Social Security Tribunal Appeal Division only had jursidiction to amend or rescind prior decisions where new material facts were presented

Taxpayer successfully applied for Canada Pension Plan (CPP) disability pension but taxpayer disputed date of onset of disability and pursued multiple reviews and appeals to have issue reconsidered. Most recently, taxpayer brought application for leave to appeal decision of Social Security Tribunal General Division (SST-GD), which rejected his application on basis that it lacked jurisdiction over application. Social Security Tribunal Appeal Division (SST-AD) rejected taxpayer’s application for extension of time and leave to appeal SST-GD decision. Taxpayer brought application for judicial review. Application dismissed. It was found that even though SST-AD decision could have been clearer in addressing underlying basis of SST-GD decision, reasons clearly concluded that appeal did not have reasonable chance of success. SST-GD’s decision to deny application was based on absence of jurisdiction, because it only had jurisdiction to amend or rescind prior decisions where new material facts had been placed before it. In this case, no new evidence had been provided by taxpayer. SST-AD’s decision, when read in light of record, explains basis for decision and was within range of acceptable outcomes.

Andrews v. Canada (Attorney General) (2018), 2018 CarswellNat 2891, 2018 CarswellNat 3228, 2018 FC 606, 2018 CF 606, Patrick Gleeson J. (F.C.).