http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/decisions/en/item/66427/index.do
Cantin v. The Queen[1] (January 16, 2014) involved payments under a long-term disability policy. The appellant had been receiving such payments for a number of years. In 2008 he turned 65 and continued to receive payments under the policy. In 2009 he treated the payments under the policy as pension income which he split with the wife. CRA rejected the pension split on the basis that the policy payments were not pension payments.
The insurer’s evidence was as follows:
[8] Ginette Larivière is employed by Industrial [the insurer]. Her task is to act as a liaison between Industrial and its lawyers in all cases involving Industrial. Apparently, there have been a number if disputes between Industrial and Hydro‑Québec, on the one hand, and the appellant, on the other. Ms. Larivière explained to us that Industrial is a life insurance company that is responsible for managing Hydro‑Québec’s long-term disability insurance plan. Industrial is not at all responsible for Hydro‑Québec’s retirement plan. Ms. Larivière testified that all amounts paid to Mr. Cantin during 2009 were paid under a long-term disability insurance plan and not under a pension plan. In 2009, Industrial paid Mr. Cantin $15,953.76, which is the same amount indicated on the T4A slip as disability insurance benefits. Industrial is neither the administrator of Hydro‑Québec’s pension plan nor the insurer of the pension plan. There is no connection between Industrial and the Hydro‑Québec pension funds. All benefits paid to Mr. Cantin under the disability insurance plan are derived exclusively from Industrial and not Hydro‑Québec.
The court rejected the appellant’s position:
[17] I find that the payments received from a long-term disability insurance plan do not qualify for pension income splitting. Even though the wage loss benefits ended when the appellant reached the age of 65, they were replaced by retirement pension supplement payments. This does not change the fact that the appellant continues to receive disability insurance benefits even after having reached the age of 65. The amount of $15,953.76 that the appellant received from Industrial does not represent qualified pension income within the meaning of subsection 118(7) of the Act. Accordingly, this amount does not create an entitlement for pension income splitting under section 60.03 of the Act.
[18] For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed.
[1] 2014 TCC 20.