Claimant Not Eligible for CPP Disability Pension Due to Lack of Severe Disability Evidence

Citation: [NAME]   v   [NAME] , 2026 SST 346 Social Security Tribunal of Canada General Division – Income Security Section Decision Appellant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: [NAME] reconsideration decision dated May 28, 2025 (issued by Service Canada) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: In person Hearing date: January 15, 2026 Hearing participants: Appellant Appellant’s witness and support person Decision date: January 15, 2026 File number: GP-25-1136 On this page Decision Overview What the Appellant must prove Reasons for my decision Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] The appeal is dismissed. [ 2 ] The Appellant, [NAME]., isn’t eligible for a [NAME] ( [NAME] ) disability pension. This decision explains why I am dismissing the appeal. Overview [ 3 ] The Appellant installed and repaired hardwood floors for all his working life. He stopped working because of his fatigue and weakness in his arms and legs. He hasn’t worked since October 2023. He had a stroke in February 2024. [ 4 ] The Appellant applied for a [NAME] disability pension in August 2024. The [NAME] (Minister) refused his application. He appealed the Minister’s decision to the Social Security Tribunal’s General Division. [ 5 ] The Minister says that the Appellant’s stroke happened years after his minimum qualifying period date (December 31, 2020). Footnote 1 So, he isn’t entitled to a disability pension. [ 6 ] The Appellant says he has worked and contributed to the [NAME] for many years. He could not contribute more during the COVID-19 pandemic because of the restrictions. He could work until 2023. He stopped working because of his health. What the Appellant must prove [ 7 ] The Appellant must prove he has a disability that was severe and prolonged by no later than December 31, 2020. This date is based on his [NAME] contributions. Footnote 2 He must also prove that he continues to be disabled. Footnote 3 [ 8 ] The [NAME] defines “severe” and “prolonged.” [ 9 ] A disability is severe if it makes an appellant incapable regularly of pursuing any substantially gainful occupation. Footnote 4 [ 10 ] This means I must look at all the Appellant’s medical conditions together to see what effect they have on his ability to work. I also have to look at his background (including his age, level of education, and past work and life experience). This is so I can get a realistic or “real world” picture of whether his disability is severe. If the Appellant is capable regularly of doing some kind of work that he could earn a living from, then he isn’t entitled to a disability pension. [ 11 ] A disability is prolonged if it is likely to be long continued and of indefinite duration or is likely to result in death. Footnote 5 [ 12 ] This means the Appellant’s disability can’t have an expected recovery date. The disability must be expected to keep the Appellant out of the workforce for a long time. [ 13 ] The Appellant has to prove he has a severe and prolonged disability. He has to prove this on a balance of probabilities. This means he has to show it is more likely than not that he is disabled. Reasons for my decision [ 14 ] I find the Appellant hasn’t proven he had a severe and prolonged disability by December 31, 2020. Was the Appellant’s disability severe? [ 15 ] The Appellant’s disability wasn’t severe by December 31, 2020. I reached this finding by considering several factors. I explain these factors below. –    The Appellant’s functional limitations [ 16 ] The Appellant has limitations that resulted in a stroke in February 2024. These limitations stopped him from working in 2023. [ 17 ] I can’t focus on the Appellant’s diagnosis. Footnote 6 Instead, I must focus on whether he has functional limitations that got in the way of him earning a living by December 31, 2020. Footnote 7 When I do this, I have to look at all of the Appellant’s medical conditions (not just the main one) and think about how they affected his ability to work. Footnote 8 –    What the Appellant says [ 18 ] The Appellant says that by December 31, 2020, his arms felt heavy and weak. He also had tingling in his feet. He often felt fatigued. He says his doctor brushed off his concerns. He kept working. [ 19 ] The Appellant says he was still able to work October 2023 with his limitations. He earned less because of the pandemic closures. Before the pandemic, he could work up to 60 hours a week. During the pandemic he worked less because of the closures, ad worked when he could. After the pandemic, he continued to work until his body could not take it anymore. He hasn’t worked since. He can’t work now. [ 20 ] The Appellant says his doctors told him he may have had mini strokes in July 2023. Since the February 2024 stroke, he has had mobility and balance issues, as well as confusion and memory problems. He says he also feels very frustrated. –    What the medical evidence says about the Appellant’s functional limitations [ 21 ] The Appellant must provide some medical evidence to support that his functional limitations affected his ability to work no later than December 31, 2020. Footnote 9 [ 22 ] The medical evidence doesn’t show the Appellant had functional limitations affecting his ability to work by December 31, 2020. [ 23 ] There is no medical evidence that shows the Appellant had functional limitations that affected his ability to work by December 31, 2020. The medical evidence shows his limitations are related to his February 2024 stroke. [ 24 ] [NAME] (general practitioner) said the Appellant could work until October 2023. He stopped working because he felt unwell. He wasn’t disabled in 2020. His disability stopped him from working in February 2024. This is when he had a stroke. Since then, he has cognitive, emotional, and physical limitations that stop him from working. Footnote 10 [ 25 ] The medical evidence doesn’t support that the Appellant’s functional limitations affected his ability to work by December 31, 2020. So, he hasn’t proven he had a severe disability by then. –    Why I didn’t consider the Appellant’s personal characteristics [ 26 ] When I am deciding whether a disability is severe, I usually have to consider an appellant’s personal characteristics. Factors like age, level of education, language abilities, and past work and life experience, may affect whether an appellant can work in the real world. Footnote 11 [ 27 ] But I didn’t consider the Appellant’s personal characteristics. This is because an appellant can’t qualify for a disability pension based on their personal characteristics alone. There must still be medical evidence to support a finding of a disability. Footnote 12 [ 28 ] In the Appellant’s case, there isn’t any medical evidence to support a finding of disability by December 31, 2020. Since there is no relevant medical evidence, there is no reason to consider his personal characteristics. –    The Appellant’s arguments [ 29 ] The Appellant says he has been working for many years. He says the pandemic closures affected his ability to work and contribute more. The same government that is rejecting his disability pension application is the same government that enforced restrictions that affected his ability to work and earn. He should be entitled to a disability pension. He hasn’t had any income. He needs support. [ 30 ] The Appellant has worked for many years. His contributions show he has over 25 years of contributions starting from 1981. That being said, I have to follow the law. To calculate his minimum qualifying period, I have to see when he has had three years of contributions in a six-year period. The last time he did was from 2015 to 2020. This allows him to have a minimum qualifying period of December 31, 2020. Footnote 13 [ 31 ] I understand the Appellant’s frustration. However, the pandemic closures aren’t something I can consider. I don’t have the authority to assume what may have happened or what his earnings may have been if not for the pandemic closures. [ 32 ] I sympathize with the Appellant’s situation. I believe him when he says he would have kept working if he could. However, I can’t make my decision for compassionate or financial reasons. I can only follow the law. Conclusion [ 33 ] I find the Appellant isn’t eligible for a [NAME] disability pension because his disability wasn’t severe by December 31, 2020. Because I have found that his disability wasn’t severe, I didn’t have to consider whether it was prolonged. [ 34 ] This means theS appeal is dismissed. Notes de bas de page Footnote 1 I will explain why this date is important next. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 Service Canada uses an appellant’s years of [NAME] contributions to calculate their coverage period, or “minimum qualifying period” (MQP). The end of the coverage period is called the MQP date. See section 44(2) of the [NAME] . The Appellant’s [NAME] contributions are on GD2-204 to 205. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 [NAME] (Attorney General) v [NAME] , 2020 FC 1093, the Federal Court said that the appellant has to show a severe and prolonged disability by the end of their minimum qualifying period and continuously after that. See also [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2011 FCA  318. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 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 4 referrer Footnote 5 Section 42(2)(a) of the [NAME] gives this definition of prolonged disability. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2013 FCA  81. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 [NAME] v Canada (Social Development) , 2008 FCA  33. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2011 FCA  47. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2008 FCA  377; and Canada (Attorney General) v [NAME] , 2020 FC 206. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 See GD2-227, GD2-232, and GD2-235 to 244. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2001 FCA  248. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 Section 42(2)(a) of the [NAME] says that a person is disabled only if they have a severe and prolonged mental or physical disability. See also [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2001 FCA  248 at paragraph 50, where the Court said that “[m] edical evidence will still be needed…” Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 See GD2-204 to 205. This is also explained in GD4. Return to footnote 13 referrer