Claimant’s Appeal for CPP Disability Pension Dismissed

OUTCOME: Dismissed

Citation: [APPELLANT] and [NAME]  v  RL , 2026  [NAME]  189 [NAME] Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Decision Appellant: [redacted] [COUNSEL] Respondent: [redacted] Representative: C. H. Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated September 18, 2025 (GP-24-1708) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: Videoconference Hearing date: May 11, 2026 Hearing participants: Appellant’s representative Appellant’s witness Respondent Respondent’s representative Respondent’s witness Decision date: May 26, 2026 File number: AD-25-804 On this page Decision Overview Issues Analysis Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] The appeal is allowed. The Respondent is not entitled to a [NAME] ( [NAME] ) [NAME] pension. Overview [ 2 ] I will refer to the Appellant, the [APPELLANT] and [NAME], as the “Minister.” I will refer to the Respondent, R. [APPELLANT]., as the “Claimant.” [ 3 ] The [APPELLANT] was 53 years old at the end of 2021. Since 2014, he had operated an [NAME]. At first, he supplemented his income with other part-time work. However, he eventually operated his shop full-time. He stopped working in July 2022 because of his medical conditions. Footnote 1 In September 2022, he was diagnosed with congestive heart failure. This followed several weeks of medical appointments, tests, and visits to the [NAME] Department. Footnote 2 [ 4 ] The [APPELLANT] applied for a [NAME] [NAME] pension in December 2023. He said his main medical conditions preventing work were atrial fibrillation, congestive heart failure and dilated cardiomyopathy. He also identified additional conditions, including medication side effects and chronic knee, wrist, and back pain. He said he was unable to work because of his medical condition as of July 2022. Footnote 3 [ 5 ] The Minister denied the [APPELLANT] application initially and on reconsideration. He then appealed to the [NAME] 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 4 I did not consider the testimony from the General Division hearing. Footnote 5 [ 6 ] The Minister made two main arguments at the Appeal Division hearing. Firstly, the Minister said the medical evidence did not support a severe [NAME] by the end of 2021. The Minister said his medical complaints up to the 2021 were infrequent and did not significantly affect his ability to work. The Minister said the medical evidence pointed to an onset date around July 2022. Secondly, the Minister said the [APPELLANT] continued to work full-time until July 2022 and could not have been disabled before then. [ 7 ] The Claimant said he did not understand the meaning or implications of his 2023 statement that he could no longer work by July 2022. He said he shouldn’t have worked as long as he did, and only continued on a compromised basis as he was the sole wage earner for his family. He also said the inadequate medical system in northern Alberta contributed to his situation. More generally, he said the Minister’s reliance on a lawyer and a doctor was not fair. He said he could not afford such assistance. Finally, he said any evidence from after 2021 was prejudicial to him and should not be considered. [ 8 ] I must decide whether the Claimant had a severe and prolonged [NAME] by December 31, 2021. [ 9 ] For the reasons set out below, I find that the Claimant did not have a severe and prolonged [NAME] by December 31, 2021. Issues [ 10 ] The issues in this appeal are: a) Did the Claimant have a severe [NAME] by December 31, 2021? b) If so, did the Claimant also have a prolonged [NAME] by then? c) If the answer to b) is “yes,” when does the Claimant’s [NAME] [NAME] pension start? Analysis [ 11 ] The Claimant’s minimum qualifying period ( MQP ), or coverage period, ended on December 31, 2021. Footnote 6 That is when he must establish the onset of a [NAME], as defined by the [NAME] . His [NAME] must also have been continuous since then. Footnote 7 [ 12 ] Under the [NAME] , a [NAME] must be both severe and prolonged. [ 13 ] The [NAME] says a [NAME] is severe if it makes a person incapable regularly of pursuing any substantially gainful occupation. Footnote 8 [ 14 ] When assessing severity, I must look at all of the [APPELLANT] medical conditions together to see what effect they have on his work ability. Footnote 9 If he can regularly do some type of work from which he could earn a living, he isn’t entitled to a [NAME] pension. [ 15 ] The [NAME] says a [NAME] is prolonged if it is likely to be long continued and of indefinite duration, or is likely to result in death. Footnote 10 Did the [APPELLANT] have a severe [NAME] by December 31, 2021? [ 16 ] The [APPELLANT] did not have a severe [NAME] by December 31, 2021. I will now explain why. [ 17 ] Before looking at the Claimant’s functional limitations, I will review some of the most relevant medical evidence. [ 18 ] The medical evidence before the end of 2021 is scarce. The Claimant visited his family doctor once in 2019, once in 2020, and twice in 2021. He had a chest X-ray and some tests done in 2021. He did not see any medical professionals between September 29, 2021, and August 16, 2022. Footnote 11 [ 19 ] Of those four family doctor visits up to 2021, shortness of breath was mentioned at two of them. He had the chest X-ray for that reason. He also mentioned right knee pain, and non-cardiac chest pain once each. His chest X-ray report mentioned hand and wrist pain, but I did not see this in the family doctor notes. Footnote 12 [ 20 ] I will now review the Claimant’s functional limitations by the end of 2021. The Claimant’s reported functional limitations by the end of 2021 [ 21 ] I find that the Claimant’s main reported functional limitations by the end of 2021 were physically demanding tasks. He also reported various behavioural and emotional limitations arising from financial stress and his frustrations with the [NAME]. However, at least some of those limitations did not arise until the summer of 2022. I will now explain how I made those findings. [ 22 ] The Claimant mentioned some symptoms, such as occasional shortness of breath, to [NAME] before the end of 2021. However, I see little evidence of specific functional limitations around that time. To see what limitations the Claimant had, I will review the [NAME] [NAME] form he completed in October 2023. That form asked about his ability to do various activities. He ranked the following abilities as “poor”: Footnote 13 Remain on your feet for at least 20 minutes Go up and down 12-15 steps Get down into a kneeling or squatting position and back up again Bend down to pick up coins from the floor Change a light bulb in the ceiling above your head Sit for at least 20 minutes in a straight-back chair Pick up two bags of groceries and walk a block Open a can with a manual can opener Pound a nail with a hammer Work in a team Change your usual work approach when asked Keep at difficult tasks until you get them done Adjust easily to unexpected changes Deal with people you do not know Control your temper when dealing with others Control emotions and impulses that others would probably consider inappropriate Do housekeeping and home maintenance Use public transportation [ 23 ] The [APPELLANT] said his sleep patterns had changed, and he needed to nap intermittently through the day. Footnote 14 He also said he found it difficult to stay stationary for more than 15 minutes. Footnote 15 [ 24 ] Regarding his behaviours and emotional abilities, the [APPELLANT] said his financial stress led to bouts of frustration, anger, and outbursts. He also found it difficult to trust people in the [NAME] since the summer of 2022. Footnote 16 [ 25 ] The Claimant’s October 2023 form likely presents an accurate picture of his perceived functional capacities at that time . I note that he did not merely assign the same rating to every requested ability. He ranked a number of his abilities as “good,” including some physical activities like getting in and out of a car. He also ranked most of his communication and thinking abilities as good. He even ranked his ability to drive a car as “very good.” Footnote 17 [ 26 ] I will now see if the medical evidence could support the claimed limitations by the end of 2021. This is important because [NAME] [NAME] applicants must provide some medical evidence about their underlying conditions. Footnote 18 Does the medical evidence support the claimed limitations? [ 27 ] The medical evidence appears to support the claimed limitations for strenuous physical activity by the end of 2021. However, it does not support the claimed limitations with behaviours and emotional abilities by the end of 2021. [ 28 ] The Claimant saw Dr. [APPELLANT] in April 2019 and January 2020. Dr. [APPELLANT] asked for some blood work in 2019 and planned to send a letter to an orthopedic surgeon for a meniscal tear in the right knee. On both occasions, Dr. [APPELLANT] said the Claimant could follow up as needed. However, I see no follow-up after either appointment. The shortness of breath mentioned in 2019 was not mentioned in 2020. Footnote 19 [ 29 ] I must rely instead on the two appointments with Dr. [APPELLANT] in 2021. In August 2021, the Claimant told her that he was sometimes short of breath. He wanted to take better care of himself because some friends had recently died. Dr. [NAME] ordered some tests but did not identify any other functional limitations. She said he was in no apparent distress. Footnote 20 In September 2021, Dr. [NAME] reviewed the various results. Other than mildly elevated cholesterol, everything was normal. Footnote 21 A chest X-ray from around this time was also normal. Footnote 22 [ 30 ] I see no further medical documents until August 2022. But, even then, the Claimant only reported abdominal pressure and bloating for the previous month. Footnote 23 This was ultimately linked to a September 2022 diagnosis of congestive heart failure. But it doesn’t add to the functional limitations present by the end of 2021. At most, it could support ongoing shortness of breath and related difficulty with heavy physical exertion. [ 31 ] I see no medical evidence of any emotional or behavioural limitations by the end of 2021. As the [APPELLANT] himself indicated, these limitations did not appear to develop until at least the summer of 2022. Footnote 24 His wife also noted that his emotional and behavioural limitations only started in 2022. Footnote 25 [ 32 ] I will now look at the Claimant’s personal characteristics. Do the Claimant’s personal characteristics limit his employability? [ 33 ] When deciding whether the Claimant had a severe [NAME] by the end of 2021, I must consider factors such as his: Footnote 26 Age Language ability Education level Past work and life experience [ 34 ] These factors will help me decide whether the Claimant could work in the real world. I will look at each of them in turn. [ 35 ] The Claimant was 53 years old at the end of 2021. He still had 12 years to go until the typical retirement age in Canada. His age may have impacted his real-world work ability by precluding highly demanding physical work. It might also have placed some outer limits on his ability to retrain in a completely new profession. [ 36 ] The Claimant speaks English fluently. English is one of Canada’s official languages. His language ability would not have affected his prospects. [ 37 ] The [APPELLANT] is relatively well educated. He finished high school. He completed a four-year [COMPANY] program in [NAME]. This program had a large apprenticeship component, but he also attended classes for a couple of months each year. He also completed a [COMPANY] “Master Instructor” course. This allowed him to teach high school students in his area of expertise. Footnote 27 [ 38 ] The [APPELLANT] [COMPANY] education would only preclude jobs requiring a university education or highly specialized training outside the automotive field. But his record of educational success at [COMPANY] would support a certain amount of retraining. [ 39 ] The [APPELLANT] work history does not impose many limits on what he could do in the real world. His recent work has mostly consisted of running an [NAME]. He had wide-ranging duties there. He was the owner and manager. But he was also the [NAME], tire installer, and service writer and advisor. He also did desk work, computer work, and tire sales. Footnote 28 As noted, he had also done some teaching related to automotive repair. [ 40 ] At the Appeal Division hearing, the Claimant said he previously spent 23 years with a [COMPANY]. He started there as a [NAME]. But he ultimately became a manager and then a franchise owner. He also sold mining supplies for a [NAME]. That sales position lasted 8-9 years. Finally, to support himself when he was starting his own business, he did some maintenance work in oil fields. That work was quite physical. It is unclear if this is the same as the EMS/firefighter/first responder job that his family doctor said he once did. Footnote 29 [ 41 ] When I look at all of the [APPELLANT] personal characteristics together, he has real-world work potential in a very broad range of careers. [ 42 ] Without considering the Claimant’s medical conditions , his work history would have prepared him for virtually any career in the [NAME]. This would range from instructing and managing to repairing and selling. But he also would have been capable of other sales, management and clerical positions, including those outside the [NAME], that did not require a university degree or highly specialized qualifications. He could do a reasonable amount of training for a new career too. Finally, his recent oil field work showed a capacity for more general physical labour. [ 43 ] 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 2021. I need to focus on that period because his coverage ended then. Did the Claimant have any residual work capacity by the end of 2021? [ 44 ] The Claimant likely had work capacity by the end of 2021. I will now explain why. [ 45 ] The most compelling evidence about the Claimant’s work capacity at the end of 2021 is the fact that he continued working full-time until July 2022. In fact, in October 2023, he said he had worked more than full-time. He would work 8-12 hours per day for 5-7 days per week. Footnote 30 This demonstrates the capacity to do a job for which he was suited. [ 46 ] At the Appeal Division hearing, the [APPELLANT] and his wife both said that she played an increased role in his business as time went on. She helped with a lot of the more physical tasks. But, as noted, his functional limitations by the end of 2021 related to more demanding physical work. He could still direct her about what needed to be done. As a result, I find that he could also have handled many less physical roles in the [NAME]. He could also have done various types of sales, management or clerical jobs that had lower physical demands. [ 47 ] The Claimant’s own evidence is consistent with work capacity extending into 2022. On his October 2023 application form, he said July 2022 was when he could no longer work because of his medical conditions. Footnote 31 At the Appeal Division hearing, he suggested that he did not understand the legal implications of this statement when he completed the form. However, even if I disregarded this statement completely, I still would have found that he retained some work capacity by the end of 2021. [ 48 ] Similarly, the [APPELLANT] suggested that he had been looking into other careers. At the Appeal Division hearing, the [APPELLANT] said he knew he was getting to a point where he could no longer be a [NAME]. He said he wanted to transition to other work, such as remote on-line work with a computer, by 2025 or 2026. This was how he explained the statement that his company was “going in a different direction” after 2019. Footnote 32 This is not consistent with a complete lack of work capacity either. In his application, he also said his medical condition did not force him to do lighter or different work. Footnote 33 [ 49 ] The [APPELLANT] also suggested that he should have stopped working earlier. That might have led to a better health outcome. He said he kept working to support his family. He also said he distrusted [NAME] and was raised to be stoic in the face of adversity. He said it started to take longer to finish his work tasks. He only sought medical treatment at the urging of his wife. Nonetheless, he still admitted that he didn’t notice a huge impact until February or March of 2022, and his symptoms only got bad in the spring of 2022. [ 50 ] I accept that the [APPELLANT] may have persisted with his work longer than the “average person” might have. He also suggested that his options may have been limited by where he lived and the lack of a business partner. However, I need to assess work capacity generally. That assessment is not limited to the [APPELLANT] current job. He was capable of doing many things beyond being an automotive [NAME]. As for his location, I cannot consider socio-economic factors when assessing [NAME]. Footnote 34 [ 51 ] As the Claimant had some residual work capacity by the end of 2021, I must now look at his attempts to work around that time. When a [NAME] [NAME] has some work capacity, he must show that efforts at obtaining and maintaining [APPELLANT] have been unsuccessful because of his health condition. Footnote 35 Were the Claimant’s attempts to obtain and maintain suitable work unsuccessful because of his health condition? [ 52 ] I find that the Claimant’s attempts to obtain and maintain suitable work were not unsuccessful because of his health condition. I will now explain why. [ 53 ] I accept the Claimant’s evidence that he stopped operating his [NAME] in July 2022. I also accept that it was connected to a cardiac condition that became much worse around July 2022. I see multiple references to the onset of increased symptoms around July 2022. Footnote 36 But two issues arise from this. Both are problematic for the Claimant. [ 54 ] Firstly, the Claimant’s job was physically demanding. It would have been much more demanding than other automotive jobs, such as sales, managing, clerical work, or teaching. His ability to do those less demanding jobs was not tested by the end of 2021. In fact, by directing his wife to assist him, he showed an ongoing capacity to manage. [ 55 ] Secondly, the evidence is persuasive that the Claimant was only unable to continue in July 2022. [NAME] point to that as onset date for his symptoms. But it is more than six months after the end of 2021. I must make my findings on this issue as of December 31, 2021. I cannot disregard the evidence that he continued working for several months after that time. I must conclude that his attempts to maintain work had not failed because of his health condition by the end of 2021. [ 56 ] The Claimant has not tried any other work since he closed his shop. However, he did apply for a remote “work-from-home” job. It would have involved resolving disputes for a [COMPANY]. This appears to have been suitable for him. [ 57 ] The [APPELLANT] did not get the job. He said it was because he was overqualified. This means that his failure to get the job was not due to his health condition. In any event, it also appears to have been after the end of 2021. [ 58 ] As the Claimant’s attempts to obtain and maintain suitable work were not unsuccessful because of his health condition, I cannot conclude that he had a severe [NAME] by the end of 2021. This means that I must allow the Minister’s appeal. [ 59 ] The outcome of this appeal might have been different if the [APPELLANT] coverage period had ended in 2022 instead of 2021. This is undoubtedly very frustrating for him and his family. However, the Federal Court of Appeal has dictated that the Tribunal cannot disregard the [NAME] ’s contribution rules to fix what could be perceived as an unjust or unfair result. [NAME] can change those rules. Footnote 37 [ 60 ] I would now like to address some other issues raised by the [APPELLANT]. Other issues raised by the [APPELLANT] [ 61 ] The [APPELLANT] raised concerns about [NAME], the Minister’s reliance on legal and medical professionals, and the impact of evidence from after 2021. I will comment on each of these. The medical system in rural northern Alberta [ 62 ] The [APPELLANT] and his wife (who I will call “[NAME]”) both remarked on the medical aspects of living in rural northern Alberta. [NAME] said it could take months to see a family doctor. While attending [NAME] was always an option, sometimes [NAME] would close. [NAME] also said the [NAME] lacked compassion, were always in a hurry, were overworked and understaffed, and would prefer to be in “their home places.” [NAME] said the quality of care wasn’t the same as it would be in Edmonton or Toronto. [ 63 ] The [APPELLANT] also said months-long delays were common in getting access to treatment. He said [NAME] did the best they could, but would only spend 5-6 minutes with you and would be very distracted. [ 64 ] The Claimant’s region may face some health care challenges. However, that does not affect the outcome of this appeal. Even if it could be accurately assessed, the relative quality of medical care does not determine work capacity. In any case, the evidence suggests that, when the [APPELLANT] sought medical help, he received it in a relatively timely manner. [ 65 ] For example, the [APPELLANT] saw his family doctor in August 2021. She ordered various tests and a chest X-ray. She then reviewed the results of those investigations with him in September 2021. Footnote 38 Further, the Claimant saw a family doctor on three occasions within 15 days in September 2022. He had CT scans within three days and six days respectively of the first two appointments. Footnote 39 The Minister’s reliance on legal and medical professionals [ 66 ] The Claimant expressed concern that the Minister was represented by a lawyer and called a doctor as a witness. The [APPELLANT] said he could not afford a lawyer and his [NAME] refused to attend unless they received a subpoena. He said his representative was a volunteer. She may have been a family friend. He submitted that these apparent disparities raised the issue of fairness. [ 67 ] The Claimant is correct in saying that fairness is important. The [NAME] Tribunal Rules of Procedure ( [NAME]) says the Tribunal must make sure that the appeal process is as simple and quick as fairness allows. Footnote 40 [ 68 ] The [APPELLANT] appears to suggest that the appeal would only be fair if he had equal access to legal and medical professionals. But the fairness in the [NAME] refers to the process . For the [APPELLANT], a fair process would include things like being able to file evidence, call a witness, cross-examine the Minister’s witness, and make submissions in support of his position. He could do all those things. I also note that many individuals appearing before the Tribunal are not represented. [ 69 ] The Tribunal cannot assess whether each party had equivalent representation or witnesses. In the Canadian justice system, neither courts nor administrative tribunals adjust outcomes based on those factors. [ 70 ] What the Tribunal can do about fairness, as set out in the [NAME], is to ensure that each party can participate in the appeal process. The Tribunal can also consider each party’s particular circumstances in applying the [NAME]. Footnote 41 I am not persuaded that those principles were violated in this appeal. Evidence after 2021 [ 71 ] The [APPELLANT] suggested that the Tribunal should not consider any medical evidence from after 2021 as it was prejudicial to him. [ 72 ] The issue in this appeal was whether the Claimant was disabled by the end of 2021. Evidence from before the end of 2021 is often the most valuable in making that assessment. However, that does not mean that I must disregard all post-2021 evidence. [ 73 ] In this case, the evidence before the end of 2021 is scarce. The medical evidence up to that point does not inevitably point to a severe [NAME]. Further, the Claimant has never denied that he continued working for part of 2022. Working is directly relevant to the issue of [NAME] status. In that context, post-2021 evidence can have some value in assessing his [NAME] status at the end of 2021. [ 74 ] Even if I disregarded all post-2021 evidence, other problems would emerge. A hearing would be unnecessary, as it would naturally elicit post-2021 evidence. Other problems include the application itself, as it did not exist until after 2021 either. The only workable approach is to adjust the weight assigned to evidence, considering factors such as objectivity, reliability, and timing. [ 75 ] On a related point, the Claimant urged me to consider several “letters of support.” [NAME] wrote these for him in early 2026. [ 76 ] I did consider those letters, although they were not necessarily objective. However, they do not overcome the barriers revealed by the above analysis. The big issue in this appeal is when the Claimant became severely disabled, as opposed to when symptoms started to appear. But those letters were either vague on that issue or pointed to an onset date in 2022. His friend “[NAME],” for example, noticed a “big change” in the spring of 2022. Footnote 42 Similarly, [NAME] said, “this has been ongoing since 2022.” Footnote 43 Did the Claimant also have a prolonged [NAME] by the end of 2021? [ 77 ] As I found that the Claimant did not have a severe [NAME] by the end of 2021, I do not need to answer this question. Conclusion [ 78 ] The appeal is allowed. The Claimant did not have a severe and prolonged [NAME] by the end of 2021. He is not entitled to a [NAME] [NAME] pension. Footnotes Footnote 1 See GD2-32 and GD2-49. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See GD2-104 to GD2-107, GD2-164 to GD2-173, and GD2-182 to GD2-187. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See GD2-29 and GD2-32. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See AD1-4. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 The Minister asked me to consider this evidence: see AD3-1 to AD3-2. However, I denied the Minister’s request: see AD14-1 to AD14-3. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 This date is based on the [APPELLANT] [NAME] contributions. His [NAME] contributions are at GD2-64 to GD2-65. 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 6 referrer Footnote 7 See Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2015  FC  1348, at paragraph 31. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 See section 42(2)(a) of the [NAME]. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2011  FCA  47, at paragraph 8. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 See section 42(2)(a) of the [NAME]. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 See GD2-104, GD2-179, and AD4-2 to AD4-9. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 See AD4-2 to AD4-9. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 See GD2-44 to GD2-47. Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 See GD2-46. Return to footnote 14 referrer Footnote 15 See GD2-44. Return to footnote 15 referrer Footnote 16 See GD2-45. Return to footnote 16 referrer Footnote 17 See GD2-44 to GD2-47. Return to footnote 17 referrer Footnote 18 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2008  FCA  377, and Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2020  FC  206. Return to footnote 18 referrer Footnote 19 See AD4-6 and AD4-8. Return to footnote 19 referrer Footnote 20 See AD4-5. Return to footnote 20 referrer Footnote 21 See AD4-2. Return to footnote 21 referrer Footnote 22 See AD4-4 Return to footnote 22 referrer Footnote 23 See GD2-104 and GD2-164. Return to footnote 23 referrer Footnote 24 See GD2-45. Return to footnote 24 referrer Footnote 25 See AD4-10. Return to footnote 25 referrer Footnote 26 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2002  FCA  248. Return to footnote 26 referrer Footnote 27 See AD4-50 and the Claimant’s testimony at the Appeal Division hearing. Return to footnote 27 referrer Footnote 28 See GD2-49, GD2-50, and AD4-6. Return to footnote 28 referrer Footnote 29 See AD4-8. Return to footnote 29 referrer Footnote 30 See GD2-49 and the Claimant’s testimony at the Appeal Division hearing. Return to footnote 30 referrer Footnote 31 See GD2-32. Return to footnote 31 referrer Footnote 32 See GD1-5. Return to footnote 32 referrer Footnote 33 See GD2-50. Return to footnote 33 referrer Footnote 34 [NAME])  v  [NAME] , 2002  FCA  47, at paragraphs 9-14. Return to footnote 34 referrer Footnote 35 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2003  FCA  117, at paragraph 3. Return to footnote 35 referrer Footnote 36 See GD2-150, GD2-151, GD2-164, GD2-171, and GD2-179. While I do not need to rely on it, the Claimant’s Notice of Appeal at the General Division also said that his health took “a turn for the worst” in mid-2022: see GD1-5. Return to footnote 36 referrer Footnote 37 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2009  FCA  173, at paragraphs 2-4. Federal Court of Appeal decisions are binding on the Tribunal. Return to footnote 37 referrer Footnote 38 See AD4-2 to AD4-5. Return to footnote 38 referrer Footnote 39 See GD2-105 to GD2-107, GD2-182, and GD2-185. Return to footnote 39 referrer Footnote 40 See section 8(1) of the [NAME] Tribunal Rules of Procedure ( [NAME]). Similar language appears in section 6(a) of the [NAME]. Return to footnote 40 referrer Footnote 41 See sections 6(b), 6(c), and 8(2) of the [NAME]. Return to footnote 41 referrer Footnote 42 See AD9-14. Return to footnote 42 referrer Footnote 43 See AD4-10. Return to footnote 43 referrer