Claimant Granted Extension to File Appeal but Leave Denied

Citation: [NAME]  v  [NAME] , 2026  SST  348 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal Decision Applicant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated August 6, 2025 (GP-25-104) Tribunal member: [NAME] Decision date: June 23, 2026 File number: AD-26-414 On this page Decision Overview Issues The Claimant’s application was late, but I’m extending the time for her to file it I can’t give the Claimant permission to appeal Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] M. L. missed the deadline to file her application to appeal the General Division decision. I’m extending the time for her to do that. [ 2 ] But I can’t give her leave (permission) to appeal. This means her appeal won’t go forward. Overview [ 3 ] M. L. is the Claimant in this case. She wants to appeal a General Division decision. Footnote 1 [ 4 ] She missed the 90-day deadline to file her application to appeal the General Division decision. I’m extending the time for her to file her application because she has a reasonable explanation for her delay. [ 5 ] To qualify for a disability Canada Pension Plan ( CPP ) disability pension a person has to prove their disability was both severe and prolonged by the end of their coverage period. Footnote 2 [ 6 ] The General Division decided the Claimant’s disability wasn’t severe by the end of her coverage period (December 31, 2008). Although she had functional limitations at that time, her disabilities didn’t regularly prevent her from working in the real world. But she gave up looking for work. So, the General Division decided she didn’t qualify for a disability pension and dismissed her appeal. [ 7 ] She argues the General Division got the facts wrong. [ 8 ] I didn’t find an arguable case the General Division made an error. This means I can’t give her permission to appeal the General Division decision. Issues [ 9 ] I will decide three issues. Was the Claimant’s application late? If it was late, should I extend the time for her to file it? If I extend the time, should I give her permission to appeal the General Division decision? The Claimant’s application was late, but I’m extending the time for her to file it [ 10 ] The Claimant says she got the General Division decision on August 15, 2025. The Tribunal received her application to appeal on May 29, 2026. This tells me she missed the 90-day deadline to appeal the General Division decision. [ 11 ] I’m extending the time for her to file her application because she gave a reasonable explanation. [ 12 ] She says she has no excuse. Then she says she was anxious, stressed out, and could not find her paperwork. She apologizes. [ 13 ] The Claimant’s nine-month delay filing her application and what she says makes sense when I look at the CPP medical form her family doctor filled out. Her doctor says the Claimant has suffered from Generalized Anxiety Disorder since 2021. Footnote 3 And a suspected learning disability compounds that disorder. Symptoms include excessive worry, tangential thought, reduced concentrations, decreased retention of new information, and increased worry as tasks increase. Her doctor says this medical condition is continuous. [ 14 ] So, it’s likely the Claimant was overwhelmed by the new, stressful task of filing an application to appeal. This disability-related explanation gives her a reasonable explanation for her delay. So, I’m extending the time for her to file her appeal to the day she filed it with the Tribunal—May 29, 2026. I can’t give the Claimant permission to appeal [ 15 ] There is no automatic right to appeal a General Division decision. The Claimant has to get permission for her appeal to go forward to an Appeal Division hearing. [ 16 ] The law says I should give permission to appeal if a person shows an arguable case the General Division made an error, including an error about the law or the facts. Footnote 4 The Claimant’s argument doesn’t show an arguable case the General Division made a factual error [ 17 ] The Claimant said the General Division didn’t hear what she said about her case, specifically her knees. And her doctor encouraged her to apply because her knees are very bad and her hearing has gotten worse. When she says the General Division didn’t hear, I interpret this to mean its decision doesn’t reflect her evidence. In other words, she is arguing the General Division made a factual error by ignoring or misunderstanding relevant evidence about her medical conditions and functional limitations. [ 18 ] The Claimant’s argument—and her doctor’s encouragement—is based on a fundamental misunderstanding about the CPP disability pension. A person gets coverage for a disability pension by making contributions from their employment income. When they stop working and contributing, their coverage will end. And to receive the disability pension, they have to show they became disabled before the end of their coverage period. [ 19 ] The Claimant last worked and contributed to the CPP in 2006. So, according to the law, her coverage for the CPP disability pension ended on December 31, 2008 . To get a disability pension, she had to prove she had a severe and prolonged disability on or before that date. Not when she applied for the CPP disability pension in 2023. Not on the hearing date in 2025. Not now in 2026. [ 20 ] The Claimant’s argument doesn’t show an arguable case the General Division made a factual error. The General Division could ignore her evidence about her health conditions, her pain, and her functional limitations around the time of the hearing. Because that evidence wasn’t about her circumstances by the end of 2008, it wasn’t relevant to the legal issue the General Division had to decide. I didn’t find an arguable case of a legal error or a factual error [ 21 ] Because the Claimant is representing herself, I reviewed the General Division file (including the all-important medical evidence) and read the General Division decision. [ 22 ] I didn’t find an arguable case the General Division made a legal error. It understood the legal test the Claimant had to meet to get a CPP disability pension. Then used that test to decide the Claimant’s appeal. Footnote 5 [ 23 ] There’s no arguable case the General Division made a factual error by ignoring or misunderstanding relevant evidence. In the Claimant’s case, relevant means evidence that could help her prove her health problems made her regularly unable to work and earn a living by December 31, 2008. [ 24 ] The General Division reviewed the relevant evidence and made findings about the Claimant’s situation at the end of 2008. Her medical conditions were a chronic venous ulcer in her right ankle, right knee osteoarthritis, and left knee instability. Footnote 6 Her functional limitations were knee and ankle issues that prevented her from doing heavy physical jobs that included prolonged walking or climbing stairs. These limitations affected her ability to work. Footnote 7 Her personal characteristics supported her employability (20 years before retirement age, English-speaking, high school educated, with experience in semi-skilled sedentary jobs). Footnote 8 She had residual capacity for non-physical work. Footnote 9 She did some job searching after her doctor said she could return to work. But she gave up. And there was no evidence her functional limitations stopped her from getting a job. Footnote 10 [ 25 ] This shows the General Division didn’t misunderstand or ignore relevant evidence when it found the Claimant could work in the real world doing a non-physical job at the end of 2008. And based on these findings, the General Division decided her disability didn’t meet the severe part of the CPP disability test. That decision is supported by the relevant evidence. Conclusion [ 26 ] There isn’t an arguable case the General Division made an error. So, I can’t give the Claimant permission to appeal. And her appeal won’t go forward. Footnotes Footnote 1 See AD1 and AD3. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See sections 42(2) and 44(2) of the Canada Pension Plan . Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See GD2-127. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See section 58.1(b) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act . 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 4 referrer Footnote 5 See paragraphs 7 to 11, 12, 13, 16, 20, 25, 26, and 31 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 See paragraphs 15, 21 to 23 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 See paragraphs 18 and 19 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 See paragraphs 28 and 29 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 See paragraphs 27 and 30 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 See paragraphs 32 to 34 of the General Division decision. Return to footnote 10 referrer