Security Act, R.S.C., 1985, c O-9. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 See Canada ([NAME])  v  [NAME] , 2005  FC  76. Also, this list of factors doesn’t cover everything. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 Periods of residence have to be proven on a balance of probabilities, as set out in [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2013  FC  366. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 See the Appellant’s birth certificate at GD2-262. He was born in [DATE]. Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 See GD2-16. Return to footnote 14 referrer Footnote 15 I am not saying this to prove anything against the Appellant. I am saying it for context, to explain the Minister’s decision to no longer recognize his residence in Canada. I also reiterate that he has the burden of proving residence. Return to footnote 15 referrer Footnote 16 See GD2-17. Return to footnote 16 referrer Footnote 17 See the letter addressed to [NAME] [NAME] at GD2-202. Return to footnote 17 referrer Footnote 18 See GD2-17. Return to footnote 18 referrer Footnote 19 The Minister’s investigation report dated November 5, 2019, suggested that they had looked at the Appellant’s bank accounts. See GD2-17. But they aren’t on file. According to the Minister’s investigation report, it didn’t seem that the bank accounts had been favourable to the Appellant. Return to footnote 19 referrer Footnote 20 See GD2-134 and GD2-146 for the year 2001. See GD2-119 for the year 2011. Return to footnote 20 referrer Footnote 21 See GD6-34. Return to footnote 21 referrer Footnote 22 See GD6-29 to GD6-31. Return to footnote 22 referrer Footnote 23 See GD6-27. Return to footnote 23 referrer Footnote 24 See GD2-17. Return to footnote 24 referrer Footnote 25 See GD2-17. Return to footnote 25 referrer Footnote 26 See GD6-39. Return to footnote 26 referrer Footnote 27 See GD6-91. Return to footnote 27 referrer Footnote 28 See GD6-93 to GD6-105. Return to footnote 28 referrer Footnote 29 See AD3-17. Return to footnote 29 referrer Footnote 30 See AD3-24. Return to footnote 30 referrer Footnote 31 See GD6-64. Return to footnote 31 referrer Footnote 32 See AD3-20 to AD3-23. Return to footnote 32 referrer Footnote 33 See AD3-24. Return to footnote 33 referrer Footnote 34 See AD3-24 to AD3-45. Return to footnote 34 referrer Footnote 35 See AD3-6. Return to footnote 35 referrer Footnote 36 See AD3-2, AD3-3, and AD3-5. It should be noted that there is also a letter from [NAME] on file. She said that she had been accommodating the Appellant since May 2018. See GD6-19. Return to footnote 36 referrer Footnote 37 See GD6-8. Return to footnote 37 referrer