Docket: 2011-1116(OAS)
BETWEEN:
NICOLAS AKOURI,
Appellant,
and
THE MINISTER OF HUMAN RESOURCES
AND SKILLS DEVELOPMENT,
Respondent.
____________________________________________________________________
Reference and appeal heard on January 25, 2012 at Victoria, British Columbia
Before: The Honourable
Justice J.M. Woods
Appearances:
|
For the Appellant:
|
The
appellant himself
|
|
Counsel for the Respondent:
|
Mary Softley
|
____________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
With respect to a decision made under the Old Age
Security Act, it is determined that, for the purpose of calculating the
guaranteed income supplement payable from July 2010 to June 2011, the combined
income of the appellant and his spouse is $12,316.69.
The
appeal is accordingly allowed. Each party shall bear their own costs.
Signed at Ottawa,
Ontario this 14th day of March 2012.
“J. M. Woods”
Citation: 2012 TCC 83
Date: 20120314
Docket: 2011-1116(OAS)
BETWEEN:
NICOLAS AKOURI,
Appellant,
and
THE MINISTER OF HUMAN RESOURCES
AND SKILLS DEVELOPMENT,
Respondent.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Woods J.
[1]
On September 14, 2010, Nicolas
Akouri appealed to the Commissioner of Review Tribunals with respect to the
guaranteed income supplement (GIS) payable to him under the Old Age Security
Act (the “Act”) for the period from July 2010 to June 2011.
[2]
The Commissioner then referred the
appeal to the Tax Court of Canada on the basis that the ground for appeal
relates to the determination of income.
[3]
At the hearing, Mr. Akouri raised
three issues: (1) that he is in financial difficulty and requires the GIS for
his basic needs, (2) that the benefits for the period 2010‑2011 should be
computed on the basis of 2010 income and not 2009 income, and (3) benefits
for 2009 were to have been $1,068.47 but only $1,008.47 was received.
[4]
This Court derives its
jurisdiction from subsection 28(2) of the Act and is limited to
determining amounts of income. The only issue that the Court can consider,
then, is whether benefits should have been calculated based on 2009 or 2010
income. Any other issues will have to be dealt with by the Review Tribunal.
[5]
At the commencement of the
hearing, I commented to counsel for the respondent that the reply by the
Minister did not refer to the relief provisions in s. 14(4) and (6) of the
Act which apply when pension income is reduced. If these provisions are
applicable in this case, the GIS should be computed based on 2010 pension
income instead of 2009 pension income.
[6]
Counsel indicated that the reply did
not mention the relief provisions because Mr. Akouri had not made an
application for relief as required by these provisions. It turns out that this
information is incorrect.
[7]
Mr. Akouri had in fact made an
application to apply the relief provisions with respect to pension income and
he introduced the application forms into evidence (Ex. A-1).
[8]
Counsel for the respondent was taken by surprise by
this evidence. I therefore provided her time to investigate the matter and make
written submissions following the hearing.
[9]
The respondent’s submissions were
provided by way of a detailed explanation in a letter dated February 14, 2012.
The bottom line is that the respondent now concedes that the relief provisions
should be applied and that the GIS should be computed using 2010 pension
income.
[10]
The main effect of this concession
is that a $5,000 RRIF withdrawal that was made in 2009 is excluded from income.
As far as I can determine, this was the relief that Mr. Akouri sought in
relation to the calculation of income.
[11]
According to the
respondent’s submissions, the effect of
the change is to reduce combined income for purposes of the GIS from $17,515.68
to $12,316.69.
[12]
Counsel for the respondent indicated
in her submissions that she sought the agreement of Mr. Akouri to file a
Consent to Judgment but Mr. Akouri was not willing to agree to this.
[13]
Mr. Akouri did not file a response
to the respondent’s submissions.
[14]
The conclusion that I
have reached based on the evidence as a whole is that the position of the respondent as set out in their
written submissions is fair and it is in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
As mentioned earlier, Mr. Akouri did not file a response to these submissions.
[15]
Finally, I would
comment that I do not criticize Mr.
Akouri for refusing to file a Consent to Judgment. The relevant legislative
provisions are extremely complicated and the government has admitted to making
errors in the processing of Mr. Akouri’s claim.
[16]
In the result, a determination will be made that the combined income of
Mr. Akouri and his spouse for the purpose of the GIS for the payment period
from July 2010 to June 2011 is $12,316.69.
[17]
There will be no order as to
costs.
Signed at Ottawa,
Ontario this 14th day of March 2012.
“J. M. Woods”
CITATION: 2012 TCC 83
COURT FILE NO.: 2011-1116(OAS)
STYLE OF CAUSE: NICOLAS AKOURI v. THE MINISTER OF HUMAN RESOURCES AND SKILLS
DEVELOPMENT
PLACE OF HEARING: Victoria, British Columbia
DATE OF HEARING: January 25, 2012
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: The
Honourable Justice J.M. Woods
DATE OF JUDGMENT: March 14, 2012
APPEARANCES:
|
For the
Appellant:
|
The Appellant himself
|
|
Counsel for the
Respondent:
|
Mary Softley
|
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For the Appellant:
Name:
Firm:
For the
Respondent: Myles J. Kirvan
Deputy
Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
Email this Content