Claimant Denied CPP Disability Pension Appeal Due to Insufficient Evidence

Citation: CG  v  [NAME] , 2026  SST  365 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Leave to Appeal Decision Applicant: [redacted] Representative: E. F. Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated February 27, 2026 (GP-25-1592) Tribunal member: [NAME] Decision date: June 29, 2026 File number: AD-26-374 On this page Decision Overview Issues The Claimant hasn’t met the legal test to get permission to appeal Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] Leave (permission) to appeal is refused. This means C. G.’s appeal won’t go forward. Overview [ 2 ] C. G. is the Claimant in this case. She has applied for permission to appeal a General Division decision. [ 3 ] The General Division decided she didn’t qualify for a Canada Pension Plan ( CPP ) disability pension. It found her disability wasn’t severe by the end of her coverage period (January 1 to September 30, 1989). The Minister calls the end of a coverage period a person’s MQP. [ 4 ] In her application to the Appeal Division, the Claimant argues the General Division made an error by only looking at her health and earnings up to the end of 1989. Footnote 1 And she says she is getting new evidence the General Division didn’t have. [ 5 ] Unfortunately for the Claimant, I can’t give her permission to appeal the General Division decision. She hasn’t shown an arguable case the General Division made an error in making its decision. And her new medical evidence isn’t relevant or arguably relevant to an issue in her appeal. Issues [ 6 ] I will decide two issues. Is there an arguable case the General Division made a legal or factual error? Can I give the Claimant permission to appeal based on the evidence she sent with or described in her application? The Claimant hasn’t met the legal test to get permission to appeal How to qualify for a CPP disability pension [ 7 ] To qualify for a CPP disability pension, a person has to show they contributed enough to the plan within a set period. Footnote 2 This shows they have sufficient attachment to the workforce, and gives them coverage to claim a disability pension. I’ll call this the coverage period. [ 8 ] They also need to show their disability was both severe and prolonged by the end of their coverage period. Footnote 3 I’ll call this the CPP disability test. The permission to appeal test and the Claimant’s arguments [ 9 ] There is no automatic right to appeal a General Division decision. This means the Claimant has to get permission for her appeal to go forward. I will give her permission if she raises an arguable case the General Division made one of these errors. didn’t respect natural justice made an error about its power to decide an issue (called a jurisdictional error) made a legal error, a factual error, or a mixed error of fact and law in making its decision Footnote 4 [ 10 ] I can also give the Claimant permission to appeal if her application sets out relevant or arguably relevant evidence the General Division didn’t have. Footnote 5 I will call this new evidence and the new evidence test. [ 11 ] I will consider whether the Claimant’s arguments show an arguable case the General Division made a legal or factual error. Then I will consider whether her new evidence meets the new evidence test. No arguable case the General Division made a legal or factual error about the Claimant’s coverage, or factual error with the medical evidence The Claimant’s coverage period [ 12 ] The Claimant argues the General Division made an error by looking at her earnings up to 1989. She says she worked and paid into the CPP from 2011 to 2016, with one year when she didn’t work. I understand she is arguing her CPP contributions during those years gave her coverage to claim a CPP disability pension. And the General Division made a factual or legal error about that. [ 13 ] The General Division accepted the Minister’s position that the Claimant only had a prorated coverage period in 1989 because she didn’t make enough valid contributions in 4 of 6 years. Footnote 6 [ 14 ] The General Division knew the Claimant’s coverage period was an important issue it needed to look into. Before the hearing it wrote to the Minister to request more information about the Claimant’s earnings and coverage for a disability pension. Footnote 7 The Minister responded in its written arguments, then sent the Claimant’s record of earnings. Footnote 8 [ 15 ] The courts have said I can presume the General Division considered the Minster’s evidence about the Claimant’s earnings and CPP contributions. [ 16 ] There’s no arguable case the General Division based its decision about the Claimant’s coverage period on a factual error. The General Division makes a factual error when it makes a factual finding by ignoring or misunderstanding relevant evidence. [ 17 ] Here is the evidence about the Claimant’s CPP contributions from 2007 through 2018. (I have included years before and after 2011 to 2016 to be thorough.) Year CPP contributions Valid CPP contributions 2007 $10.46 Yes 2008 No information No 2009 $0.30 No 2010 $101.57 Yes 2011 Zero No 2012 Zero No 2013 No information No 2014 $186.86 Yes 2015 $174.84 Yes 2016 $341.99 Yes 2017 No information No 2018 $0.14 No [ 18 ] To get coverage for a CPP disability pension from these years, the Claimant had to make valid CPP contributions for 4 years in any 6-year period. Footnote 9 As the table shows, she didn’t do that. [ 19 ] I reviewed the General Division decision and the Minister’s evidence and arguments about the Claimant’s prorated coverage period—January 1 to September 30, 1989. There’s no arguable case the General Division made a factual or legal error when it found this was the Claimant’s coverage period. The General Division had to consider evidence about the Claimant’s medical conditions and functional limitations in 1989 [ 20 ] The General Division decided the Claimant didn’t meet the CPP disability test because there was no medical evidence to show she had a severe disability between January 1 and September 30, 1989. Footnote 10 [ 21 ] The Claimant argues the General Division made an error by basing its decision on her medical conditions in 1989. She says since her 2016 motor vehicle accident, she has had ongoing medical problems that have made her unable to work or maintain a household. [ 22 ] There’s no arguable case the General Division based its decision on a factual error about the Claimant’s medical evidence or evidence of her functional limitations. [ 23 ] The General Division had to consider whether there was medical evidence to show the Claimant met the CPP disability test during her prorated coverage period. Evidence about her medical condition and functional limitations after her 2016 car accident wasn’t relevant to this. So, the General Division didn’t have to consider that evidence and could not base its decision on that evidence. [ 24 ] The General Division accepted the Claimant’s evidence. Footnote 11 It wasn’t until 2016 that she felt she could no longer work. She didn’t have any functional limitations that affected her ability to work by the end of her prorated coverage period. [ 25 ] I reviewed the medical evidence from the General Division file. Then I considered the General Division’s finding there was no medical evidence to show the Claimant had a severe disability during her prorated coverage period. I didn’t find any relevant evidence the General Division misunderstood or ignored. [ 26 ] To summarize, there’s no arguable case the General Division based its decision on a factual error about the Claimant’s medical conditions or functional limitations during her prorated coverage period. The Claimant can’t get permission to appeal based on her new evidence [ 27 ] The Claimant sent evidence with her application. The General Division had many of these documents. I know this from the GD page and date stamp on the bottom of many pages she sent. While she sent some new evidence, none is about her medical conditions or functional limitations in or around her prorated coverage period (January 1 and September 30, 1989). Footnote 12 So, the new evidence isn’t relevant or arguably relevant to whether she met the CPP disability test during her prorated coverage period. [ 28 ] In her application, the Claimant also describes new evidence she will get. Footnote 13 She describes these as further documentation from [NAME] based on tests she will have in June 2026. She says she will be able to send documents by July 2026. [ 29 ] The new evidence the Claimant describes isn’t relevant or arguably relevant to whether she had a severe and prolonged disability during her prorated coverage period in 1989. The results of her scheduled tests might say something meaningful about her health now or in the recent past, but not in 1989. And based on what she writes, I don’t believe she is going to find and send [NAME]’ reports or medical records about her medical situation in 1989. [ 30 ] To summarize, I can’t give the Claimant permission to appeal based on new evidence. Because her evidence isn’t relevant or arguably relevant to whether her disability became severe and prolonged during her prorated coverage period. Conclusion [ 31 ] The Claimant hasn’t shown an arguable case the General Division made an error. I looked but didn’t find an arguable case. And the new evidence she relied on doesn’t pass the new evidence test. [ 32 ] So, I can’t give her permission to appeal. And her appeal won’t go forward. Footnotes Footnote 1 See AD1, AD1A, and AD1B. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See section 44(2) of the Canada Pension Plan ( CPP ); [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2013  FCA  158. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See section 42(2)(a) of the CPP . Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See sections 58.1(a) and (b) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act ( DESD  Act). An arguable case is one that discloses a reasonable chance of success. [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 4 referrer Footnote 5 See section 58.1(c) of the DESD  Act. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 See paragraphs 14 and 15 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 See GD6. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 See GD8 and GD15. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 Section 44(2) of the CPP says this because the Claimant had valid contributions in at least 6 years but less than 25 years. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 See paragraphs 16 to 24, and 27 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 See paragraphs 21 and 22 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 See AD1. The earliest medical reports are from 2017, almost 30 years after her coverage ended. And 2017 is the year after her December 2016 motor vehicle accident. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 See AD1B-4. Return to footnote 13 referrer