Claimant Wins CPP Disability Pension Appeal Due to Severe Hearing Loss

OUTCOME: Allowed

Citation: [APPELLANT] and [NAME]  v  TR , 2026  [NAME]  149 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Decision Appellant: [redacted] [COUNSEL] Respondent: [redacted] Representative:

I. R. Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated August 29, 2025 (GP-25-507) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: Videoconference Hearing date: March 27, 2026 Hearing participants: Appellant’s representative Respondent Respondent’s representative Decision date: May 13, 2026 File number: AD-25-753 On this page Decision Overview Issues Analysis Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] The appeal is dismissed. The Respondent is entitled to a [NAME] ( [NAME] ) disability pension. The pension is payable as of August 2023. Overview [ 2 ] I will refer to the Appellant, the [APPELLANT] and [NAME], as the “Minister.” I will refer to the Respondent, [APPELLANT]. [APPELLANT]., as the “Claimant.” [ 3 ] The [APPELLANT] was 44 years old at the end of 2023. He last worked in April 2023, when he stopped working as a delivery driver for a [COMPANY]. He only had that job for about 3½ months. His last extended [APPELLANT] was nearly seven years as a [NAME] worker. That job ended in June 2021. Footnote 1 [ 4 ] The [APPELLANT] applied for a [NAME] in January 2024. He said his main medical condition was hearing loss. He said he was unable to work because of his medical condition as of March 22, 2023. Footnote 2 [ 5 ] The Minister denied the Claimant’s application initially and on reconsideration. He then appealed to the Social Security Tribunal (Tribunal). The Tribunal’s General Division allowed his appeal. The Minister then requested leave to appeal at the Tribunal’s Appeal Division. One of my Appeal Division colleagues granted the Minister leave to appeal. The Minister requested a videoconference hearing. Footnote 3 Nobody asked me to consider the testimony from the General Division hearing. [ 6 ] The Minister said the Claimant’s conditions did not prevent work by the end of 2023. In support of this, the Minister made two main submissions. Firstly, the Minister said the medical evidence did not establish incapacity for suitable work by the end of 2023. The Minister said he worked for many years despite a long history of middle ear conditions. Secondly, the Minister said he failed to follow treatment recommendations because he never tried hearing aids. The Minister noted that hearing loss is a barrier, but people with hearing loss still have work options available to them. [ 7 ] The [APPELLANT] said he could not work with hearing aids because of his leaking ears. He said he had followed his doctor’s recommendations. He did not want to put hearing aids in his ears and risk blowing up his eardrums. He also disputed that jobs suitable for him were available anywhere in Canada, and suggested that any such positions required at least a college degree. Finally, he alleged that the Minister contacted Dr. [NAME] (ear, nose, and throat specialist) without his authorization. [ 8 ] I must decide whether the Claimant had a severe and prolonged disability by December 31, 2023. [ 9 ] For the reasons set out below, I find that the Claimant did have a severe and prolonged disability by December 31, 2023. Issues [ 10 ] The issues in this appeal are: a) Did the Claimant have a severe disability by December 31, 2023? b) If so, did the Claimant also have a prolonged disability by then? c) If the answer to b) is “yes,” when does the Claimant’s [NAME] start? Analysis [ 11 ] The Claimant’s minimum qualifying period ( MQP ), or coverage period, ended on December 31, 2023. Footnote 4 That is when he must establish the onset of a disability, as defined by the [NAME] . His disability must also have been continuous since then. Footnote 5 [ 12 ] Under the [NAME] , a disability must be both severe and prolonged. [ 13 ] The [NAME] says a disability is severe if it makes a person incapable regularly of pursuing any substantially gainful occupation. Footnote 6 [ 14 ] When assessing severity, I must look at all of the Claimant’s medical conditions together to see what effect they have on his work ability. Footnote 7 If he can regularly do some type of work from which he could earn a living, he isn’t entitled to a disability pension. [ 15 ] The [NAME] says a disability is prolonged if it is likely to be long continued and of indefinite duration, or is likely to result in death. Footnote 8 Did the Claimant have a severe disability by December 31, 2023? [ 16 ] The Claimant had a severe disability by December 31, 2023. I will now explain why. [ 17 ] Before looking at the Claimant’s functional limitations, I will review some of the most relevant medical evidence. In my view, the medical evidence discloses a history of conditions that could cause hearing loss and related limitations. For example, in 2007, the Claimant saw Dr. [APPELLANT] (ear specialist) because of hearing troubles over the previous two years. She found that he had chronic Eustachian tube dysfunction. In 2009, Dr. [NAME] said he had a history of chronic left otitis media (an ear condition). Footnote 9 [ 18 ] In early 2024, Dr. [APPELLANT] (family doctor) said the Claimant’s disabling condition was sensorineural hearing loss. Dr. [NAME] said the condition was chronic. Footnote 10 This implies a condition that is long-standing and started before the report date. As the report was signed on February 3, 2024, the condition likely existed before the end of 2023. In fact, [NAME] later said that the Claimant was born with permanent hearing loss. Footnote 11 [ 19 ] In May 2025, the specialist Dr. [APPELLANT] gave three diagnoses relating to the Claimant’s ears: Footnote 12 Chronic otitis media with bilateral ear drainage Significant bilateral conductive hearing loss Eustachian tube dysfunction. Again, the references to chronic otitis media and Eustachian tube dysfunction reinforce what Dr. [NAME] said many years before. [ 20 ] I will now review the Claimant’s functional limitations by the end of 2023. The Claimant’s reported functional limitations by the end of 2023 [ 21 ] I find that the Claimant’s main reported functional limitations by the end of 2023 were the result of hearing loss. While many of them initially appeared to be physical or cognitive, they tended to be difficulties that could flow directly or indirectly from poor hearing. Besides hearing loss itself, the main reported limitations related to poor balance and clumsiness. [ 22 ] The Claimant’s January 2024 application for the [NAME] is very helpful for showing his claimed limitations. It is very close to the end of 2023. It should capture his thoughts on what prevented him from working at that time. As noted, the only medical condition he named was hearing loss. He said he had a really hard time hearing things, and appeared to be approaching deafness. Footnote 13 [ 23 ] Although the Claimant said hearing loss was his only medical condition, he identified many physical abilities as “poor.” This included tasks such as pounding a nail with a hammer, remaining on his feet for at least 20 minutes, and sitting for at least 20 minutes in a straight-back chair. Footnote 14 At the hearing, he attributed these apparently unconnected issues to poor balance and clumsiness. He also said that pounding a nail would create a loud bang. [ 24 ] The Claimant also described many of his behavioural and emotional abilities as “poor.” This included tasks like keeping track of what he was doing, dealing with people he did not know, and figuring out what to do when stressed. Footnote 15 At the hearing, he said those abilities suffered because of the stress of hearing loss. He found it hard to deal with strangers because he could not hear them well. In other words, it was an indirect result of hearing loss instead of an underlying emotional or mental health condition. [ 25 ] Many of the Claimant’s “poor” communication and thinking problems had a similar connection to hearing loss. For example, he said his understanding of what people said in everyday conversations was “poor.” However, this appears to be a hearing problem rather than a strictly cognitive one. In my view, this also explains why he said his ability to concentrate and focus, or to answer the phone, was “poor.” Footnote 16 [ 26 ] I will now see if the medical evidence could support the claimed limitations by the end of 2023. This is important because [NAME] disability applicants must provide some medical evidence about their underlying conditions. Footnote 17 Does the medical evidence support the claimed limitations? [ 27 ] The medical evidence appears to support the claimed limitations. [ 28 ] I accept that hearing loss affected the Claimant’s functional abilities by the end of 2023. This would significantly affect his ability to communicate and focus. It could also impact his ability to do tasks in a noisy environment safely and effectively. Dr. [NAME] referenced hearing problems in 2007 that flowed from defined medical conditions. Shortly after the end of 2023, Dr. [NAME] and Dr. [NAME] also affirmed diagnoses of hearing loss. Dr. [APPELLANT] later added that the Claimant was born with permanent hearing loss. [ 29 ] However, the medical evidence also supports limitations with balance, dizziness, and coordination. These limitations are specifically mentioned in an undated letter that [NAME] wrote on or before June 12, 2025. Although likely written after 2023, it also refers to “a lifelong hearing problem” that was “serious”, “long-term,” and had “greatly impacted his ability to function.” Dr. [NAME] said that, “over time, this has caused problems with balance, including frequent dizziness.” Dr. [NAME] also said the symptoms were “constant.” Footnote 18 I find it likely that these limitations existed by the end of 2023. [ 30 ] I will now look at the Claimant’s personal characteristics. Do the Claimant’s personal characteristics limit his employability? [ 31 ] When deciding whether the Claimant had a severe disability by the end of 2023, I must consider factors such as his: Footnote 19 Age Language ability Education level Past work and life experience [ 32 ] These factors will help me decide whether the Claimant could work in the real world. I will look at each of them in turn. [ 33 ] The Claimant was 44 years old at the end of 2023. He was still 21 years away from the typical retirement age in Canada. His age would not have affected his work capacity in the real world. [ 34 ] The Claimant speaks English fluently. English is an official language in Canada. His language ability would not have affected his work capacity in the real world. [ 35 ] The [APPELLANT] originally said he attended high school for a couple of years, but did not graduate. He later clarified that he failed Grade 10. He had only a Grade 9 education and could barely read at a Grade 3 level. He said he was only in special education classes throughout his school years. He had no technical, trade, or on-the-job training. He said he had no computer skills, could not spell correctly, and could not wear a headset due to his leaking ears. He needed help from others to write letters. Footnote 20 [ 36 ] The [APPELLANT] educational background would preclude any jobs that required a high school (or higher) education. He also could not do work requiring written communication or anything beyond very basic computer skills. He would not be able to do any significant training, particularly if it required “classroom-style” learning. [ 37 ] The [APPELLANT] has had several different jobs. His [NAME] job involved responding to calls for a [COMPANY]. He would clean the affected areas and, if necessary, arrange for the appropriate tradesperson to do repairs. Another long-term job was clearing out the homes of deceased people so that an antique dealer could auction the contents. He has also worked as a pizza delivery driver, a truck loader at a [NAME], an order picker, a cleaner, and a roofer. Footnote 21 [ 38 ] The [APPELLANT] work background is consistent with his educational background. He would only be suited for jobs considered unskilled or menial. Such jobs would usually have relatively high physical demands. They may also be repetitive. [ 39 ] Without considering the Claimant’s medical condition , his personal characteristics meant that he was suited for unskilled or menial jobs. He would not be suited for a “desk job” or other sedentary work. He would also be limited to jobs that were like what he had done before, as he had limited capacity for training. [ 40 ] I will now apply the Claimant’s personal characteristics to his limitations, so I can decide whether he had any residual work capacity by the end of 2023. I need to focus on that period because that was when his coverage ended. Did the Claimant have any residual work capacity by the end of 2023? [ 41 ] The Claimant likely had residual work capacity by the end of 2023. I will now explain why. [ 42 ] Firstly, I find that the Claimant had residual work capacity when he stopped his [NAME] job in June 2021. For at least a little while, he likely could have continued with that job or another job for which he was suited. I base this on what he said at the Appeal Division hearing. [ 43 ] At that hearing, the Claimant said he stopped this job for two reasons: (1) he couldn’t really hear, and (2) his twin brother did something bad and he told their boss. He was asked whether he would have continued with this job if not for the falling out with his brother. He said, “It’s a big ‘if’.” He said his hearing was going, but it wasn’t as bad as it would be in 2022. For the period from 2021 to 2023, he said he was “getting away from [NAME] and my brother.” He didn’t work, but he was trying to find a job. [ 44 ] I see no medical evidence between April 13, 2009, and February 3, 2024. Footnote 22 This makes it harder to precisely assess the Claimant’s work capacity from June 2021 to the end of December 2023. However, he was ultimately successful in finding work. He was a delivery driver for a [COMPANY] from January 2, 2023, to April 22, 2023. Footnote 23 Around this time he also appeared to try one or two jobs loading trucks at a [NAME]. Footnote 24 The ability to get jobs suggests at least some work capacity. [ 45 ] Dr. [APPELLANT] eventually said the Claimant could not work at all. However, Dr. [APPELLANT] said that in an undated letter. It is very difficult to determine whether it applied at the end of 2023. Footnote 25 I must look at other evidence. [ 46 ] While I relied on the February 2024 report from Dr. [NAME] above, it didn’t necessarily preclude all work capacity by the end of 2023. The existence of some capacity could be inferred from Dr. [NAME] other statements in that report. For example, Dr. [APPELLANT] did not explicitly recommend that the Claimant stop working. Dr. [APPELLANT] also said they were waiting for a specialist consultation. While Dr. [APPELLANT] said the Claimant had hearing loss, he did not comment on any other related limitations. Footnote 26 Hearing loss does not automatically show a lack of work capacity. [ 47 ] Despite those concerns, the Claimant may have had other functional limitations flowing from his hearing loss by the end of 2023. These limitations can be inferred from the available evidence. For example, in January 2009, Dr. [NAME] noted he had a long period with retained fluid and discharge in the ear canal. Footnote 27 These could be linked to concerns with balance and ear drainage. In May 2025, Dr. [NAME] noted a history of ear drainage, particularly over the last eighteen months. Footnote 28 That would include the end of 2023, and appears related to the issues identified many years before by Dr. [NAME]. [ 48 ] Similarly, by June 2025, [NAME] said the Claimant’s hearing loss had caused problems with balance and dizziness over time. It was very difficult for him to carry out tasks that required balance, coordination, or clear communication. Dr. [NAME] also referenced issues with drainage and leakage. Footnote 29 [ 49 ] When combined with the [APPELLANT] own evidence, I conclude that his limitations by the end of 2023 may have extended beyond mere hearing loss. However, at the same time, I cannot say that he had no work capacity at all. [ 50 ] The [APPELLANT] 2024 application for a [NAME] reinforces this. While many of his answers on that form suggest a lack of work capacity, some suggest residual capacity for certain jobs. For example, he said his ability to drive a car was “excellent.” He said the same for his ability to transfer to and from a car. Footnote 30 [ 51 ] Before looking at the Claimant’s work attempts and making a final finding about severity, I will look at his compliance with treatment recommendations. Failing to follow recommended treatment can sometimes affect a finding of severity. Footnote 31 Did the Claimant fail to mitigate, by not following treatment recommendations? [ 52 ] Up to the end of his MQP , the evidence shows that the Claimant took reasonable steps to manage his medical conditions. This included having ventilating tubes inserted in October 2008, another tube insertion in February 2009, and a biopsy in April 2009. Footnote 32 These were invasive procedures, but he went through them anyway. [ 53 ] However, I will address two potential treatment recommendations that appear to have been made after 2023. The apparent recommendations were smoking cessation and using hearing aids. The Claimant might not have followed them. [ 54 ] I find that the Claimant failed to follow a treatment recommendation by Dr. [APPELLANT] to stop smoking. However, the evidence does not support a finding that smoking cessation would likely have had a meaningful impact on his disability status. I also find that his treating physicians did not actually recommend he try hearing aids. As a result, the requirement to mitigate his condition does not interfere with a finding of severity. This applies for both smoking cessation and the use of hearing aids. [ 55 ] It is not clear when Dr. [APPELLANT] recommended that the Claimant stop smoking. The potential hearing aid recommendation was clearly after the end of 2023. As a result, the relevance of these recommendations in determining severity by that date may not be obvious. However, as I have addressed those recommendations on other grounds, the timings are ultimately moot. [ 56 ] I will now explain these conclusions in detail. I will start with the hearing aids. The use of hearing aids [ 57 ] Although I see many hearing aid references, I am not persuaded that the Claimant failed to follow a treatment recommendation for them. I will now explain. [ 58 ] In May 2024, [APPELLANT] (audiologist) tested the Claimant’s hearing. Mr. [APPELLANT] checked a box on the testing form that said, “May benefit from binaural amplification.” Footnote 33 In my view, this is an identification of possible treatment options rather than a full recommendation. I see no evidence that Mr. [NAME] ever wrote a prescription for hearing aids. [ 59 ] This is supported by a report Mr. [NAME] wrote by March 26, 2025. In that report, he said the Claimant was unable to hear, “even with the use of appropriate therapy, medication, and devices.” Footnote 34 The use of the word “appropriate” in that context suggests that hearing aids were not deemed “appropriate” for the Claimant, as I see no evidence that he had ever tried hearing aids. [ 60 ] In October 2024, Mr. [NAME] colleague [APPELLANT] did another hearing test on the Claimant. In the “Comments and Recommendations” section of the test form, she wrote, “Bilat amp rec.” This likely means “bilateral amplification recommended.” In other words, she suggested using hearing aids. But she also said he had been referred (back) to his family doctor. Footnote 35 I see no evidence that Ms. [NAME] took any further steps about hearing aids or even discussed them with the Claimant. [ 61 ] Ms. [APPELLANT] wrote those words at the same time that she referred the Claimant back to Dr. [APPELLANT]. And Dr. [APPELLANT] does not appear to have taken any steps about hearing aids, either before or after [NAME]’s report. [ 62 ] In February 2024, Dr. [APPELLANT] said the Claimant did not have a “formal” hearing aid. Footnote 36 In July 2024, Dr. [NAME] said he was following his recommended treatments. Footnote 37 In June 2025, Dr. [NAME] provided a support letter that made no mention of hearing aids. Footnote 38 As Dr. [NAME] also referred to ongoing fluid leakage, I infer that Dr. [APPELLANT] chose not to recommend hearing aids for the Claimant. And as Ms. [APPELLANT] immediately transferred the Claimant back to Dr. [APPELLANT], I cannot say that Dr. [APPELLANT] sustained her apparent recommendation. [ 63 ] Dr. [NAME], the specialist, would be the only other possible source of a hearing aid recommendation. In May 2025, Dr. [APPELLANT] saw the Claimant in follow-up, although it is unclear when the earlier visit(s) took place. While Dr. [NAME] recommended an MRI to look into middle ear disease, he made no hearing aid recommendations. Footnote 39 [ 64 ] In December 2025, Dr. [NAME] prepared a letter at the request of the Minister. Footnote 40 The [APPELLANT] said the letter was obtained without his authorization. However, I see no issue with it. When he applied for the [NAME], he gave the Minister written consent to obtain medical and other information from his doctors and other health care professionals. Footnote 41 [ 65 ] Dr. [NAME] 2025 said this about hearing aids: Footnote 42 He could try binaural amplification however the chronic otorrhea can sometimes make the hearing aids hard to wear and more prone to obstruction. [ emphasis added ] [ 66 ] This is similar to Mr. [APPELLANT] comment that the Claimant “may benefit” from hearing aids. In context, I do not see it as a recommendation. In my view, it is merely a possibility. I note that, in the same letter, Dr. [NAME] used much different language to make an actual recommendation: he “urged” the Claimant to stop smoking. Footnote 43 [ 67 ] Dr. [APPELLANT] [NAME] works for the Minister and gave evidence at the hearing. Dr. [NAME] said that doctors don’t use the word “should” much anymore. She interpreted Dr. [NAME] comment about hearing aids as an “option that is on the table to improve his hearing.” That may be true, but I find that it falls short of being a recommendation. [ 68 ] At the hearing, the Claimant said he saw Dr. [APPELLANT] again in January 2026. He suggested Dr. [NAME] said a hearing aid was not ideal because he had such bad scar tissue in his ears. Dr. [NAME] apparently said his hands were tied, and he didn’t know what to recommend. In turn, the Claimant suggested that he would be “wrecking” his ears if he tried hearing aids. However, I see no objective account of that January 2026 appointment in the file. [ 69 ] Based on the medical evidence alone, I find that none of the hearing aid remarks constitute an unequivocal recommendation that the Claimant should have followed. This means his failure to try hearing aids does not interfere with a finding of severity. [ 70 ] I will now look at the issue of smoking cessation. Smoking cessation [ 71 ] The second potential treatment recommendation is smoking cessation. In his December 2025 letter, Dr. [APPELLANT] said the Claimant suffered from hearing loss and chronic otorrhea (ear leakage). He had filled the prescription for eardrops, and was following the treatment plan in that regard. However, Dr. [NAME] made the following statement about smoking: Footnote 44 I have suggested that his heavy smoking is not necessarily the underlying cause but is a contributing factor of his ear disease so I have urged smoking cessation. [ 72 ] Dr. [NAME] words show he clearly recommended smoking cessation to the Claimant. It is less clear when [NAME] first did so. It was likely before he wrote the December 2025 letter, because a Minister’s request prompted that letter. The letter did not arise from an appointment. He may even have made the recommendation before the end of 2023. [NAME]’s first report in the file is only from May 2025, and it does not mention smoking. But that follow-up report mentioned worsening ear drainage over the past 18 months. Footnote 45 The Claimant already smoked heavily in 2009. Footnote 46 [ 73 ] When asked about Dr. [APPELLANT] recommendation at the hearing, the Claimant did not suggest that he had stopped smoking. Instead, he said, “Everybody’s got their opinion.” He then said “they” should ban smoking if it were the cause. He also said “they” can’t prove it, and that everybody blames smoking. Finally, he said he did not start smoking until he was 25 years old. [ 74 ] The Claimant’s explanation is not reasonable. Dr. [APPELLANT] is a specialist in ear diseases. Dr. [NAME] said smoking was contributing to his ear disease. The Claimant’s unsupported allegations that “they” can’t prove the link between smoking and ear disease do not negate Dr. [NAME] objective and expert opinion. Similarly, saying that everybody has an opinion does not mean that I should disregard expert opinions or assign them the same weight as non-expert opinions. [ 75 ] It also does not matter that smoking did not originally cause the ear disease. The [APPELLANT] has had hearing loss since birth, according to Dr. [APPELLANT], but he only claimed to be disabled as of March 2023. Footnote 47 This means that the Claimant’s more recent activities, such as continuing to smoke, are potentially relevant. I also note that he earned a substantially gainful income for many years despite having hearing loss. Footnote 48 [ 76 ] As I found that the Claimant’s reasons for continuing to smoke are unreasonable, I must now consider what impact that refusal might have on his disability status. Footnote 49 [ 77 ] In this case, Dr. [APPELLANT] said smoking was contributing to the Claimant’s ear disease. I have no reason to doubt that. But simply contributing to the ear disease is not enough in this context. [ 78 ] The problem is that I cannot say how significant that impact would be on the Claimant’s disability status. Perhaps it would only have reduced, for example, his low-frequency hearing by less than 1%. In that case, it is unlikely that smoking cessation would have made a difference to his disability status. And the evidence does not support a finding that smoking cessation would likely have had a meaningful impact. Dr. [NAME] comment is not specific enough for that. [ 79 ] On a balance of probabilities, I cannot find that the Claimant’s failure to stop smoking has had a meaningful impact on his disability status. This means that his failure to mitigate his condition (by continuing to smoke) does not interfere with a finding of severity. [ 80 ] Whether the Claimant’s decision to continue smoking is advisable is a different question altogether. However, commenting on that issue is beyond my jurisdiction. [ 81 ] I must also stress that hearing loss does not ordinarily establish a disability. Many Canadians have hearing loss and are not severely disabled. However, I must consider each applicant individually. This extends to each applicant’s personal characteristics and their attempts to find and maintain work. [ 82 ] As the [APPELLANT] had some residual work capacity by the end of 2023, I must now look at his attempts to work around that time. When a [NAME] disability applicant has some work capacity, he must show that efforts at obtaining and maintaining [APPELLANT] have been unsuccessful because of his health condition. Footnote 50 Were the Claimant’s attempts to obtain and maintain suitable work unsuccessful because of his health condition? [ 83 ] I find that the Claimant’s attempts to obtain and maintain suitable work were unsuccessful because of his health condition. I will now explain why. [ 84 ] At the material time, I see evidence about two attempts to maintain work. I also see evidence about other attempts to obtain work. All those jobs appeared to be suitable for the [APPELLANT] in the real world. [ 85 ] The [APPELLANT] worked for a [COMPANY] from January 2023 to April 2023. He said this job ended because of his medical condition. Specifically, he said he had to leave because he couldn’t hear things on the phone. It was getting worse and he couldn’t continue. He said he was no longer capable of working by March 22, 2023, because that was when he “really couldn’t hear a thing.” Footnote 51 [ 86 ] As that job involved at least some pizza delivery, this was a good test of whether the [APPELLANT] could do suitable work. This is especially important because, as of January 2024, he still claimed to have some driving capacity. However, driving jobs usually also require communication skills and mobility outside the vehicle. He said this job ended because of communication issues. His poor reading level and minimal technology skills made verbal communication even more important. [ 87 ] The [APPELLANT] also tried truck-loading jobs at [NAME] around this time, although he did not give exact dates. As with his pizza delivery job, the [NAME] jobs seemed to be suitable for him. However, he said he could not continue those jobs because the workplace was too loud and he could not hear what he was asked to do. Each lasted only 2-3 days. Footnote 52 [ 88 ] The [APPELLANT] also described applying for many jobs besides his recent careers in [NAME] and delivery driving. He said he applied for overnight stocking positions at [NAME] and [NAME]. He applied for cleaning and lawn care jobs too. He said he wasn’t hired for these jobs because of his hearing loss and balance issues. Footnote 53 As all those jobs were relatively menial, they would have been suitable for him. [ 89 ] I don’t see any objective evidence supporting what the [APPELLANT] said about these unsuccessful jobs and job attempts. That would have been preferable. However, at the same time, I found his evidence about his recent work to be reliable. He did not restrict his testimony to facts that supported his case. [ 90 ] For example, when testifying about why he left his long-time [NAME] job in 2021, the [APPELLANT] admitted that conflict with his brother also played a role. He also said he avoided [NAME] work for a while after leaving that job. In each instance, his testimony did not help his case. As a result, I find I can rely on the reasons he gave about his unsuccessful work attempts around 2023. [ 91 ] In turn, I find that the [APPELLANT] had a severe disability by April 2023. That was when he stopped working as a pizza delivery driver due to his hearing loss. He has been incapable regularly of pursuing a substantially gainful occupation since then. [ 92 ] I will now consider whether the [APPELLANT] disability was also prolonged. Did the Claimant also have a prolonged disability by the end of 2023? [ 93 ] The [APPELLANT] also had a prolonged disability by the end of 2023. Specifically, I find that he had a prolonged disability by April 2023. I will now explain why. [ 94 ] I see no evidence that the Claimant’s disability is likely to result in death. This means his disability is prolonged only if I find that it is likely to be long continued and of indefinite duration. [ 95 ] The Claimant’s most important recent care providers are Dr. [APPELLANT] and Dr. [NAME]. Both doctors provided relevant recent evidence on whether his disability is prolonged. While it was all after 2023, it is still helpful. The Claimant’s ear conditions existed long before the end of 2023. I also found that the key aspects of his disability noted in the post-2023 documents (communication, balance, coordination) existed by December 31, 2023. [ 96 ] In June 2025, Dr. [APPELLANT] said the Claimant’s lifelong hearing problem had greatly impacted his ability to function. His symptoms were constant. It was very difficult for him to carry out everyday tasks or work in any job that required balance, coordination, or clear communication. He also had ongoing fluid leakage, which led to infections. Dr. [NAME] said he could not work. Dr. [NAME] also said his condition was serious, long-term, and unlikely to improve. Footnote 54 [ 97 ] I acknowledge that, in July 2024, Dr. [APPELLANT] said the Claimant was unable to work but should be able to return by December 30, 2025. Footnote 55 However, Dr. [NAME] revised this opinion in June 2025. I accept that prognoses can change over time. I prefer Dr. [NAME] 2025 comments because they are based on more up-to-date specialist opinion and better knowledge about the Claimant’s limitations. [ 98 ] In December 2025, Dr. [APPELLANT] said the Claimant had a long history of hearing loss and chronic otorrhea due to chronic middle ear disease and otitis externa. As for the impact on working, Dr. [NAME] only identified hearing difficulty as a restriction. Dr. [APPELLANT] continued to see the Claimant, but said a subspecialist might eventually need to do mastoid or middle ear surgery. This was consistent with Dr. [NAME] previous report in May 2025. Footnote 56 It does not imply a short-term condition. [ 99 ] Looking further back, I see an additional incomplete and undated report that is likely from [NAME]. He probably wrote it in 2025, but before March 26 of that year. The form appears to be for a disability tax credit with the Canada Revenue Agency. Mr. [NAME] answered “No” to the following question: Footnote 57 Has your patient’s impairment in hearing improved or is it likely to improve to such an extent that they would no longer be impaired? [ 100 ] Taken together, these documents support a finding that the [APPELLANT] disability was long continued and of indefinite duration by December 31, 2023. In fact, this was likely the case when the Claimant stopped working in April 2023. That was when he had to leave a suitable job due to his impairments. As with my finding on severity, I base this primarily on his hearing loss. But I also considered the impact of that loss on abilities such as balance and coordination. [ 101 ] The Claimant had a severe and prolonged disability by the end of 2023. This means he is entitled to a [NAME]. However, it is worth stating that the standard of proof in [NAME] disability matters is a balance of probabilities. In this case, it is more likely than not that the Claimant met the disability requirements by the end of his MQP . Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not required. Footnote 58 When does the Claimant’s [NAME] start? [ 102 ] I found that the Claimant has had a severe and prolonged disability since April 2023. The [NAME] says a person cannot be considered disabled more than 15 months before the Minister receives their disability pension application. Footnote 59 After that, a four-month waiting period must pass before payments start. Footnote 60 [ 103 ] The Minister received the Claimant’s application in January 2024. This was within 15 months of his disability onset. As a result, he is considered disabled as of April 2023. With the four-month waiting period, his pension payments start as of August 2023. Conclusion [ 104 ] The appeal is dismissed. The [APPELLANT] had a severe and prolonged disability starting in April 2023. His [NAME] pension payments start as of August 2023. Footnotes Footnote 1 See GD2-31. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See GD2-32 and GD2-34. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See AD1-4. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 This date is based on the [APPELLANT] [NAME] contributions. His [NAME] contributions are at GD2-44. Service Canada uses a person’s years of [NAME] contributions to calculate their coverage period ( MQP ). See section 44(2) of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 See Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2015  FC  1348, at paragraph 31. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 See section 42(2)(a) of the [NAME]. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2011  FCA  47, at paragraph 8. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 See section 42(2)(a) of the [NAME]. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 See GD2-77 and GD2-78. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 See GD2-72. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 See GD3-2. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 See GD5-4. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 See GD2-32. Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 See GD2-33. Return to footnote 14 referrer Footnote 15 See GD2-33. Return to footnote 15 referrer Footnote 16 See GD2-33 and GD2-34. Return to footnote 16 referrer Footnote 17 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2008  FCA  377, and Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2020  FC  206. Return to footnote 17 referrer Footnote 18 See GD3-2. Return to footnote 18 referrer Footnote 19 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2002  FCA  248. Return to footnote 19 referrer Footnote 20 See GD2-32, GD5-2, and AD6-4. The Claimant also talked about this at the Appeal Division hearing. Return to footnote 20 referrer Footnote 21 See GD2-31 and AD6-4. The [APPELLANT] also talked about this at the Appeal Division hearing. Return to footnote 21 referrer Footnote 22 See GD2-67 (February 2024) and GD2-84 (April 2009). Return to footnote 22 referrer Footnote 23 See GD2-31. Return to footnote 23 referrer Footnote 24 See AD6-4. Return to footnote 24 referrer Footnote 25 See GD3-2. Return to footnote 25 referrer Footnote 26 See GD2-72 and GD2-75. Return to footnote 26 referrer Footnote 27 See GD2-78. Return to footnote 27 referrer Footnote 28 See GD5-4. Return to footnote 28 referrer Footnote 29 See GD3-2. Return to footnote 29 referrer Footnote 30 See GD2-33. Return to footnote 30 referrer Footnote 31 [NAME]  v  Canada ([NAME]) , 2002  FCA  211. Return to footnote 31 referrer Footnote 32 See GD2-78, GD2-79, and GD2-81. Return to footnote 32 referrer Footnote 33 See GD2-19. Return to footnote 33 referrer Footnote 34 See GD1-10. Return to footnote 34 referrer Footnote 35 See GD1-9. Return to footnote 35 referrer Footnote 36 See GD2-75. Return to footnote 36 referrer Footnote 37 See GD2-20. Return to footnote 37 referrer Footnote 38 See GD3-2. Return to footnote 38 referrer Footnote 39 See GD5-4 to GD5-5. Return to footnote 39 referrer Footnote 40 See AD2-2. Return to footnote 40 referrer Footnote 41 See GD2-68. Return to footnote 41 referrer Footnote 42 See AD2-2. Return to footnote 42 referrer Footnote 43 See AD2-2. Return to footnote 43 referrer Footnote 44 See AD2-2. Return to footnote 44 referrer Footnote 45 See GD5-4. Return to footnote 45 referrer Footnote 46 See GD2-81. Return to footnote 46 referrer Footnote 47 See GD2-32 and GD3-2. Return to footnote 47 referrer Footnote 48 See GD2-44. Return to footnote 48 referrer Footnote 49 [NAME]  v  Canada ([NAME]) , 2002  FCA  211. Return to footnote 49 referrer Footnote 50 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2003  FCA  117, at paragraph 3. Return to footnote 50 referrer Footnote 51 See GD2-31. The [APPELLANT] also testified about this at the Appeal Division hearing. Return to footnote 51 referrer Footnote 52 See AD6-4. The [APPELLANT] also testified about this at the Appeal Division hearing. Return to footnote 52 referrer Footnote 53 See AD6-4. Return to footnote 53 referrer Footnote 54 See GD3-2. Return to footnote 54 referrer Footnote 55 See GD2-21. Dr. [NAME] might have meant 2028. His handwriting is unclear. However, whether the date was 2025 or 2028, that date was in the future and does not affect my analysis. Return to footnote 55 referrer Footnote 56 See GD5-4 to GD5-5 and AD2-2. Return to footnote 56 referrer Footnote 57 See GD1-10. As the document was filed with the Tribunal on March 26, 2025, it was not created after that date. Mr. [APPELLANT] referred to the [APPELLANT] intention to apply for the disability tax credit in his letter of January 28, 2025: see GD1-8. Return to footnote 57 referrer Footnote 58 See, for example, [NAME]  v  [NAME] , (2001) CP 15717 ([NAME]), at paragraph 2. [NAME] decisions are not binding, they can be persuasive. Return to footnote 58 referrer Footnote 59 See section 42(2)(b) of the [NAME]. Return to footnote 59 referrer Footnote 60 See section 69 of the [NAME] . This means payments cannot start more than 11 months before the application date. Return to footnote 60 referrer