Claimant Denied Permission to Appeal CPP Disability Pension Decision

Citation: SC  v  [NAME] , 2026  SST  333 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Leave to Appeal Decision Applicant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated April 23, 2026 (GP-26-75) Tribunal member: [NAME] Decision date: May 7, 2026 File number: AD-26-356 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 [NAME].’s appeal won’t go forward. Overview [ 2 ] [NAME]. is the Claimant in this case. She has applied for permission to appeal a General Division decision. [ 3 ] The General Division decided the Claimant didn’t qualify for a [NAME] ( [NAME] ) disability pension. It found she was able to work in 2006, despite her limitations. Then found she was able to work and earn a living in the real world until January 2024. So, the General Division decided she didn’t have a severe or prolonged disability by the end of her coverage period (December 31, 2006). [ 4 ] The Claimant argues the General Division got the facts wrong. She also says she has evidence the General Division didn’t have—her cancer is no longer in remission as of March 2026. [ 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 a factual error. And her new medical evidence isn’t relevant to the issue in her appeal. Issues [ 6 ] I have to decide two issues. Is there an arguable case the General Division made a factual error? Did the Claimant set out evidence the General Division didn’t have—in other words, new evidence? The Claimant hasn’t met the legal test to get permission to appeal Not everyone who works or makes [NAME] contributions can get a [NAME] disability pension [ 7 ] I appreciate the Claimant disagrees with the General Division decision. And I can understand why she seems frustrated and confused about why the Minister hasn’t granted her a disability pension. The law about the [NAME] disability pension is complex and difficult to understand. [ 8 ] Not everyone who works and makes [NAME] contributions can get a disability pension. To get a disability pension, a person has to meet the [NAME] disability test while they have coverage. In this way, the [NAME] disability pension is like private insurance. If a person stops paying the premiums—in other words, stops making valid [NAME] contributions—their insurance coverage will end. [ 9 ] The Claimant stopped working in January 2024 because of her health. For many years before that, she worked part-time as a contractor. But she didn’t make valid [NAME] contributions during those years. [ 10 ] The Claimant last made valid [NAME] contributions from 2001 to 2004. Based on those contributions and the law, the General Division decided her [NAME] disability pension coverage ended December 31, 2006 . [ 11 ] So, the issue isn’t whether she is disabled and unable to work now, or in 2024 when she was diagnosed with cancer and stopped working. No one has denied that. To win her General Division appeal, the Claimant had to show she met the [NAME] disability test before her coverage ended. [ 12 ] The General Division decided she didn’t show that. The permission to appeal test [ 13 ] There’s no automatic right to appeal a General Division decision. The Claimant has to get permission before her appeal can go forward. I will give her permission if she raises an arguable case the General Division made one of these errors. Footnote 1 Didn’t respect natural justice or used an unfair procedure. 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. [ 14 ] I can also give the Claimant permission if she has evidence that wasn’t before the General Division. Footnote 2 (I will call this new evidence and the new evidence test.) No arguable case the General Division made a factual error [ 15 ] The General Division makes a factual error when it bases its decision on a factual finding it made by ignoring or misunderstanding relevant evidence. Relevant means evidence that fits the legal test. [ 16 ] The Claimant says the General Division got the facts wrong—in many paragraphs of its decision. Footnote 3 But none of her arguments show an arguable case the General Division misunderstood or ignored relevant evidence. Because each of her arguments is based on her disability and limitations from 2024 until now. But these facts weren’t relevant to the issue and the law in her appeal. The Claimant is correct to say the General Division was wrong about the date she applied for a [NAME] disability pension. She didn’t apply in January 2026 (see decision paragraph 4). Or in May 2025—when she says she did. The Service Canada date stamp on her application shows she applied July 4, 2025. Footnote 4 But the date she applied for a [NAME] disability pension wasn’t legally relevant to her appeal. She had to prove she was disabled on or before December 31, 2006. She didn’t do that. So, the General Division didn’t have to use her application date to decide when her pension payments should start. The Claimant says she applied to get a disability pension starting in January 2024. She argues the General Division misunderstood that fact when it said she applied for a [NAME] disability pension starting in December 2006 (paragraphs 22, 35). But that’s not what the General Division said. The Claimant’s argument misunderstands the General Division decision and the law. Under the late application rule, to get a disability pension now, she had to meet the [NAME] disability test before her coverage ended—on December 31, 2006. There’s no arguable case the General Division misunderstood what she applied for. The Claimant disagrees with the General Division that she applied for a pension because of her knee problems and because “her health got worse in 2024” (paragraph 5). She argues she applied in January 2024 after a multiple myeloma cancer diagnosis. She says she could no longer work because of cancer treatment and being hospitalized. She argues her condition is severe and prolonged because it is terminal with a life expectancy of less than five years. But her 2024 cancer diagnosis wasn’t relevant to whether her disability was severe and prolonged by December 31, 2006. In other words, her 2024 cancer diagnosis (and living with cancer now) doesn’t help her prove she met the [NAME] disability test back then. So, there’s no arguable case the General Division made a factual error when it referred to her knee problems in 2006. [ 17 ] The Claimant is representing herself. So I reviewed the evidence in the General Division file. Then compared that evidence to the evidence the General Division cited in its decision. Footnote 5 I didn’t find an arguable case the General Division ignored or misunderstood relevant evidence in making its decision. The Claimant’s new evidence doesn’t meet the new evidence test [ 18 ] In her application to appeal the General Division decision, the Claimant describes her new evidence: New information is the Appellant is no longer in remission as of March 2026 and is being treated with chemotherapy for advanced multiple myeloma cancer with the life expectancy of less than five years. Footnote 6 [ 19 ] This doesn’t meet the test to get permission to appeal based on new evidence. [ 20 ] The Federal Court has said new evidence has to be relevant or arguably relevant to an issue in the appeal. Footnote 7 I can imagine the Claimant is probably devastated by the news her cancer is no longer in remission. But legally, this new evidence doesn’t help her show she qualifies for a [NAME] disability pension. That’s because her new evidence is about her disability now—not around the time her coverage ended, on December 31, 2006. Conclusion [ 21 ] The Claimant hasn’t shown an arguable case the General Division made a factual error. I looked but didn’t find an arguable case. And her new evidence isn’t relevant to an issue in her appeal. [ 22 ] This means I can’t give her permission to appeal. And her appeal can’t go forward. Information the Claimant might find useful—not about [NAME] or her application [ 23 ] This isn’t the outcome the Claimant wanted. She might need money to meet her basic needs—more than her [NAME] retirement pension pays her. [ 24 ] If she isn’t already aware, the Province of Ontario offers income support programs and health benefits (including prescription drugs) to eligible people in financial need. If the Claimant wants more information she can contact [NAME] or her local community legal clinic. Footnote 8 Or maybe speak with a hospital social worker. Footnotes Footnote 1 See sections 58.1(a) and (b) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act ( DESD  Act). An arguable case 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 1 referrer Footnote 2 See section 58.1(c) of the DESD  Act. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See AD1-5, AD1-6, AD1B-2, AD1B-3, and AD1B-7. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See GD2-87. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 [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 5 referrer Footnote 6 See AD1-6 and AD1B-7. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2026  FC  36 at paragraphs 67 to 69. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 For [NAME], call the Social Assistance Support Line toll-free at 1-[PHONE] . To get the phone number of a local community legal clinic, call Legal Aid Ontario toll-free at 1-[PHONE] . Return to footnote 8 referrer