Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Applicant was not entitled to a widow¡¯s benefit under Article 34 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJPSF Regulations as she married Mr Williams, her deceased husband, after his separation from service. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that, under Article 35ter of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Regulations, the survivor¡¯s benefit had to be purchased by a retiree who marries after separation from service as an annuity within a prescribed one-year deadline after the date of the marriage. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that Mr Williams had elected not to do so. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no obligation for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF to inform Mr Williams of the option. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, while Mr Williams had submitted a form (PENS. A/2) designating his wife (and sons) as potential recipients for the purposes of a residual settlement on which he had noted that the Appellant was his wife, this did not convey a clear and unambiguous choice on the part of Mr Williams to purchase an annuity under Article 35ter. On the Appellant¡¯s contentions that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF has a responsibility in ensuring the accuracy and completeness of all participants¡¯ records and was neglectful in its duty by not requesting proof of the marriage so as to verify whether the wife indicated on the form was indeed a prospective survivor possible subject to Article 35ter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no specific provision establishing such an obligation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that due to the contributory nature of the benefits, ad hoc and post factum additions of the beneficiaries would appear to be prejudicial to the interests of other participants, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF did not created a reasonable expectation on the part of Mr Williams that his wife would be receipt of a widow¡¯s benefit after his death. On the Appellant¡¯s submission that her due process rights were not respected by the Standing Committee when it reviewed her case some 266 days after receipt of her request, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it did not consider that the Appellant experienced any inordinate delay in the hearing of her appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Standing Committee.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested the decision not to pay her a widow¡¯s benefit (under Article 34 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJPSF Regulations) or a survivor¡¯s benefit (under Article 35ter of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF Regulations).
Legal Principle(s)
A retiree who wishes to purchase an annuity for his new spouse bears the onus of submitting the relevant application to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵJSPF making this choice.