PENSIONS
Judicial review of Review Tribunal’s (RT) decision made pursuant to Old Age Security Act (OAS Act) allowing respondents’ appeals from Minister of Human Resources Development’s (Minister) decision reducing respondents’ benefits under OAS Act—Issues whether RT erred by concluding had jurisdiction to hear appeal from Minister’s decision; whether RT erred in concluding respondents’ benefits should not be reduced after wife returned to matrimonial home—Both respondents in their 80s, receiving Guaranteed Income Supplement benefits (GIS benefits), married to each other 64 years—In February 2003, wife had to move into long-term care facility; both then considered and dealt with as though single, GIS benefits increased slightly—When wife moved back into matrimonial home, respondents advised no longer “involuntarily separated,” GIS benefits dropped back to original level, overpayment created—Husband’s request to Minister for reconsideration denied—Appeal to RT—RT addressed only continuing entitlement of couple to GIS benefits as single persons rather than as spouses—Given no definition of “spouse” in statute since 2000, RT considered nature of relationship should be clarified—RT observing marriage requiring involvement in each other’s lives, mutual support, sharing, creating unit from two individuals—In RT’s view, wife no longer participating in marriage as spouse because of medical condition; therefore couple remaining involuntarily separated, should be treated as single persons in calculating GIS benefits—Application allowed—Issue dealt with by Minister herein, under both OAS Act, ss. 15(3), (3.1), relating to amount of benefit payable to respondents—Accordingly, within mandate of RT to consider appeal of decision pursuant to OAS Act, s. 27.1(1)—However, RT erred in concluding respondents’ benefits should not be reduced after wife returned to matrimonial home—On any standard of review, decision cannot stand—Words of OAS Act, s. 15(3)(b) clear: person can be dealt with as though person did not have spouse if situation “result of circumstances not attributable to person or spouse”; if person “not living with spouse . . . in dwelling maintained by person or spouse”— When wife returned to matrimonial home, couple no longer qualified for GIS single benefits, Minister correct to cancel his direction—No intention, in deletion of definition of “spouse” in statute, to extend commonly understood meaning of “spouse” to include emotional ties or other measures of strength or nature of relationship; intent simply to avoid definition of “spouse” no longer according with today’s understanding of that term—RT’s broad definition of spouse going far beyond words of statute, any reasonable interpretation—Parliament chose objective criteria in OAS Act, s. 15(3)(b); if person spouse, living in matrimonial home, person not meeting requirements to receive higher level of GIS benefits—Unfortunately for couple, requirements of OAS Act, s. 15(3)(b) not met—Old Age Security Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. O‑9, ss. 15(3)(b) (as am. by S.C. 1998, c. 21, s. 111; 2000, c. 12, (3.1) (as eancted by S.C. 1998, c. 21, s. 111), 27.1(1) (as enacted by S.C. 1995, c. 33, s. 16; 1997, c. 40, s. 100).
Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development) v. Leavitt (T-1511-04, T-1512-04, 2005 FC 664, Snider J., order dated 12/5/05, 21 pp.)