Claimant Wins CPP Disability Pension Appeal Against Minister

OUTCOME: Allowed

Citation: [APPELLANT] Development  v  SD , 2026  [NAME]  272 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Decision Appellant: [redacted] Representatives: [APPELLANT] and [RESPONDENT] [NAME] Respondent: [redacted] [NAME] decision dated January 19, 2026 (GP-25-667) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: Teleconference Hearing date: May 25, 2026 Hearing participants: Appellant’s representatives Respondent Decision date: June 12, 2026 File number: AD-26-333 On this page Decision Overview Issue Analysis Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] I am dismissing this appeal. The Respondent is entitled to a [NAME] ( [NAME] ) [NAME] pension. Overview [ 2 ] The Respondent used to work in the [NAME] as a set dresser. In February 2019, he tripped while moving a minifridge and injured his left biceps and right shoulder. In March 2021, he returned to work for a few days and again sustained upper body injuries while moving a microscope. He has not worked since and is now 56 years old. [ 3 ] The Respondent applied for a [NAME] [NAME] pension in October 2023. Footnote 1 He claimed that he could no longer work because of ripped biceps and injured shoulders. [ 4 ] Service Canada, the Minister’s public-facing agency, refused the application after finding that the Respondent did not have a severe and prolonged [NAME]. Footnote 2 It acknowledged that the Respondent had medical problems but found he could still do light work within his limitations. [ 5 ] The Respondent appealed the Minister’s refusal to the Social Security Tribunal. The Tribunal’s [NAME] held a hearing by videoconference and allowed the appeal. It found that the Respondent was regularly incapable of substantially gainful [APPELLANT] as of December 31, 2021, the last time he had [NAME] [NAME] coverage. In particular, it found that he was no longer capable of physical work and that, given his age and education, he was not suited to sedentary [APPELLANT] either. [ 6 ] The Minister disagreed with the [NAME]’s decision and applied for permission to appeal to the Appeal Division. In April, one of my colleagues on the Appeal Division allowed the Minister’s appeal to proceed. Last month, I held a hearing to discuss the merits of the Respondent’s [NAME] claim in full. Footnote 3 Issue [ 7 ] This is the Minister’s appeal but, as at the [NAME], the Respondent bore the burden of proving his entitlement to the [NAME] [NAME] pension. It was up to him to show that, more likely than not, he had a severe and prolonged [NAME] during his coverage period. A [NAME] is severe if it makes a claimant incapable regularly of pursuing any substantially gainful occupation. Footnote 4 A claimant isn’t entitled to a [NAME] pension if they are regularly able to do some kind of work that allows them to earn a living. A [NAME] is prolonged if it is likely to be long continued and of indefinite duration or is likely to result in death. Footnote 5 The [NAME] must be expected to keep the claimant out of the workforce for a long time. [ 8 ] The parties agreed that the Respondent’s [NAME] [NAME] coverage ended on December 31, 2021. Footnote 6 As a result, I had to decide whether the Respondent had a severe and prolonged [NAME] as of that date. Analysis [ 9 ] I have applied the law to the available evidence, and I am satisfied that the Respondent had a severe and prolonged [NAME] during his coverage period. From what I can see, the Respondent’s condition hasn’t permitted him to regularly perform any kind of substantially gainful occupation since before December 31, 2021. The Respondent says he has a severe [NAME] [ 10 ] In his application for [NAME] [NAME] benefits, the Respondent said that he was disabled by upper body injuries restricting him from lifting more than 25 pounds. Footnote 7 He described many of his physical abilities as “good,” except for the following, which he rated “poor” or “fair”: Kneeling or squatting and standing up again Bending down to pick up coins from the floor Removing an item from one’s back pocket Changing a light bulb in the ceiling Pulling or pushing a heavy door open Picking up two bags of groceries and walking a block Opening a can with a manual can opener Pounding a nail with a hammer [ 11 ] The Respondent’s admission that, despite his injuries, he remains capable of performing many activities demands a close examination of his residual capacities in the context of his background and personal characteristics. [ 12 ] The Respondent testified that he was trained as a hairstylist but has worked in the [NAME] since the 1990s, starting out in construction and painting and graduating to set dresser. In that last role, he was required to source and supply props and other items for film and TV locations. He loved his job, but it required a lot of heavy lifting. He usually had a staff but often moved items himself, when required. [ 13 ] In February 2019, he was called on to move a minifridge into position. Without thinking, he “bear hugged” it and then tripped and fell hard on his right side. The next day, he went to his doctor, who sent him for scans showing that he had torn muscles and tendons in his arms and shoulders. He was off work for several months, during which time he received extensive physiotherapy. He returned to part-time then full-time work. [ 14 ] In February 2021, after only two days back on the job, he injured himself again, tearing a muscle as he lifted a microscope from an overhead shelf. Although he has made several efforts to get back into the workforce, he has been unsuccessful. He is in constant pain. He said that he has suffered from insomnia for more than 20 years, and the condition has only got worse since his injuries. He takes Tylenol #3 and Zopiclone, but they don’t do him much good. [ 15 ] I can’t exclusively base my decision on the Respondent’s subjective account of his impairments. However, there is enough objective evidence to convince me that he is regularly incapable of substantially gainful occupation. The medical evidence points to severe impairment [ 16 ] The Respondent suffers from workplace injuries and their after-effects that render him incapable of regular, remunerative [APPELLANT]. [ 17 ] In a medical questionnaire that accompanied his [NAME] [NAME] application, Dr. [RESPONDENT] wrote that the Respondent tore his right and left biceps in February 2019 and his right gastrocnemius (calf) muscle in January 2023. Footnote 8 The [NAME] documented functional limitations that included pain, weakness, and instability in the affected extremities. He expected the Respondent’s leg to improve and his shoulder to remain the same. He also indicated that, although he had recommended that the Respondent stop working as of February 2021, he expected him to return to another type of work within six to 12 months, provided that he receive retraining. [ 18 ] In early 2025, Dr. [RESPONDENT] added that the Respondent had been diagnosed with chronic insomnia and chronic pain syndrome. Footnote 9 He had seen no meaningful recovery from these conditions. Imaging shows the Respondent sustained significant upper body injuries [ 19 ] Although his [NAME] expected the Respondent to return to work, at least initially, I can’t just rely on the opinion of one doctor. I have to look at all the evidence in light of the [NAME] ’s multifaceted definition of [NAME]. [ 20 ] There’s no doubt that the Respondent has sustained genuine injuries, as indicated by the many scans on file: An ultrasound of the left shoulder from March 2019 indicated a full thickness tear of the long head of the left biceps tendon and attenuation of the distal biceps tendon, suggestive of a chronic partial tear. Footnote 10 An MRI of the left elbow from April 2019 revealed findings consistent with mild tendinosis at the attachment of the common extensor tendon to the lateral humeral epicondyle. Footnote 11 The left distal biceps tendon appeared to be normal. An MRI of the right shoulder from June 2019 showed a tear of the long head of the biceps tendon. Footnote 12 Also seen were signs of severe osteoarthritis of the acromioclavicular (AC) joint, moderate supraspinatus and infraspinatus tendinosis, and mild subscapularis tendinosis. An MRI of the left shoulder from October 2020, showed findings consistent with mild to moderate joint osteoarthritis, mild edema consistent with a rotator interval tear, mild infraspinatus tendinosis and minimal subscapularis tendinosis. Footnote 13 There was also evidence of structural abnormality of the long head of the left biceps tendon. [ 21 ] In all, the above reports indicate that the Respondent sustained significant upper body injuries in 2019. Among other things, they show torn biceps tendon on both the right and left sides, as well as signs of a rotator cuff tear, AC joint degeneration, and tendinosis. These are objective signs of damage in an individual in his fifties, one whose recuperative powers must be presumed to be less than those of a younger person. They are also not inconsistent with the Respondent’s subsequent complaints of ongoing pain, which he repeatedly expressed to many [NAME] in the following years. The Respondent continued to feel pain despite treatment [ 22 ] Since his initial injury seven years ago, the Respondent has received extensive treatment and seen several specialists, all to limited effect. [ 23 ] Between August 2019, and September 2019, the Respondent participated in an extensive occupational rehabilitation program for his left and right shoulders. Footnote 14 His participation was described as excellent. According to the discharge report, the Respondent had been making improvements in his function but was still unable to complete lifting requirements from floor to waist and waist to shoulder. The attending [NAME] noted that the Respondent’s bilateral longhead biceps rupture was “non-surgical” and would not heal. He recommended continuing physiotherapy and a corticosteroid injection in the right shoulder. [ 24 ] In September 2020, the Respondent was seen by an [NAME] for his ongoing shoulder pain. Footnote 15 Dr. [NAME] noted that subacromial injection of local anesthetic and corticosteroid had not improved the Respondent’s symptoms. [ 25 ] In January 2021, Dr. [RESPONDENT] wrote that the Respondent complained of intermittent episodes of sharp pain in the region of the right shoulder, which radiated down the entire right arm and his right wrist. Footnote 16 On examination, he exhibited decreased range of motion in both shoulders, worse on the right side, and positive diagnostic tests, consistent with potential damage to the supraspinatus tendon and the long head of the biceps, and/or rotator cuff tendinitis. [ 26 ] In June 2021, Dr. [NAME] reviewed a recent right shoulder MRI, noting evidence of partial (25 percent) tears of the subscapularis and supraspinatus tendons, with attendant tendinosis. Footnote 17 Noting that the Respondent had recently reinjured his left shoulder, Dr. [RESPONDENT] concluded that surgical intervention was not an option: “Unfortunately, at this point in time, there is nothing further that I could offer [him].” [ 27 ] The Respondent was approved for more physiotherapy. In September 2021, Mr. [RESPONDENT] indicated that the Respondent was “still about the same pain wise” and was trying the exercises, but nothing seemed to work: “Is starting to ‘lose hope’ and is frustrated.” Footnote 18 [ 28 ] The Respondent saw a [NAME] in September 2021. Footnote 19 Dr. [NAME] documented complaints of unpredictable rapid onset aching discomfort in both shoulders, and mild shoulder weakness related to pain and numbness in the hand and fifth finger. On examination, Dr. [NAME] noted no abnormal neurological findings, although motor nerve conduction studies showed a lower signal speed across the left elbow. Dr. [RESPONDENT] observed that that the Respondent’s symptoms were “a bit atypical” for neurological causes and recommended an MRI to rule out a spinal cord injury. Footnote 20 [ 29 ] In the period leading up to the end of his coverage period, and immediately after, the Respondent repeatedly mentioned ongoing pain to his [NAME]. Footnote 21 He indicated that his right shoulder was getting worse and that Tylenol and Advil were not helping. In response, Dr. [NAME] prescribed him with Vimovo and Tylenol #3. A few months later, having seen no improvement in the Respondent’s condition, Dr. [RESPONDENT] diagnosed him with chronic pain syndrome. Footnote 22 [ 30 ] In February 2022, just after his coverage period ended, The Respondent underwent an assessment for [NAME].’s [NAME]. Footnote 23 Dr. [RESPONDENT] noted the Respondent’s subjectively reported symptoms of bilateral shoulder pain, especially on the right. She relayed that, since he was unable to lie on his sides, he did not get restorative sleep. On examination, Dr. [RESPONDENT] found restricted range of motion in both the Respondent’s arms, although muscle strength was shown to be full and symmetrical. [ 31 ] In a follow-up report, Dr. [NAME] noted “Popeye” deformities of both biceps muscles, right more than left. On palpation, there was tenderness over the right AC joint and the anterior and posterior aspects of the right shoulder. She endorsed as permanent conditions right AC joint osteoarthrosis, and supraspinatus, infraspinatus, and subscapularis tendinosis. Footnote 24 [ 32 ] The available medical reports suggest that the Respondent’s reported symptoms are persistent and genuine. Despite undergoing physiotherapy and taking painkillers, he has consistently complained of pain and restricted range of motion. None of his [NAME] have accused him of embellishment, and Dr. [NAME], an independent assessor, was satisfied that, based on his clinical presentation, her measurement of the Respondent’s functional limitations was reliable. Footnote 25 The Respondent took reasonable steps to mitigate his impairments [ 33 ] The law requires [NAME] [NAME] claimants to do what is reasonably necessary to mitigate, or overcome, their impairments. The must do so in two ways: by showing that they followed medical advice and by demonstrating that they made an effort to seek and maintain alternative [APPELLANT]. [ 34 ] In my view, the Respondent took reasonable steps to get better and remain the workforce, despite his condition. The Respondent has followed medical advice [ 35 ] The [NAME]  doesn’t say anything about treatment, but a case called  [NAME] says that [NAME] claimants must comply with their doctors’ recommendations. Footnote 26 [NAME]  also requires decision-makers to consider whether a claimant’s refusal of recommended treatment is reasonable and, if not what impact that refusal is likely to have on the claimant’s [NAME]. Footnote 27 [ 36 ] In this case, the Respondent has generally followed medical advice. He underwent months of physiotherapy. He has seen many specialists. He has taken pain medications as prescribed. He has been told that surgery is will not address his problems. [ 37 ] I am satisfied that the Respondent has taken all reasonable steps to get better. There don’t appear to be any further treatments options on the table. The Respondent attempted to obtain and maintain alternative [APPELLANT] [ 38 ] A case called  [NAME]  requires [NAME] claimants with residual capacity to show that they have made an effort to obtain and secure [APPELLANT] and that the effort was unsuccessful because of their health condition. Footnote 28 [ 39 ] The effort must be meaningful . Footnote 29 Claimants can’t limit their job search to the type of work that they were doing before they became impaired. That is because they must show that they are regularly incapable of pursuing any substantially gainful occupation. Footnote 30 [ 40 ] In this case, the Respondent has at least some work capacity — enough to trigger the obligation to pursue alternative [APPELLANT]. I satisfied that he fulfilled that obligation. [ 41 ] After his second workplace injury, in February 2021, [NAME] gave him retraining as a [NAME], a job that involved sourcing props. In theory, this was a lighter job than the one he had done before, but in practice, he said, it was physical too, requiring him to drive around from [NAME] to [NAME], loading up his car with items. More than that, he found that he wasn’t getting any jobs. The COVID pandemic may have been a factor, but he also thinks that word got around about his conditions: “When people know you’re hurt, they don’t call.” Footnote 31 [ 42 ] After eight months of trying, he realized he wasn’t getting anywhere. He had always been interested in photography, so [NAME], approved him to retrain in that field. He enrolled in a year-long program at [NAME] a [COMPANY], and immediately fell behind because he experienced a two-week episode of vertigo. Once he started, he liked it, although he found it hard to type with one finger. Still, he nearly failed two courses and injured his calf and later his right knee while working on field assignments in early 2023. [ 43 ] The Minister has based much of its opposition to the Respondent’s [NAME] claim on the fact that he managed to complete the X photography program. However, I’m not convinced that this accomplishment was a good indicator of capacity. [ 44 ] [COMPANY] and [APPELLANT] share similarities in that, for both, you are expected to perform work according to schedule. But they are fundamentally different in other ways: you don’t get paid to go to [COMPANY], and I would guess that a [COMPANY] tends to care far less about attendance and timeliness far less than a real-world boss would. [ 45 ] The Respondent submitted a detailed program course schedule, accompanied by his attendance records. Footnote 33 They show that a typical [COMPANY] day had six hours of classes and that the Respondent missed a significant number of them over the year, managing full attendance in only 15 out of 47 weeks. It was more typical for the Respondent to attend class 50 to 70 percent of the time in a given week, and there were some weeks in which he didn’t appear at all. The Respondent said that he missed classes because he was often tired or in pain. I believed him. [ 46 ] The Respondent completed his photography program, but the kind of attendance he recorded there would likely not be acceptable in a real workplace, where he would be expected to show up regularly and possibly meet performance targets. The Federal Court of Appeal has held that “predictability is the essence of regularity.” Footnote 34 I am satisfied that the Respondent was and is incapable of delivering the kind of consistent performance demanded in a commercial workplace. [ 47 ] After graduation, the Respondent tried freelancing but found it very difficult to get clients: “No one wants to spend money on professional photographers anymore. It’s hard to make a living.” He did get a couple of assignments but, with his shoulder condition, found it hard carrying heavy gear. He thought about real estate photography but couldn’t afford the necessary wide-angle lens. As well, drones are now practically mandatory, and he couldn’t afford one of those either. Eventually, he sold his photographic equipment because he needed the money. [ 48 ] The Respondent said that, after giving up on photography, he began looking for jobs — in a lot of places. He recalls applying for a retail position at X — no callback. He applied for supervisory positions at several [NAME] — same thing. Having worked as a set painter, he looked into becoming a construction estimator. He had a couple of interviews, but nothing came of them. [ 49 ] I asked the Respondent whether he could see himself working in a less physically demanding job, such as a driver or store clerk. He replied that it would be difficult, because such jobs would require at least some use of his arms. He added that he was also prone to nodding off. [ 50 ] In all, the evidence suggests that the Respondent has done his best to remain in the workforce, despite his medical conditions. He returned to part-time work as a set dresser and attempted to transition to full-time work with unfortunate results. He then tried to work in a different, but theoretically lighter, role within the same industry, to little success. He retrained, with considerable difficulty, to be a [NAME], but found the work unrewarding and more physically demanding than he had expected. [ 51 ] I am satisfied that the Respondent’s efforts to remain employed have been unsuccessful because of his health condition. The Respondent is not employable in the real world [ 52 ] The Respondent has actively attempted to get alternative jobs, but he hasn’t succeeded. There’s a good reason for that: he is effectively unemployable. [ 53 ] The leading case on the interpretation of “severe” is  [NAME] , which requires the Tribunal, when assessing [NAME], to consider a [NAME] as a “whole person” in a real-world context. Footnote 35 Employability is not to be assessed in the abstract, but rather in light of “all of the circumstances.” Those circumstances fall into two categories: A claimant’s medical condition — this is a broad inquiry, requiring that the claimant’s condition be assessed in its totality. A claimant’s background — matters such as age, education level, language proficiency and past work and life experience are relevant. [ 54 ] In this case, I don’t think the Respondent has anything left to offer a real-world employer. He has well-documented shoulder impairments that prevent him from returning to his previous roles in the [NAME], as well as any other job with a physical component to it. He would also find it difficult to tolerate many sedentary jobs, some of which involve at least some degree of occasional overhead lifting and most of which, in today’s world, require keyboarding. The medical evidence suggests that the Respondent is incapable of sustained repetitive movement involving his upper body extremities. Add to that the Respondent’s insomnia, which he insists leaves him tired and unfocused all day. I accepted his testimony on that point, and it satisfied me that chronic fatigue would hinder his ability to deliver regular performance. [ 55 ] The Respondent’s background and personal characteristics were no less an impediment to his continued [APPELLANT]. At the end of his coverage period, the Respondent was 52 years old — an age that many [NAME], rightly or wrongly, consider well past one’s prime. The Respondent has a lengthy work history, but it is all in fields — cleaning, hairdressing, set dressing — that are now beyond his physical capacity. He recently completed a one-year photography program in an effort to upgrade his skills but, as we have seen, it was less than rigorous and resulted in certification for an occupation that, increasingly, has little economic value. [ 56 ] Given his personal profile and his medical conditions, I find it hard to imagine the Respondent could have secured [APPELLANT] that might have earned him a reasonable living as of December 31, 2021. The Respondent was credible [ 57 ] In his communications with the Tribunal, the Respondent has frequently expressed rage toward various [NAME] and what he perceives as their unfair treatment of him. At the hearing before me, the Respondent’s anger and frustration were on full display, but he managed to control his temper enough to tell me about his life, his work, his injuries, and his functional limitations. I found what he had to say believable and, when it came to these personal matters, I did not detect any exaggeration. [ 58 ] The Respondent’s credibility was enhanced by his lengthy work history, much of which I believe is not reflected in his [NAME] record of earnings and contributions. It is difficult to see why someone with his demonstrated work ethic would have sought [NAME] benefits if he did not have a genuine impairment. The Respondent has a prolonged [NAME] [ 59 ] The available evidence indicates that the Respondent has had a significant physical impairment since his initial injury seven years ago. He has tried many treatments, including physiotherapy, steroid injections, and painkillers, but his condition has not significantly improved. Age has likely led to a further decline in his functional capacity, and I don’t see any real prospect of recovery. Conclusion [ 60 ] The Respondent has spent much of his career as a freelance hand in the [NAME]. He injured his shoulders in 2019. After a period of recovery, he attempted to return to his regular job and aggravated his injuries. By then, he was in his fifties, an age that, along with his limited education, made him a less-than-attractive candidate as a new hire. He underwent retraining and made a genuine attempt to get a suitable job but to no avail. His condition and his profile make it unlikely that he will ever secure alternative [APPELLANT] that pays him a living wage. [ 61 ] I find that the Respondent’s [NAME] became severe and prolonged as of March 2021, when he sustained his second shoulder injury. Since the Respondent submitted his application for benefits in October 2023, he can be deemed disabled no earlier than July 2022. Footnote 36 That means his [NAME] [NAME] pension will start as of November 2022. Footnote 37 [ 62 ] The Minister’s appeal is dismissed. Footnotes Footnote 1 See the Respondent’s application for [NAME] [NAME] pension submitted on October 11, 2023, GD2-98. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See Service Canada’s reconsideration refusal letter dated February 19, 2025, GD2-6. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 At the hearing, Dr. [NAME] [NAME] appeared as a professional witness for the Minister. This apparently took the Respondent by surprise, and he has since sent the Tribunal several emails registering his objection to Dr. [NAME] participation. However, having reviewed the record, I am satisfied that the Respondent was given due notice of the witness — see the Witness Information Form (AD21) copied to the Respondent on May 15, 2026 via email to [COUNSEL], his authorized representative at the time. I am also satisfied that, even if Mr. [RESPONDENT] did not inform the Respondent about the witness, no injustice was done to the Respondent by allowing Dr. [RESPONDENT] to testify at the hearing. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 [NAME] , section 42(2)(a)(i). Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 [NAME] , section 42(2)(a)(ii). Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 Under section 44(2) of the [NAME] , a “minimum qualifying period” ( MQP ) is established by making threshold contributions to the [NAME] . The Respondent’s [NAME] contributions are listed on his most recent record of earnings at [NAME]. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 See the Respondent’s [NAME] [NAME] application dated October 11, 2023, GD2-98. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 [NAME] medical report dated November 4, 2023 by Dr. [NAME], [NAME], [NAME]. I can Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 See Dr. [NAME] letter dated January 6, 2025, GD2-131. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 See ultrasound of the left shoulder dated March 21, 2019, GD2-172. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 See MRI of the left elbow dated April 12, 2019, GD2-173. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 See MRI of the right shoulder dated June 22, 2019, GD2-175. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 See MRI of the left shoulder report dated October 10, 2020, GD2-177. Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 See discharge report dated September 24, 2019 by [NAME], [NAME], GD2-217. Return to footnote 14 referrer Footnote 15 See report dated September 17, 2020 by Dr. [NAME], [NAME], GD2-187. Return to footnote 15 referrer Footnote 16 See Dr. [NAME] report dated January 8, 2021, GD2-189. Return to footnote 16 referrer Footnote 17 See Dr. [NAME] reports dated June 9, 2021 (GD2-190) and June 29, 2021 (GD2-191). Return to footnote 17 referrer Footnote 18 See Ms. [NAME] physiotherapy  report dated September 29, 2021, GD2-235. Return to footnote 18 referrer Footnote 19 See report dated September 9, 2021 by Dr. [NAME], [NAME], GD2-193. Return to footnote 19 referrer Footnote 20 The results of the spinal MRI later came back normal — see MRI report dated November 25, 2021, GD2-198. Return to footnote 20 referrer Footnote 21 See Dr. [NAME] office notes dated November 24, 2021 (GD2-15) and January 6, 2022 (GD2-151). Return to footnote 21 referrer Footnote 22 See Dr. [NAME] office note dated June 20, 2022, GD2-155. Return to footnote 22 referrer Footnote 23 See Medical Examination for Impairment Assessment (MEIA) report dated February 1, 2022, by Dr. [NAME] [NAME], [NAME], GD2-36. Return to footnote 23 referrer Footnote 24 See Dr. [NAME] report dated June 4, 2022, GD2-57. The Minister has pointed to various [NAME] medical-legal assessments finding that the Respondent was capable of light work — see [NAME] decision letters dated June 27, 2021 (GD2-45), October 22, 2021 (GD2-74), and January 17, 2023 (GD2-45). I gave these assessments little weight because they are based, in part, on a legislative scheme that bears little resemblance to the one governing [NAME] [NAME]. Return to footnote 24 referrer Footnote 25 See Dr. [NAME] report dated June 4, 2022, GD2-61. Return to footnote 25 referrer Footnote 26 [NAME]  v  Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development) , 2002  FCA  211. Return to footnote 26 referrer Footnote 27 [NAME]  v  Canada ([NAME]) , 2018  FCA  48. Return to footnote 27 referrer Footnote 28 [NAME]  v  Canada ([NAME]) , 2003  FCA  117. Return to footnote 28 referrer Footnote 29 [NAME]  v  Canada ([NAME]) , 2015  FC  1300, in which the Federal Court stated that the onus is on claimants to show that they made “sincere” efforts to meet the [APPELLANT] efforts test. Return to footnote 29 referrer Footnote 30 See Canada ([NAME])  v  [NAME] , 2008  FCA  164. Return to footnote 30 referrer Footnote 31 The Respondent said that, like most [NAME] workers, he was an independent contractor, who got jobs through word of mouth and referrals from his union, Y. Return to footnote 31 referrer Footnote 32 Short for X. Return to footnote 32 referrer Footnote 33 See the Respondent’s student attendance report from September 6, 2022 to August 24, 2023, GD6-2. Return to footnote 33 referrer Footnote 34 [NAME]  v  Canada ([NAME]) , 2014  FCA  187. Return to footnote 34 referrer Footnote 35 [NAME]  v  Canada ([NAME]) , 2005  FCA  248. Return to footnote 35 referrer Footnote 36 Under section 42(2)(b) of the [NAME] , a person cannot be deemed disabled more than 15 months before the Minister received the application for a [NAME] pension. Return to footnote 36 referrer Footnote 37 According to section 69 of the [NAME] , payments start four months after the deemed date of [NAME]. Return to footnote 37 referrer