Social Security Tribunal rejects Canadian-born man's bid for increased Old Age Security benefits after decades living in the U.S.
September 24, 2025
A retiree (“DB”) who spent most of his adult life in the U.S. has lost his bid to boost his Old Age Security (“OAS”) entitlement after the Social Security Tribunal of Canada (“SST”) denied him leave to appeal a decision that awarded him a partial pension.
According to the ruling, DB was born in Canada in 1957 but began splitting his time between the U.S. and Canada in 1976, attending school and playing hockey south of the border. In 1985, he finally made his U.S. move permanent and still lives there.
The SST’s General Division credited DB with four years and 319 days of Canadian residency from his 18th birthday in 1975 to the end of 1979 — the last full year he spent in school in the U.S. This translated into a 4/40 pension because the General Division found that DB’s residence was already interrupted because of the work he was doing in the U.S. after he finished school. In addition, the OAS Act does not allow rounding up to the nearest year when calculating the amount of a partial OAS pension.
At the SST’s Appeal Division, DB claimed credit for the entire period between 1976 and 1985, arguing that this would not be double-dipping because Canada and the U.S. have an agreement that coordinates between the two social security systems.
However, the SST’s Appeal Division dismissed the appeal, finding that the General Division had correctly interpreted the agreement between the two countries. While DB was allowed to use his time in the U.S. to count towards the OAS’s minimum residency requirements, the agreement between the countries still required each jurisdiction to pay only the portion of the pension earned within their respective jurisdictions. In addition, the General Division had correctly applied the OAS Act by finding that DB’s work as a hockey player interrupted his Canadian residency in accordance with the agreement with the U.S. on social security.
“Since the Claimant hasn’t raised an arguable case and hasn’t set out new evidence, I must refuse permission to appeal,” the decision reads.
Click ‘More Information’ below to review the ruling:
