Application Accepted but Permission to Appeal Denied in CPP Disability Pension Case

Citation: [NAME] v [NAME] , 2026  SST  164 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal Decision Applicant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated October 1, 2025 (GP-25-1271) Tribunal member: [NAME] Decision date: March 4, 2026 File number: [NAME]-26-20 On this page Decision Overview Issues The Claimant’s application was late, but I’m extending the time I can’t give the Claimant permission to appeal Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] I’m giving [NAME]. an extension of time to apply to appeal the General Division decision. But I can’t give her leave (permission) to appeal. [ 2 ] This means her appeal won’t go forward. Overview [ 3 ] [NAME]. is the Claimant. She applied to appeal a General Division decision. Footnote 1 I’ll call this her application. She applied late. But I extended the time. [ 4 ] In 2023, the Claimant applied for a [NAME] ( [NAME] ) disability pension, for the third time. The Minister refused that application—initially then again on reconsideration. So she appealed to the General Division. [ 5 ] The law says a person can’t appeal if one year has passed since they learned about the Minister’s reconsideration decision. [ 6 ] The General Division refused to consider the Claimant’s appeal. Because she made her appeal after the one-year deadline. [ 7 ] The Claimant now argues she had difficulty obtaining the correct forms to appeal the Minister’s reconsideration decision. And she will have new medical evidence to present to the Appeal Division. [ 8 ] Unfortunately for the Claimant, I can’t give her permission to appeal. She hasn’t shown an arguable case the General Division made an error. And her new evidence isn’t relevant to the legal issues in her appeal. Issues [ 9 ] I will decide three issues. If the Claimant’s application was late, should I extend the time for her to file it? Should I give the Claimant permission to appeal based on an arguable case the General Division made an error? Should I give the Claimant permission to appeal based on the new medical evidence she describes in her application? The Claimant’s application was late, but I’m extending the time [ 10 ] The Claimant says she doesn’t remember when she got the General Division decision. Footnote 2 The Tribunal’s file shows it emailed her the decision on October 1, 2025. The Tribunal Rules say I can assume she received it the next business day—October 2,  2025. Footnote 3 [ 11 ] She had 90 days to apply to appeal the General Division decision. Footnote 4 So, she had to file her application with the Appeal Division on or before December 31, 2025. [ 12 ] The Claimant’s application was late. The Appeal Division received her application January 7, 2026. The Tribunal stamp on the bottom of each page of her application tells me this. [ 13 ] But I’m extending the time for her to make her application, to January 7,  2026. Footnote 5 Because she gave a reasonable explanation for why she was late. Footnote 6 She says she was dealing with health problems and disability-related impairments. Footnote 7 [ 14 ] This means I can consider whether to give her permission to appeal the General Division decision. I can’t give the Claimant permission to appeal The permission to appeal test [ 15 ] I will give the Claimant permission to appeal if she 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 8 [ 16 ] An arguable case is one with a reasonable chance of success. Footnote 9 [ 17 ] I can also give the Claimant permission to appeal if she set out new evidence in her application. Footnote 10 New evidence means evidence that wasn’t before the General Division. No arguable case the General Division made an error The Claimant hasn’t shown an arguable case of an error [ 18 ] In her application, the Claimant says she is appealing the General Division decision because: “Date of original appeal/difficulty obtaining the correct forms.” Footnote 11 [ 19 ] It’s up to her to show an arguable case the General Division made an error. But she hasn’t done that. Footnote 12 She doesn’t refer to the General Division process or its decision. She doesn’t explain or give an example of an error the law lets me consider. And simply disagreeing with the General Division’s findings, or the outcome of the appeal, doesn’t show an arguable case the General Division made an error. Footnote 13 I didn’t find an arguable case of a factual error or a legal error [ 20 ] The Claimant is representing herself. So I reviewed the General Division decision and the evidence in the General Division file. Footnote 14 [ 21 ] The General Division made two factual findings. The Claimant received the Minister’s reconsideration decision—denying her a [NAME] disability pension—by June 6, 2024 (see Decision paragraphs 9, 10). The General Division received her appeal on August 8, 2025—more than one year after she received the reconsideration decision (paragraphs 11, 12). [ 22 ] The relevant evidence supports both findings. This tells me there’s no arguable case the General Division based its decision on a factual finding it made with no evidence, or it made by ignoring or misunderstanding the evidence. In other words, there’s no arguable case it made a factual error. [ 23 ] The General Division used one section of the law to dismiss her appeal (paragraphs 7, 14, 15). That section says a person can’t bring an appeal if one year has passed since they learned about the Minister’s reconsideration decision. Footnote 15 [ 24 ] There’s no arguable case the General Division used the wrong section of the law or misinterpreted that section. In other words, there’s no arguable case it made a legal error. [ 25 ] To summarize, the Claimant hasn’t shown an arguable case the General Division made an error, and I didn’t find an arguable case. The Claimant’s evidence doesn’t meet the new evidence test Relevance is part of the new evidence test [ 26 ] Section 58.1(c) of Department of Employment and Social Development Act says leave to appeal a General Division decision “is to be granted if the application for leave to appeal sets out evidence that was not presented to” the General Division. [ 27 ] I’ll call this the new evidence test. [ 28 ] The new evidence test is relatively new, in effect since December 2022. The Federal Courts have considered it in one decision. The Federal Court decided it was reasonable for the Appeal Division to include relevance or arguable relevance as part of the new evidence test. Footnote 16 Because relevance is a bedrock principle of how law understands and treats evidence. [ 29 ] Based on the legal issues at the General Division, it’s reasonable to include relevance or arguable relevance in the new evidence test the Claimant has to meet to get permission to appeal. The Claimant’s new evidence isn’t relevant, so I can’t give her permission to appeal [ 30 ] There were two, related legal issues in the Claimant’s General Division appeal. How long did it take the Claimant to appeal the Minister’s reconsideration decision after it was communicated to her? Footnote 17 If she missed the 90-day deadline to file her appeal, did the General Division have the power to extend the deadline? Footnote 18 [ 31 ] The new evidence the Claimant set out in her application isn’t relevant or arguably relevant to either issue. [ 32 ] The Claimant describes new medical evidence—a referral to a rheumatologist and new medical test results. Footnote 19 She is relying on this evidence to help show she qualifies for a [NAME] disability pension. [ 33 ] But that’s not an issue I can look at when I decide whether to give her permission to appeal. Because she made her appeal after a year had passed, the General Division had no power to extend the deadline. There’s no arguable case the General Division made an error in making that decision. So she lost the right to have the Tribunal decide whether she qualifies for a [NAME] disability pension. Conclusion [ 34 ] The Claimant hasn’t shown an arguable case the General Division made an error. And the new evidence she described in her application isn’t relevant to a legal issue in her appeal. [ 35 ] Because she’s representing herself, I looked at whether there was an arguable case the General Division made a legal error or a factual error. But I didn’t find an arguable case. [ 36 ] This means I can’t give her permission to appeal. Footnotes Footnote 1 See AD1 and AD3. Return to footnote 1 Footnote 2 See AD3-8. Return to footnote 2 Footnote 3 See section 22(3) of the Social Security Tribunal Rules of Procedure (Tribunal Rules). Return to footnote 3 Footnote 4 See section 57(1)(b) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act ( [NAME]  Act). Return to footnote 4 Footnote 5 See section 57(2) of the [NAME]  Act. Return to footnote 5 Footnote 6 See sections 27(1) and 27(2) of the Tribunal Rules. Return to footnote 6 Footnote 7 See AD3-5, referring to AD1-4. Return to footnote 7 Footnote 8 See sections 58.1(a) and (b) of the [NAME]  Act. Return to footnote 8 Footnote 9 [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2024  FC  1793 at paragraph 32; [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2026  FC  36 at paragraph 64. Return to footnote 9 Footnote 10 See section 58.1(c) of the [NAME]  Act. Return to footnote 10 Footnote 11 See AD3-2. Return to footnote 11 Footnote 12 [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2024  FC  1326 at paragraph 59. Return to footnote 12 Footnote 13 [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2016  FC  874 at paragraph 20. Return to footnote 13 Footnote 14 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 14 Footnote 15 See section 52(2) of the [NAME]  Act. Return to footnote 15 Footnote 16 [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2026  FC  36 at paragraphs 67 to 69. At paragraph 67, Mr Justice Gleason writes: “It is unfortunate that the [NAME] fails to address, even briefly, the broad language of paragraph 58.1(c) of the DESDA – ‘[l]eave to appeal… is to be granted if the application for leave to appeal…sets out evidence that was not presented to the Section’–in adopting the position that the evidence ‘not presented to the Section’ must be relevant or indeed arguably relevant. However, I am not prepared to conclude the [NAME]’s failure to do so undermines the reasonableness of the decision in this instance.” Return to footnote 16 Footnote 17 See section 52(1)(b) of the [NAME]  Act. Return to footnote 17 Footnote 18 See section 52(2) of the [NAME]  Act. Return to footnote 18 Footnote 19 See AD3-3. Return to footnote 19