Claimant Loses Appeal for CPP Disability Pension: Decision Explained

OUTCOME: Dismissed

Citation: [NAME_1]  v  KW , 2026  [NAME_3]  327 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Decision Appellant: [redacted] [NAME_4] and [NAME_4] at hearing: [NAME_4] Respondent: [redacted] Representative: [NAME_28]. Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated July 3, 2025 (GP-25-166) Tribunal member: [NAME_5] of hearing: Videoconference Hearing date: March 11, 2026 Hearing participants: Appellant’s representative Appellant’s witness Respondent Respondent’s representative Decision date: May 1, 2026 File number: AD-25-620 On this page Decision The parties Overview Issue Analysis Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] The Appellant’s appeal is allowed. [ 2 ] The Respondent, [NAME_27]., isn’t eligible for a [NAME_6] ( [NAME_6] ) disability pension. The parties [ 3 ] It can sometimes be difficult for people to understand the different words that are used to describe the parties. Because of this, I will explain who the parties are and how I will refer to them in this decision. [ 4 ] The Appellant is the [NAME_1]. I will refer to the Appellant as the Minister . [ 5 ] The Respondent is [NAME_30] will refer to the Respondent as the Claimant . Overview [ 6 ] The Claimant is a 42-year-old man who began having problems with his mental health in 2005. At that time, he was in university studying computer science. Footnote 1 The Claimant didn’t finish his degree. [ 7 ] The Claimant’s mental health improved with medical treatment. [ 8 ] In 2013, the Claimant completed a Certified Exposure Device Operator (CEDO) program. In 2014, he completed certificates in magnetic particle inspection and dye penetrant inspection. Footnote 2 He then began working in X as a radiographer and pipe weld inspector. Footnote 3 His job involved working for six to eight weeks and then going home to Nova Scotia for a month or two before returning to work. [ 9 ] The Claimant stopped working in June or October 2017 for medical reasons. Footnote 4 [ 10 ] In May 2018, the Claimant was admitted to the hospital because of depression and suicidal ideation. He was discharged from the hospital about a month later. [ 11 ] The Claimant applied for the [NAME_6] disability pension in March 2024. Footnote 5 In his application, he said that he hasn’t been able to work since April 2017 because of severe clinical depression and chronic fatigue. Footnote 6 [ 12 ] The Minister denied the application at both the initial and reconsideration levels of review. Footnote 7 [ 13 ] The Claimant appealed the Minister’s reconsideration decision to the Social Security Tribunal’s General Division. The General Division held an in-person hearing and allowed the appeal. The General Division found that the Claimant has been disabled since 2017. [ 14 ] The Minister disagreed with the General Division’s decision. So, the Minister asked the Appeal Division for leave (permission) to appeal. In October 2025, one of my colleagues gave the Minister permission to appeal. [ 15 ] On March 11, 2026, I held a de novo hearing. A de novo hearing means I wasn’t looking at whether the General Division made a mistake. I was taking a fresh look at the case, as if it hadn’t been decided before. Issue [ 16 ] The Claimant must prove he has a disability that was severe and prolonged by December 31, 2019. Footnote 8 This date is based on his [NAME_6] contributions. [ 17 ] A disability is severe if it makes a person incapable regularly of pursuing any substantially gainful occupation. Footnote 9 A job is substantially gainful if it gives a person an income that is the same as or more than the maximum annual [NAME_6] disability pension. Footnote 10 In 2019, that amount was about $16,350. It is now about $21,000. [ 18 ] When I am assessing whether a disability is severe, I must focus on whether the Claimant’s medical conditions result in functional limitations that get in the way of him earning a living. Footnote 11 My focus isn’t on the name of the condition or diagnosis. Footnote 12 [ 19 ] A disability is prolonged if it is likely to be long continued and of indefinite duration, or is likely to result in death. Footnote 13 [ 20 ] This means the Claimant’s disability can’t have an expected recovery date. The disability must be expected to keep the Claimant out of the workforce for a long time. [ 21 ] The Claimant has to prove his case. He has to prove it on a balance of probabilities. This means that he has to show that it is more likely than not that he was disabled by the end of 2019. Analysis [ 22 ] The Claimant hasn’t proven his case. The medical evidence shows that the Claimant improved after being hospitalized in 2018 and before the end of 2019. He had work capacity by December 31, 2019. What the Claimant says about his disability [ 23 ] The Claimant says that he is the same now as he was when he left the hospital in 2018. He says his functional limitations have stayed the same since 2018. He says: He isn’t suicidal but he feels like he is just existing. He has felt like this for years. He doesn’t enjoy anything. For example, he doesn’t enjoy watching television or playing video games. He rarely leaves his home. He has difficulty focusing and concentrating. He has extreme fatigue. Because he is so tired, the most he can do for exercise is walk one or two kilometres. He lives with his parents and will sometimes try to cook dinner for the family. But it feels like he uses every bit of energy he has just to cut up some potatoes and vegetables and cook some meat. After, he is “wiped.” Just the thought of doing more makes him shut down mentally and physically. He gets irritable and has difficulty dealing with people or even minor issues. He has some days that could be considered good. But his good days would be bad days or intolerable days for the average person. [ 24 ] The Claimant gave inconsistent evidence about his ability to sleep. In his application, he said he has poor sleep. Footnote 14 At the hearing, he said he sleeps but still has extreme fatigue. This inconsistency isn’t important. It could just mean the Claimant’s sleep patterns vary. The medical records show that the Claimant was hospitalized in 2018 [ 25 ] The medical evidence shows that the Claimant went to the emergency room on May 10, 2018, because of depressed mood and suicidal ideation. [ 26 ] At the hospital, the Claimant explained that he had been off his medications for years. He said his depression had been building over the past year. He reported several symptoms including: anergia (lack of energy) hypersomnia (extreme fatigue) in the day poor sleep at night reduced appetite thoughts of helplessness and hopelessness The Claimant also told hospital staff that he had misled his parents by telling them he was waiting for a call to go back to work out west when in fact he had been turning down opportunities to return to work. [ 27 ] The Claimant was admitted to the hospital voluntarily. He was discharged about one month later, on June 11, 2018. Footnote 15 The medical records show that the Claimant improved with treatment [ 28 ] The Claimant clearly had a serious episode in 2018. Fortunately, the medical evidence shows that the Claimant improved with treatment while he was in the hospital. [ 29 ] On May 29, 2018, the hospital psychiatrist ([NAME_7]) wrote that the Claimant was reporting some improvement with his mood. He also noted improved sleep and energy. Footnote 16 [ 30 ] The evidence includes a progress note from an occupational therapist ([NAME_8]) from June 1, 2018. In that note, [NAME_8] said the Claimant acknowledged he had improved since his hospital admission but felt he wasn’t yet 100%. [NAME_8] said the Claimant spoke about his interests, including golf. She said she took the Claimant to a driving range to hit some balls and he enjoyed the experience. She described the Claimant as bright and animated when speaking with her. Footnote 17 [ 31 ] On June 4, 2018, [NAME_7] reported the Claimant was continuing to improve. He had better energy and concentration. His mood was good. Footnote 18 [ 32 ] In a progress note from June 6, 2018, [NAME_8] said the Claimant participated in a music therapy group. She described the Claimant as bright and relaxed during the session. She also said the Claimant enjoyed the session and willingly used various musical instruments. Footnote 19 [ 33 ] In the hospital discharge report, [NAME_7] identified the discharge diagnosis as major depression that is recurrent and of moderate severity. [NAME_7] explained that the Claimant was started on a combination treatment of Wellbutrin (bupropion) and Zoloft (sertraline). [NAME_7] said the Claimant showed good response with steady progress and that his depressive symptoms had resolved before the hospital let him go. [NAME_7] added that the Claimant had a pass home before being discharged and it went well. He said the Claimant reported his mood had greatly improved and that his vegetative symptoms had resolved. He was thinking about the future and wasn’t suicidal. Footnote 20 [ 34 ] All of this shows that the Claimant’s depression (not just his suicidal thoughts) improved during his hospital stay. There is no indication from [NAME_7] or [NAME_8] that the Claimant would be unable to work after being discharged. [ 35 ] There are no other medical notes or reports on file until December 1, 2020, when the Claimant spoke with a nurse practitioner (NP). Still, the note from December 1, 2020, suggests the Claimant was doing well. [ 36 ] On December 1, 2020, the NP spoke with the Claimant to onboard him to the primary care clinic in Glace Bay. The NP wrote the following: The Claimant feels fine now. His medications are working well. He doesn’t feel the need for a social worker consult at this time. The NP told the Claimant to call [NAME_9]’s office (or the NP’s office) for an appointment as needed. Footnote 21 [ 37 ] The Claimant testified that the NP’s note from December 2020 doesn’t mean he was doing well. He said that when he told the NP that he felt fine he meant he wasn’t suicidal. He compared his comment about being fine to what people typically say when they are asked how they are doing. [ 38 ] In my view, the information the Claimant gave to the NP shows he was probably doing well. [ 39 ] First, the NP’s note about the Claimant feeling “fine now” is written in the context of the Claimant’s history of depression and being hospitalized. In other words, the NP wrote that the Claimant feels fine now, only after she wrote about his history with depression, hospitalizations, and sessions with a social worker. So, I don’t think the Claimant’s response was just a typical reply to being asked “how are you?” [ 40 ] Second, the Claimant didn’t just say he felt fine. He also said his medications were working well and he denied the need for a social worker consult. [ 41 ] Third, the Claimant has shown the ability to seek medical help when needed. For example, he went to the hospital in 2018 when he was struggling with depression and suicidal ideation. If the Claimant was struggling in December 2020 with the level of symptoms he described at the hearing, it is reasonable to expect he would have mentioned that and asked the NP for help. [ 42 ] Fourth, there is no medical evidence between June 2018 and December 2020 to show or even suggest that the Claimant’s mental health got worse after he left the hospital in June 2018. There is no medical evidence on file between the hospital discharge report of June 2018 and December 2020 [ 43 ] There is a large gap in the medical evidence between June 2018 when the Claimant was discharged from the hospital, and December 1, 2020, when the Claimant spoke with the NP. This is despite the Claimant having appointments scheduled after his discharge. [ 44 ] The hospital discharge plan from June 11, 2018, says the Claimant had an appointment scheduled with his then-family doctor ([NAME_10]) on June 18, 2018, at 11:20 am. The plan also says the Claimant had an appointment with the [NAME_11] in July 2018. Footnote 22 [ 45 ] The Claimant said that he saw a social worker every month or every six to eight weeks from July 2018 until she retired. Footnote 23 In his application, the Claimant said he last saw her in January 2022. Footnote 24 [ 46 ] There are no reports on file from the social worker so I can’t confirm whether or how often the Claimant saw her. But I don’t think the Claimant last saw her in January 2022. [ 47 ] First, [NAME_12] (his mother) wrote in March 2025 that the Claimant stopped seeing the social worker when the pandemic began. So, that would have been around March 2020. [NAME_12] said that, at that time, mental health services contacted the Claimant and told him his social worker would no longer be working and that he would be put on a waiting list for another social worker. She said the Claimant was also told there would not be anyone available for him for at least one year. She added that the Claimant hasn’t been contacted by anyone since then. Footnote 25 [ 48 ] Second, the NP’s note from December 1, 2020, says the Claimant’s social worker had retired. The note also implies the Claimant didn’t have another social worker. This is because the NP asked the Claimant whether he needed a social worker consult. Footnote 26 [ 49 ] The gap in the medical evidence is a problem for the Claimant. There are two reasons why it is a problem. [ 50 ] The first reason is that the gap covers a long and critical period. The gap spans about 2.5 years and includes the entire year of 2019 and almost all of 2020. Again, the date of December 31, 2019, is important in this appeal because it is when the Claimant has to show he was disabled by. [ 51 ] The second reason why the gap is a problem is because the law requires the Claimant to provide medical evidence to support a finding that his medical condition affected his ability to work no later than December 31, 2019. Footnote 27 [ 52 ] This doesn’t mean that the Claimant was required to file a medical record dated on or before December 31, 2019. But there has to be some documentation related to that date, such as a later report from a doctor or other health care provider who was involved with the Claimant’s treatment during the relevant time. Footnote 28 [ 53 ] But the only other medical evidence on file is evidence from the Claimant’s current family doctor, [NAME_9]. And that evidence doesn’t show the Claimant’s functional limitations got in the way of him earning a living by the end of 2019. [NAME_9]’s reports are not compelling [ 54 ] The Claimant first met with [NAME_9] on September 26, 2023. This was almost four years after December 31, 2019. [ 55 ] [NAME_9]’s report from September 26, 2023, isn’t supportive of a severe disability by December 31, 2019. She said the Claimant wanted a prescription for citalopram 20 mg (and another unrelated medication). He also wanted her to fill out reports for the [NAME_6] disability pension and the disability tax credit. The Claimant told [NAME_9] that he had been struggling with depression since he last worked. [ 56 ] [NAME_9] reviewed the NP’s note from December 1, 2020, and assessed the Claimant. She said she didn’t think the Claimant would qualify for a disability pension because he seemed stable, wasn’t involved with a psychologist, and didn’t have any documents to support his claims. Footnote 29 [ 57 ] The Claimant didn’t see [NAME_9] again until February 21, 2024. During that visit, [NAME_9] asked the Claimant to provide her with his hospital records. She implied that she would fill out the disability forms after receiving those records. Footnote 30 [ 58 ] On February 24, 2024, [NAME_9] filled out the [NAME_6] medical report and a medical report for the disability tax credit certificate. [ 59 ] In the [NAME_6] medical report, [NAME_9] said the Claimant has major depressive disorder, and was hospitalized in 2005 and 2018. She said the condition results in the following: low mood and anxiety lack of energy an inability to focus or concentrate irritability short temperament labile affect / emotions difficulty with day-to-day activities [NAME_9] concluded the Claimant can’t work. Footnote 31 [ 60 ] [NAME_9]’s [NAME_6] medical report isn’t compelling evidence of a severe disability by the end of 2019. [ 61 ] First, [NAME_9] didn’t meet the Claimant until September 2023, and so she wasn’t treating him in or around December 2019. [ 62 ] Second, [NAME_9] seems to have been given some medical documents to review, but it is unclear whether she had any medical documents for the period between June 11, 2018, when the Claimant was discharged from the hospital, and December 1, 2020, when the Claimant spoke with a NP. If she did, she didn’t mention them. Footnote 32 She also didn’t include them with the [NAME_6] medical report. Footnote 33 [ 63 ] Third, [NAME_9] didn’t explain why her opinion about the Claimant having a disability changed between her first consult with him in September 2023 and her second consult in February 2024. [ 64 ] Fourth, [NAME_9]’s opinion about the Claimant’s inability to work is written in the present tense. She wasn’t commenting on how the Claimant was functioning in 2019. For example, she said the Claimant currently has severe limitations. She also said she doesn’t see him returning to any type of work at this time . Footnote 34 [ 65 ] Fifth, [NAME_9] didn’t address the large gap in medical care between June 2018 and September 2023, other than saying the Claimant took medications and had psychotherapy. Even then, her information appears to be inaccurate. [ 66 ] With respect to the medications, [NAME_9] said the Claimant took bupropion 300 mg from July 2018 to December 2020 and that he has been taking citalopram 10 mg since September 2023. She didn’t say anything about the sertraline the Claimant was prescribed upon discharge in June 2018. She didn’t say anything about the apparent gap in medications from December 2020 to September 2023. And she appears to have been mistaken about the Claimant’s citalopram dosage. She said he has been taking 10 mg since September 2023. Her clinical note of September 2023 shows a dosage of 20 mg. Footnote 35 [ 67 ] With respect to the psychotherapy sessions, [NAME_9] said the Claimant had psychotherapy sessions from July 2018 to January 2022. Footnote 36 But this isn’t right. As I said before, the evidence doesn’t support the Claimant’s evidence that he stopped seeing the social worker in January 2022. [ 68 ] [NAME_9]’s medical report for the disability tax credit certificate also isn’t compelling evidence of a severe disability by the end of 2019. [ 69 ] [NAME_9] identified several functional limitations, and she said the limitations began in 2019. Footnote 37 But again it is unclear what, if any, medical records she relied on to support her statement. She wasn’t treating the Claimant in 2019, and she doesn’t mention having any medical records for the period between June 2018 and December 1, 2020. In fact, she acknowledged that she didn’t have medical information for all the years she certified on the form. She referred only to his hospital admission report of 2018. Footnote 38 I didn’t give the sister’s letter much weight [ 70 ] The evidence includes a one-page letter of April 2025 from [NAME_13]. She is a registered nurse. [ 71 ] She said she believes the Claimant is disabled because of the following reasons: His symptoms have a fluctuating nature. He has a long-standing history of major depressive disorder. He has significant impairments with his daily functioning. He has been unable to do any form of work or retraining due to the severity of his condition. She also said that, in her professional opinion, the trauma associated with the 2016 wildfire in X greatly contributed to making the Claimant’s condition worse. She explained the difficult circumstances he faced when he had to evacuate the area. She added that research has shown that traumatic experiences can make pre-existing mental health conditions much worse. Footnote 39 [ 72 ] I haven’t given this letter much weight. Here is why: [NAME_13] is a registered nurse, she wasn’t one of the Claimant’s treating health care providers. [NAME_13] didn’t say whether she had reviewed the Claimant’s medical records. The letter mentions symptoms but doesn’t identify what the symptoms are or link them to December 2019. It also doesn’t explain how the symptoms would prevent the Claimant from working or retraining. The letter doesn’t address one of the main problems in this file—the lack of medical evidence between June 2018 and December 1, 2020. The Claimant didn’t make efforts to manage his condition [ 73 ] To receive a disability pension, a claimant must make reasonable efforts to treat their disability and must follow medical advice. Footnote 40 If a claimant doesn’t do this, then they must have a reasonable explanation for not doing so. Footnote 41 If they don’t have a reasonable explanation, then I must consider what effect, if any, the medical treatment or advice might have had on the disability. Footnote 42 [ 74 ] The Minister argues that the Claimant didn’t make reasonable efforts to mitigate his condition. This is because: The Claimant didn’t attend scheduled appointments with recommended health care professionals after being hospitalized in 2018. The Claimant refused to consult a social worker in December 2020. The Claimant told [NAME_9] in 2024 that he wasn’t keen on seeing a mental health professional. The Claimant didn’t stay on the medications prescribed by [NAME_7] in 2018. For an unknown reason, the intensity of his medications decreased after December 2020 to only a low dose of citalopram. [ 75 ] I will address each of the Minister’s arguments. The Minister says the Claimant failed to attend scheduled appointments after being hospitalized in 2018 [ 76 ] The Minister says that after the Claimant was hospitalized in 2018, he didn’t attend a scheduled appointment with [NAME_10], and he didn’t show that he took advantage of the social worker resource. [ 77 ] [NAME_12] argued at the hearing that [NAME_10] suddenly became ill while the Claimant was still working. So, the Claimant didn’t have a family doctor after he got out of the hospital in 2018. She also said the Claimant went years without a family doctor. Footnote 43 [ 78 ] I believe that the Claimant likely had [NAME_10] as his family doctor after he was discharged from the hospital in 2018. [ 79 ] First, as I said before, the hospital discharge plan says the Claimant had an appointment scheduled with his family doctor on June 18, 2018. It seems unlikely that [NAME_10] would suddenly retire between June 11, 2018, and June 18, 2018. [ 80 ] Second, [NAME_12] wrote in March 2025 that after the Claimant was discharged from the hospital, his family doctor prescribed him his medication. It is clear from the letter that the representative was referring to the time before the pandemic began. Footnote 44 [ 81 ] Third, the new patient onboarding form from December 1, 2020, says the Claimant was on the 811 registry since July 2020. Footnote 45 This suggests that the Claimant had a family doctor until that point. [ 82 ] Fourth, the Claimant’s medications were changed between June 2018 when he was discharged from hospital and December 1, 2020, when he spoke with a NP. [ 83 ] At the time of discharge from the hospital, the Claimant was prescribed bupropion 300 mg and sertraline 100 mg two times a day, and zopiclone 15 mg. Footnote 46 [ 84 ] When the Claimant spoke with the NP on December 1, 2020, he said his medications were bupropion 300 mg and citalopram 20 mg. Footnote 47 [ 85 ] In February 2026, [NAME_12] wrote that, because the Claimant didn’t have a family doctor for a long time, his prescriptions were looked after by a NP. Footnote 48 I see no documentary evidence confirming this. Besides, there is evidence to contradict what the representative said. [ 86 ] First, [NAME_12] said the NP only re-filled the medications the Claimant was prescribed when he was in the hospital. Footnote 49 But as I have just said, the Claimant’s medications changed at some point between June 2018 and December 1, 2020. [ 87 ] Second, the NP’s note from December 1, 2020, says that the Claimant’s last family doctor was [NAME_10] and that his most recent contact with the medical system was with [NAME_10]. Footnote 50 There is no mention of another NP involved in his care. [ 88 ] For these reasons, I am reluctant to find the Claimant didn’t attend scheduled appointments with [NAME_10]. In my view, the issue is that the Claimant didn’t file evidence of his visits with [NAME_10] or with the social worker for that matter. I have already addressed the impact the lack of medical evidence has had in this matter. The Minister says the Claimant refused to consult a social worker in December 2020 [ 89 ] The Minister says that in December 2020, the Claimant refused to see a social worker. [ 90 ] I acknowledge that the Claimant told the NP on December 1, 2020, that he didn’t feel the need to see a social worker at the time. But I don’t see this as the Claimant refusing to follow medical advice. The NP’s note doesn’t say she was recommending a consult. She appears to have simply asked the Claimant whether a consult was needed. [ 91 ] As I said before, the information the Claimant gave to the NP is inconsistent with a finding of a severe disability at that time. If the Claimant was struggling with depression as much as he now claims, then he was obligated to get medical help. He didn’t. The Minister says the Claimant declined to see a mental health clinician [ 92 ] The Minister argues that the Claimant didn’t take reasonable steps to mitigate his condition because he told [NAME_9] in February 2024 that he wasn’t keen on speaking with a mental health clinician. [ 93 ] [NAME_12] said that [NAME_9]’s statement is false and that the Claimant never refused “any medical people who offered their help.” Footnote 51 [ 94 ] I don’t think that [NAME_9] made a false statement. She wrote in her clinical note that “he is not keen on speaking with a mental health clinician at this point.” Footnote 52 There would be no reason for [NAME_9] to make something like that up. [ 95 ] I have considered whether [NAME_9] may have been referring to the NP’s note from December 1, 2020, which says the Claimant didn’t want a social worker consult. But I think that is unlikely. [NAME_9]’s clinical note from February 21, 2024, was more than three years later and is written in the present tense because she said, “at this point.” [ 96 ] Finally, there is nothing in [NAME_9]’s clinical note to suggest that the Claimant’s mother was present during the consultation. So, [NAME_12] isn’t well positioned to comment on what was or wasn’t said. [ 97 ] The Claimant said he doesn’t remember [NAME_9] asking him to see a psychiatrist “or anything.” He said she may have asked him whether he needed a social worker but he didn’t think it was something she was strongly recommending. He also acknowledged that he doesn’t remember the conversation well. [ 98 ] I obviously don’t know how [NAME_9] worded the option of seeing a mental health clinician. But what is important here is that she gave the Claimant a treatment option and he chose not to pursue it, despite saying he is disabled. This means that either the Claimant’s symptoms weren’t as severe as he now claims or the Claimant didn’t make efforts to mitigate his condition. The Minister argues the Claimant didn’t take his medications as prescribed [ 99 ] The Minister says that when the Claimant was discharged from hospital, he was advised to remain on his medications. The Minister says the Claimant didn’t do that because after December 2020, his medication regimen was reduced to just a low dose of citalopram. [ 100 ] Because there is such a large gap in the medical evidence after the hospital discharge, I don’t have a clear picture of what happened with the medications. This is what I know: When the Claimant was discharged from the hospital in June 2018, [NAME_7] prescribed bupropion 300 mg and sertraline 100 mg twice a day, and zopiclone 15 mg at bedtime. Footnote 53 When the Claimant spoke with the NP on December 1, 2020, he told her he was taking bupropion 300 mg and citalopram 20 mg. Footnote 54 So, at some point between June 2018 and December 1, 2020, the sertraline was switched for citalopram. When the Claimant first met with [NAME_9] in September 2023, he said he wanted a prescription for citalopram 20 mg. Footnote 55 So, at some point between December 1, 2020, and September 2023, the Claimant stopped taking the bupropion. When the Claimant saw [NAME_9] in February 2024, he said he was tolerating the citalopram 20 mg with no issues. [ 101 ] The Claimant clearly didn’t continue taking the medications that [NAME_7] prescribed. But because of the gap in the medical evidence, I don’t know what medication recommendations were made to him after his hospital discharge and before December 1, 2020. It appears though that the Claimant stopped taking the bupropion on his own without medical consultation. This is because he didn’t see [NAME_9] until September 2023 and there is no record of him seeing any other health care professional between December 1, 2020, when he was reportedly taking the bupropion, and September 2023 when he was no longer taking the bupropion. [ 102 ] The Claimant could not provide details of his medication changes. He said he remembers being on bupropion at some point, but he thinks he was getting rashes from it. He said that was a long time ago and he acknowledged he could be mistaken. [ 103 ] The Claimant’s acknowledged difficulty remembering what happened with the bupropion makes his evidence unreliable. But even if the bupropion was causing side effects, the Claimant didn’t mitigate his condition by consulting a health care professional before stopping the medication completely. [ 104 ] The other issue here is that the Claimant has provided conflicting information about how well his medications worked. He told a NP in December 2020 that his medications were working well. But he testified that his mental health has prevented him from working since 2018. He told [NAME_9] in September 2023 that he had been struggling with his depression since he stopped working but he didn’t ask for a change to his medications. He instead asked for the doctor to renew his citalopram prescription. [ 105 ] The Claimant had an obligation to seek treatment options if he felt his medications weren’t helping. He hasn’t shown that he did that. Pursuing treatment options would have made a difference [ 106 ] In my view, pursuing treatment options, including optimizing medication, would have made a difference in the Claimant’s disability. [ 107 ] The Claimant applied for the disability pension because of his mental health. As pointed out by the Minister’s professional witness (Dr. [NAME_14]), the medical evidence shows that the Claimant does well when he adheres to treatment recommendations. And the medical evidence shows that his mental health gets worse when he discontinues treatment. [ 108 ] In 2018, [NAME_7] wrote about the Claimant’s previous history of mental illness. He said the Claimant had previously been under the care of [NAME_15] at the [NAME_11]. At that time, the Claimant’s diagnoses included bipolar affective disorder, chronic fatigue syndrome, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). He had tried antidepressants and stimulants and was able to function well with relief of his previous symptoms after last having contact with [NAME_15]. Footnote 56 [NAME_7] said the Claimant continued his remission of his previous symptoms for years. Footnote 57 [ 109 ] The medical evidence shows that at some point the Claimant stopped his medications. I don’t know exactly when that was, but it appears to have been years before being hospitalized in 2018. Footnote 58 After being off his medications for years, the Claimant started to experience symptoms in the months before being hospitalized in 2018. As I explained before, the Claimant improved while hospitalized in 2018 after having his medications optimized. He was told to stay on the medications. Footnote 59 The Claimant could work in the real world by December 31, 2019 [ 110 ] The Claimant could work in the real world by the end of 2019. This is because of the following: The medical evidence shows the Claimant’s symptoms resolved with treatment while he was in the hospital in 2018. There is no medical evidence to show the Claimant’s symptoms returned between his hospital discharge in June 2018 and December 31, 2019. The medical evidence dated after December 2019 doesn’t show the Claimant’s disability was severe by the end of 2019. A clinical note from December 1, 2020, said the Claimant was feeling fine and believed his medications were working well. [NAME_9]’s reports from 2023 and 2024 don’t support a finding of a severe disability by the end of 2019. The Claimant has favourable employability factors. Why the Claimant had favourable employability factors [ 111 ] A finding about whether a person can work in the real world must include a consideration of things like a Claimant’s: age level of education language abilities past work and life experience Footnote 60 [ 112 ] The Claimant is young. In December 2019, he was only 36 years old. He had about 29 years ahead of him before the average retirement age of 65. [ 113 ] The Claimant has a good level of education. He studied computer science in university in the early 2000s. He finished two full years of that program. He also successfully obtained a CEDO certificate in 2013 and inspection certificates in 2014. Footnote 61 [ 114 ] The Claimant is fluent in English. He also has work experience in the oil fields as a radiographer and pipe weld inspector. [ 115 ] It is unlikely the Claimant would need to retrain to get a job that would be substantially gainful. As I said before, the substantially gainful threshold for 2019 was about $16,350. The Claimant has an earnings history that far exceeds that amount. Footnote 62 The Claimant didn’t try to find and keep a job [ 116 ] When there is evidence that a claimant has work capacity (like there is here), the Claimant must show that he tried to find and keep a job. He must also show that his efforts weren’t successful because of his medical conditions. Footnote 63 Finding and keeping a job includes retraining or looking for a job that accommodates his limitations. Footnote 64 [ 117 ] The evidence shows the Claimant had work capacity after being hospitalized in June 2018 and continuing through to at least September 2023. [ 118 ] The Claimant testified that he hasn’t tried to find any type of job since 2017. This means the Claimant hasn’t fulfilled his obligation to find and keep a job. As such, I am unable to find that his disability was severe by December 31, 2019. Conclusion [ 119 ] The Minister’s appeal is allowed. [ 120 ] The Claimant isn’t eligible for a [NAME_6] disability pension because his disability wasn’t severe by December 31, 2019. Because his disability wasn’t severe, there is no need to assess whether it was prolonged. Footnote 65 Footnotes Footnote 1 See GD2-70. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See GD2-70. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See GD2-69. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See GD2-69, GD2-123, and GD2-135. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 See GD2-58. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 See GD2-61. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 The Minister’s initial decision from June 28, 2024, is at GD2-28 to GD2-30. The Minister’s reconsideration decision from December 13, 2024, is at GD2-7 to GD2-9. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 [NAME_6] contributions establish coverage. The Claimant’s [NAME_6] contributions are at GD2-81. The contributory requirements are in section 44(2) of the [NAME_6] . Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 A severe disability is defined in section 42(2)(a)(i) of the [NAME_6] . Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 The term “substantially gainful” is defined in section 68.1(1) of the [NAME_6] . Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 [NAME_16]  v  Canada ([NAME_2]) , 2008  FCA  33 at paragraph 14. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 [NAME_17]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2013  FCA  81 at paragraph 7. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 A prolonged disability is defined in section 42(2)(a)(ii) of the [NAME_6] . Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 See GD2-65. Return to footnote 14 referrer Footnote 15 See GD2-114, GD2-121, and GD2-135. Return to footnote 15 referrer Footnote 16 See GD2-147. Return to footnote 16 referrer Footnote 17 See GD2-128. Return to footnote 17 referrer Footnote 18 See GD2-147. Return to footnote 18 referrer Footnote 19 See GD2-131. Return to footnote 19 referrer Footnote 20 See GD2-114 to GD2-116. Return to footnote 20 referrer Footnote 21 See GD6-7 and GD6-8. Return to footnote 21 referrer Footnote 22 See GD2-117 and GD2-118. Return to footnote 22 referrer Footnote 23 See the Claimant’s testimony and GD2-62. Return to footnote 23 referrer Footnote 24 See GD2-62. Return to footnote 24 referrer Footnote 25 See GD5-3. Return to footnote 25 referrer Footnote 26 See GD6-7. Return to footnote 26 referrer Footnote 27 [NAME_18]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2008  FCA  377; and Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME_19] , 2020  FC  206. Return to footnote 27 referrer Footnote 28 [NAME_20]  v  [NAME_1] , 2021  [NAME_3]  267 at paragraph 19. While other Appeal Division decisions aren’t binding, they may be persuasive. Return to footnote 28 referrer Footnote 29 See GD6-8 and GD6-9. Return to footnote 29 referrer Footnote 30 See GD6-10. Return to footnote 30 referrer Footnote 31 See GD6-11 to GD6-19. Return to footnote 31 referrer Footnote 32 [NAME_9]’s [NAME_6] medical report says she was including the following supporting documents: longitudinal clinical notes, specialist’s report(s), and hospital discharge report(s). See GD6-19. It is unclear whose longitudinal clinical notes she was referring to. Return to footnote 32 referrer Footnote 33 The historic documents included with the [NAME_6] medical report are the hospital records from 2018. See GD6-25 to GD6-88 and GD10-26 to GD10-95. Return to footnote 33 referrer Footnote 34 See GD6-18. Return to footnote 34 referrer Footnote 35 See GD6-8. Return to footnote 35 referrer Footnote 36 See GD6-15. Return to footnote 36 referrer Footnote 37 See GD10-106 to GD10-108. Return to footnote 37 referrer Footnote 38 See GD10-111. Return to footnote 38 referrer Footnote 39 See GD8-3. Return to footnote 39 referrer Footnote 40 [NAME_21]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2018  FCA  48; and [NAME_22]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2022  FCA  104. Return to footnote 40 referrer Footnote 41 [NAME_22]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2022  FCA  104. Return to footnote 41 referrer Footnote 42 [NAME_23]  v  Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development) , 2002  FCA  2011. Return to footnote 42 referrer Footnote 43 [NAME_12]’s oral argument. Return to footnote 43 referrer Footnote 44 See GD5-3. Return to footnote 44 referrer Footnote 45 See GD10-154. Return to footnote 45 referrer Footnote 46 See GD10-115. Return to footnote 46 referrer Footnote 47 See GD10-158. Return to footnote 47 referrer Footnote 48 See AD3-3. Return to footnote 48 referrer Footnote 49 See AD3-3. Return to footnote 49 referrer Footnote 50 See GD6-7. Return to footnote 50 referrer Footnote 51 See AD3-4. Return to footnote 51 referrer Footnote 52 See GD6-10. Return to footnote 52 referrer Footnote 53 See GD10-115. Return to footnote 53 referrer Footnote 54 See GD6-7. Return to footnote 54 referrer Footnote 55 See GD6-8. Return to footnote 55 referrer Footnote 56 See GD2-115. Return to footnote 56 referrer Footnote 57 See GD2-142 Return to footnote 57 referrer Footnote 58 See GD2-122, GD2-132, and GD2-135. Return to footnote 58 referrer Footnote 59 See GD2-115. Return to footnote 59 referrer Footnote 60 [NAME_24]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2001  FCA  248. Return to footnote 60 referrer Footnote 61 See GD2-70. Return to footnote 61 referrer Footnote 62 See GD2-86. Return to footnote 62 referrer Footnote 63 [NAME_25]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2003  FCA  117. Return to footnote 63 referrer Footnote 64 [NAME_26]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2008  FCA  150. Return to footnote 64 referrer Footnote 65 [NAME_16]  v  Canada ([NAME_2]) , 2008  FCA  33 at paragraph 10. Return to footnote 65 referrer