Appeal for Earlier CPP Disability Pension Rejected

Citation: EW  v  [NAME] , 2026  SST  265 Social Security Tribunal of Canada General Division – Income Security Section Decision Appellant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: [NAME] reconsideration decision dated October 28, 2025 (issued by Service Canada) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: Videoconference Hearing date: March 5, 2026 Hearing participant: Appellant Decision date: March 6, 2026 File number: GP-25-1814 On this page Decision Overview What the Appellant must prove Reasons for my decision Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] The appeal is dismissed. [ 2 ] The Appellant, E. W., isn’t entitled to payment of her [NAME] ( [NAME] ) disability pension before May 2024. This decision explains why I am dismissing the appeal. Overview [ 3 ] The Appellant applied for a [NAME] disability pension on April 17, 2025. Footnote 1 The [NAME] (Minister) approved her application with payments beginning as of May 2024. This was 11 months before she applied. [ 4 ] The Appellant asked the Minister to reconsider when her payments should start. The Minister maintained its decision. [ 5 ] The Appellant appealed the Minister’s decision to the Social Security Tribunal’s General Division because she wants her payments to begin earlier. [ 6 ] The Minister says the law doesn’t allow the Appellant’s payments to begin earlier than 11 months before she applied. There is a possible exception to this called the “incapacity rule.” But, the Minister says the rule doesn’t apply to the Appellant. Footnote 2 [ 7 ] The Appellant says that the incapacity rule does apply to her. She says she was incapable of applying for a disability pension from January 2022 to April 2025. What the Appellant must prove [ 8 ] A person isn’t eligible for disability pension payments earlier than 11 months before they applied. Footnote 3 However, if the incapacity rule applies, a person’s application is deemed to have been made earlier than it actually was. In that case, a person is entitled to earlier pension payments. [ 9 ] To succeed in her appeal, the Appellant must prove that the incapacity rule applies to her. This means she must prove that he was incapable of forming or expressing an intention to apply before April 2025. The period of incapacity must be continuous. Footnote 4 The Appellant must prove it is more likely than not that the incapacity rule applies. Footnote 5 [ 10 ] The legal test for incapacity is strict. It isn’t the same as the test for disability. A person with a disability may still be able to form and express an intention to apply for a disability pension. Under the test for incapacity, it doesn’t matter whether the Appellant: [redacted] knew that the [NAME] disability pension existed knew that she had to apply for the pension thought about applying for the pension could make, prepare, process of complete an application by herself [ 11 ] The focus of the test is on the Appellant’s capacity to form or express an intention to apply. This is generally no different than having the capacity to form or express an intention to make other decisions in life. Footnote 7 Reasons for my decision [ 12 ] I find that the incapacity rule doesn’t apply to the Appellant. [ 13 ] To make that decision I must consider: Footnote 8 the Appellant’s evidence about the nature and extent of her limitations any medical evidence in support of the Appellant’s claim of incapacity evidence of the Appellant’s activities during the period of claimed incapacity the extent to which these activities show her capacity to form or express an intention to apply for disability benefits during that period [ 14 ] I will consider these factors using the following headings: what the Appellant says about why she didn’t apply earlier medical evidence of the Appellant’s functional limitations the Appellant’s activities and what they show about incapacity What the Appellant says about why she didn’t apply earlier [ 15 ] The Appellant was diagnosed with hemicrania continua, cervicogenic headache and cervical myelopathy with symptoms starting in September 2020. Footnote 9 [ 16 ] I asked the Appellant why she says she became incapacitated in January 2022. She said this is when she could no longer function and stopped working. I will talk more later about what she says about her limitations. [ 17 ] I asked the Appellant why she said she regained capacity as of April 2025. She said that this is when she realized her disability was permanent (when a surgeon told her that her condition was permanent). She said this was the turning point. Evidence of the Appellant’s functional limitations [ 18 ] Evidence of the Appellant’s functional limitations supports that she was disabled but not that she was incapacitated . I will first look at what the Appellant says about her functional limitations. Then I will explain what the medical evidence says. What the Appellant says about her functional limitations [ 19 ] In her application the Appellant said she felt she could no longer work as of June 2020 because of hemicrania continua and cervical degenerative myelopathy. Footnote 10 She said for five years she had been living with severe pain, limited mobility, cognitive fatigue, cognitive limitations, and emotional distress. Footnote 11 [ 20 ] In response to questions in the application about her communication and thinking abilities, the Appellant rated all but one of her abilities as “good.” Footnote 12 For example, she rated as “good” her ability to: remember to do important things, such as keeping appointments concentrate and focus her attention for at least 30 minutes prioritize and plan her day decide between two options [ 21 ] In submissions the Appellant said: “Had I been provided with an accurate diagnosis and a clear understanding of my condition’s long-term impact earlier, it is reasonable to conclude that I would have submitted my application at that time. Footnote 13 [ 22 ] At the hearing I asked the Appellant if she would have been capable of applying earlier had she known her condition was permanent. She said yes. [ 23 ] In submissions the Appellant also said: I delayed because I was not mentally or emotionally able to recognize that my condition was permanent or to understand that [NAME] disability was something I should or could apply for at that time. My diagnoses evolved over time, and it was only later that the permanence of my condition became clear to me. Footnote 14 [ 24 ] These submissions tell me that the Appellant didn’t apply for a disability pension earlier because she didn’t understand or accept that her disability was permanent. This supports that she had the capacity to form or express an intention to apply. [ 25 ] At the hearing, the Appellant said five out of seven days she couldn’t get out of bed and was just trying to survive and find answers about what was going on. She said she was focused on getting better with treatment. She said she couldn’t: clean cook drive enjoy time with her children, other family or friends [ 26 ] However, the Appellant also said that with help from her husband, she was able to meet with [NAME], describe her symptoms, consent to treatment and sign legal documents related to closing her business. These activities don’t support that the Appellant was incapable of forming or expressing the intention to apply for a disability pension. What the medical evidence says about her functional limitations [ 27 ] In the medical report supporting the Appellant’s application, [NAME] said that the Appellant’s impairments and functional limitations included: Footnote 15 constant one-sided headaches inability to concentrate exhaustion tiredness loses fucus quickly neck stiffness burning sensation with numbness and tingling in hands and feet limited mobility difficulty walking increased risk of falls due to lack of balance The Appellant’s activities and what they show about incapacity [ 28 ] The medical evidence indicates that despite her limitations the Appellant was able to describe her symptoms to physicians, arrange and participate in testing to diagnosis her conditions, discuss, and make informed decisions about treatment. Footnote 16 She was able to sign documents related to closing a business. [ 29 ] In summary, I accept that the Appellant didn’t know she should apply for a disability pension before she did because she didn’t know or accept that her disability was permanent. I also accept that she wasn’t emotionally capable of accepting that her condition was permanent. [ 30 ] That doesn’t mean she wasn’t capable of forming or expressing an intention to apply. During the entire period she says she was incapable, she could think, take actions (including consenting to treatment and the sale of her business), and make decisions. So, I find that she was able to form or express an intention to apply for a disability pension throughout the period she claims she was incapable. Conclusion [ 31 ] The Appellant isn’t entitled to payment of her [NAME] ( [NAME] ) disability pension before May 2024. [ 32 ] This means the appeal is dismissed. Footnotes Footnote 1 See GD2-193 to GD2-221. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See GD7. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See sections 42(2)(b) and 69 of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See sections 60(9) and (10) of the [NAME] . See also [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2016  FC  1417. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2018  FC  36. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 See Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2008  FCA  78; Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2016  FC  112; and [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2018  FC  51. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 [NAME]  v  Canada (Social Development) , 2008  FCA  86; Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2008  FCA  144; and [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2021  FCA  211. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2021  FCA  211. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 See GD2-107 to GD2-116. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 See GD2-193 to GD2-205. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 See GD2-203. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 See GD2-201. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 See GD4-3. Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 See GD8-2. Return to footnote 14 referrer Footnote 15 See GD2-112 and GD2-113. Return to footnote 15 referrer Footnote 16 See GD2-29 to GD2-31, GD2-34 to GD2-38, GD2-67 to GD2-71, GD2-131, GD2-262 to GD2-264, GD2-296, GD2-297, GD2-303 to GD2-305, GD2-319 to GD2-328. Return to footnote 16 referrer