Claimant's Appeal Denied Due to Res Judicata

Citation: [NAME]  v  [NAME] , 2026  [NAME]  297 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Leave to Appeal Decision Applicant: [redacted] Representative: G. H. Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated November 29, 2025 (GP-25-926) Tribunal member: [NAME] Decision date: April 15, 2026 File number: AD-26-132 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 is refused. This means A. H.’s appeal won’t go forward. Overview [ 2 ] A. H. is the Claimant in this case. She has applied twice for a [NAME] ( [NAME] ) disability pension. The Minister denied her application each time. This case arises out of her second application. And her second appeal to the General Division. [ 3 ] The Claimant’s [NAME] disability coverage period was the same for both her applications. It ended December 31, 2014. [ 4 ] The General Division dismissed her first appeal. It found she didn’t prove she met [NAME] disability test by the end of her coverage period. She didn’t apply to appeal that decision. So, it became final. [ 5 ] Then in 2021 she got a new diagnosis of peripheral arterial disease with intermittent claudication atherosclerosis. Footnote 1 She applied again for a disability pension. Add then appealed the Minister’s denial to the General Division. [ 6 ] The General Division dismissed her second appeal. It used a legal principle called res judicata to decide she could not appeal the Minister’s disability pension denial a second time. (I’ll call res judicata the Rule Against Deciding Again.) The General Division also decided it didn’t have the power to rescind or amend the first General Division decision based on her 2021 diagnosis. [ 7 ] The Claimant has now applied for permission to appeal the second General Division decision. [ 8 ] I can’t give her permission to appeal. She hasn’t shown an arguable case the General Division used an unfair process. I didn’t find an arguable case the General Division made an error. And she hasn’t met the test for getting permission to appeal based on new evidence. So, her appeal won’t go forward. Issues [ 9 ] I will decide three issues. Is there an arguable case the General Division used an unfair procedure? Is there an arguable case the General Division made a legal error or a factual error? Did the Claimant set out new evidence in her application? The Claimant hasn’t met the legal test to get permission to appeal [NAME] disability pension, what this case is about, and what it isn’t about [ 10 ] The law can be complicated and difficult to understand. It often seems to ignore what’s most important to a person who has applied for a benefit and appealed to the Tribunal. [ 11 ] [NAME] disability pension isn’t what the Claimant seems to think it is, or might want it to be. But the Tribunal can’t change the law. [ 12 ] The legal issue in this application isn’t whether the Claimant can work now. The Minister hasn’t suggested that. The General Division didn’t say that. And no one has denied the Claimant is suffering greatly—mentally and physically—from her health conditions. Or denied she and her family are suffering financially. [ 13 ] The Claimant might want this application to be about whether she qualifies for a [NAME] disability pension. But it’s not. That’s because in 2020 a General Division member finally decided that issue. It decided she didn’t qualify by the time her [NAME] disability coverage ran out. [ 14 ] In this way, [NAME] disability pension is like private insurance. If a person stops contributing to [NAME] out of their employment income, their disability coverage will end. The Claimant’s disability coverage ran out on December 31, 2014. If a person can’t prove they’re disabled and unable to earn a living by the time their coverage runs out, they can’t get a [NAME] disability pension. Even if they need it because they can’t work now. [ 15 ] The law says a Tribunal can’t hear and decide the same case a second time—unless that would be unfair. The General Division followed this law. And the Claimant hasn’t shown an arguable case the General Division made an error the law lets me consider. Why the General Division dismissed the Claimant’s appeal [ 16 ] The General Division dismissed the Claimant’s appeal for two reasons. The General Division applied the Rule Against Deciding Again. It decided she could not appeal the Minister’s second decision that she didn’t qualify for a [NAME] disability pension. Because a General Division member decided the same issue in 2020 and its decision was final. (I’ll call this the First GD Decision.) And the General Division found that outcome would not create an injustice. The General Division decided it had no power to cancel or change the First GD Decision. Footnote 2 Because the law no longer gives it those powers. The permission to appeal test—what the Claimant has to show to appeal the General Division decision [ 17 ] The Claimant has to get permission for her appeal to go forward. I will give her permission if she raises an arguable case the General Division made one of these errors. Footnote 3 Didn’t respect natural justice, or used an unfair procedure. Made an error about its power to decide an issue—called a jurisdictional error. Made a legal error, a factual error, or a mixed error of fact and law in making its decision. Footnote 4 [ 18 ] I can also give the Claimant permission to appeal if she set out new evidence in her application. Footnote 5 The Claimant’s arguments don’t show an arguable case the General Division process was unfair to the Claimant [ 19 ] The Claimant’s reasons for appeal set out the key issues and central arguments I have to consider. Footnote 6 Here are her reasons. I am unable to work, and I have had this disease since the original tribunal. My pain is unpredictable. I have anxiety that has got worse. Footnote 7 I did not get to speak on how my disease limits me. Footnote 8 [ 20 ] There isn’t an arguable case either argument passes the permission to appeal test. [ 21 ] Both the Claimant’s argument are about whether she meets [NAME] disability test. But there isn’t an arguable case the General Division had to decide that issue. The General Division decided two legal issues, which I set out above. [ 22 ] Part of the General Division’s job is to decide what issues need to be addressed in an appeal. Footnote 9 And there isn’t an arguable case it made an error when it decided those were the issues in her appeal. [ 23 ] And there isn’t an arguable case the General Division procedure was unfair because it didn’t let the Claimant explain how her medical conditions affected her functioning. In her first General Division appeal, she had the chance to give evidence about her functioning up to and including December 31, 2014 (paragraphs 13, 14, 15). [ 24 ] Evidence about her functioning wasn’t relevant to the two legal issues the General Division had to decide in her second appeal. She used the medical evidence of her 2021 diagnosis to support her arguments about those two legal issues. The General Division had the document with her 2021 diagnosis (paragraph 7). [ 25 ] So, there isn’t an arguable case it was unfair for the General Division not to let the Claimant give evidence about her functioning—now, around the time her disability coverage ended on December 31, 2014, or between. I didn’t find an arguable case the General Division made a legal error or a factual error [ 26 ] The Claimant is representing herself. So I reviewed the evidence in the General Division file and compared that to the evidence the General Division cited in its decision. Footnote 10 [ 27 ] I can assume the General Division reviewed the relevant evidence. It doesn’t have to refer to every piece of evidence. Footnote 11 I didn’t find an arguable case the General Division ignored or misunderstood relevant evidence in making its decision. Or an arguable case it based its decision on a factual finding it made without any relevant evidence to support the finding. [ 28 ] There isn’t an arguable case the General Division made a legal error. [ 29 ] The General Division cited then used the leading decision about the Rule against Deciding Again (paragraphs 8 to 16). The General Division explained why it focused on the Claimant’s 2021 diagnosis when it considered the second (potential injustice) part of the Rule against Deciding Again. There isn’t an arguable case the General Division made a legal error when it used that focus. [ 30 ] And there isn’t an arguable case the General Division made a legal error by failing to grapple with the Claimant’s argument about the Rule against Deciding Again. She argued her 2021 diagnosis was new evidence that changed her case, and she could not by reasonable diligence have gotten for the first General Division hearing. Footnote 12 She based that argument on the [NAME]  v  [NAME] decision. Footnote 13 [ 31 ] As part of its potential injustice analysis, the General Division considered whether the Claimant’s 2021 diagnosis was legally important (paragraphs 14 to 16). It cited and used the leading court decision on the Rule Against Deciding Again, called Danyluk . [ 32 ] The General Division correctly points out [NAME] disability test focuses on functional limitations that impair a person’s ability to earn a living through employment—not on medical diagnoses. Footnote 14 The General Division found the evidence in her first General Division appeal documented her impairments and functional limitations. So, it concluded refusing to consider and decide her appeal again—although she had a new diagnosis—would not lead to an injustice. The Claimant’s new evidence isn’t relevant, so it doesn’t meet the permission to appeal test [ 33 ] The Claimant didn’t send new evidence with her application. Her representative describes the evidence she says she will send later. The document… is from her Wound Care Dr., [NAME] - detailing the long road with many setbacks of the Claimant’s arduous journey which began or more truthful was made worse by many mis-diagnosis’s and useless referrals which can be found on her OHIP history before her angel became involved. [NAME] is one of the foremost Wound Care Dr.s in Canada and only by her experience, perseverance and wisdom has my wife kept her legs and indeed her life. Footnote 15 [ 34 ] This evidence doesn’t count as new evidence because it isn’t relevant or arguably relevant to an issue the General Division decided. Footnote 16 [ 35 ] The Claimant is relying on [NAME]’s evidence to show she qualifies for a [NAME] disability pension. But the General Division had to decide different issues, which I set out above. The General Division ultimately decided it could not consider and decide the disability pension issue again. And there isn’t an arguable case the General Division used an unfair process or made an error when it made that decision. [ 36 ] This means the Appeal Division has no power to consider whether the Claimant qualifies for a [NAME] disability pension, including [NAME]’s evidence about that. [ 37 ] So, I can’t give her permission to appeal based on new evidence. Conclusion [ 38 ] The Claimant hasn’t shown an arguable case the General Division used an unfair process or made any other error. I looked but didn’t find an arguable case of a legal error or a factual error. And I can’t give her permission to appeal based on her new evidence. [ 39 ] So, I can’t give her permission to appeal the General Division decision. Footnotes Footnote 1 See GD5-12 and GD5. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 I have used “cancel or change” as plain language for “rescind or amend” its decision, which are powers the General Division used to have. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 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 3 referrer Footnote 4 See sections 58.1(a) and (b) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act ( DESD  Act). Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 See section 58.1(c) of the DESD  Act. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2024  FC  928 at paragraph 13. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 See AD1-4. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 See AD1-3. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 This is part of active adjudication. See section 17(2)(a) of the Social Security Tribunal Rules of Procedure . Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2016  FC  874; [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2016  FC  615; [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2017  FC  391. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2022  FCA  157 at paragraph 46. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 See GD5-11. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 [NAME]  v  [NAME] , 1975 CanLII 16 ( SCC ) at GD5-2 to GD5-10. Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2013  FCA  81; [NAME]  v  Canada (Social Development) , 2008  FCA  33. Return to footnote 14 referrer Footnote 15 See AD3-1. Return to footnote 15 referrer Footnote 16 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2026  FC  36 at paragraphs 67 and 68. Return to footnote 16 referrer