Claimant Denied Permission to Appeal CPP Disability Pension Denial
📌 In brief
The Social Security Tribunal denied a woman's request to appeal a decision that denied her CPP disability pension. The Tribunal found that she did not provide enough evidence to show that the original decision was incorrect.
⚖️ Legal holding
A claimant must demonstrate an arguable case that the General Division made an error to obtain permission to appeal.
📖 Technical summary
The claimant failed to meet the legal test for permission to appeal a General Division decision denying her CPP disability pension application.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Social Security Tribunal denied a claimant's request for permission to appeal a General Division decision denying her CPP disability pension application, finding she failed to demonstrate an arguable case that the General Division made an error.
📚 Full judgment Official document
Citation: SW v [NAME] , 2026 SST 113 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Leave to Appeal Decision Applicant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated December 2, 2025 (GP-25-1024) Tribunal member: [NAME] Decision date: February 18, 2026 File number: AD-25-835 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 the General Division decision is refused. [ 2 ] This means S. W.’s appeal won’t go forward. And the General Division decision stands unchanged. Overview [ 3 ] S. W. is the Claimant. She has applied for permission to appeal a General Division decision. [ 4 ] In May 2021, the Minister cancelled the Claimant’s disability pension because she returned to work, as an early childhood educator. In August 2024, she started receiving a CPP retirement pension. Then in October 2024, she applied for a CPP disability pension. The Minister denied her application—at first then on reconsideration. So she appealed. [ 5 ] The General Division decided the Claimant didn’t qualify for a disability pension or the post-retirement disability benefit. It found she didn’t prove her disability was severe by the end of her regular coverage period (July 31, 2024), or by the hearing date (November 27, 2025). So it dismissed her appeal. [ 6 ] In her application to the Appeal Division (application), the Claimant argues she left her job and can no longer work because of a learning disability. She says it’s permanent. She also says she has new evidence. Neither employer was aware of her learning disability until she told them. She has a letter from a supervisor explaining her learning disability. [ 7 ] Unfortunately for the Claimant, I can’t give her permission to appeal the General Division decision. There’s no arguable case the General Division made an error. And the General Division had the evidence she referred to in her application to appeal. Issues [ 8 ] I have to decide whether there’s an arguable case the General Division made an error in making its decision 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 legal 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 ] I can also give the Claimant permission to appeal if she set out new evidence. Footnote 2 None of the Claimant’s arguments shows an arguable case the General Division made an error [ 11 ] The Claimant argues the General Division made an error because she qualified for a CPP disability pension when she applied the first time, so she should qualify now because she still has a learning disability, nothing has changed, and it’s hard to keep a job when you don’t understand what to do she wasn’t able to understand the curriculum she was supposed to use in her job her former employers didn’t know she had a learning disability it was wrong for the Minister to contact her former employers because they don’t understand learning disabilities the General Division was wrong to assume she could work Footnote 3 [ 12 ] There isn’t an arguable case the General Division made an error by assuming she could work. When I read the General Division’s reasons I see that it reviewed the evidence in detail—what she said about her functional limitations, the medical evidence, the jobs she held and when she held them, her income when she worked, what her former employers said, and her personal factors. It weighed that evidence. And explained why it found she was still able to work in the real world up to the hearing date. [ 13 ] None of the Claimant’s other arguments show an arguable case the General Division made an error. Those arguments don’t point to a specific error. They show me the Claimant disagrees with the General Division decision she doesn’t qualify for the disability pension or post-retirement disability benefit. Or her arguments show she is trying to reargue her case. [ 14 ] But disagreeing with the General Division decision or outcome doesn’t show an arguable case it made an error. Footnote 4 And the application to appeal process isn’t an opportunity to reargue the General Division appeal. [ 15 ] So the Claimant hasn’t shown the General Division made an error I can consider. I didn’t find an arguable case the General Division made a factual error [ 16 ] The Claimant is representing herself. So I reviewed the evidence in the General Division file. Footnote 5 Then compared that evidence to the evidence the General Division cited in its decision. [ 17 ] I can assume the General Division reviewed the relevant evidence—it doesn’t have to refer to every piece of evidence in its decision. Footnote 6 I didn’t find an arguable case the General Division ignored or misunderstood relevant evidence in making its decision. Or an arguable case the General Division based its decision on a factual finding it made without any relevant evidence. No new evidence [ 18 ] On her application to appeal form, the Claimant didn’t check the new evidence box. But she wrote about evidence in the space below. Footnote 7 [ 19 ] At the case conference I held to clarify why the Claimant was appealing, I asked her about this. She said she sent everything to the General Division. And she agreed she didn’t set out new evidence in her application. Conclusion [ 20 ] The Claimant hasn’t met the permission to appeal test. She hasn’t shown an arguable case the General Division made an error. I looked but didn’t find an arguable case of a factual error. And she didn’t set out new evidence in her application to appeal. [ 21 ] So I can’t give her permission to appeal the General Division decision. 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 referrer Footnote 2 See section 58.1(c) of the DESD Act. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 The Claimant gave her reasons for appealing the General Division decision in AD1, AD1B, and at a case conference I called for that purpose. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2016 FC 874 at paragraph 20. 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. I reviewed GD1 (volumes 1 and 2), GD2 (volumes 1 through 5), GD6, GD8, GD10, GD11, and GD12. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2022 FCA 157 at paragraph 46. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 See AD1-5. Return to footnote 7 referrer
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The General Division thoroughly reviewed all relevant evidence and provided detailed reasoning.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The claimant argued she should qualify for a CPP disability pension because nothing about her condition had changed since her previous application.
- The claimant claimed her former employers were unaware of her learning disability, suggesting this should affect her eligibility.
- The claimant asserted that contacting her former employers was inappropriate due to their lack of understanding of learning disabilities.
- The claimant disagreed with the General Division's conclusion that she was still able to work despite her learning disability.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The decision denied the claimant's request for permission to appeal a General Division decision denying her CPP disability pension application.
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether the claimant met the criteria for a CPP disability pension after returning to work and then retiring.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided that the claimant did not meet the legal test for permission to appeal because she did not provide an arguable case that the General Division made an error.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Department of Employment and Social Development Act, sections 58.1(a), (b), and (c) were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The argument that mattered most was that the claimant did not provide sufficient evidence to show that the General Division made an error in its decision.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the claimant, denying her permission to appeal.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation may need to provide strong evidence showing that the original decision was incorrect to obtain permission to appeal.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The evidence and documents related to the claimant's ability to work and her disability status mattered, but the claimant did not provide sufficient evidence to support her case.