Docket: 2010-1858(OAS)
BETWEEN:
MARGUERITE LADORA,
Appellant,
and
THE MINISTER OF HUMAN RESOURCES
AND SKILLS DEVELOPMENT
Respondent.
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION]
____________________________________________________________________
Appeal
heard on August 15, 2011, at Montréal, Quebec
Before: The Honourable Justice
Alain Tardif
Appearances:
|
For the appellant:
|
The appellant herself
|
|
Counsel for the respondent:
|
Grégoire Cadieux
|
____________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
Whereas the parties agree that the decision rendered in the
file of Raymond Dupuis (2010-1844(OAS)) is the same.
The appeal of the decision made
by the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development concerning the
determination of income for the purposes of the Income Supplement under
subsection 28(2) of the Old Age Security Act, R.S.C. 1985, c O-9, is
dismissed, and the decision is confirmed, in accordance with the attached
Reasons for Judgment as well as those in the file of Raymond Dupuis (2010‑1844(OAS)).
Signed at Ottawa, Canada, this
18th day of October 2011.
"Alain
Tardif"
on this 22nd day of November 2011
Margarita Gorbounova, Translator
Citation: 2011 TCC 486
Date: 20111018
Docket: 2010-1858(OAS)
BETWEEN:
MARGUERITE LADORA,
Appellant,
and
THE MINISTER OF HUMAN RESOURCES
AND SKILLS DEVELOPMENT
Respondent.
[OFFICIAL ENGLISH
TRANSLATION]
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Tardif J.
[1]
The
appellant is appealing from a decision of the Minister of Human Resources and
Skills Development (the Minister) concerning the determination of the amount of
the monthly Guaranteed Income Supplement (the supplement) under the Old Age
Security Act (OASA).
[2]
The
decision under appeal was made based on the facts assumed in the following
subparagraphs:
[Translation]
(a) The appellant has been
receiving a disability pension from the CSST since 1967;
(b) The appellant has been
receiving guaranteed income supplement benefits since 2003;
(c)
The form entitled
"Application for the Old Age Security Pension" received on January
28, 2003, as submitted by the appellant;
(d)
The T5007 statements issued
by the CSST in the appellant's name for 2007 and 2008, which indicate in box 10
the amount of the disability pension received by the appellant that has to be
included in her income and, therefore, considered as such for the purposes of
calculating her GIS.
(e)
The appellant's request to
the Minister not to take into account her disability pension from the CSST for
the purposes of calculating her GIS.
[3]
Paragraphs
1, 2, 4 to 13, and 14 show the history behind as well as the path leading up to
the decision that gave rise to this appeal. I believe it would be
useful to reproduce the paragraphs in question:
[Translation]
1. As for
the Notice of Appeal, he admitted that the appellant's monthly Guaranteed
Income Supplement (GIS) payments had been decreased starting in July 2009.
2.
He also
admitted that the appellant's disability pension payments from Quebec's
Commission de la Santé et Sécurité du Travail (CSST) were considered to be
income for the purposes of calculating her guaranteed income supplement
benefits starting in July 2009.
4. The
appellant became eligible for old age security and the Guaranteed Income Supplement
in August 2003, the month following her 65th birthday.
5.
During the
2006 taxation year, the appellant produced a T5007 statement indicating an
income of $0 from the CSST.
6.
For the
payment period starting in July 2006, her Guaranteed Income Supplement benefits
were therefore calculated on the basis that no amounts were paid to the
appellant as income by the CSST.
7.
When the Guaranteed
Income Supplement payments were renewed for the period starting in July 2009,
the Canada Revenue Agency confirmed to the respondent that the appellant's
income for the 2007 and 2008 taxation years included income of $5,617.00 for
2007 and $5,730.00 for 2008 from the CSST.
8.
The fact
that the appellant's CSST income was never considered for the purposes of
calculating the appellant's benefits resulted in an overpayment of $2,808.00.
9.
On July 29,
2009, the respondent informed the appellant that this Guaranteed Income Supplement
overpayment for the payment period from July 2008 to June 2009 in the amount of
$2,808.00 would never be claimed from her because of an administrative error.
10.
However,
the respondent informed the appellant that the calculation of her Guaranteed Income
Supplement for the period starting in July 2009 included the amount of
$5,730.00 paid to the appellant by the CSST in 2008, as prescribed by the Act.
11.
On December
4, 2009, the appellant asked the respondent to reconsider that decision.
12.
On December
8, 2009, the Minister confirmed his decision dated July 29, 2009.
13.
On December
29, 2009, the appellant submitted her appeal to the Office of the Commissioner
of Review Tribunals.
14.
On June 2,
2010, the appeal was referred to the Tax Court of Canada.
[4]
The
appellant was present at the hearing. When the appellant learned that a file with
the same issue was before the Court, she agreed that the decision to be
rendered in that matter, namely, that of Raymond Dupuis (2010-1844(OAS)),
would be the same in her case.
[5]
Accordingly,
the appeal is dismissed because, in fact, the decision under appeal is indeed
well founded under the Act, and the parties agreed that the decision in Raymond
Dupuis (2010-1844(OAS)), a copy of which is attached to this judgment,
applies to this case.
Signed
at Ottawa, Canada, this 18th day of October 2011.
"Alain Tardif"
on this 22nd day
of November 2011
Margarita
Gorbounova, Translator
Email this Content