PART C – Decision under Appeal
The decision under appeal is the Ministry of Social Development (ministry)’s reconsideration decision
dated June 30, 2016, finding the ministry properly applied the legislation in recouping from the
Canada Pension Plan (CPP) payments made by the ministry to the appellant during a period when he
was eligible to receive CPP in accordance with section 8 of the Employment and Assistance for
Persons with Disabilities Regulation (EAPWDR).
PART D – Relevant Legislation
The relevant legislation is section 8 of the EAPWDR.
PART E – Summary of Facts
The appellant was approved to receive disability assistance on June 4, 2015. As part of the approval
process the ministry sent the appellant a letter requesting that he obtain a Statement of Contributions
from Service Canada as he may be eligible for CPP Disability payments (CPPD).
On June 30, 2015 the appellant provided the ministry with a copy of his My Service Canada Account
listing all of his annual CPP contributions.
On July 6, 2015, the ministry sent a letter to the appellant informing him that he may be eligible for
CPPD and requested that he complete a number of forms in this regard.
On August 5, 2015, the ministry received these forms from the appellant. The forms clearly stated
that the appellant agreed to the ministry recovering the payments it made to the appellant from CPP
for periods during which he was eligible for CPP. These forms also set out that the amounts that the
ministry had paid the appellant since June 2015.
On October 7, 2015, the ministry received a letter from Service Canada advising that the appellant’s
application for CPPD was approved and requesting confirmation of the payments made by the
ministry to the appellant for the period September 2014 to November 2015.
On October 8, 2015, the ministry completed and submitted its response.
On December 22, 2015, Service Canada paid a lump sum of $12,684.88 to the ministry representing
the amount the ministry had paid to the appellant during the period he was eligible for CPPD.
PART F – Reasons for Panel Decision
The issue under appeal is the reasonableness of the ministry’s reconsideration decision finding that
the ministry properly applied the legislation in recouping from the CPP payments made by the
ministry to the appellant during a period when he was eligible to receive CPPD in accordance with
section 8 of the EAPWDR.
The relevant legislation is section 8 of the EAPWDR:
Requirement to apply for CPP benefits
8 If a family unit includes a recipient who may be eligible for a benefit under the Canada Pension
Plan (Canada), for the family unit to continue to be eligible for disability assistance, the recipient,
when requested by the minister, must complete a Consent to Deduction and Payment under the
Canada Pension Plan (Canada) directing that
(a) an amount up to the amount of disability assistance provided to or for the family unit from the date
that the recipient becomes eligible for the Canada Pension Plan benefit be deducted from the amount
of that benefit, and
(b) the amount deducted be paid to the minister.
This appeal was held by written hearing by consent of the parties in accordance with section 22(3)(b)
of the Employment and Assistance Act.
The Appellant’s Position
In his appeal submission the appellant states that he wants to receive disability assistance rather
than CPPD and alleges that the BC Government is “scamming” CPP through this process. He would
prefer to receive disability benefits because he believes that the Province rather than CPP is
responsible for and can address the issues he faces in dealing with his disability and getting back to
work. He states that he is the victim of persecution, discrimination and a criminal conspiracy. He goes
on to state that he has contacted the police department and the Police Commissioners Office, as well
as his mayor and the Premier and a federal official but is being ignored and indeed bullied. No
doctors will help him. The appellant states that this situation has so psychologically traumatized him
that he cannot leave his house or work and that this is the fault of the Provincial Government for
refusing to help him and are now forcing him to access CPPD for the rest of his life. In his opinion, as
the Province caused this situation the ministry should not be reimbursed by CPP.
The Ministry’s Position
The ministry relied on its reconsideration decision in which it states that the legislation is clear and the
CPP policies are in accord, that the ministry is entitled to reimbursement from CPP for disability
benefits paid to a recipient while that recipient is eligible to receive CPPD. Furthermore, the letters
and forms provided to the appellant were clear that this was being pursued and the appellant
provided his permission for the ministry to do so.
The Panel’s Decision
The appellant provided the panel with a considerable amount of background information regarding his
history and current situation. The panel read through and considered all of this information, but found
that the majority of it was not relevant to the issue which was the subject of the reconsideration
decision, that is, the reimbursing of the ministry by the CPP. The panel’s authority is limited to
considering the reasonableness of the ministry’s reconsideration decision given the facts and the
legislation.
Section 8 of the EAPWDR states that in order for a recipient who may eligible for CPP to continue to
be eligible for disability assistance, the recipient must complete a Consent to Deduction and Payment
under the CPP directing that amounts paid to the recipient during the period in which the recipient
was eligible for CPPD be deducted from that CPPD and paid to the minister.
This form was completed by the appellant and submitted to the ministry. The ministry submitted the
form to the CPP and the CPP reimbursed the ministry as per the Appellant’s direction.
The appellant does not argue that the ministry or the CPP have made a mistake or done anything
contrary to the legislation. Rather, he asserts that because the Province is responsible for his health
issues, the ministry, rather than the CPP should support him. As well, he states that it is disability
assistance and the cooperation of the Province that can help him deal with his issues and get back to
work, while CPPD simply perpetuates his situation.
The panel finds that the appellant’s objections to the deductions made are not relevant to the issue of
whether the ministry followed the legislative requirements. The appellant completed the Consent to
Deduction and Payment (thereby remaining eligible for disability assistance) and so authorized the
deductions from his CPP in accordance with section 8.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the ministry’s reconsideration decision finding that the ministry
properly applied the legislation in recouping from the CPP payments made by the ministry to the
appellant during a period when he was eligible to receive CPPD was a reasonable application of the
relevant legislation and confirms the ministry’s decision.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.