Claimant Denied Permission to Appeal CPP Disability Pension Denial

Citation: [NAME]  v  [NAME] , 2026  SST  71 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Leave to Appeal Decision Applicant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated December 29, 2025 (GP-25-704) Tribunal member: [NAME] Decision date: April 9, 2026 File number: AD-26-133 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 the appeal won’t go forward. Overview [ 2 ] K. S. is the Claimant. 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 periods (November 30, 2015). The end date of the coverage period is often called the MQP . [ 4 ] In her application to the Appeal Division (application), the Claimant argues the General Division proceeded in a way that was unfair to her. Footnote 1 She also says she didn’t have very severe back pain in 2014 and 2015, but she does now. Footnote 2 Finally, she says she has new evidence—a doctor’s note saying she could no longer work as of 2023 (doctor’s note). [ 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 used an unfair procedure or made another type of error. And the General Division had the doctor’s note—it’s not new evidence. Issues [ 6 ] I will decide two issues. Is there an arguable case the General Division used an unfair process, or made an error by not considering evidence she was unable to work starting in January 2023? Did the Claimant set out new evidence in her application? The Claimant hasn’t met the legal test to get permission to appeal The permission to appeal test [ 7 ] The Claimant has to get permission for her appeal to go forward to a new hearing. [ 8 ] I will give her permission if she raises an arguable case the General Division made one of these errors. Footnote 3 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 Footnote 4 [ 9 ] I should also give the Claimant permission to appeal if she set out new evidence in her application. Footnote 5 The legal test to get a CPP disability pension [ 10 ] To qualify for a CPP disability pension, a person has to show their disability was both severe and prolonged by the end of their coverage period. The Claimant had two coverage periods. Her regular coverage period ended December 31, 2014. Footnote 6 Her pro-rated coverage period ran from January 1 to November 30, 2015. Footnote 7 Based on her earnings in 2015, when she worked for less than a full year. [ 11 ] The CPP defines severe and prolonged. Footnote 8 Court decisions tell us what those definitions mean. No arguable case the General Division used an unfair procedure or made another type of error by focusing on 2014 and 2015 [ 12 ] The Claimant’s argument isn’t about the procedure or process the General Division used. Her argument is about the General Division’s reasons for decision, and the evidence it used to reach that decision. [ 13 ] The Claimant wanted the General Division to base its decision on how her recent and current health conditions affect her ability to work. But the law says the General Division had to consider whether she was disabled by November 30, 2015—at the latest. That’s when her coverage for a CPP disability pension ended. So, there’s no arguable case the General Division made a legal error by focusing its analysis on November 30, 2015. [ 14 ] There’s no arguable case the General Division reached its decision by ignoring relevant evidence. Relevant means evidence that relates to the law or legal test. The law says the Claimant had to give some medical evidence to support functional limitations that made her incapable regularly of working by her MQP (November 30, 2015). Footnote 9 The General Division found there was no medical evidence that showed she had a severe disability by that date (paragraphs 27 to 29). And this meant she didn’t meet the CPP disability definition. [ 15 ] The General Division acknowledged it had one piece of evidence that said she could no longer work (paragraph 28). But it wasn’t relevant to the legal test the General Division had to use to decide the Claimant’s appeal (paragraph 32). That’s because it said she should stop working in January 2023—many years after her coverage for a disability pension ended on November 30, 2015. This means the General Division could not grant the Claimant a CPP disability pension based on this evidence. [ 16 ] I reviewed the documents in the General Division file. I compared the evidence from those documents to the evidence the General Division cited in its decision. There’s no arguable case the General Division misunderstood or ignored relevant evidence when it decided the Claimant’s appeal. The General Division had the doctor’s note—it’s not new evidence [ 17 ] I can give a person permission to appeal if they set out new evidence in their application. Footnote 10 New evidence means evidence that wasn’t presented to the General Division. [ 18 ] In her application, the Claimant says she has new evidence: “Doctor’s note saying I could no longer work (2023).” Footnote 11 [ 19 ] I find it’s more likely than not the Claimant is referring to the CPP medical report her family doctor completed. [NAME] recommended the Claimant stop working as of January 1, 2023. Footnote 12 The General Division referred to this evidence (paragraphs 21, 28). In any event, a new doctor’s note that says she can’t work as of 2023 would not be relevant to whether she met the CPP test for disability at her MQP (November 30, 2015). [ 20 ] This tells me the Claimant didn’t set out new evidence in her application. Conclusion [ 21 ] The Claimant hasn’t shown an arguable case the General Division used an unfair procedure or made another type of error. I looked but didn’t find an arguable case of a legal error or a factual error. And she didn’t set out new evidence in her application. [ 22 ] This means I can’t give permission to appeal. And her appeal won’t go forward. Footnotes Footnote 1 See AD1C-3. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See AD1-4 and AD1B-4. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 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 3 referrer Footnote 4 See sections 58.1(a) and (b) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act ( DESD  Act). Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 See section 58.1(c) of the DESD  Act. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 See section 44(2) of the Canada Pension Plan ( CPP ). Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 See section 42(2.1) of the CPP . Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 See section 42(2)(a) of the CPP . Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 See Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2020  FC  206 at paragraphs 24 to 27, including court decisions cited. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 Section 58.1(c) of the DESD  Act says: “Leave to appeal a decision made by the Income Security Section is to be granted if the application for leave to appeal sets out evidence that was not presented to the Section.” Section means the General Division. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 See AD1C-4. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 See GD2-82. Return to footnote 12 referrer