Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Dispute centered on eligibility for a survivor’s allowance under the Old Age Security Act.

• Determination of whether a common-law relationship existed at the time of the ex-husband’s death.

• Application of the McLaughlin v. Canada (Attorney General), 2012 FC 556 factors for common-law relationships.

• Consideration of procedural fairness, including interpretation services and hearing process.

• Allegations of bias and mischaracterization of evidence reviewed and found unsupported.

• Application for judicial review dismissed with no costs awarded.

Background and facts of the case

Ranjila Bihari sought judicial review of a decision by the Appeal Division of the Social Security Tribunal dated August 28, 2024 (2024 SST 1040). The Appeal Division had dismissed her appeal from a decision of the General Division of the Tribunal, which found her ineligible for a survivor’s allowance under the Old Age Security Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. O-9 (OAS Act). Ms. Bihari married in 1975, separated from her husband in 2000, and divorced in 2007. Despite the separation and divorce, they remained close until the ex-husband’s death in 2016. In 2021, Ms. Bihari applied for a survivor’s allowance under the OAS Act, but her application was denied.

Legal issues and policy terms

The issue before the Appeal Division was whether Ms. Bihari was in a common-law relationship with her ex-husband at the time of his death. The Appeal Division considered the factors indicative of a conjugal relationship as set out in McLaughlin v. Canada (Attorney General), 2012 FC 556. While some factors favored Ms. Bihari, most did not. The Appeal Division determined that, on balance, the McLaughlin factors did not support the existence of a common-law relationship. Ms. Bihari accepted the authority of McLaughlin but claimed the decision was unreasonable because the Appeal Division failed to meaningfully engage with the evidence and applied a narrow interpretation of the legal test, disregarding her personal circumstances and cultural background.

Procedural fairness and allegations

Ms. Bihari submitted that the Appeal Division’s process was procedurally unfair. She complained about the quality of the interpretation services provided at the hearing but did not identify any real and significant interpretation error. The court noted that if she had concerns about the quality of interpretation services, she should have raised them at the hearing. The audio recording was sufficiently clear for Ms. Bihari to commission a transcript, and she did not persuade the court that the quality of the audio recording deprived her of a full and fair opportunity to present her case or raised any other procedural fairness issues. Allegations of bias arising from the Appeal Division’s conduct of the hearing were not supported by the evidence. The court also found that Ms. Bihari’s remaining allegations did not establish that she did not know the case to meet or that she was prevented from having a full and fair opportunity to respond.

Court’s analysis and outcome

The Federal Court of Appeal found that the Appeal Division considered the relevant factors for determining the existence of a common-law relationship and weighed them in light of the evidence adduced by Ms. Bihari. Any mischaracterization of the evidence regarding the deceased’s smoking habits was not sufficiently serious to render the decision unreasonable. The Appeal Division’s reasons demonstrated that Ms. Bihari’s personal circumstances and cultural background were considered. The court stated that it was not its role to reweigh the evidence in order to reach a different conclusion and that Ms. Bihari had not met her burden of demonstrating that the decision was unreasonable.

Ruling and overall outcome

The application for judicial review was dismissed. The respondent, Attorney General of Canada, was not seeking costs and none were awarded. No monetary amount was ordered or granted in favor of the successful party.