Claimant's Appeal for Continued CPP Disability Benefits Successful

OUTCOME: Allowed

Citation: RI  v  [RESPONDENT] and [NAME] , 2026  [NAME]  166 Social Security Tribunal of Canada General Division – Income Security Section Decision Appellant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] [RESPONDENT] and [NAME] reconsideration decision dated June 13, 2025 (issued by Service Canada) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: Teleconference Hearing date: May 4, 2026 Hearing participants: Appellant Decision date: May 15, 2026 File number: GP-25-1508 On this page Decision Overview What I have to decide Reasons for my decision Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] The appeal is allowed. [ 2 ] The Appellant, [APPELLANT]., is still eligible for a [NAME] ( [NAME] ) disability pension. [ 3 ] This decision explains why I am allowing the appeal. Overview [ 4 ] The Appellant started getting a disability pension in May 2020. [ 5 ] On November 27, 2024, the [RESPONDENT] and [NAME] (Minister) decided that the Appellant had stopped being disabled as of May 1, 2023. Footnote 1 The Minister stopped paying him a disability pension. The Minister also required him to pay back the payments that he got from May 1, 2023 to November 2024. Footnote 2 [ 6 ] The Appellant appealed the Minister’s decision to the Social Security Tribunal’s General Division. [ 7 ] The Appellant says the only way he can work is for a [NAME] for two hours a day. [ 8 ] The Minister says they recognize the serious nature of the Appellant’s medical condition, but the Appellant returned to work and has maintained that [RESPONDENT], showing a capacity to work. What I have to decide [ 9 ] I have to decide whether the Appellant stopped being disabled. If he 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 3 [ 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 4 [ 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 5 [ 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 he could earn a living from, then he isn’t entitled to a disability pension. [ 16 ] If I decide that the Appellant stopped being disabled, then he isn’t eligible for a disability pension anymore. The Minister may also require him to pay back any payments he got when he wasn’t disabled. Reasons for my decision [ 17 ] I find that the Appellant hasn’t stopped being disabled. He was still disabled as of the hearing date. I reached this decision by considering the following issues: Was the Appellant’s disability severe? Was the Appellant’s disability prolonged? Was the Appellant’s disability severe? [ 18 ] The Appellant’s disability was still severe as of the hearing date. I reached this finding by considering several factors. I explain these factors below. The Appellant’s functional limitations affected his ability to work [ 19 ] The Appellant has polycystic liver disease. He also has acid reflux, a hernia, a cyst on his kidney, frequent urination and sleeping issues. [ 20 ] But I can’t focus on the Appellant’s diagnoses. Footnote 6 Instead, I have to focus on whether he has functional limitations that got in the way of him earning a living. Footnote 7 [ 21 ] I find that the Appellant still had functional limitations that affected his ability to work as of the hearing date. What the Minister says about the Appellant’s functional limitations [ 22 ] The Minister says that the Appellant has shown a capacity to work. [ 23 ] The Minister provided the Appellant’s records of [RESPONDENT] which shows earnings in 2023 of $19,230 and in 2024 of $20,906. Footnote 8 The Minister is correct in stating these are considered substantially gainful income. Footnote 9 I accept these amounts are over the maximum annual amount of a [NAME] disability benefit but recognize that both years are less than $1,000 over the threshold. [ 24 ] The Minister also provided a disability reassessment questionnaire received October 22, 2024. The Appellant filled out the form. In it, he noted that he still has the liver disease with abdominal bloating and distention with pain. He cannot lay prone, he still has anxiety and a lack of energy. He needs to sleep in a seating position because of shortness of breath. The Appellant noted his condition has improved with less pain on some days and he is able to eat a little better and has more energy. However, he has developed new medical problems of acid reflux, a hernia and kidney cyst, sleeping issues and frequent urination. He must go to [COMPANY] several times for liver drainage. Footnote 10 [ 25 ] In the same questionnaire, the Appellant indicated he has worked “taking a couple of kids to [COMPANY] and back for one hour in the morning and one hour in the afternoon”. He began that work in September 2022 and works two hours a day for four to five days a week. Footnote 11 My findings about the Appellant’s functional limitations [ 26 ] The evidence doesn’t support that the Appellant’s functional limitations have changed since the deemed onset date of January 2020. [ 27 ] The Appellant has honestly indicated he feels his original symptoms have improved somewhat. However, he still has the condition and functional limitations as before. And new symptoms have presented themselves. [ 28 ] The Minister has not provided any evidence that the Appellant’s functional limitations have changed. [ 29 ] I find that the Appellant continues to have these functional limitations: Bloating Swelling in his legs Shortness of breath Anxiety Acid reflux Fatigue The Appellant’s ability to work [ 30 ] At the outset of the hearing, the Appellant stated his intention was not to mislead the government. He was of the opinion that he had to inform the [NAME] if his medical condition changed, which it did not. He did state he has had changes to his symptoms, but he still would not be able to work regularly. [ 31 ] The Appellant is working as a [COMPANY]. He was qualified with a Commercial B license, which he has had since 2016, before he became disabled. He drives two hours a day and is paid for four hours a day. When questioned why his employer would do this, the Appellant explained there is a shortage of bus drivers. [ 32 ] When the Appellant began working in 2022, he stated he had a lot of work absences that year. In 2023 his employer did an assessment with him. He told them about his condition. A [COMPANY] must inspect the “big bus” every morning by opening the engine and checking it out. The Appellant stated he couldn’t do it. [ 33 ] He cannot turn the wheel of the “big bus” because of the swelling of his legs. Also, the swelling of his stomach is against his diaphragm and he has difficulty breathing. His employer requires a [NAME] to work six hours a day to remain a “big bus” [NAME]. [ 34 ] His employer accommodated him and gave him the “little bus”, which does not require the daily pre-test. The “little bus” only holds 4 kids from high [COMPANY]. The “big bus” carries 72 young children. His employer also gave him short routes. They agreed to pay him for four hours a day, but he only needed to work two hours. [ 35 ] He stated the reason he could only work two hours was because he would work the one hour and get very tired. He would then go home and sleep for five hours and return to do the last one hour of driving. [ 36 ] The Appellant gets the summer off work. Other drivers work the summer. [ 37 ] The Appellant’s employer wrote to the Minister on February 10, 2026 stating the Appellant’s accommodations include vehicle restrictions, reduced hours and split shifts, wage accommodation and time for rest and recovery. The employer indicated the Appellant was offered increased work hours but was unable to do so due to worsening physical symptoms. Footnote 12 [ 38 ] The Appellant continues to work there. He stated he will as long as he can. [ 39 ] The Appellant stated that he returned to work to remain active and independent. He is not capable of regular [RESPONDENT]. He needs significant accommodations from his employer. The Appellant stated that the work he does is not a true capacity to work because he is working for a [NAME] and would otherwise not have a job. The Appellant is working for a [NAME] [ 40 ] I agree with the Appellant. He is working for a [NAME]. [ 41 ] The Appellant cannot work the six hours required for the big bus. He cannot drive the big bus. He cannot do the daily safety inspection, which is quite rudimentary. He was given a smaller bus to drive only four high [COMPANY] children. He cannot even work the four hours required of that job. His employer allowed him to only work one hour, take a five-hour break to sleep, and return for one more hour. The employer also agreed to pay him the full four hours. The employer has outlined all the accommodations in their letter. [ 42 ] The Appellant explained he is given these accommodations because he is qualified and willing to be a [COMPANY]. There is a lack of drivers. I accept the employer then gets the benefit of having a [NAME], despite the numerous accommodations. [ 43 ] The Appellant can only work two hours a day, with a five-hour break in between. This is not a job that would be offered in the competitive job market. He is incapable regularly of working at a competitive level. [ 44 ] The Appellant has barely made a substantially gainful income. That is only because his employer is paying him for the four hours required, and not the two he works. If he were paid in any job for the two hours he is able to work, he would not be making a substantially gainful income. [ 45 ] The Federal Court has recognized a [NAME] as someone who limits the demands of the job. They accept the reduced ability of the employee to perform at a competitive level and realize the worker is incapable regularly of pursuing any work in a competitive workplace. Working for a [NAME] is not considered to be an “occupation” for the purposes of continuing eligibility for a [NAME] disability benefit. Footnote 13 [ 46 ] The Minister has failed to prove the Appellant is capable regularly of pursuing a substantially gainful occupation. Was the Appellant’s disability prolonged? [ 47 ] The Appellant’s disability was still prolonged as of the hearing date. [ 48 ] The Appellant’s condition has continued since January 2020. [ 49 ] The Minister has not argued the Appellant’s condition is not prolonged. [ 50 ] Given the length of time the Appellant has continued to have, and treat his condition, I find his condition likely to be long continued and of indefinite duration. Conclusion [ 51 ] I find that the Appellant is still eligible for a disability pension. [ 52 ] This means the appeal is allowed. Footnotes Footnote 1 See GD2-42. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See GD2-42. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 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 3 referrer Footnote 4 Section 42(2)(a) of the [NAME] gives this definition of prolonged disability. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2014  FCA  187. 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 ([NAME]) , 2008  FCA  33. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 See GD2 pages 112 to 116. Also see GD2-63. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 A substantially gainful income is greater than the maximum monthly [NAME] disability benefit. In 2023 the maximum monthly [NAME] disability benefit was $1,538.67, and in 2024 it was $1,606.78. Annually, the amounts translate to $18,464.04 in 2023 and $19,281.36 in 2024. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 See GD2 pages 51 to 55. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 See GD2-56. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 See G9-5. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 [NAME]  v.  Canada (Attorney General) , [2014] F.C.J. No 840, 2014  FCA  187. Return to footnote 13 referrer