Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The applicant’s eligibility for Old Age Security benefits turned on whether he satisfied the 10-year Canadian residency requirement under the Old Age Security Act.

• Evidence showed intermittent residence in Canada, with long absences abroad primarily for business in Bahrain.

• The Social Security Tribunal applied legal tests from precedent and found insufficient continuous or aggregate Canadian residency.

• The applicant argued for exceptions under the Old Age Security Regulations for time spent working abroad, claiming it should count toward residency.

• The tribunal found he did not maintain a permanent place of abode or self-contained domestic establishment in Canada during his time abroad.

• The Federal Court of Appeal concluded the tribunal’s decision was reasonable and dismissed the application without awarding costs.

Facts and outcome of the case

Background and procedural history

The applicant, Antoine Paulus, applied for a pension under the Old Age Security Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. O-9. His claim was denied on the basis that he had not met the 10-year residency requirement necessary to qualify for benefits. This decision was reviewed and upheld by both the General Division and the Appeal Division of the Social Security Tribunal of Canada. Paulus then sought judicial review of the Appeal Division's decision at the Federal Court of Appeal.

Residency and time abroad

Paulus immigrated to Canada in 1993 and became a Canadian citizen in 2000. However, from 1993 to 2020, he spent significant time abroad, particularly in Bahrain, where he managed business operations. He was only intermittently present in Canada during those years. The tribunal accepted that he lived in Canada from March 2012 to March 2013 due to temporary difficulties with his company abroad, but noted that he returned to Bahrain after that period and did not settle permanently in Canada until June 2020.

Application of the residency test

In assessing whether Paulus had met the residency threshold, the tribunal applied the legal test set out in Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development) v. Ding. Based on objective evidence, the tribunal found his ties to Bahrain outweighed his ties to Canada during the relevant years. At the time he applied for the pension in July 2021, he had not accumulated the required ten years of Canadian residence.

Claim under regulatory exception

Paulus also argued that the time he spent abroad should be counted as “work abroad” under subsections 21(4) and 21(5) of the Old Age Security Regulations, which can allow time abroad to be treated as Canadian residency if certain conditions are met. He claimed that as an employee of a Canadian company—his own company, Paulus Enterprises Ltd.—he should qualify under this exception. However, the tribunal found he did not maintain a “permanent place of abode” or “self-contained domestic establishment” in Canada during the time he was outside the country. Temporary stays with siblings in Canada did not meet the legal threshold for those terms.

Federal Court of Appeal decision

The court held that it is not its role to reweigh evidence considered by the tribunal. Instead, it assessed whether the tribunal’s decision was reasonable. It found that the Appeal Division had applied the correct legal principles, provided clear reasons, and reasonably interpreted the regulatory terms. The court concluded that the decision had no fatal flaws in logic or reasoning.

Outcome

The court dismissed the application for judicial review, thereby upholding the denial of Old Age Security benefits to Paulus. No costs were awarded, as the respondent did not seek them.