Claimant’s CPP Disability Pension Appeal Denied by SSTC

OUTCOME: Dismissed

Citation: BF  v  [RESPONDENT] and [NAME] , 2026  [NAME]  235 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Decision Appellant: [redacted] Representative on record: [COUNSEL] at hearing: [COUNSEL] [NAME] Respondent: [redacted] [COUNSEL] [NAME] under appeal: General Division decision dated September 29, 2025 (GP-25-239) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: Teleconference Hearing date: April 8, 2026 Hearing participants: Appellant Appellant’s representative [COUNSEL] witness Respondent’s representative Respondent’s witness Decision date: June 7, 2026 File number: AD-25-747 On this page Decision Overview What I must decide Analysis Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] The appeal is dismissed. [ 2 ] The Appellant, B. F., isn’t eligible for a [NAME] ( [NAME] ) disability pension. Overview [ 3 ] The Appellant is a 41-year-old man who used to work as a driller in the [NAME]. He managed and operated a drilling rig and supervised a crew of four people. Footnote 1 The Appellant said that 50% of his job involved operating the controls for the rig. The other 50% involved heavy physical work. [ 4 ] In January 2021, the Appellant was driving to work when he had some kind of fainting episode. He says he woke up in a farmer’s yard speaking gibberish. Footnote 2 He was taken to the hospital. Footnote 3 His family doctor thought he may have had a bad reaction to a new medication. Footnote 4 [ 5 ] The Appellant hasn’t worked since the incident of January 2021. [ 6 ] The Appellant applied for a [NAME] disability pension in January 2023. Footnote 5 In his application, he said he can’t work because of sarcoidosis, anxiety, and depression. He said he has dizzy spells, breathing problems, and sometimes he has uveitis due to the sarcoidosis. Footnote 6 [ 7 ] The [RESPONDENT] and [NAME] (Minister) denied the application at both the initial and reconsideration levels of review. Footnote 7 [ 8 ] The Appellant appealed the Minister’s reconsideration decision to the Social Security Tribunal’s General Division. The General Division dismissed the appeal. [ 9 ] The Appellant disagreed with the General Division’s decision. So, he asked the Appeal Division for leave (permission) to appeal. In November 2025, one of my colleagues gave the Appellant permission to appeal. [ 10 ] On April 8, 2026, I held a de novo hearing. A de novo hearing means I wasn’t looking at whether the General Division made a mistake. I was taking a fresh look at the case, as if it hadn’t been decided before. What I must decide [ 11 ] I must decide if the Appellant has proven that he has a disability that was severe and prolonged by December 31, 2023. This date is based on his [NAME] contributions. Footnote 8 [ 12 ] A disability is severe if it makes a person incapable regularly of pursuing any substantially gainful occupation. Footnote 9 A job is substantially gainful if it gives a person an income that is the same as or more than the maximum annual [NAME] disability pension. Footnote 10 In 2023, that amount was about $18,500. It is currently about $21,000. [ 13 ] When I am assessing if a disability is severe, I must focus on whether the Appellant’s medical conditions result in functional limitations that get in the way of him earning a living. Footnote 11 My focus isn’t on the names of the conditions or diagnoses. Footnote 12 [ 14 ] A disability is prolonged if it is likely to be long continued and of indefinite duration, or is likely to result in death. Footnote 13 [ 15 ] The Appellant has to prove his case. He has to prove it on a balance of probabilities. This means he has to show it is more likely than not that he was disabled by the end of 2023. Analysis [ 16 ] The Appellant hasn’t proven his case. The evidence shows the Appellant could not return to his former job. But he could have done a different type of job. Despite having some ability to work, the Appellant didn’t try to find and keep a job. What the Appellant said about his disability [ 17 ] The Appellant said that his medical conditions resulted in functional limitations that affected his ability to work by the end of 2023. He said: He started getting really bad shortness of breath and constant dizziness after his accident of January 2021. Things that cause him to get short of breath include walking, mowing the lawn, and shovelling the snow. Any time he took his dogs out for a walk, he got very light-headed and extremely out of breath after a block to maybe a block and a half. It took him 20 minutes to catch his breath, and then he would have to go home. His wife can mow the lawn in about 45 minutes. It takes him about two hours. This is because he has to take so many breaks. He can mow the lawn for about one minute before he needs to take a break for at least 20 minutes. If it is really hot outside, then he needs to take a longer break. The summer heat and the winter cold make his breathing worse. So, his best seasons are the spring and fall. He can’t carry clothes from the dryer up the stairs because the heat from the clothes is too much for him. He bought himself an e-bike because he was struggling to pedal on his other bike. Riding the e-bike has been “awesome” for him because he can get out of the house and get some fresh air. He was riding his e-bike when he crashed on a bike path in 2023. He broke his collarbone and cracked a bunch of ribs. He also hit his eye on the sidewalk. After that, he has been getting non-stop uveitis in both eyes. When he gets the uveitis, he usually loses his eyesight. By this he means his affected eye is completely blurry. He can’t see out of that eye even with his glasses on. The uveitis has never affected both eyes at the same time. When he has uveitis, he can still drive because he can see out of his other eye. Sometimes the uveitis lasts one month. Other times it lasts eight months. Last year, he had it once for about five months. His has hand tremors. They started after the accident of January 2021. Since then, they have slowly gotten worse. They got really bad near the end of 2022 and start of 2023. His hand tremors were so bad that his handwriting was unreadable. He can’t even hold a screwdriver because he shakes so bad. If he tries to eat with a spoon, then half of the food falls off the spoon because of his hand tremors. He doesn’t know why he has shortness of breath all the time, dizziness, and the shakes. One of the [NAME] told him these symptoms are because he is deconditioned. He doesn’t agree. He keeps mowing the lawn every week, he keeps moving, and he keeps walking, so he doesn’t think he is out of shape. His depression started during the pandemic. He didn’t leave his house for six months because one of his [NAME] told him he should stay home due to his autoimmune disease (the sarcoidosis). After that, he wasn’t the same person. He battles anxiety every day. His depression is “all over the place.” He is up and he is down. He has a hard time going out in public. It is especially hard for him to go to busy places. He gets panic attacks when he is in crowded places. His symptoms from the panic attacks include a racing heart, light-headedness, sweating, heavy breathing, and feeling overwhelmed. He has ADHD. This makes him fidgety and makes it hard for him to sit still or pay attention to things. He has more bad days than good days. His bad days happen about 60% of the time. On bad days, he feels dizzy after a shower and wants to fall over. Then he feels nauseous right away and gets really shaky and can’t eat anything. He usually spends all day on the couch. On a good day in 2023, he would make himself a chore list for things that needed to get done for the day. He would get his kids ready for school and then shower and get dressed. If he felt okay to drive, he would go check his lotto tickets. Then he would come home and try to tidy up. He tried to get his chores done in the morning because by lunch time he was exhausted. On a nice day, he would go for a ride on his e-bike. The chores he could do on a good day in 2023, include making his children’s beds, loading the dishwasher, tidying the kitchen, driving across town to get groceries if the store wasn’t too busy, and mowing the lawn (with breaks). [ 18 ] The Appellant acknowledged that there have been some improvements. For example, he said his migraines have improved. He used to get them three to four times a week. Now he gets a migraine about once a week. He also acknowledged that he is getting out of the house more than he used to. What the Appellant’s witness said about the Appellant’s disability [ 19 ] The Appellant’s spouse testified at the hearing. She said that she has been in a relationship with the Appellant since 2011 or 2012. She said that before his disability the Appellant was more ambitious, more outgoing, travelled more, and always worked. [ 20 ] By December 31, 2023, she noticed quite a difference in his health. She said that by the end of 2023, the Appellant had problems with his breathing, difficulties with dizziness and nausea, was shaking quite a bit, and had problems with his mental health. Since the end of 2023, nothing has improved. [ 21 ] The witness gave examples of the Appellant’s functional limitations by December 31, 2023. She said the Appellant’s limitations were as follows: He had trouble going up and down the stairs, doing laundry, mowing the lawn, and shoveling the sidewalk. These activities affected his breathing and made him feel dizzy and nauseous. He was shaking a lot. Because of this, his handwriting was barely legible. It was in 2021 or 2022 when his handwriting got a lot messier. He could not go to their children’s concerts or go grocery shopping if the store was too busy. This is because he was getting panic attacks when going to public places. Because of this, she is the one who attended the school functions and did the grocery shopping. He struggled to cook. This is because the heat from the cooking affected his breathing and the heat could also make him dizzy. It is also because of the shakiness. There were times when he dropped a pot of water. Because of his difficulties with cooking, she had to prepare a lot of pre-made meals. [ 22 ] The witness also said that in 2023 the Appellant was having good days and bad days and his days were unpredictable. She said she works full time and so it is hard for her to say how many good days he had compared to his bad days. But she thinks his good days were either 40% or 50% of the time and his bad days were either 60% or 50% of the time. [ 23 ] The witness said that on the Appellant’s good days, he could dress himself, do a chore around the house, cook a light meal in the kitchen, and drive himself to things like appointments. On his bad days, he was nauseous, really shaky and just not feeling well. He would just lay on the couch and be unable to do daily tasks. The testimony raises some concerns about exaggerated limitations [ 24 ] Overall, the Appellant’s evidence was generally consistent with his spouse’s testimony. His spouse had testified first, and the Appellant heard her testimony. Still, there were some pieces of evidence that raise concerns about a tendency to overstate the Appellant’s limitations. [ 25 ] For example, the Appellant’s spouse testified that nothing has improved since 2023. But even the Appellant acknowledged some improvement. He said, for example, that his mood has “definitely” gotten better, his migraines have improved, and he is getting out of the house more. The medical evidence also confirms improvement. I will talk more about that later. [ 26 ] As another example of exaggerated testimony, the Appellant testified that he can only mow the lawn for one minute at a time and then he needs to take a break for at least 20 minutes. At another point in his testimony, he said his spouse can get the lawn done in about 45 minutes, but it usually takes him about two hours because he has to take so many breaks. [ 27 ] The Appellant’s evidence is likely exaggerated. If he can only mow the lawn for one minute at a time before needing a break of at least 20 minutes and if it usually takes him two hours to mow the lawn, then that would mean he gets the lawn mowed in about 5 or 6 minutes. This is significantly shorter than the 45 minutes it takes his spouse. [ 28 ] Because of the concerns about exaggerated evidence, I will place more weight on what the medical reports say. What the medical evidence says [ 29 ] The Appellant was required to provide medical evidence to support a finding that his functional limitations affected his ability to work by the end of 2023. Footnote 14 [ 30 ] The medical evidence shows the Appellant has medical conditions that result in functional limitations that affect what he can do. [ 31 ] I will start with the sarcoidosis. The Appellant’s sarcoidosis condition [ 32 ] Dr. [APPELLANT] is the Appellant’s pulmonologist. He first saw the Appellant in March 2020. He explained that the sarcoidosis was diagnosed after the Appellant had some tests done for fatigue. Around the same time, the Appellant was diagnosed with uveitis in the right eye. Dr. [APPELLANT] said the Appellant’s recent pulmonary function studies were within normal limits. He planned further testing, including a cardiac workup. In the meantime, he started the Appellant on medication (Methotrexate 15 mg weekly with folic acid 5 mg a day). Footnote 15 [ 33 ] On June 3, 2021, Dr. [APPELLANT] identified the Appellant’s main sarcoidosis symptom as skin lesions around his eyes. He said the Appellant was taking a medication called CellCept and this made the lesions much better . Dr. [APPELLANT] noted the Appellant was having some increased dyspnea (shortness of breath) and so he ordered a chest x-ray and pulmonary function tests. Footnote 16 [ 34 ] On May 18, 2022, Dr. [APPELLANT] reported that the Appellant was continuing to struggle with fatigue and dizziness. He suspected a sleep disorder and so he booked a sleep screen. He also planned other tests including full pulmonary function tests and a chest x-ray. Footnote 17 [ 35 ] On June 14, 2022, Dr. [NAME] said the level 3 sleep screen showed very sleep-disordered breathing. He planned to proceed with auto-CPAP titration. If that didn’t work, then he said they would do an urgent level 1 polysomnogram. Footnote 18 [ 36 ] On November 10, 2022, Dr. [APPELLANT] said the Appellant tried doing a stage II cardiopulmonary exercise test, but it didn’t go well. Dr. [NAME] said he stopped the test because he could tell the Appellant was starting to get light-headed and the Appellant felt he was going to pass out. Dr. [APPELLANT] said the Appellant has anxiety but didn’t desaturate or have any compromise from a respiratory or cardiac perspective. Dr. [NAME] planned to run some more tests. Footnote 19 [ 37 ] In December 2022, the Appellant’s insurer asked one of its consulting [NAME] (Dr. [NAME]) to respond to some questions, including a question about the Appellant’s restrictions and limitations. Dr. [APPELLANT], who is a family doctor, reviewed the file and noted the Appellant could not complete the stage II cardiopulmonary exercise test. [ 38 ] Dr. [NAME] said that his file review showed that the cause of the ongoing light-headedness and/or dizziness was still not known. But he said that given Dr. [NAME] letter of November 10, 2022, it seems reasonable to expect the Appellant to have a reduced exertional ability. Dr. [APPELLANT] also said he anticipated the Appellant’s limitations to be the following: walking no more than 15 minutes at a time standing no more than 30 minutes at a time lifting no more than 20 pounds at a time. Dr. [APPELLANT] said that these limitations would likely mean the Appellant would not be able to return to his previous job on the rigs. But he said the limitations would be consistent with an ability to work at a sedentary job. He also said that an updated functional capacity evaluation could be useful to determine the specific limitations with more accuracy. Footnote 20 [ 39 ] There is no functional capacity evaluation on record. [ 40 ] On January 17, 2023, Dr. [NAME] said the stage II cardiopulmonary exercise test showed poor exercise tolerance but no obvious cardiac or respiratory limitation to exercise. He thought the Appellant’s symptoms were due to deconditioning. Footnote 21 [ 41 ] The Appellant’s family doctor is Dr. [APPELLANT]. She filled out the [NAME] medical report in February 2023. She said the Appellant has unpredictable episodes of syncope (fainting or blacking out) that began in March 2020. She said they are likely related to the sarcoidosis and its treatment. She said the Appellant can’t drive long distances. She also said he can’t work right now because the unpredictable nature of his symptoms makes it difficult for him to do his job safely. Footnote 22 Dr. [APPELLANT] didn’t say the Appellant could not do a different job. Footnote 23 [ 42 ] Still, I admit that Dr. [NAME] reference to unpredictable recurrent syncopal episodes sounds serious, especially since the report implies the syncope episodes have been ongoing since March 2020. But when I think about this report in the broader context, I am left with the impression that the episodes are somewhat over-stated and not all of them are related to the sarcoidosis. I say this because: The Appellant returned to his job after March 2020, which is when Dr. [APPELLANT] said the episodes began. The Appellant continued to drive after March 2020, though perhaps not long distances after his accident in January 2021. It doesn’t make sense that Dr. [APPELLANT] would allow the Appellant to drive at all if he was having ongoing and unpredictable episodes of syncope. An [NAME] report of January 10, 2023 (just one month before [NAME]’s [NAME] medical report) says that a recent syncope episode was likely related to alcohol. The report is addressed to Dr. [NAME]. Footnote 24 [ 43 ] So, it appears that by February 2023, the sarcoidosis was not a condition that would have completely prevented the Appellant from working. Dr. [APPELLANT] said the Appellant could likely do sedentary work. And Dr. [APPELLANT] only said the Appellant could not drive long distances or return to his former job. On top of this, no other doctor on record, including Dr. [APPELLANT], was saying the Appellant could not do a different job. [ 44 ] The medical evidence after February 2023 doesn’t show the sarcoidosis worsened in any significant way before the end of 2023. In fact, the evidence shows the condition remained stable. Also, the Appellant had cardiac tests done in 2024 and the cardiologist didn’t rule out work capacity. [ 45 ] On August 30, 2023, Dr. [NAME] said the sarcoidosis was very stable . He said the Appellant was being investigated for potential cardiac limitations, but nothing had been found yet. Footnote 25 He said the Appellant was getting quite short of breath with any type of exertion. But Dr. [NAME] said this could not be explained by his respiratory status. Footnote 26 [ 46 ] On August 29, 2024, Dr. [APPELLANT] reported that the Appellant’s biggest symptom of sarcoidosis is the recurrent uveitis. Dr. [NAME] said the uveitis is being treated by [NAME] and they had just suggested that the sarcoid is not adequately controlled. Dr. [APPELLANT] noted the Appellant’s chest x-ray looked clear and his pulmonary function testing was unremarkable. Still, Dr. [APPELLANT] said he would switch the Appellant’s sarcoid medication from mycophenolate to infliximab in hopes of getting better control of the disease. Footnote 27 [ 47 ] There are no other reports on file from Dr. [NAME] after August 29, 2024. There are also no updated reports from [NAME]. So, I don’t know what Dr. [NAME] or the ophthalmologists were saying about the uveitis after August 2024. [ 48 ] On September 25, 2024, a cardiologist (Dr. [NAME]) said that a cardiac MRI of August 22, 2024, showed no evidence of cardiac sarcoidosis. But he said he would do a cardiac PET scan to rule it out. He also said an echocardiogram of January 10, 2023, was normal. Dr. [APPELLANT] noted the Appellant’s symptoms of ongoing dyspnea on exertion over the past two years, and light headedness when walking outside in the heat. He thought the dyspnea on exertion was likely due to the sarcoidosis and he assigned a New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification of II. Footnote 28 [ 49 ] The Minister’s professional witness, Dr. [NAME], testified that the classification of NYHA II means the Appellant would not be able to do heavy physical work. But he would be able to do light, sedentary work. Footnote 29 [ 50 ] In December 2024, Dr. [NAME] reported that the PET scan showed no evidence of cardiac sarcoidosis. He again said the Appellant is NYHA class II. He also said the Appellant didn’t have chest pain, hadn’t had any recent syncope, and didn’t need any further cardiac work-up at this point. Footnote 30 [ 51 ] I accept that the sarcoidosis and the associated uveitis resulted in functional limitations that affected what the Appellant would have been able to do. The medical evidence shows that the Appellant would likely not have been able to do jobs that required or involved: exertion walking more than 15 minutes at a time, standing more than 30 minutes at a time, or lifting more than 20 pounds at a time outdoor work or any work requiring exposure to hot or cold temperatures driving long distances jobs that require consistently good vision in both eyes such as jobs that require wide peripheral vision The Appellant’s hand tremors [ 52 ] The medical evidence confirms that the Appellant had functional limitations with hand tremors or hand shakiness in the spring of 2020. This was soon after the Appellant began taking methotrexate and folic acid. [ 53 ] For example, the Appellant told Dr. [APPELLANT] in May 2020 that he was getting episodes of shakiness on the days he took the folic acid but not on the days he took the methotrexate. Footnote 31 A few days later, the Appellant called Dr. [APPELLANT] office because he was concerned about being very shaky since starting the methotrexate. The Appellant said the shakiness prevented him from putting toothpaste on his toothbrush. Footnote 32 [ 54 ] On May 16, 2020, Dr. [NAME] said he had never seen shakiness as a side effect from methotrexate. He thought the symptom could just be part of the cluster of sarcoid symptoms the Appellant was having. Footnote 33 [ 55 ] On June 2, 2020, Dr. [APPELLANT] said the Appellant was still having shaking episodes. But Dr. [APPELLANT] could not explain why this was happening. Footnote 34 [ 56 ] After June 2, 2020, there is little to no mention in the medical reports of hand tremors or shakiness until about March 2022. This tells me that the hand symptoms likely didn’t continue after the spring of 2020 through to early 2022. There is other evidence that supports this. [ 57 ] First, the Appellant testified that his hand tremors didn’t start until after his accident of January 2021. This supports a finding that the shakiness in the spring of 2020 was short-lived. [ 58 ] Second, the Appellant saw a specialist (Dr. [APPELLANT]) in December 2021 for possible carpal tunnel syndrome. And that report doesn’t mention any hand tremors or hand shakiness. Instead, Dr. [NAME] report focuses on numbness. [ 59 ] Dr. [APPELLANT] said the Appellant had a two-month history of hand numbness. The Appellant told Dr. [APPELLANT] that his hands were going numb when he lifted heavier objects or held onto objects for a long time. Despite the numbness, he wasn’t dropping things. The Appellant also said he had numbness going from his shoulders down his arms. When the arm numbness happened, he felt like his shoulders would give out. [ 60 ] Dr. [NAME] said that the examination showed normal strength, sensation and reflexes in both upper extremities. There was no muscle wasting, fasciculations (muscle twitches), or obvious joint swelling. And nerve conduction studies were normal. Dr. [NAME] said the clinical history and exam were consistent with neurogenic thoracic outlet syndrome. He offered several treatment recommendations. Footnote 35 The Appellant hasn’t followed any of the recommendations. I will talk more about that later. [ 61 ] Dr. [APPELLANT] filled out a form for the Appellant’s insurer in August 2022. In that form she listed tremors as one of the Appellant’s symptoms. Footnote 36 [ 62 ] After August 2022, there is little to no other mention in the medical evidence about hand tremors or shakiness. So, I don’t think the hand tremors were or are nearly as debilitating as the Appellant and his witness described. [ 63 ] First, the Appellant said that his hand tremors got “really bad” by the end of 2022 and early 2023. Yet, Dr. [NAME] clinical notes from that time make no mention of hand tremors. Footnote 37 [ 64 ] Second, the Appellant was seeing other specialists in and after 2023 and those specialists didn’t note any hand tremors, let alone tremors that were so significant that they prevented the Appellant from writing legibly or holding something like a screwdriver. [ 65 ] Third, the Appellant’s representative’s office prepared detailed submissions in May 2024 about the Appellant’s limitations. Those submissions briefly mention limb tremors, but there is no mention of any corresponding limitation. [ 66 ] Fourth, Dr. [APPELLANT] testified that if the Appellant’s tremors were as problematic as the Appellant and his witness described then it would be reasonable to expect that his family doctor would look into what may be causing them. I agree. And I would add that it would also be reasonable to see some reference in the medical reports of the Appellant pushing for answers about why he has such significant tremors. Yet there are no references like that in the medical records. [ 67 ] Based on all of this, I can’t find that the Appellant had hand tremors that would have resulted in significant functional limitations by the end of 2023. The medical evidence doesn’t suggest the Appellant’s hand tremors were significant enough that they would have prevented him from typing on a keyboard, even without devices that can help with tremors, such as a keyguard. At most, the tremors may have prevented him from doing jobs that require precision work or hand steadiness for safety. The Appellant’s mental health conditions [ 68 ] The medical evidence confirms that the Appellant has had mental health conditions that resulted in limitations before December 31, 2023. However, the medical evidence also shows that the Appellant improved with treatment. [ 69 ] The Appellant saw some improvement with medications that were prescribed by Dr. [NAME] from about late 2021 to the summer of 2023. He saw more improvement with medications prescribed by his psychiatrist after October 2023. [ 70 ] I will start with Dr. [NAME] treatment for the mental health conditions. [ 71 ] In November 2021, Dr. [NAME] prescribed [NAME] for anxiety and panic attacks. Footnote 38 In January 2022, she replaced the Celexa with [APPELLANT]. [ 72 ] On February 15, 2022, Dr. [APPELLANT] said the Appellant’s mood was stable, but he was still getting panic attacks. They were not happening as often, but they were still frequent enough. She increased his Zoloft to 50 mg. Footnote 39 [ 73 ] Dr. [NAME] continued to increase the Zoloft over the next year. By February 2023, she said the Appellant’s anxiety was stable with Zoloft 150 mg. But she also said he was having panic attacks in social situations. Footnote 40 [ 74 ] In the meantime, the Appellant had started counselling in September 2022. Footnote 41 The Appellant testified that he continued with counselling for about one year. There are no reports on file from the Appellant’s therapist or counsellor. [ 75 ] On March 15, 2023, Dr. [APPELLANT] said the Appellant’s anxiety was well controlled. Footnote 42 Then in June 2023, she said the Appellant had seen a doctor in another city and that doctor had increased his Zoloft to 200 mg. But the Appellant was still having panic attacks. She prescribed Trintellix. Footnote 43 [ 76 ] On August 8, 2023, Dr. [APPELLANT] said the Trintellix was helping the Appellant’s mood more than previous medications. She described the Appellant’s mood as stable. Footnote 44 But, later that month, Dr. [APPELLANT] referred the Appellant to a psychiatrist (Dr. [APPELLANT]). Dr. [APPELLANT] said the Appellant has chronic anxiety with anxiety attacks that were “crippling” him and his ability to function. Dr. [NAME] also said the anxiety is a major part of his issues. Footnote 45 [ 77 ] The Appellant first saw Dr. [APPELLANT] in October 2023. The Appellant told Dr. [APPELLANT] that he has always been an anxious person, but it had gotten worse over the past three years, especially around the time of the pandemic. He had been having more anxiety attacks especially in situations involving large crowds. He was also feeling quite anxious in open spaces such as parking lots and other enclosed places like theatres. He was avoiding places that caused him anxiety. He described problems with sleep, low energy and a lack of motivation. He also said that he sometimes feels sad. [ 78 ] Dr. [NAME] diagnosed agoraphobia with probable generalized anxiety disorder. He noted the Appellant was seeing a therapist at [NAME] and would benefit from graded exposure therapy. Footnote 46 [ 79 ] On October 31, 2023, Dr. [NAME] included ADHD as a diagnosis. He also began making medication changes. Footnote 47 Over the next year or so, the Appellant had times when his anxiety or mood worsened. For example, the Appellant reported difficulties in January 2024 that seemed related to the holiday season. Footnote 48 He also reported difficulties in August 2024, after he learned that the police had destroyed some of his items. Footnote 49 [ 80 ] But overall, Dr. [APPELLANT] monthly reports show the Appellant improved. Examples of his improvement include the following: On November 27, 2023, Dr. [APPELLANT] said the Appellant was struggling with anxiety symptoms, especially in crowded environments. But he was coping reasonably well. His mood seemed reasonably good, and he was sleeping much better since starting trazodone. Objectively, he was less fidgety and engaged well. Footnote 50 At the end of November 2023, Dr. [APPELLANT] began to describe the Appellant’s mood as euthymic. This is a positive finding because it means a stable, normal mood. Footnote 51 There is only one report after October 2023 that doesn’t describe the Appellant’s mood as euthymic. That was in February 2024. By early December 2023, Dr. [APPELLANT] began to describe the Appellant’s affect as reactive. This too is a positive finding because it indicates an ability to respond to things appropriately. On December 5, 2023, Dr. [APPELLANT] said the Appellant was having some sleep problems. But his mood remained reasonably good aside from some anxiety symptoms that were much worse when he was outside the home. Footnote 52 On March 14, 2024, Dr. [NAME] said he was doing better and was reporting improved motivation and mood with less anxiety. He was sleeping well. Footnote 53 By mid-April 2024, Dr. [NAME] was no longer including a diagnosis of generalized anxiety disorder in his reports. His notes from that time say the Appellant was using his anxiety management techniques. And he was going out more despite still feeling anxious in crowded environments. Footnote 54 In mid-April 2024, Dr. [NAME] diagnosed a major depressive disorder. Even then, he said the Appellant described his mood as much improved. He felt more motivated and was beginning to enjoy previously enjoyed activities. He was sleeping well. Footnote 55 On June 17, 2024, Dr. [APPELLANT] reported that the Appellant was doing well. He was coping with his anxiety much better. He was not avoiding situations that provoked anxiety and he was feeling less anxious in crowded places. His mood was reasonably good on most days, he was sleeping well, and he wasn’t feeling groggy. Footnote 56 On December 17, 2024, Dr. [APPELLANT] said the Appellant was doing well and had no concerns . The Appellant said his mood was reasonably good and more stable. He wasn’t feeling overly anxious. He was sleeping well and was feeling more refreshed in the mornings. He was also coping well with his daily activities. Dr. [APPELLANT] planned to see the Appellant again in three months. In the meantime, he didn’t recommend any changes the Appellant’s medications. Footnote 57 [ 81 ] There are no reports on file from Dr. [APPELLANT] after December 2024. This is despite the Appellant testifying that he continues to see Dr. [APPELLANT] every three months. [ 82 ] Without updated reports from Dr. [APPELLANT], I can’t find that the Appellant’s mental health conditions worsened in any significant way after the last report of December 2024. [ 83 ] Even though the Appellant’s mental health conditions continued to improve in 2024, I accept that his mental health conditions resulted in limitations by the end of 2023. I accept that the Appellant would not have been able to work in crowded places or probably even a job that required him to regularly go to different or unfamiliar places. The alcohol and substance use disorders [ 84 ] [NAME]’s clinical notes suggest that before February or March 2023, the Appellant may not have been forthcoming about his difficulties with alcohol and drugs. Footnote 58 However, by mid-March 2023, he agreed to go to a [NAME]. Footnote 59 [ 85 ] There are no reports on file from the [NAME]. However, Dr. [APPELLANT] clinical notes show the Appellant was likely admitted to the facility on or about April 24, 2023, and that he stayed for about one month. Footnote 60 [ 86 ] After that, the medical evidence doesn’t report continued difficulties with either alcohol or substances. Footnote 61 This tells me that the treatment program was successful and that the Appellant didn’t have any functional limitations from the disuse disorders by December 31, 2023. The Appellant’s ADHD [ 87 ] The medical evidence shows that the Appellant’s ADHD improved with medication. [ 88 ] In June 2023, Dr. [APPELLANT] said the Appellant had filled out the ADHD Self-Report Scale (ASRS) and had scored high. But he wasn’t ready to start treatment. He wanted his anxiety and mood treated first. Footnote 62 [ 89 ] In August 2023, the Appellant told Dr. [APPELLANT] he was ready to try medications for the ADHD. She prescribed [NAME] 30 mg. About one month later, she increased the dose to 40 mg. Footnote 63 [ 90 ] On October 3, 2023, Dr. [APPELLANT] said that the Appellant was feeling less fidgety since starting the Vyvanse. Footnote 64 He said the same thing about a month later. He also said the Vyvanse had helped alleviate the restlessness. Footnote 65 [ 91 ] On March 14, 2024, the Appellant told Dr. [APPELLANT] that his Vyvanse was wearing off in the later part of the day. So, Dr. [NAME] prescribed divided doses of the Vyvanse (40 mg in the morning and 10 mg at noon). Footnote 66 [ 92 ] On April 15, 2024, Dr. [APPELLANT] said the Appellant was still feeling easily distracted and was asking whether an increase in [NAME] would help. Dr. [NAME] increased the morning dose to 50 mg. But he kept the afternoon dose the same. Footnote 67 [ 93 ] There is no medical evidence after April 15, 2024, about the Appellant’s ADHD. This tells me that the Vyvanse remained effective in managing the Appellant’s ADHD symptoms. The Appellant’s headache and migraine conditions [ 94 ] The medical evidence shows that the Appellant’s headaches and migraines got worse after December 31, 2023, but nevertheless improved with medication. [ 95 ] On March 3, 2021, Dr. [APPELLANT] said the Appellant had been having some migraine headaches, which were new for him. Footnote 68 In July 2021, Dr. [NAME] prescribed [NAME] for the migraines. Footnote 69 [ 96 ] There is little mention of headaches or migraines again until January 30, 2024 (after December 2023), when Dr. [APPELLANT] said the Appellant complained of migraine headaches that were not responding to medication. Footnote 70 [ 97 ] On March 14, 2024, Dr. [NAME] prescribed a small dose of amitriptyline for the migraines. Footnote 71 She changed that medication to Topamax in April 2024. Footnote 72 It took a few months to sort out the dosage of the Topamax, but it proved effective in treating the Appellant’s migraines. [ 98 ] For example, Dr. [APPELLANT] reported in June 2024 that the Appellant’s migraines were much improved with Topamax. She increased the dose to 75 mg. Footnote 73 [ 99 ] In September 2024, Dr. [APPELLANT] said that the Appellant was getting frequent but shorter migraines for the last three months. He was getting the migraines twice a week. They were lasting one day as opposed to three days. Dr. [APPELLANT] said the Appellant would try a slightly higher dose of Topamax. Footnote 74 [ 100 ] Dr. [NAME] clinical notes after September 2024 are on file (up to April 2025) and there is no other mention of headaches or migraines. In fact, those notes say he was doing well. Footnote 75 The Appellant’s injuries from the bike accidents [ 101 ] The medical evidence shows the Appellant had two bike accidents in 2023. Two different [NAME] said the Appellant was riding dirt bikes. An orthopedic surgeon mentioned an e-dirt bike in September 2023. And an [NAME] mentioned a dirt bike in November 2023. Footnote 76 [ 102 ] I asked the Appellant about his bike. He insisted he didn’t have any type of dirt bike. He said he was only riding a regular e-bike. [ 103 ] Either way, the medical evidence doesn’t show any lasting limitations from either accident. [ 104 ] The first accident was on August 31, 2023. Footnote 77 Dr. [APPELLANT] said the Appellant fractured some ribs and his right clavicle (collarbone). Footnote 78 I think Dr. [NAME] made a mistake about which collarbone was fractured. The imaging and specialist reports show it was the left collarbone. Footnote 79 [ 105 ] The Appellant testified that his collarbone hasn’t healed and is still broken. The medical evidence doesn’t support this. [ 106 ] On September 7, 2023, the Appellant saw an orthopedic surgeon (Dr. [APPELLANT]). According to the surgeon, the accident happened when the Appellant was on his e-dirt bike and showing off for his kids. He fell off and landed on his shoulder. The surgeon said the Appellant fractured the distal-third clavicle (the part closest to the shoulder). He hoped it could be treated without surgery. Footnote 80 [ 107 ] On September 21, 2023, Dr. [APPELLANT] said the Appellant was doing well. The Appellant was moving his shoulder a little bit, and the swelling and bruising had gone away. He was only taking Tylenol and Advil. The surgeon remained hopeful it could be treated without surgery. Footnote 81 [ 108 ] On October 10, 2023, Dr. [APPELLANT] noted the Appellant was having trouble sleeping due to pain and stiffness in the left shoulder. She prescribed Flexeril. Footnote 82 [ 109 ] One week later, Dr. [APPELLANT] said the Appellant was feeling well and didn’t even remember that his clavicle was fractured. He had full range of motion and only a small amount of tenderness at the fracture site. The surgeon said the Appellant wanted to continue with physiotherapy. He reviewed x-rays and said there was a good chance it would heal. He planned to see the Appellant again in six weeks. Footnote 83 [ 110 ] There are no other reports on file from Dr. [NAME]. There are also no physiotherapy reports on file. [ 111 ] Dr. [NAME] mentioned some left shoulder pain in a clinical note of January 18, 2024. But she described the pain as intermittent. Footnote 84 [ 112 ] At most, the medical evidence shows the Appellant may have had some intermittent pain in his left non-dominant shoulder by the end of December 31, 2023. There is no mention of any associated physical limitations from the shoulder pain. [ 113 ] The Appellant had a second bike accident on October 20, 2023. He was apparently found unresponsive after falling from the bike. He hurt the right side of his face, including his right eye. Footnote 85 An [NAME] (Dr. [NAME]) prescribed eye drops. Footnote 86  Imaging done of his spine, chest and head didn’t show significant findings. Footnote 87 [ 114 ] There is little to no other mention of the second accident. So, I can’t find that it resulted in functional limitations by the end of 2023. The Appellant didn’t follow treatment recommendations [ 115 ] To receive a disability pension, an appellant must make reasonable efforts to treat their disability and must follow medical advice. Footnote 88 If an appellant doesn’t do this, then they must have a reasonable explanation for not doing so. Footnote 89 If they don’t have a reasonable explanation, then I must consider what effect, if any, the medical treatment or advice might have had on the disability. Footnote 90 [ 116 ] The Minister says the Appellant didn’t follow treatment recommendations for the thoracic outlet syndrome. The Appellant doesn’t dispute this. [ 117 ] It was Dr. [APPELLANT] who diagnosed the neurogenic thoracic outlet syndrome. That was back in December 2021. Dr. [NAME] recommended physiotherapy, including stretching of the shoulder, nerve flossing, and possibly acupuncture or intramuscular stimulation. Dr. [NAME] said that if that didn’t work, then he could try trigger point injections. [ 118 ] The Appellant testified that he hasn’t done the physiotherapy because he still has a broken collarbone and so he can’t stretch his shoulders. He also said he doesn’t know why he didn’t follow up about Dr. [APPELLANT] other recommendations. [ 119 ] The Appellant’s representative asked the Appellant if Dr. [COUNSEL] had made any referrals for him for these treatments. The Appellant said she did not. The representative argued that the lack of referrals reasonably explains why the Appellant didn’t follow the recommendations. [ 120 ] In my view, the Appellant didn’t provide a reasonable explanation for not pursuing the treatment recommendations. [ 121 ] First, the collarbone fracture didn’t happen until August 2023, about a year and a half after the Appellant saw Dr. [APPELLANT]. Even then, the medical evidence suggests that the fracture has healed. So, I don’t think the Appellant has a valid concern about shoulder stretching. [ 122 ] Second, Dr. [NAME] may not have made the referrals (either to physiotherapy or another referral back to Dr. [NAME] for the injections), but I don’t know why that might be. I don’t know, for example, if it was because the Appellant told her he was not interested in treatment. Also, even if Dr. [NAME] didn’t discuss Dr. [APPELLANT] treatment recommendations with the Appellant, there is nothing that would have prevented the Appellant from taking the necessary step to manage the condition. He could have asked about treatment recommendations and asked about referrals. [ 123 ] Even though the Appellant didn’t provide a reasonable explanation for not following Dr. [NAME] treatment recommendations, I don’t think it matters. It would not have affected the Appellant’s disability status. The Appellant didn’t identify hand, arm or shoulder numbness as a reason for his inability to work. A summary of the Appellant’s limitations by December 31, 2023 [ 124 ] To recap, the evidence shows that the Appellant likely had functional limitations by the end of 2023. Those limitations were as follows: an inability to do physical exertion an inability to walk more than 15 minutes at a time, stand more than 30 minutes at a time, or lift more than 20 pounds at a time an inability to work outdoors or any location requiring exposure to hot or cold temperatures an inability to drive long distances an inability to do tasks requiring consistently good vision in both eyes such as tasks that require wide peripheral vision an inability to do tasks that require hand precision or hand steadiness for safety an inability to work in crowded places or probably even a job that requires travel to different or unfamiliar places [ 125 ] I now need to consider whether the Appellant could have worked in the real world, despite his limitations. The Appellant could work in the real world [ 126 ] A finding about whether a person can work in the real world must include a consideration of things like the Appellant’s age, level of education, language abilities, and past work and life experience. Footnote 91 [ 127 ] The Appellant’s representative argues that the Appellant’s personal characteristics very much limit the type of work he could do. I don’t agree. [ 128 ] The Appellant is young. In December 2023, he was only 39 years old. So, he had many years ahead of him before the average retirement age of 65. [ 129 ] The Appellant is fluent in English. So, there would be more jobs available to him than to someone with limited language abilities in either of Canada’s two official languages. [ 130 ] The Appellant has a lot of work experience in the [NAME]. His positions include roughneck, motorhand, derrickhand, and finally a driller where he supervised a crew of four. Footnote 92 [ 131 ] I acknowledge that the Appellant can’t return to his physically demanding job. But his years in the [NAME] are still relevant. He would have some transferrable skills from that type of work, including troubleshooting skills, data analyzing skills, and leadership abilities. [ 132 ] I also acknowledge that the Appellant doesn’t have any post-secondary education. But he did finish high school. And he is young enough to retrain or upgrade his education. [ 133 ] The Appellant said his ADHD would prevent him from retraining. I can’t agree. [ 134 ] It is likely that the Appellant would have been required to successfully complete safety training while he was working on the [NAME]. That would show some capacity to focus and learn new things. [ 135 ] More than that, the evidence shows the Appellant began taking medication for his ADHD in August 2023 and that his symptoms improved with medication. So, his argument about being unable to retrain is speculative and untested. [ 136 ] The [APPELLANT] was asked during the hearing to describe his computer skills. He said, “I don’t have any.” I think this is unlikely. [ 137 ] First, the Appellant reported in May 2024 that he has basic computer knowledge, but “nothing special.” Footnote 93 [ 138 ] Second, the [APPELLANT] acknowledged he took some typing in high school and that he could type “a little bit” without looking at the keyboard. [ 139 ] Third, the [APPELLANT] worked as a driller in an [NAME] that is known to be highly automated. [ 140 ] The [APPELLANT] testified that he used a “touch screen thing” at work called [NAME] but he said it wasn’t like a computer. He said it monitored everything that was happening with the well, like how much weight was on the bit, the pump pressures, and the speed of the drill. He also acknowledged the need for data to be entered into the system. For example, he said the derrickhand (a position he held in the past) needs to enter the results of their mud checks. He also said the data (presumably real-time data) was available to others who were at other locations, like the toolpush trailer and the office in Calgary. [ 141 ] In my view, the Appellant’s ability to use these automated and digital systems is indicative of transferable computer skills. The Appellant didn’t try to find and keep a job [ 142 ] When there is evidence of work capacity (like there is here), the Appellant must show that he tried to find and keep a job. He must also show that his efforts weren’t successful because of his medical conditions. Footnote 94 Finding and keeping a job includes retraining or looking for a job that accommodates his limitations. Footnote 95 [ 143 ] The Appellant testified that he hasn’t tried to find any type of job since he stopped working in January 2021. He also said he hasn’t done any retraining. Without efforts to find and keep a job, I can’t find the Appellant’s disability was severe by December 31, 2023. [ 144 ] Because the Appellant’s disability wasn’t severe by the end of 2023, it is not necessary for me to assess whether it was prolonged. Footnote 96 Conclusion [ 145 ] The appeal is dismissed. The Appellant isn’t eligible for a [NAME] disability pension. Footnotes Footnote 1 See GD2-41 and the Appellant’s testimony. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See GD2-33 and the Appellant’s testimony. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See AD7-30. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See GD2-340. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 See GD2-30. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 See GD2-33. The Minister explained that sarcoidosis is a condition that causes immune system cells to form nodules or granulomas in any part of the body. See GD6-2 and AD5-5. The Minister also explained that uveitis is eye inflammation. See AD5-7. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 The Minister’s initial decision from October 24, 2023, is at GD2-24 to GD2-26. The Minister’s reconsideration decision from December 31, 2024, is at GD2-6 to GD2-8. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 The contributory requirements are set out in section 44(2) of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 A severe disability is defined in section 42(2)(a)(i) of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 The term “substantially gainful” is defined in section 68.1(1) of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 [NAME]  v  Canada ([NAME]) , 2008  FCA  33 at paragraph 14. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2013  FCA  81 at paragraph 7. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 A prolonged disability is defined in section 42(2)(a)(ii) of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2008  FCA  377; and Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2020  FC  206. Return to footnote 14 referrer Footnote 15 See GD2-332 to GD2-333. Return to footnote 15 referrer Footnote 16 See GD2-310. Return to footnote 16 referrer Footnote 17 See GD2-274. Return to footnote 17 referrer Footnote 18 See GD2-273. Return to footnote 18 referrer Footnote 19 See AD7-65. Return to footnote 19 referrer Footnote 20 See GD2-254 to GD2-256. Return to footnote 20 referrer Footnote 21 See GD2-237. Return to footnote 21 referrer Footnote 22 See GD2-354 and GD2-359 to GD2-360. Return to footnote 22 referrer Footnote 23 See GD2-354 and GD2-359 to GD2-360. Return to footnote 23 referrer Footnote 24 See GD4-186. Return to footnote 24 referrer Footnote 25 See GD2-210. Return to footnote 25 referrer Footnote 26 See GD2-211. Return to footnote 26 referrer Footnote 27 See GD2-107. Return to footnote 27 referrer Footnote 28 See GD2-163 to GD2-164. Return to footnote 28 referrer Footnote 29 See also GD6-7. Return to footnote 29 referrer Footnote 30 See GD2-90 to GD2-91. Return to footnote 30 referrer Footnote 31 See AD7-15. Return to footnote 31 referrer Footnote 32 See GD2-331. Return to footnote 32 referrer Footnote 33 See GD2-330. Return to footnote 33 referrer Footnote 34 See GD2-329. Return to footnote 34 referrer Footnote 35 See GD2-285 to GD2-286. Return to footnote 35 referrer Footnote 36 See GD2-257 to GD2-258. Return to footnote 36 referrer Footnote 37 See GD2-89. Return to footnote 37 referrer Footnote 38 See GD2-264. Return to footnote 38 referrer Footnote 39 See GD2-263. Return to footnote 39 referrer Footnote 40 See GD2-354. Return to footnote 40 referrer Footnote 41 See GD2-348. Return to footnote 41 referrer Footnote 42 See GD4-165. Return to footnote 42 referrer Footnote 43 See GD2-88. Return to footnote 43 referrer Footnote 44 See GD2-88. Return to footnote 44 referrer Footnote 45 See GD2-210. Return to footnote 45 referrer Footnote 46 See GD2-136 to GD2-138. Return to footnote 46 referrer Footnote 47 See GD2-128 to GD2-129. Return to footnote 47 referrer Footnote 48 See GD2-119 to GD2-120. Return to footnote 48 referrer Footnote 49 The report says the police confiscated the Appellant’s guns about two years ago after a history of domestic violence. See GD2-108. Return to footnote 49 referrer Footnote 50 See GD2-124 to GD2-125. Return to footnote 50 referrer Footnote 51 See Dr. [NAME] testimony. Return to footnote 51 referrer Footnote 52 See GD2-122 to GD2-123. Return to footnote 52 referrer Footnote 53 See GD2-116 to GD2-117. Return to footnote 53 referrer Footnote 54 See GD2-114 to GD2-115. Return to footnote 54 referrer Footnote 55 See GD2-114 to GD2-115. Return to footnote 55 referrer Footnote 56 See GD2-110 to GD2-111. Return to footnote 56 referrer Footnote 57 See GD2-92 to GD2-93. Return to footnote 57 referrer Footnote 58 See GD4-17. Return to footnote 58 referrer Footnote 59 See GD4-16. Return to footnote 59 referrer Footnote 60 See GD2-88 to GD2-89. Return to footnote 60 referrer Footnote 61 See GD2-88 Return to footnote 61 referrer Footnote 62 See GD2-88. Return to footnote 62 referrer Footnote 63 See GD2-87. Return to footnote 63 referrer Footnote 64 See GD2-137. Return to footnote 64 referrer Footnote 65 See GD2-128 to GD2-129. Return to footnote 65 referrer Footnote 66 See GD2-116 to GD2-117. Return to footnote 66 referrer Footnote 67 GD2-114 to GD2-115. Return to footnote 67 referrer Footnote 68 See GD2-315. Return to footnote 68 referrer Footnote 69 See AD7-12. Return to footnote 69 referrer Footnote 70 See GD2-120. Return to footnote 70 referrer Footnote 71 See GD2-85 and GD2-116 to GD2-117. Return to footnote 71 referrer Footnote 72 See GD2-84 and GD4-11. Return to footnote 72 referrer Footnote 73 See GD2-83. Return to footnote 73 referrer Footnote 74 See GD2-83. Return to footnote 74 referrer Footnote 75 See GD4-9. Return to footnote 75 referrer Footnote 76 See GD2-126. Return to footnote 76 referrer Footnote 77 See GD2-148 to GD2-149. Return to footnote 77 referrer Footnote 78 See GD2-87. Return to footnote 78 referrer Footnote 79 See GD2-142 to GD2-146. Return to footnote 79 referrer Footnote 80 See GD2-144 to GD2-145. Return to footnote 80 referrer Footnote 81 See GD2-142. Return to footnote 81 referrer Footnote 82 See GD2-86. Return to footnote 82 referrer Footnote 83 See GD2-134. Return to footnote 83 referrer Footnote 84 See GD2-85. Return to footnote 84 referrer Footnote 85 See GD2-127. Return to footnote 85 referrer Footnote 86 See GD2-126. Return to footnote 86 referrer Footnote 87 See GD2-131 to GD2-133. Return to footnote 87 referrer Footnote 88 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2018  FCA  48; and [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2022  FCA  104. Return to footnote 88 referrer Footnote 89 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2022  FCA  104. Return to footnote 89 referrer Footnote 90 [NAME]  v  Canada (Miniter of [NAME]) , 2002  FCA  211. Return to footnote 90 referrer Footnote 91 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2001  FCA  248. Return to footnote 91 referrer Footnote 92 See GD2-342 and the Appellant’s testimony. Return to footnote 92 referrer Footnote 93 See GD2-202. Return to footnote 93 referrer Footnote 94 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2003  FCA  117. Return to footnote 94 referrer Footnote 95 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2008  FCA  150. Return to footnote 95 referrer Footnote 96 [NAME]  v  Canada ([NAME]) , 2008  FCA  33 at paragraph 10. Return to footnote 96 referrer