Claimant Denied Permission to Appeal CPP Disability Decision

Citation: GS v [NAME] , 2026  SST  95 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-25-1086) Tribunal member: [NAME] Decision date: February 11, 2026 File number: AD-26-39 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. [ 2 ] This means the appeal won’t go forward. And the General Division decision stands unchanged. Overview [ 3 ] [NAME]. is the Claimant. She is asking for permission to appeal a General Division decision. [ 4 ] The General Division decided the Claimant didn’t qualify for a [NAME] ( [NAME] ) disability pension. It found her disability wasn’t severe by the end of her coverage period (December 31, 2021). This date is often called the MQP . [ 5 ] In her application to the Appeal Division, the Claimant argues the General Division made legal errors and factual errors. She also says she has new evidence. [ 6 ] Unfortunately for the Claimant, I can’t give her permission to appeal the General Division decision. Because she hasn’t shown an arguable case the General Division made an error in making its decision. And the medical evidence she sent isn’t new. The General Division had it. Issues [ 7 ] I have to decide whether there is an arguable case the General Division made a legal error by focusing only on [NAME] contributions or misapplying the [NAME] disability test (severe and prolonged) made a factual error by not considering all the medical evidence and physician statements, or not fully considering her chronic spinal pain [ 8 ] I also have to decide whether the Claimant set out new evidence in her application to the Appeal Division. The Claimant hasn’t met the legal test to get permission to appeal The permission to appeal test [ 9 ] 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 1 [ 10 ] An arguable case has a reasonable chance of success. Footnote 2 [ 11 ] I can also give the Claimant permission to appeal if she set out new evidence in her application. Footnote 3 The [NAME] disability test and the General Division decision [ 12 ] To qualify for a [NAME] disability pension, the Claimant had to show her disability was both severe and prolonged by the end of her coverage period. The Claimant’s coverage period ended December 31, 2021. Footnote 4 The [NAME] defines severe and prolonged. Footnote 5 Court decisions tell us what those definitions mean. [ 13 ] The General Division decided the Claimant didn’t prove her disability was severe by December 31, 2021 (see paragraphs 11, 25 of the General Division decision). It found the medical evidence didn’t show she had the functional limitations she says prevented her from working (paragraphs 16 to 18). Finally, the General Division concluded there wasn’t any medical evidence to support a finding of disability by December 31, 2021 (paragraph 35). No arguable case the General Division made a legal error [ 14 ] The Claimant argues the General Division made two legal errors by misinterpreting or misunderstanding the [NAME] legal test for disability. But she hasn’t shown an arguable case the General Division made a legal error. [ 15 ] The General Division makes a legal error when it misinterprets a legal test from a law or doesn’t follow a court decision it has to follow. [ 16 ] First, the Claimant argues the General Division focused only on [NAME] contributions and assumed she could work, though her conditions prevented sustained work. Footnote 6 Essentially, she seems to be saying the General Division went against the law when it focused its analysis on her MQP . [ 17 ] This argument doesn’t show an arguable case of a legal error. [ 18 ] Under the [NAME] , the General Division had to start its analysis with her contributions. The law says it had to decide if she was disabled by the end of her contributory period—December 31, 2021 (paragraph 7). And the General Division’s reasons show me it didn’t focus only on her contributions. It considered her functional limitations and medical evidence (paragraphs 13 to 25). It also considered what she said about her job loss and her health, and her reasons for not seeking medical care during her contributory period (paragraphs 26 to 32). [ 19 ] Second, the Claimant argues the General Division misapplied the [NAME] definitions of a severe and a prolonged disability. Footnote 7 She says the General Division placed excessive weight on the timing of formal medical documents and diagnostic imaging rather than assessing her functional limitations and real world capacity to work. So she was held to a higher standard than required by the [NAME] . [ 20 ] The Claimant’s second argument doesn’t show an arguable case of a legal error. [ 21 ] The courts have decided a person needs to support the functional limitations they claim with objective medical evidence dated before or at their MQP , or relevant to their MQP . The General Division understood this and cited two leading court cases (paragraph 16). Then the General Division considered medical evidence dated after her MQP to assess its relevance to the functional limitations she says existed at her MQP (paragraphs 18 to 25). [ 22 ] Without objective medical evidence to support her claimed functional limitations, the Claimant could not prove she met the [NAME] definition of severe. In other words, she had lost her appeal. So the General Division didn’t need to consider her ability to work in the real world. No arguable case the General Division made a factual error [ 23 ] The Claimant says the General Division made two related factual errors. Footnote 8 It ignored the fact degenerative disc disease (DDD) is a progressive disabling condition. She says she had DDD before her MQP , though it was diagnosed after her MQP . And the General Division ignored the functional limitations DDD caused before or at her MQP . She says those limitations affected sitting, standing, lifting, and daily activities. [ 24 ] The General Division makes a factual error when it makes a factual finding by ignoring or misunderstanding relevant evidence. [ 25 ] The Claimant’s argument is based on a theory of progressive decline. But there isn’t an arguable case the General Division ignored evidence that shows limitations resulting from her medical conditions affected her ability to work at her MQP . [ 26 ] The General Division didn’t ignore the medical evidence about her back pain, chronic pain, anxiety/depression, or fibromyalgia. It reviewed and assessed her [NAME] medical report, and reports from her family physician ([NAME]) and her rheumatologist ([NAME]) (paragraphs 19 to 23). It concluded there was no evidence she suffered from anxiety or depression, chronic spinal (neck and upper back) pain, or fibromyalgia by the end of 2021. It explained why it found the medical evidence showed an onset of symptoms in 2023 (paragraphs 19 to 23). [ 27 ] The Claimant hasn’t pointed to specific medical evidence the General Division ignored or misunderstood. It seems she is asking the Appeal Division to reassess or reweigh the evidence and come to a different finding. But that’s not the Appeal Division’s role at the leave to appeal stage. Footnote 9 [ 28 ] The General Division didn’t ignore her evidence that her functional limitations made her unable to work by the end of 2021. It considered her position she stopped working in 2019 because of her limitations (paragraphs 14, 26). Then it explained why the evidence didn’t support her position (paragraphs 27 to 31). [ 29 ] The Claimant is representing herself. So I reviewed the evidence in the General Division file and compared that to the evidence the General Division cited in its decision. Footnote 10 I can assume the General Division reviewed the relevant evidence—it doesn’t have to refer to every piece of evidence. Footnote 11 I didn’t find an arguable case the General Division ignored or misunderstood relevant evidence in making its decision. Or an arguable case it based its decision on a factual finding it made without any relevant evidence. No new evidence [ 30 ] The Claimant attached evidence to her application—two X-ray reports. Footnote 12 The General Division had these reports and referred to them (paragraph 19). Footnote 13 In other words, this evidence isn’t new. So I can’t give the Claimant permission to appeal based on that evidence. 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 she didn’t set out new evidence in her application to appeal. [ 32 ] This means I can’t give her permission to appeal. Her appeal won’t go forward. Footnotes Footnote 1 See sections 58.1(a) and (b) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act ( DESD  Act). Return to footnote 1 Footnote 2 [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 2 Footnote 3 See section 58.1(c) of the DESD  Act. Return to footnote 3 Footnote 4 See section 44(2) of the [NAME] ( [NAME] ). Return to footnote 4 Footnote 5 See section 42(2)(a) of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 5 Footnote 6 See AD1-2. Return to footnote 6 Footnote 7 See AD1-2 and AD1-18. Return to footnote 7 Footnote 8 See AD1-18 and AD1-19. Return to footnote 8 Footnote 9 [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2015  FC  1300 at paragraph 33. Return to footnote 9 Footnote 10 [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 10 Footnote 11 [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2022  FCA  157 at paragraph 46. Return to footnote 11 Footnote 12 See AD1-20 and AD1-21. Return to footnote 12 Footnote 13 See GD2-146 and GD2-148. Return to footnote 13