Claimant Found Uneligible for Disability Pension After Returning to Work

Citation: DL  v  Minister of Employment and Social Development , 2026  SST  245 Social Security Tribunal of Canada General Division – Income Security Section Decision Appellant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: Minister of Employment and Social Development reconsideration decision dated July 4, 2025 (issued by Service Canada) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: Teleconference Hearing date: April 13, 2026 Hearing participants: Appellant Decision date: April 20, 2026 File number: GP-25-1463 On this page Decision Overview What I have to decide Reasons for my decision Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] The appeal is dismissed. [ 2 ] The Appellant, D. L., stopped being disabled as of September 2023. She was only eligible for a [NAME] ( [NAME] ) disability pension when she was disabled. The disability pension payments that she got when she wasn’t disabled are considered an overpayment (debt) that is owed to the Minister of Employment and Social Development (Minister). [ 3 ] This decision explains why I am dismissing the appeal. Overview [ 4 ] The Appellant started getting a disability pension in December 2004. She stopped working following a motor vehicle accident that resulted in significant injuries including a fused spine, significant scarring on her back, face, and arms, along with functional impairments from these conditions. [ 5 ] On November 25, 2024, the Minister decided that the Appellant had stopped being disabled as of September 2023. The Minister stopped paying her a disability pension. The Minister also required her to pay back the payments that she got after September 2023. Footnote 1 [ 6 ] The Appellant appealed the Minister’s decision to the Social Security Tribunal’s General Division. [ 7 ] The Appellant says that she was unable to survive on $600 a month, that she struggles every day to work but that she does not have a choice. She says that if it was up to her, she would not work but she that option is not available to her. [ 8 ] The Minister says that the Appellant returned to substantially gainful employment in September 2023. By that time, she was working 7.5 hours a day, 5 days a week. The Appellant has maintained this employment since that time and as such she is no longer disabled within the meaning of the [NAME] . What I have to decide [ 9 ] I have to decide whether the Appellant stopped being disabled. If she stopped being disabled, then I also have to decide when. [ 10 ] According to the law, an appellant stops being disabled when one of two things happens: Their disability stops being severe. Their disability stops being prolonged. [ 11 ] The [NAME] defines “severe” and “prolonged”. [ 12 ] A disability is severe if it makes an appellant incapable regularly of pursuing any substantially gainful occupation. Footnote 2 [ 13 ] A disability is prolonged if it is likely to be long continued and of indefinite duration, or is likely to result in death. Footnote 3 [ 14 ] When the Minister stops paying a person a disability pension, the Minister has to prove that the person stopped being disabled. The Minister has to prove this on a balance of probabilities. This means the Minister has to show that it is more likely than not the Appellant stopped being disabled. Footnote 4 [ 15 ] To decide whether the Appellant stopped being disabled, I have to look at the Minister’s evidence supporting its decision that the Appellant can work. If the Appellant is capable regularly of doing some kind of work that she could earn a living from, then she isn’t entitled to a disability pension. [ 16 ] If I decide that the Appellant stopped being disabled, then she isn’t eligible for a disability pension anymore. The Minister may also require her to pay back any payments she got when she wasn’t disabled. Reasons for my decision [ 17 ] I find that the Appellant stopped being disabled as of September 2023. This is when her disability stopped being severe. Was the Appellant’s disability severe? [ 18 ] The Appellant’s disability was no longer severe as of September 2023. I reached this finding by considering several factors. I explain these factors below. The Appellant’s functional limitations affected her ability to work [ 19 ] The Appellant has: Chronic pain Cognitive contusion; A fracture and dislocation at the T5-6 with paraplegia; Fractures to her left hand and humerous; Fracrured ribs with a pneumothorax. [ 20 ] But I can’t focus on the Appellant’s diagnoses. Footnote 5 Instead, I have to focus on whether she has functional limitations that got in the way of her earning a living. Footnote 6 When I do this, I have to look at all of her medical conditions (not just the main one) and think about how they affected her ability to work. Footnote 7 [ 21 ] I find that the Appellant still had functional limitations that affected her ability to work as of the hearing date. What the Minister says about the Appellant’s functional limitations [ 22 ] The Minister agrees that the Appellant has functional limitations. The Minister says the Appellant has to take extra breaks to manage fatigue, does not do heavy lifting, does not take stairs. My findings about the Appellant’s ability to work [ 23 ] I find that the Appellant has been able to return to substantially gainful work as of September 2023. [ 24 ] In September 2023, the Appellant applied for and accepted a custodial position with the X at Y base. This custodial position was a full time position. It required the Appellant to work 7.5 hours a day and 5 days a week. She was assisted with some of the heavier aspects of her job but her work was meaningful and productive. In other words, I have determined that she did not work for a [NAME]. Footnote 8 [ 25 ] The Appellant is responsible for dusting, sweeping, and mopping. While she does not take on dirtier tasks and only worked in buildings that did not have stairs, she has maintained this employment since being hired in 2023. Moreover, the Appellant has monthly assessments of her performance. She told me that these have been positive and there have not been any complaints about her performance. [ 26 ] I am satisfied that this work is not for a [NAME] because the Employer is obtaining value for the Appellant’s services. [ 27 ] I am also mindful that by 2023, the Appellant’s income had become substantially gainful. Footnote 9 Under the [NAME] , when a person makes more than the maximum monthly amount available for a [NAME] disability benefit, the law considers it to be a rebuttable presumption that the person is making substantially gainful earnings. In order to remain entitled to a disability benefit, an applicant cannot have the capacity to regularly persue substantially gainful employment. As a result, earnings in excess of this amount, provide a presumption that an individual no longer has a severe disability. [ 28 ] In 2023, the Appellant’s earnings from the custodial work were above the substantially gainful amount at $20,759. Similarly, in 2024, the Appellant’s earnings were above the substantially gainful amount at $39,034. During the oral hearing, the Appellant confirmed that she has continued to work similar hours and now makes $22.50 an hour whereas when she started she earned $20.00 an hour. [ 29 ] I note that the Appellant did take a leave of absence last year for four months but returned to work after the leave and has maintained her employment since that time. I am satisfied that these earnings are consistent with substantially gainful earnings. [ 30 ] Once I find that an appellant has stopped being disabled, I can’t decide whether they have become disabled again. If the Appellant believes that she can no longer work again, she can reapply for a disability pension. The Minister (that is, Service Canada) will decide the application. Conclusion [ 31 ] The Minister has proven that the Appellant stopped being disabled as of September 2023 and is no longer entitled to a disability pension. [ 32 ] This means the appeal is dismissed. Footnotes Footnote 1 See GD2-16. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 Section 42(2)(a) of the [NAME] gives this definition of severe disability. Section 68.1 of the [NAME] says a job is “substantially gainful” if it pays a salary or wages equal to or greater than the maximum annual amount a person could receive as a disability pension. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 Section 42(2)(a) of the [NAME] gives this definition of prolonged disability. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2014  FCA  187. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2013  FCA  81. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 [NAME]  v  Canada (Social Development) , 2008  FCA  33. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2011  FCA  47. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General), 2014  FCA  187; and Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME], 2023  FCA  204) Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 See Section 68.1 of the [NAME] to footnote 9 referrer