SST Rejects OAS Pension Appeal: Claimant Had Less Than Required Canadian Residency

OUTCOME: Dismissed

Citation: AM  v  [RESPONDENT] Development , 2026  [NAME]  250 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Decision Appellant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Representative: [COUNSEL] under appeal: General Division decision dated July 25, 2025 (GP-24-2063) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: In person Hearing date: March 9, 2026 Hearing participants: Appellant Respondent’s representative Decision date: March 19, 2026 File number: AD-25-731 On this page Decision Overview Issue Analysis Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] The Appeal is dismissed. The Appellant is not entitled to either an Old Age Security ( OAS ) pension or Guaranteed Income Supplement (supplement). As of the hearing date, he has been a resident of Canada for just under nine years — below the 10-year minimum required for both benefits. Overview [ 2 ] The Appellant was born in [DATE]. He came to Canada in July 2000 as a permanent resident. Since then, he and his wife have split their time between Canada and their country of origin. [ 3 ] In November 2019, the Appellant applied for the OAS pension and supplement. He said that he wanted the benefits to start as soon as he qualified for them. Footnote 1 [ 4 ] Service Canada, the Minister’s public-facing agency, approved the Appellant for the OAS pension at a rate of 16/40 of the full amount. Footnote 2 Service Canada found that the Appellant was a resident of Canada from July 2000 to June 2001 and again from July 2003 to the approval date — a total of 16 years. Service Canada also approved the Appellant for the supplement, a flat rate benefit that is tied to continuing eligibility for the OAS pension. [ 5 ] In August 2022, Service Canada opened an investigation into the Appellant’s Canadian residence. As a result of this investigation, Service Canada concluded that the Appellant had stronger ties to Pakistan and had been a resident of Canada for only two years. Footnote 3 Service Canada terminated his OAS pension and supplement and demanded repayment of all benefits that he had received over the previous three years, an amount totalling more than $52,000. Footnote 4 [ 6 ] The Appellant appealed Service Canada’s decision to the Social Security Tribunal. The Tribunal’s General Division held an in-person hearing and dismissed the appeal. It agreed with the Minister that the Appellant’s residence was less than the 10-year minimum. [ 7 ] The Appellant then requested leave, or permission, to appeal the General Division’s decision. Last November, I allowed the appeal to go ahead because the Appellant had provided an item of new evidence. Issue [ 8 ] The Appellant maintains that he has been a resident of Canada for all but two years since landing in this country in July 2000. The Minister disagrees. It does not specify precisely how long it believes the Appellant has been a resident, but it argues that he falls well short of the minimum 10 years required to collect the OAS pension and supplement. [ 9 ] My job is to determine how many years, if any, the Appellant has been a resident of Canada. Analysis [ 10 ] I have applied the law to the available evidence and concluded that the Appellant was a resident of Canada during four distinct periods totalling just under nine years. At the same time, I find that he was not a resident of Canada during the remainder of the period from 2001 to present. Residence depends on many factors [ 11 ] To receive a partial OAS pension, an applicant must prove that they resided in Canada for at least 10 years after they turned 18. Footnote 5 If the applicant wasn’t residing in Canada when their application was approved, they must prove they had at least 20 years of residence. Footnote 6 Applicants get the maximum OAS pension amount if they can show they resided in Canada for at least 40 years after age 18. Footnote 7 [ 12 ] OAS applicants must prove that they resided in Canada on a balance of probabilities. That means that they must show that, more likely than not, they resided in Canada during the relevant periods. Footnote 8 Being present in Canada isn’t the same as residing in Canada. [ 13 ] When I am deciding whether the Appellant resided in Canada, I have to look at the overall picture, taking into account factors such as: 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 Canada, where he went, and how much time he spent there; what his lifestyle was like in Canada; and where he intended to live. Footnote 9 [ 14 ] This isn’t a complete list. Other factors may be important to consider. I have to look at all the Appellant’s circumstances. The Appellant’s ties to Canada and Pakistan are equally strong [ 15 ] The Appellant testified that he first visited Canada in the early 1990s on a work-related trip in his capacity as an engineer with a [NAME]. He liked what he saw and a few years later decided to relocate. He took leave from his job, packed up many of his possessions, and left with his wife and two of their four children. Their two eldest daughters, 16 and 18 at the time, stayed behind to finish secondary school under the care of his brother and his family. [ 16 ] Moving to another country at the age of 50 was not easy. He had hoped to find a job in his field but was unsuccessful. He tried to get a Canadian driver’s license but failed multiple tests because he couldn’t get used to driving on the right-hand side. After a year, he and his family went back to Pakistan. He fully intended to come back, and he went to the trouble of getting a returning resident’s permit from Citizenship and Immigration Canada. He spent the next two years in Pakistan selling three plots of land and settling other family matters. However, he did not sell his family home in Hyderabad. [ 17 ] Since then, the Appellant has divided his time between Canada and Pakistan. Much of the available evidence suggests that his ties to each country are equally strong: Intent — The Appellant argues that the sacrifices he made to come to Canada prove his intent to settle here permanently. I agree that he displayed real commitment by uprooting his family and bringing them to a new country, but I also note that he hedged his bets. He did not immediately quit his job in Pakistan (that came later), and he kept his family home, along with his furniture, his car, and his bank accounts. As we will see, those ties, along with others, continued to draw him to Pakistan and facilitated his many visits there. Property — The [APPELLANT] testified that he did not own a home in Cananda until 2015, when he purchased a condo in Mississauga. Until then, he stayed with friends or lived in rented apartments when in Canada. He does not own a car here (although he continues to maintain one in Pakistan) and relies on his son and daughter to drive him around. Fortunately, he happens to live within easy walking distance of stores, a mosque, and a public library. Family — The [APPELLANT] and his wife have four adult children between the ages of 32 and 43. The two youngest emigrated to Canada with their parents in 2000 and were enrolled in local schools. As children, they usually accompanied their parents during their extended trips to Pakistan. As adults, three of the [APPELLANT] children appear to have made their lives in Canada: The [APPELLANT] oldest daughter married in 2004 and she and her husband live in Mississauga, near her parent’s apartment. The [APPELLANT] second-old daughter married in 2007 and has lived in the United Kingdom since then. The [APPELLANT] only son was educated in Canada and for the last two years has worked for a [NAME]. However, he works remotely and spends much of his time in Canada. The [APPELLANT] youngest daughter lives in Mississauga, in the same building as her parents, with her husband and two children. The Appellant still has family in Pakistan, including a brother who minds his home in Hyderabad when he is not there. Financial — The Appellant has bank accounts in both Canada and Pakistan. His years of [RESPONDENT] entitled him to a pension, but he testified that he opted to take it in a lump sum many years ago. The Appellant files income tax returns in both Canada and Pakistan. Social The Appellant has friends in both Canada and Pakistan. Medical — The Appellant has a heart condition and receives most of his medical care when in Canada. [ 18 ] In my view, none of these factors significantly favour one country over the other. For that reason, I think it is appropriate in this case to place particular weight on the length of time in which the Appellant has actually spent in Canada since obtaining permanent resident status. The Appellant spent most of his time outside Canada [ 19 ] Relying on passport exit and entry stamps, border security data, and other evidence, the Minister compiled a record of the Appellant’s movements since his arrival in Canada. Footnote 10 The record, which I have updated with information provided to me during testimony, shows that the Appellant spent the following periods in Canada and abroad: Footnote 11 Periods in Canada Days July 19, 2000 – June 12, 2001 329 July 28, 2003 – December 15, 2005 871 September 3, 2006 – October 19, 2006 46 August 11 2007 – December 2, 2007 113 January 20, 2008 – February 5, 2008 16 February 13, 2008 – February 24, 2008 11 October 26, 2012 – January 4, 2013 70 April 10, 2015 – June 27, 2015 78 May 27, 2016 – July 31, 2016 65 May 19, 2018 – November 2, 2018 167 August 25, 2019 – September 29, 2020 401 April 5, 2021 – October 24, 2021 202 November 11, 2022 – January 8, 2023 58 May 17, 2023 – November 29, 2023 194 June 27, 2024 – August 7, 2025 406 January 14, 2026 – Hearing date 54 Total 3,081 Periods abroad Days June 12, 2001 – July 28, 2003 776 December 15, 2005 – September 3, 2006 262 October 19, 2006 – August 11 2007 296 December 2, 2007 – January 20, 2008 49 February 5, 2008 – February 13, 2008 8 February 24, 2008 – October 26, 2012 1,706 January 4, 2013 – April 10, 2015 826 June 27, 2015 – May 27, 2016 335 July 31, 2016 – May 19, 2018 657 November 2, 2018 – August 25, 2019 296 September 29, 2020 – April 5, 2021 188 October 24, 2021 – November 11, 2022 383 January 8, 2023 – May 17, 2023 129 November 29, 2023 – June 27, 2024 211 August 7, 2025 – January 14, 2026 160 Total 6,282 [ 20 ] The Appellant agreed that above information was accurate and reflected his actual periods inside and outside Canada. It clearly shows that, on the whole, the Appellant has spent the vast majority of his time away from Canada over the past 26 years. During that time, he has typically stayed in Canada for relatively short periods — two to four months — followed by extended trips overseas, mostly to Pakistan, lasting for as long as four years. The length of the Appellant’s average stay in Canada was 192 days, whereas his time abroad averaged 419 days. [ 21 ] However, that is not the end of the story. Although there is no minimum requirement for presence in Canada within a calendar year, I find it useful, for the purpose of analysis, to reorganize the above information accordingly: Year Days in Canada Percentage of year 2000 (from July 19) 172 N/A 2001 163 45 2002 0 0 2003 155 42 2004 [PHONE] 349 96 2006 46 13 2007 113 31 2008 26 7 2009 0 0 2010 0 0 2011 0 0 2012 80 22 2013 0 0 2014 0 0 2015 78 21 2016 65 18 2017 0 0 2018 167 46 2019 128 35 2020 273 75 2021 202 55 2022 50 14 2023 [PHONE] 187 51 2025 219 60 2026 (to March 9) 54 N/A [ 22 ] Breaking it down this way illustrates that there have been four broad periods in which the Appellant spent more time in Canada than not — in 2000−01, 2003−05, 2019−21, and 2022−present. Outside of these periods, the Appellant was rarely here and, though he may have had a Canadian passport, address, and bank account, he could not be fairly characterized as a Canadian resident. [ 23 ] The Appellant testified that he had good reason to go back to Pakistan for extended periods. He said that cutting all links to his country of origin was effectively impossible and that he occasionally needed to return to Hyderabad to manage property, attend weddings, and look after other family matters. [ 24 ] But whatever reasons the Appellant had for leaving Canada are beside the point. What matters is that the Appellant was not in Canada for long periods, because his remaining ties to Pakistan continually drew him back there. Occasional brief visits to the old country don’t jeopardize Canadian residence under the law, but regular, protracted stays of six months or more do. [ 25 ] The Appellant obtained a returning resident permit shortly after his first departure from Canada in 2001. Footnote 12 It preserved his Canadian residence status for any absence of up to 12 months over any two-year period. However, residence for immigration purposes is not the same as residence for benefits purposes. Although superficially similar, they are distinct concepts, governed by their own statutory definitions. In assessing the Appellant’s eligibility for OAS benefits, I am obliged to apply the language of the Old Age Security Act and related jurisprudence. Conclusion [ 26 ] All else being equal, I find that the Appellant’s presence in Canada is a prime indicator of his residence in this country. During the more than 25 years that are the focus of this appeal, the Appellant was a resident of Canada during the following periods: July 19, 2000 to June 12, 2001, or 329 days July 28, 2003 to December 15, 2005, or two years and 140 days August 25, 2019 to October 24, 2021, or two years and 60 days November 11, 2022 to March 9, 2026, or three years and 118 days [ 27 ] That gives the Appellant a total of eight years and 282 days of Canadian residence. That is not enough to qualify him for an OAS pension. [ 28 ] It is unfortunate that the Appellant must return years of benefits, and I regret that my decision will cause him financial hardship. I fully understand that the Appellant did not mean to deceive the government, and I have no doubt that he applied for the OAS pension in the genuine belief that he met the eligibility requirements. But I am bound to follow the law. However much I may sympathize with the Appellant, I have no choice but to find that he has resided in Canada only intermittently. [ 29 ] I can’t help but feel that Service Canada would have saved everyone a great deal of trouble if it had performed even a minimal investigation of the Appellant’s ties to Canada at the time of his application. Instead, it gave him a relatively quick approval, only to change its mind three years later, after the Appellant had already received thousands of dollars to which he was not entitled. [ 30 ] The Minister’s conduct in this affair has been less than ideal, but there is nothing under the law I can do about it. I am satisfied that, in terminating the Appellant’s pension and assessing an overpayment, the Minister acted within the law. Footnotes Footnote 1 See Appellant’s OAS application dated November 6, 2019, GD2-3. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See Service Canada’s letter approval dated April 2, 2020, GD2-15. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See Service Canada investigation report dated December 8, 2023, GD2-67. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See Service Canada’s reconsideration decision letter dated September 17, 2023, GD2-520. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 See sections 3(1)(c) and 3(3) of the Old Age Security Act ( OAS Act). A claimant must also have applied for the pension and be at least 65 years old and a Canadian citizen or legal resident of Canada. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 See section 3(2)(b) of the OAS Act. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 See section 3(1)(c) of the OAS Act. The Appellant must also have applied for the pension and be at least 65 years old and a Canadian citizen or legal resident of Canada. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2013  FC  366. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 See Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development)  v  [NAME] , 2005  FC  76. See also [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General), 2008  FC  1111 and [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2013  FC  319. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 See Minister’s submissions dated May 6, 2025, GD6-2. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 I also made minor adjustments based on my own review of the available documentary evidence. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 See Returning Resident Permit issued by Citizenship and Immigration Canada on September 18, 2001, AD1-16. Return to footnote 12 referrer