Appeal for Earlier CPP Disability Pension Start Date Denied

Citation: [NAME]  v  [NAME] , 2026  [NAME]  94 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Leave to Appeal Decision Applicant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated December 23 2025 (GP-25-1115) Tribunal member: [NAME] Decision date: February 11, 2026 File number: AD-25-836 On this page Decision Overview Issues I’m not giving the Claimant 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. And the General Division decision stands unchanged. Overview [ 3 ] A. A. is the Claimant. He has applied for permission to appeal a General Division decision. I will give him permission if there’s an arguable case the General Division made an error. [ 4 ] On July 31, 2024, the Claimant made a claim for a [NAME] ( [NAME] ) disability pension. The Minister granted him a disability pension, starting August 2023. [ 5 ] The Claimant disagreed with the August 2023 start date. He believes the start date should be earlier. So, he appealed to this Tribunal’s General Division. He argued he was incapacitated and unable to apply for benefits earlier. He says the Minister should have deemed he made his application earlier, using the legal test under sections 60(9) and (10) of the [NAME] . [ 6 ] The General Division dismissed his appeal. It decided it could not backdate his application because he didn’t meet the legal test for incapacity. [ 7 ] The Claimant argues the General Division breached natural justice, made jurisdictional errors, and ignored medical records. [ 8 ] For the reasons that follow, I can’t give the Claimant permission to appeal the General Division decision. He hasn’t shown an arguable case the General Division made an error. Issues [ 9 ] I have to decide three issues. Is there an arguable case the General Division breached natural justice by issuing its decision the day of the hearing, backdating the decision by one day, or letting someone else make the decision? made a jurisdictional error by ignoring directions from the Federal Court, or failing to consider the Claimant’s eligibility for the child-rearing dropout and the Disabled Contributor’s Child Benefit (DCCB)? made a factual error in making its decision by ignoring medical records? [ 10 ] In his application, the Claimant didn’t set out new evidence relevant to a legal issue the General Division had to decide. Footnote 1 So I don’t need to consider this ground of appeal. I’m not giving the Claimant permission to appeal [ 11 ] I give permission to appeal when a person raises an arguable case the General Division made one of these errors Footnote 2 didn’t follow natural justice acted beyond its powers or refused to exercise a power (called a jurisdictional error) made a legal error in making its decision made a factual error in making its decision made an error when applying the law to the facts in making its decision (called a mixed error of fact and law) [ 12 ] The Claimant has the burden of proving an arguable case of an error. Footnote 3 Raising an arguable case means his case has a reasonable chance of success on appeal. Footnote 4 [ 13 ] The Claimant argues the General Division made three types of errors—it breached natural justice, made jurisdictional errors, and made a factual error. Footnote 5 No arguable case the General Division breached natural justice [ 14 ] The Claimant argues the General Division breached two principles of natural justice. I can consider evidence about this ground of appeal although the General Division didn’t have it. Footnote 6 In my analysis, I will refer to the new evidence the Claimant is relying on to show a breach of natural justice. No arguable case someone other than the Member made the decision, or the decision was backdated [ 15 ] The Claimant argues the General Division breached the principle of natural justice that says the person who decides the appeal must be the person who heard the evidence and the arguments. Footnote 7 He expresses serious concerns about the “integrity of the administrative record.” Footnote 8 [ 16 ] General Division member [NAME] heard the Claimant’s appeal. The Claimant doesn’t dispute that. The Claimant says the first page of the decision says [NAME] made the decision on December 23, 2025. But he argues the PDF ’s metadata shows CR is the “author” and she “created” the decision on December 24, 2025. In other words, he alleges someone other than [NAME] wrote the decision, then backdated it. [ 17 ] The Claimant’s breach of natural justice allegation is serious. He has to back it up with evidence. It can’t rest on unsupported speculation. Footnote 9 [ 18 ] Based on the metadata in the PDF decision, the Claimant wants to believe the Tribunal is acting against him behind the scenes. He calls this fraud. But there’s no evidence of that. And no arguable case someone other than member [NAME] wrote the decision dismissing his appeal on December 23, 2025. No arguable case the member prejudged the appeal, or made his decision without properly considering the Claimant’s evidence and arguments [ 19 ] The Claimant argues: The General Division Member rendered a decision on the same day as the hearing (Dec 23, 2025), despite a specific promise on the transcript to “review the file” consisting of 1, 000+ pages. This made a genuine review impossible and prevented post-hearing corrections. Footnote 10 [ 20 ] The Claimant’s post-hearing correction argument doesn’t show an arguable case the General Division breached natural justice. The hearing was the Claimant’s chance to testify and make arguments. He didn’t ask for, and the member didn’t give him, the chance to send in evidence or make arguments after the hearing. And his opportunity to correct the General Division decision is by making an application to the Appeal Division. Which he has done. [ 21 ] An allegation of bias—in other words, the member prejudged the outcome or was biased against a party—is serious. Footnote 11 A tribunal member is presumed to be impartial. An allegation of a reasonable apprehension or of actual bias is difficult to prove. Footnote 12 It can’t rest on mere suspicion, pure conjecture, insinuations, or impressions. [ 22 ] The fact the General Division member decided the appeal the same day as the hearing doesn’t show an arguable case the member prejudged the case. Or an arguable case the member was biased against the Claimant. Or an arguable case the member dismissed the appeal without properly considering the Claimant’s evidence and arguments. [ 23 ] I reviewed the documents in the General Division file. The Claimant filed many documents. But many of those were duplicates and others repeated information or arguments. And I can presume the member considered the evidence, even if it didn’t refer to it in its decision. Footnote 13 Summary of findings about natural justice [ 24 ] The Claimant hasn’t shown and I didn’t find an arguable case the General Division breached the principles of natural justice. No arguable case the General Division made an error by not deciding two issues the Claimant raised or by not following a court order [ 25 ] The Claimant argues the General Division made a jurisdictional error when it didn’t decide two issues he raised in his appeal—his eligibility for the child-rearing drop out and the DCCB. Footnote 14 I’ll call these the two issues. The General Division’s conclusion about its jurisdiction is supported by the law and the evidence [ 26 ] The General Division decided the two issues weren’t properly before it (paragraph 17). In other words, it didn’t have the jurisdiction to consider the two issues. [ 27 ] The General Division explained why it didn’t have jurisdiction (paragraphs 10 to 16). The General Division’s analysis is supported by the law and evidence, so there is no arguable case it made a jurisdictional error. [ 28 ] Section 82 of the [NAME] gives a party the right to appeal a Minister’s reconsideration decision—made under section 81—to the Social Security Tribunal. The General Division didn’t cite that section of the [NAME] . But it didn’t have to. Instead, it explained the law using plain language. [ 29 ] I reviewed the documents in the General Division file. The file included one reconsideration decision; about the retroactive benefits the Minister says the Claimant is entitled to under the [NAME] . Footnote 15 The file doesn’t include a reconsideration decision on either of the two issues. It seems the Minister was still reconsidering the two issues when it issued its reconsideration decision about retroactive benefits. Footnote 16 [ 30 ] Because there was no reconsideration decision about either of the two issues, the Claimant had no right to appeal those issues to the General Division. And there’s no arguable case the General Division made a jurisdictional error when it didn’t decide the two issues. The Claimant’s argument misunderstands Justice Thorne’s Order [ 31 ] The Claimant argues the Tribunal made a jurisdictional error when it ignored Justice Thorne’s Order to address matters the Claimant brought up in his judicial review application. Footnote 17 [ 32 ] Justice Thorne’s Order doesn’t change my conclusion there’s no arguable case the General Division made a jurisdictional error. Justice Thorne didn’t give any instructions or directions to the General Division in his three orders. Footnote 18 [ 33 ] In his reasons, Justice Thorne says that the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to address the issues raised by the Claimant in his [NAME] benefits application. Footnote 19 Justice Thorne makes this comment after citing cases that say that absent exceptional circumstances, parties can’t go to court until they have a final decision from an administrative tribunal. So, it seems Justice Thorne is making a general comment recognizing the General Division’s jurisdiction to decide appeals of the Minister’s reconsideration decisions. Including reconsideration decisions about the start date for a [NAME] pension, the child-rearing drop out, and the DCCB. [ 34 ] But in the Claimant’s case, the Minister hadn’t yet made a reconsideration decision on the latter two issues. Justice Thorne’s general comment about the Tribunal’s statutory jurisdiction doesn’t change that fact. So, there isn’t an arguable case the General Division made a jurisdictional error when it refused to decide those two issues. No arguable case the General Division ignored or misunderstood medical evidence about the Claimant’s incapacity [ 35 ] The Claimant says the General Division ignored a report from an [NAME], the [NAME] report. Footnote 20 I’ll call this the [NAME] report. [ 36 ] The law lets the Minister deem that a person applied for a [NAME] disability pension earlier than they did where they lacked capacity to apply earlier. Footnote 21 This usually allows a person to get more months of retroactive pension benefits. To be eligible, the Claimant had to prove he was continuously incapable of forming or expressing an intention to apply. Footnote 22 He had to show this from when his alleged incapacity began until he regained capacity. [ 37 ] The General Division had to consider several types of evidence. Footnote 23 What the Claimant said about his limitations. Medical or other evidence in support of his claimed incapacity. How his activities during the period of alleged incapacity shed light on his capacity to form and express an intention to apply for a [NAME] disability pension. [ 38 ] The General Division makes an important factual error when it makes its decision based on a factual finding it arrived at by ignoring or misunderstanding relevant evidence. Or based on a factual finding with no relevant evidence to support it. Relevant means evidence the legal test calls for. [ 39 ] The General Division didn’t refer to the [NAME] report when it reviewed the medical evidence. But the law says I can presume the General Division reviewed all the evidence—it doesn’t have to refer to every piece of evidence. Footnote 24 [ 40 ] I should consider putting aside this presumption when the probative value of the evidence that wasn’t discussed is such that it should have been addressed. Footnote 25 The probative value of evidence is its capacity to establish the fact of which it’s offered in proof. Footnote 26 In the circumstances of the Claimant’s appeal, probative value means how useful the [NAME] report is to showing he was continuously incapable of forming or expressing an intention to apply for a [NAME] disability pension. [ 41 ] The [NAME] report has little to no probative value. It was issued on October 15, 2024, and appears to be a point-in-time assessment. So, it doesn’t provide evidence about the Claimant’s functioning or capacity over time and continuously up to a time close to when he applied. It consists mainly of an evaluation matrix, but the values in that matrix (Qualifier, A, B, or C) aren’t explained. It says the main origin of disability is physical, with a moderate degree of disability, which isn’t directly relevant to “forming or expressing an intention.” It mainly sets out the results using numbers and values but doesn’t explain the scale used or meaning of the numbers and values. It doesn’t contain any narrative explanation, assessment, or professional opinion. [ 42 ] So, I find the Claimant hasn’t shown an arguable case the General Division made a factual error when it didn’t refer to the [NAME] report in making its decision. [ 43 ] The Claimant is representing himself. So, I reviewed the evidence from the documents in the General Division file. Footnote 27 And listened to the hearing recording. Footnote 28 Then I compared evidence from those two sources with the General Division’s analysis of the evidence (paragraphs 20 to 36). There isn’t an arguable case the General Division ignored or misunderstood relevant evidence or arrived at a finding of fact based on no relevant evidence. [ 44 ] To summarize this section, the Claimant hasn’t shown an arguable case the General Division made a factual error in making its decision. And I didn’t find an arguable case. Conclusion [ 45 ] The Claimant hasn’t raised an arguable case the General Division breached natural justice or made an error the law lets me consider. And I didn’t find an arguable case of a breach or an error. [ 46 ] This means I can’t give him permission to appeal the General Division decision. And his appeal won’t go forward. Footnotes Footnote 1 Although section 58.1(c) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act ( DESD  Act) uses broad language, the Federal Court has recently decided new evidence must be relevant to a legal issue the Appeal Division had to decide. [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2026  FC  36 at paragraphs 67 and 68. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See section 58.1 of the DESD  Act. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2024  FC  1326 at paragraph 59. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2024  FC  1793 at paragraph 32; [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2026  FC  36 at paragraph 32. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 See AD1, AD1B, and AD1C. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2022  FCA  157 at paragraphs 36 to 39. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 See IWA  v  Consolidated Bathurst Packaging Ltd , [1990] 1 SCR 282 at pages 292, 298, 329, and 330. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 See AD1B-1. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 [COMPANY]  v  [NAME] (Labour Relations Board) , 2001  SCC  4. Although this decision centred on institutional bias, I’m citing it because the facts, although different, raise the issue of who made the decision. [COMPANY] alleged the full Board participated in the decision, rather than the three-member panel who heard the case. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 See AD1-9. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2001  FCA  223. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 See Canadian Pacific Railway Company  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2018  FCA  69; Kuk  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2024  FCA  74. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2022  FCA  157 at paragraph 46. Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 See AD1-3 and AD1-9. Return to footnote 14 referrer Footnote 15 See GD2-21 and GD2-22. The Minister’s Reconsideration Decision Letter is dated July 2, 2025. Return to footnote 15 referrer Footnote 16 See AD2-14 to AD2-20. Return to footnote 16 referrer Footnote 17 See AD1-3 and AD1-9. I’m referring to the Order of Thorne J. in [NAME]  v  Canada ([NAME], and Attorney General) , Federal Court File T-4734-25, issued December 11, 2025 [unpublished]. Return to footnote 17 referrer Footnote 18 See page 6 of the Order of Thorne J. in Federal Court File T-4734-25. Return to footnote 18 referrer Footnote 19 See page 5 of the Order of Thorne J. in Federal Court File T-4734-25. Return to footnote 19 referrer Footnote 20 See AD1-9. When he refers to the [NAME] medical report he means, Informe de Desempeño [NAME]-CIF (Performance Report, 15/10/2024). He first sent the original Spanish report (dated November 15, 2024) to the Tribunal. See GD14-4 to GD14-10. Then he sent an uncertified English translation, several times. See the first time he sent it, at GD18-6 to GD18-14. Finally, he sent a certified translation of part of the report See GD41-3 to GD41-5 Return to footnote 20 referrer Footnote 21 See sections 60(9) and (10) of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 21 referrer Footnote 22 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2016  FC  1417. Return to footnote 22 referrer Footnote 23 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2021  FCA  211. Return to footnote 23 referrer Footnote 24 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2022  FCA  157 at paragraph 46. Return to footnote 24 referrer Footnote 25 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2013  FC  498 at paragraph 51. Return to footnote 25 referrer Footnote 26 [NAME]  v  Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) , 2019  FC  14 at paragraph 21. Return to footnote 26 referrer Footnote 27 The Federal Court has said the Appeal Division should not apply the leave to appeal test mechanistically and should review the General Division record. See for example [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2016  FC  874; [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2016  FC  615; [NAME] v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2017  FC  391. Return to footnote 27 referrer Footnote 28 The hearing lasted approximately one hour and eight minutes. Return to footnote 28 referrer