VadeLab
RefusedSocial Security Tribunal of Canada (CPP Disability)·

Appeal Denied: Timing Issues Prevent Claimant from Challenging General Division Decision

Case No.

📌 In brief

The Social Security Tribunal denied a claimant's attempt to appeal a decision about a disability pension because the claimant filed too late. The claimant tried to appeal more than a year after receiving the Minister's decision, which is beyond the allowed time frame.

⚖️ Legal holding

A claimant cannot appeal a General Division decision if more than one year has passed since receiving the Minister's reconsideration decision.

Topics

appeal processtime limits for appeals

Provisions

Department of Employment and Social Development Act, s. 52(2)Department of Employment and Social Development Act, s. 58.1(a)Department of Employment and Social Development Act, s. 58.1(b)Department of Employment and Social Development Act, s. 58.1(c)

📖 Technical summary

The claimant failed to meet the legal test for appealing a General Division decision due to timing issues.

📜 Headnote Official document

The Social Security Tribunal denied a claimant's request for leave to appeal a General Division decision regarding a disability pension due to the claimant's failure to file within one year of receiving the Minister's reconsideration decision.

📚 Full judgment Official document

Citation: GP  v  [NAME] , 2026  SST  128 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Leave to Appeal Decision Applicant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated January 12, 2026 (GP-25-1797) Tribunal member: [NAME] Decision date: February 24, 2026 File number: AD-26-66 On this page Decision Overview Issue The Claimant hasn’t met the legal test to get permission to appeal Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] Leave (permission) to appeal the General Division decision is refused. [ 2 ] This means the appeal won’t go forward. Overview [ 3 ] G. P. is the Claimant. He has applied for permission to appeal a General Division decision. [ 4 ] The General Division decided it could not hear his appeal. It followed the law that says a person can’t appeal when more than one year has passed since they got the Minister’s reconsideration decision. Footnote 1 [ 5 ] The Claimant’s reasons for appeal show me he disagrees with the General Division decision. He’s rearguing his General Division appeal and challenging the Minister’s decision denying him a [NAME] ( [NAME] ) disability pension. Footnote 2 [ 6 ] Unfortunately for the Claimant, I can’t give him permission to appeal the General Division decision. He hasn’t shown an arguable case the General Division made an error. And he didn’t set out new evidence in his application to appeal (application). Issue [ 7 ] I have to decide one issue—whether there’s an arguable case the General Division made an error. The Claimant hasn’t met the legal test to get permission to appeal The permission to appeal test [ 8 ] I should give the Claimant permission to appeal if he raises an arguable case the General Division made one of these errors didn’t respect natural justice made a jurisdictional error made a legal error, a factual error, or a mixed error of fact and law in making its decision Footnote 3 [ 9 ] The Claimant didn’t send new evidence with his application. So I don’t need to consider the new evidence ground of appeal. Footnote 4 The Claimant hasn’t shown an arguable case the General Division made an error, and I didn’t find an arguable case [ 10 ] In his application, the Claimant is rearguing his General Division case. It’s clear he disagrees with the General Division decision, and the ultimate outcome of not getting a [NAME] disability pension. [ 11 ] But his reasons don’t refer to the General Division decision. And they don’t explain a General Division error or give an example. So he hasn’t shown an arguable case the General Division made an error. Footnote 5 [ 12 ] The Claimant’s reasons for appeal explain why he waited more than a year to appeal the Minister’s reconsideration decision. But those reasons don’t change the law that says the General Division can’t extend the time to appeal the Minster’s reconsideration decision when one year has passed. In other words, even if the Claimant had a reasonable explanation for his delay, the General Division had no power to extend the appeal deadline. [ 13 ] The General Division relied on that law to decide the Claimant’s case (see Decision paragraph 7). The General Division reasons show me it correctly understood then used this law (paragraphs 12, 13, 14). So there’s no arguable case the General Division made a legal error. [ 14 ] Based on the Claimant’s evidence about when he got the Minister’s reconsideration decision, the General Division concluded that he waited over a year to appeal. There’s no arguable case the General Division ignored or misunderstood the evidence about this (paragraphs 9 to 11). So there’s no arguable case the General Division based its decision on an error about the relevant facts. [ 15 ] In his application, the Claimant is also arguing he qualifies for a [NAME] disability pension. But that argument isn’t relevant to the General Division decision and whether I can give him permission to appeal. The General Division didn’t hear his appeal of the Minister’s decision to deny him a disability pension. And there’s no arguable case the General Division made an error when it refused to hear his disability pension appeal. [ 16 ] This means I can’t give the Claimant permission to appeal the General Division decision. Conclusion [ 17 ] Leave to appeal denied. The Claimant’s appeal won’t go forward. Footnotes Footnote 1 See section 52(2) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act ( [NAME]  Act). Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See AD1-7 and AD1-10. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See sections 58.1(a) and (b) of the [NAME]  Act. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See section 58.1(c) of the [NAME]  Act. And see AD1-8, where the Claimant responds to the question about evidence the General Division didn’t have: “All documents have been sent in.” Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2024  FC  1326 at paragraph 59; [NAME]   v   Canada (Attorney General) , 2016  FC  874 at paragraph 20. Return to footnote 5 referrer

⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this

✅ Tends to be accepted

  • The General Division correctly applied the law regarding the one-year time limit for appeals.

❌ Tends to be rejected

  • The Claimant did not provide new evidence to support his appeal.
  • The Claimant did not show an arguable case that the General Division made an error.
  • The Claimant waited more than a year to appeal the Minister’s reconsideration decision.
  • The Claimant argued he qualified for a disability pension, but this was not relevant to the appeal permission.

Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.

❓ Frequently asked questions

What did this decision decide?

The claimant's request for permission to appeal was denied because the appeal was filed too late.

What was the dispute about?

The dispute was about whether the claimant could appeal a decision regarding a disability pension after more than a year had passed since receiving the Minister's reconsideration decision.

How did the court decide, and why?

The court decided to deny the claimant's request because the appeal was filed outside the one-year window allowed by law.

Which laws or rules were applied?

The Department of Employment and Social Development Act, sections 52(2), 58.1(a), 58.1(b), and 58.1(c) were applied.

What was the argument that mattered most?

The most important argument was that the claimant had waited too long to file the appeal, exceeding the one-year limit.

Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?

The decision was against the claimant.

What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?

Someone in a similar situation should ensure they file their appeal within the one-year period following the Minister's reconsideration decision.

What evidence or documents mattered?

The judgment does not specify any particular evidence or documents that were critical to the decision.

Official source: Social Security Tribunal of Canada (CPP Disability) headnote and full judgment reproduced from the court's public records. View on the official source ↗Summary, holding, technical summary and questions: produced by Artificial Intelligence based on the official headnote and judgment. These are VadeLab’s own material and are not the work of the Court.This decision was issued by the Social Security Tribunal of Canada (CPP Disability). It is a reproduction of an official work published by the Government of Canada, and the reproduction has not been produced in affiliation with, or with the endorsement of, the Government of Canada. It is not an official version.
Claimant's Appeal Denied Due to Timing - Social Security | VadeLab