Claimant Denied Permission to Appeal CPP Disability Benefits Decision
📌 In brief
The Social Security Tribunal denied a claimant's request to appeal the decision denying CPP disability benefits. The claimant argued that his mental health issues prevented him from working, but the Tribunal found insufficient medical evidence to support his claim during his coverage period.
⚖️ Legal holding
A claimant seeking CPP disability benefits must provide medical evidence during their coverage period to substantiate their claim.
📖 Technical summary
The Appeal Division denied the claimant's request for permission to appeal the General Division's decision denying CPP disability benefits.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Appeal Division denied the claimant's request for permission to appeal the General Division's decision denying CPP disability benefits, citing the absence of medical evidence during the claimant's coverage period.
📚 Full judgment Official document
Citation: EH v [NAME] , 2026 [NAME] 139 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Leave to Appeal Decision Applicant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated December 11, 2025 (GP-24-1295) Tribunal member: [NAME] Decision date: February 26, 2026 File number: AD-26-7 On this page Decision Overview Issue Analysis Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] I am refusing the Applicant permission to appeal. This appeal will not be going forward. Overview [ 2 ] The Applicant is a 43-year-old former postal clerk. He stopped working in March 2016 because of mental health issues. [ 3 ] The Applicant applied for a [NAME] in June 2022. Footnote 1 In his application, he said that he could no longer work due to anxiety and clinical depression. [ 4 ] Service Canada, the Minister’s public facing agency, denied the application. It found that that Applicant didn’t have a severe and prolonged [NAME] as defined by the [NAME] . [ 5 ] The Applicant appealed the Minister’s denial to the Social Security Tribunal. The Tribunal’s General Division held a hearing in writing and dismissed the Appeal. It found no medical evidence to support the Applicant’s claim that he had been disabled before December 31, 2016, the last time he had coverage for the [NAME]. [ 6 ] The Applicant then requested leave, or permission, to appeal the General Division’s decision. Footnote 2 In his application, he made the following points: He has a medical condition that significantly limits his ability to function on a consistent and reliable basis. His symptoms interfere with his concentration, stamina, and ability to complete tasks regularly. His condition continues to cause functional impairments that prevent him from maintaining regular, substantially gainful employment. [ 7 ] The Tribunal sent the Applicant a letter asking him for more information and reminding him of the grounds of appeal. Footnote 3 It asked him to respond by February 16, 2026. As of the date of this decision, the Tribunal has yet to receive a response. Issue [ 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 ] The Applicant did not produce new evidence, so my task was to decide whether the General Division possibly made a mistake that fell into one of the specified categories. Analysis [ 10 ] However much I may sympathize with the Applicant, I can’t allow his appeal to go forward. That’s because he hasn’t met any of the grounds of appeal. [ 11 ] I have reviewed the record, and I’m satisfied that the General Division didn’t misinterpret the applicable law, misconstrue the available evidence, or otherwise act unfairly. Footnote 5 [ 12 ] The General Division decided that the Applicant was not entitled to the [NAME] for the following reasons: The courts have said that, for a [NAME] to be successful, they must provide at least some medical evidence relating to their condition during their coverage period. Footnote 6 None of the medical evidence on file addressed the Applicant’s condition on or before December 31, 2019, the date his coverage period ended. The Tribunal is obligated to following binding case law from the federal courts. [ 13 ] I don’t see how the General Division erred in making the above findings. The Applicant’s submissions didn’t identify any specific flaws in the General Division’s process or its decision. Instead, they essentially repeated the arguments that the Applicant made at the General Division. [ 14 ] Ultimately, the Applicant’s submissions amount to a complaint that the General Division didn’t give him his desired result. That by itself is not enough to advance his appeal. Conclusion [ 15 ] I don’t see an arguable case that the General Division committed a legal or factual error or otherwise failed to observe a principle of natural justice. [ 16 ] That means his appeal will not proceed. Footnotes Footnote 1 See the Applicant’s application for [NAME] benefits dated June 30, 2022, GD2-34. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See the Applicant’s leave to appeal application dated January 2, 2026, AD1. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See the Tribunal’s letter dated January 13, 2026. 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) , 2016 FC 615. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 For this principle, the General Division correctly cited [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2008 FCA 377 and Canada (Attorney General) v [NAME] , 2020 FC 206. Return to footnote 6 referrer
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The requirement for medical evidence during the coverage period was upheld.
- The Tribunal followed binding case law from federal courts.
- The General Division did not make any legal or factual errors.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The applicant did not provide new medical evidence supporting his claim.
- The applicant's condition was not supported by medical evidence within the coverage period.
- The applicant's arguments were essentially a repetition of previous claims without identifying specific flaws.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The Appeal Division denied the claimant's request for permission to appeal the General Division's decision denying CPP disability benefits.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the claimant met the criteria for CPP disability benefits, specifically the requirement for medical evidence during his coverage period.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided to deny the claimant's request for permission to appeal because there was no new evidence presented and the General Division's decision was procedurally sound.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Department of Employment and Social Development Act, s. 58.1(b) was applied, which outlines the requirements for appealing decisions regarding CPP disability benefits.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The most critical argument was the claimant's assertion that his mental health issues significantly limited his ability to maintain regular, substantially gainful employment.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the claimant, as the request for permission to appeal was denied.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should ensure they have sufficient medical evidence during their coverage period to support their claim for CPP disability benefits.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The medical evidence provided during the claimant's coverage period was crucial, but the judgment does not specify the exact nature of the evidence submitted.