Tribunal Rejects Appeal Permission for Suspended Benefits

OUTCOME: Refused

Citation: [NAME]  v  [RESPONDENT[NAME] , 2026  [NAME]  133 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Leave to Appeal Decision Applicant: [redacted] Representative: M. A. Respondent: [redacted] General Division decision dated January 29, 2026 (GP-25-1466) Tribunal member: [NAME] date: May 13, 2026 File number: AD-26-354 On this page Decision Overview Issues Analysis Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] I am refusing the Applicant permission to appeal. This appeal will not be going forward. Overview [ 2 ] The Applicant is 98 years old. She was born in the Philippines and moved to Canada in 2004. In 2014, she applied for an Old Age Security ( OAS ) pension and was awarded a partial pension at a rate of 10/40ths of the full amount, effective November 2014. She was approved for a Guaranteed Income Supplement ( GIS ) at the same time. [ 3 ] In October 2022, Service Canada suspended the Applicant’s OAS and GIS payments after learning that she had been absent from Canada for more than six months. [ 4 ] The Applicant, through her daughter, appealed the suspension to the Social Security Tribunal. She said that her mother had fractured her tibia while visiting the Philippines and that, following surgery, she was advised against travel. Her mother had wanted to come home, but she then began exhibiting signs of dementia. Her family determined that she would require significant care, best provided in the home of another daughter who had remained in the Philippines. [ 5 ] The General Division held a hearing in writing and dismissed the appeal. It found that, whatever her intention, the Applicant had effectively ceased to reside in Canada as of October 2022. It determined that Service Canada had rightly terminated the Applicant’s OAS pension GIS payments. [ 6 ] The Applicant is now requesting leave, or permission, to appeal the General Division’s decision. Footnote 1 She alleges that the General Division made the following errors: Footnote 2 It failed to apply the Old Age Security Act in light of its remedial purpose, mechanically treating residence as a question of physical location. It treated the Applicant’s continued presence in the Philippines as a voluntary choice when, based on the medical evidence, it was caused by her dementia. It produced a result that the Old Age Security Act cannot have been designed to produce — the abandonment of an elderly Canadian citizen in a country in which she no longer holds citizenship. [ 7 ] However much I may sympathize with the Applicant, I can’t allow her appeal to proceed. That’s because she hasn’t met any of the requirements to do so. Issues [ 8 ] There’s no automatic right to appeal a General Division decision. The Appeal Division must first give permission to appeal. But it will only do so if an applicant produces new evidence or if they present an arguable case that the General Division proceeded in a way that was unfair; acted beyond its powers or refused to exercise those powers; or made an error of law or fact or some combination of the two. Footnote 3 [ 9 ] My task is to decide whether the Applicant met any of the grounds of appeal. Analysis [ 10 ] I have reviewed the record, and I am satisfied that the Applicant has not produced any new evidence. I also don’t see an arguable case that the General Division misinterpreted the applicable law, misconstrued the available evidence, or otherwise acted unfairly. Footnote 4 The Applicant didn’t produce any new evidence [ 11 ] The Applicant included with her application requesting leave to appeal the following documents: A letter dated February 2, 2024 by Dr. [NAME] [NAME], family physician. A Royal Bank of Canada payment pre-authorization. A Canada Revenue Agency notice of assessment for the 2025 tax year. A SunLife portfolio summary dated September 12, 2025. [ 12 ] From what I can tell, all these documents were before the General Division. None of them are new. There’s no arguable case that the General Division made an error [ 13 ] The General Division decided that the Applicant was no longer entitled to her benefits for the following reasons: The law says that a person can’t receive either the OAS pension or the GIS if they stop residing in Canada for more than six months. Footnote 5 There is an exception to the above rule: a person can keep receiving their OAS pension if they had more than 20 years of residence in Canada prior to leaving. The Applicant, who had less than 20 years of residence, left Canada in March 2022 and, except for a brief return, has not resided, or been present, in Canada since then. Service Canada acted within the law when it cut off the Applicant’s benefits. [ 14 ] I don’t see how the General Division erred in making these findings. It rightly noted that the rules apply regardless of a recipient’s age, health, or financial circumstances. The Applicant may have found herself living in the Philippines due to circumstances beyond her control but, according to the law, that is irrelevant, as is the fact that she may have intended to return to live in Canada. What mattered instead was that, according to the relevant factors, she was no longer a resident of Canada. [ 15 ] The balance of the Applicant’s submissions essentially repeats the arguments that she made at the General Division. The Applicant plainly disagrees with the General Division’s decision but that is not enough to advance her appeal. Conclusion [ 16 ] The Applicant did not produce new evidence, and I don’t see an arguable case that the General Division committed a legal or factual error or otherwise failed to observe a principle of natural justice. [ 17 ] This means her appeal will not proceed. Footnotes Footnote 1 See the Applicant’s leave to appeal application dated April 28, 2026, AD1. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 In her submissions, the Applicant alleged that it was the Minister whomade errors in rejecting her mother’s claim. The context of these allegations satisfies me that the Applicant confused the Minister with the General Division , this Tribunal’s lower level. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See section 58.1(b) of the Department of [RESPONDENT[NAME] . Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2016  FC  615. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 See section 11(7)(d) of the Old Age Security Act. Return to footnote 5 referrer