Claimant Denied Permission to Appeal CPP Disability Benefits

Citation: RD  v  [NAME] , 2026  [NAME]  352 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Leave to Appeal Decision Applicant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated February 24, 2026 (GP-25-1473) Tribunal member: [NAME] Decision date: June 24, 2026 File number: AD-26-377 On this page Decision Overview Issues Analysis Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] I am refusing the Applicant permission to appeal. I see no basis for this appeal to proceed. These are the reasons for my decision. Overview [ 2 ] Until recently, the Applicant worked as a packer in a chicken processing plant. In July 2020, she fractured her knee. After surgery, she returned to modified duties but soon injured her knee again, along with her right shoulder, back, and hip. She took more time off to recover and returned to her job for another three years. She finally stopped working in October 2025. [ 3 ] The Applicant, who is now 67 years old, began receiving her [NAME] ( [NAME] ) retirement pension in April 2019. In June 2023, she applied for the [NAME], claiming that she could no longer work because of knee and shoulder pain, as well as anxiety and depression. Footnote 1 [ 4 ] Service Canada, the Minister’s public facing agency, refused the application because, in its view, the Applicant didn’t have a severe and prolonged disability as of April 2019, when she started receiving her retirement pension. It also found that the Applicant was ineligible for the post-retirement disability pension (PRDB) because she continued to work past her 65th birthday. [ 5 ] The Applicant appealed Service Canada’s refusal to the Social Security Tribunal. The Tribunal’s General Division held a hearing by videoconference and dismissed the appeal. It found insufficient medical evidence to show that the Applicant was unable to regularly pursue a substantially gainful occupation up to March 31, 2024, the last time she had [NAME] disability coverage. [ 6 ] The Applicant then requested permission to appeal from the Tribunal’s Appeal Division. She insisted that she was disabled and alleged that the General Division misinterpreted the law in denying her claim. She also enclosed receipts for two recent physiotherapy sessions. [ 7 ] The Tribunal sent the Applicant a letter asking her for more information and reminding her of the grounds of appeal. Footnote 2 She replied with an email expressing her conviction that she is disabled. She added that, had she known the regular disability benefit and the PRDB were available earlier, she would have applied for them sooner. Footnote 3 Issues [ 8 ] There’s no automatic right to appeal a General Division decision. The Appeal Division must first give permission to appeal. It will only do so if an applicant produces new evidence or if they present an arguable case that the General Division proceeded in a way that was unfair; acted beyond its powers or refused to exercise those powers; or made an error of law or fact or some combination of the two. Footnote 4 [ 9 ] At this preliminary stage, I have to decide whether the Applicant produced new evidence or presented an arguable case that the General Division made a mistake. Analysis [ 10 ] Although I sympathize with the Applicant, I can’t allow her appeal to go forward. That’s because she hasn’t met any of the grounds of appeal. The Applicant hasn’t produced any relevant new evidence [ 11 ] The Applicant submitted two receipts for physiotherapy sessions, but I don’t see how they are relevant to the question of whether she was entitled to either the [NAME] or the PRDB. [ 12 ] The receipts, in the amount of $35 each, document sessions that took place in April of this year. However, the Applicant’s latest possible date of [NAME] disability coverage is March 31, 2024 — more than two years earlier. [ 13 ] I don’t see how any of this material has any bearing on whether the Applicant was eligible for regular disability benefits or the PRDB: [ 14 ] Leave to appeal is granted if a claimant provides evidence that was not presented to the General Division. On the face of it, this language is broad, but case law has endorsed a more restrictive interpretation of what is meant by “evidence” in this context. [ 15 ] In a recent case called [NAME] , the Federal Court found it reasonable for the Appeal Division to refuse leave if the new evidence presented is irrelevant or arguably irrelevant. Footnote 5 In doing so, it relied on this statement from the Supreme Court of Canada: “It is a basic or bedrock concept of law that for evidence to be admissible in a proceeding it must be relevant.” Footnote 6 [ 16 ] The Applicant’s receipts don’t qualify as new evidence. There’s no arguable case the General Division made an error [ 17 ] The Applicant alleges that the General Division misinterpreted the law in coming to its decision. Having reviewed the record, I don’t see a case for any of the Applicant’s allegations. The General Division found no way for the Applicant to receive the regular disability pension [ 18 ] The General Division refused the Applicant’s disability claim in part because of a rule that says no one can receive a regular [NAME] while they are already receiving a [NAME] retirement pension. [ 19 ] I don’t see an arguable case that the General Division made an error on this point. Even if the Applicant were disabled, she would be barred from receiving a regular [NAME] because she began receiving her retirement pension in April 2019. The [NAME] says that a retirement pension recipient can’t receive a regular disability pension at the same time. Footnote 7 [ 20 ] It’s possible to cancel a retirement pension but only within six months of approval. Footnote 8 The Applicant has never attempted to cancel her retirement pension, and it’s too late to do so now. The General Division found insufficient medical evidence of disability during the Applicant’s PRDB coverage period [ 21 ] The General Division also found the Applicant ineligible for the PRDB. It found that her coverage for the PRDB ended in March 2024, the month before she turned 65. It noted that neither her family doctor nor her orthopedic specialist recommended that she stopped working. It placed weight on the fact that the Applicant worked full-time hours earning a substantially gainful living until October 2025, well past the end of her coverage period. Footnote 9 [ 22 ] I don’t see an arguable case that the General Division erred in making the above findings. In her submissions to the Appeal Division, the Applicant didn’t identify any specific flaws in the General Division’s process or its decision. Instead, she essentially repeated the same arguments that she made at the General Division. [ 23 ] Ultimately, the Applicant’s submissions amount to a complaint that the General Division didn’t give her the result she wants. That by itself is not enough to advance her appeal. Conclusion [ 24 ] Based on the evidence before it, the General Division had reason to dismiss the Applicant’s appeal. I understand that this is not the outcome the Applicant wants, but she hasn’t raised an arguable case that the General Division committed an error.

Accordingly, I’m refusing her permission to appeal. Footnotes Footnote 1 See the Applicant’s application for the [NAME] date-stamped June 5, 2023, GD2-46. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See the Tribunal’s letter dated May 25, 2026. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See the Applicant’s email dated June 19, 2016, AD1C. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See section 58.1(b) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act . Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2026  FC  36. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 See R  v  [NAME] , 2008  SCC  37. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 See section 44(1)(b) of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 See section 66.1 of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 The General Division noted that the Applicant earned $24,773 in 2023 and $33,670 in 2024, both amounts well above the statutory threshold for “substantially gainful” in those respective years. Return to footnote 9 referrer