Claimant’s CPP Disability Pension Appeal Rejected Due to Lack of Evidence

OUTCOME: Dismissed

Citation: AD  v  [RESPONDENT[NAME] , 2026  [NAME]  206 Social Security Tribunal of Canada [NAME] Security Section Decision Appellant: [redacted] Representative: [NAME] Respondent: [redacted] [RESPONDENT[NAME] reconsideration decision dated February 26, 2025 (issued by Service Canada) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: Videoconference Hearing date: May 21, 2026 Hearing participants: Appellant Appellant’s representative Decision date: May 25, 2026 File number: GP-25-724 On this page Decision Overview What the Appellant must prove Reasons for my decision Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] The appeal is dismissed. [ 2 ] The Appellant, A. D., isn’t eligible for a [NAME] ( [NAME] ) disability pension. This decision explains why I am dismissing the appeal. Overview [ 3 ] The Appellant is 47 years old. She worked as an elementary school teacher. She has mental health conditions including anxiety and obsessive-compulsive disorder. She claims to be disabled as of September 2017. She stopped working in September 2018. Footnote 1 [ 4 ] The Appellant applied for a [NAME] disability pension on February 5, 2024. The [RESPONDENT[NAME] (Minister) refused her application. The Appellant appealed the Minister’s decision to the Social Security Tribunal’s [NAME]. [ 5 ] The Appellant says that she is disabled from working any job. She says that her anxiety is too high to function in any workplace. She avoids interactions with others and fears judgment. She says that she reasonably participated in treatment. [ 6 ] The Minister says that the evidence doesn’t support a finding of disability under the [NAME] . The Minister argues that the Appellant remained on the same antidepressant since April 2022 and didn’t follow a mental health treatment recommendation. The Minister argues that she could likely do a suitable occupation. Footnote 2 What the Appellant must prove [ 7 ] For the Appellant to succeed, she must prove she has a disability that was severe and prolonged by the hearing date. In other words, no later than May 21, 2026. Footnote 3 [ 8 ] The [NAME] defines “severe” and “prolonged.” [ 9 ] A disability is severe if it makes an appellant incapable regularly of pursuing any substantially gainful occupation. Footnote 4 A disability is prolonged if it is likely to be long continued and of indefinite duration, or is likely to result in death. Footnote 5 This means the Appellant’s disability can’t have an expected recovery date. The disability must be expected to keep the Appellant out of the workforce for a long time. [ 10 ] The Appellant must prove she has a severe and prolonged disability on a balance of probabilities. She has to show it is more likely than not that she is disabled. Reasons for my decision [ 11 ] I find that the Appellant hasn’t proven she had a severe and prolonged disability by the hearing date. She failed to mitigate her disability by not following a treatment recommendation. Following the treatment recommendation might have made a difference to her disability status. This means that her disability wasn’t severe. Because I found that her disability wasn’t severe, I didn’t consider whether it was prolonged. Was the Appellant’s disability severe? [ 12 ] The Appellant’s disability wasn’t severe. I reached this finding by considering several factors. I explain these factors below. The Appellant’s functional limitations affected her ability to work [ 13 ] The Appellant has: generalized anxiety disorder obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) social anxiety disorder [ 14 ] However, I can’t focus on the Appellant’s diagnoses. Footnote 6 Instead, I must focus on whether she has functional limitations that got in the way of her earning a living. Footnote 7 When I do this, I have to look at all of the Appellant’s medical conditions (not just the main one) and think about how they affected her ability to work. Footnote 8 [ 15 ] I find that the Appellant has functional limitations that affected her ability to work. What the Appellant says about her functional limitations [ 16 ] The Appellant says that her medical conditions have resulted in functional limitations that affect her ability to work. She says: it is hard to concentrate because she worries constantly she is exhausted daily and feels “on edge” she has a poor ability to adjust easily to unexpected changes, figure out what to do when stressed, and deal with people she doesn’t know she has a hard time handling being in public spaces or situations and managing her anxiety she avoids confrontation and has difficulty socializing with friends, family, and colleagues because of OCD, she checks things many times in her home she has a poor ability to make decisions and prioritize her day Footnote 9 [ 17 ] At the hearing, the Appellant discussed her difficulty working. She described poor organizational abilities and “hiding” in her classroom to avoid coworkers. She was anxious that other staff may come into her classroom while she was teaching. She couldn’t decide on student grades because she thought that parents would be upset and would question her. [ 18 ] The Appellant fell in September 2025. This resulted in hip pain and a concussion. Footnote 10 At the hearing she didn’t base her disability appeal on limitations from this condition. Because of that, I didn’t factor this into the analysis. What the medical evidence says about the Appellant’s functional limitations [ 19 ] The Appellant must provide some medical evidence to support that her functional limitations affected her ability to work no later than the hearing date. Footnote 11 [ 20 ] The medical evidence supports that the Appellant was diagnosed with mental health conditions. She has generalized anxiety disorder , social anxiety disorder , and obsessive-compulsive disorder . She had intrusive thoughts, compulsions, ritualistic behaviour, excessive worry, panic attacks, and nervousness. She felt overwhelmed. She had anxiety in relation to social interactions. Footnote 12 [ 21 ] The file contains an attending physician’s statement of disability from July 2020 completed by Dr. [NAME]. Dr. [NAME] first saw her for anxiety in August 2019. Dr. [NAME] reported that her anxiety began in August 2018. She had limitations to memory, energy, speech, mood, insight, judgment, behaviour, decision making, socialization, focus, and concentration. Footnote 13 [ 22 ] The Appellant began seeing Dr. [APPELLANT], a [NAME] practitioner psychotherapist as a specialist for her mental health care. I gave significant weight to Dr. [NAME] medical evidence because he treated her mental health conditions, which are the basis of her [NAME] disability claim. Dr. [NAME] records span four years, from 2021 to March 2024She saw other family doctors for the rest of her medical concerns. Footnote 14 [ 23 ] In January 2021, Dr. [NAME] gave a tentative diagnosis of social anxiety disorder, severe. He wrote that it was nearly incapacitating. Her condition was amendable to treatment. She had difficulty with authority, avoided running into people she might know, and would leave work at lunch to avoid seeing her colleagues. She would drop courses if presentations were involved. She didn’t have friends because of her anxiety. Footnote 15 [ 24 ] The medical evidence supports that the Appellant’s anxiety and obsessive-compulsive disorder limitations prevented her from doing her usual job. [ 25 ] Next, I will look at whether the Appellant followed medical advice. The Appellant didn’t follow all medical advice [ 26 ] To receive a disability pension, an appellant must follow medical advice. Footnote 16 If an appellant doesn’t follow medical advice, then they must have a reasonable explanation for not doing so. Footnote 17 If they don’t have a reasonable explanation, then I must also consider what effect, if any, the medical advice might have had on the appellant’s disability. Footnote 18 What the medical evidence says about treatment augmentation [ 27 ] Dr. [APPELLANT] suggested that the Appellant optimize her medication six times between 2021 to 2024. In February 2022, Dr. [NAME] noted that she changed medication from Pristiq to [NAME]. Pristiq caused her gastrointestinal side effects and didn’t have any benefit. She reported one side effect of snoring with 30mg [NAME]. Dr. [NAME] wrote that she had plateaued with the 30mg dose of [NAME]. She was strongly advised to consider augmentation with Remeron for a better outcome. She wanted time to think about it. Footnote 19 [ 28 ] In May 2022, the Appellant still wasn’t interested in adding Remeron. She was afraid of possible weight gain. She reported that she gained five pounds over four months which she attributed to [NAME]. Dr. [NAME] advised her that weight gain can be from multiple sources, and didn’t suggest switching from [NAME] because of this weight gain. In September and December 2022, Dr. [NAME] again discussed optimizing medication to help treat her ongoing limitations from high levels of anxiety. Footnote 20 [ 29 ] In March 2023, Dr. [APPELLANT] wrote that the Appellant was hesitant to accept “optimal treatment” which included medication augmentation. She reported worsening anxiety symptoms and that her five therapist visits weren’t helpful. Dr. [NAME] discussed the possible benefits of medication augmentation again. Footnote 21 [ 30 ] The Appellant last saw Dr. [APPELLANT] one year later in March 2024 for a [NAME] medication refill. She still had ongoing anxiousness. He wrote that she was only partially improved with the current medication and had residual symptoms from anxiety disorders. She wasn’t willing to optimize medication despite having her anxiety limit her functioning, including her ability to travel, interact with others, and work. Footnote 22 [ 31 ] Dr. [NAME] wasn’t the only family doctor to discuss the importance of medication optimization with the Appellant. Dr. [APPELLANT] (locum family doctor) also encouraged her to follow up with Dr. [NAME] to optimize her medication in September 2025. Footnote 23 [ 32 ] Dr. [APPELLANT] prioritized medications for the Appellant’s mental health care. This speaks to the importance of this treatment for her. Dr. [NAME] and Dr. [NAME] knew that she was doing therapy. She was still recommended to optimize her medication repeatedly. This suggests that Dr. [NAME] didn’t think that therapy and [NAME] were enough to treat her conditions. [ 33 ] The most recent evidence is from Dr. [NAME] (current family doctor) in March 2026. Dr. [NAME] letter is silent on Dr. [NAME] medication direction, despite his [NAME] being aware of Dr. [NAME] medical recommendations as Dr. [NAME] mentioned it in her notes six months prior. It isn’t apparent that Dr. [NAME] changed her treatment direction form Dr. [NAME]. [ 34 ] Dr. [NAME] wrote that she continued to have limitations from anxiety and OCD conditions. She took [NAME] 30mg and saw therapists every two weeks. She was compliant with this treatment, but she notes only minimal improvements in her anxiety. Footnote 24 The parties’ arguments on treatment adherence [ 35 ] The Minister says that the Appellant didn’t follow Dr. [APPELLANT] treatment recommendation to optimize her medication. The Minister argues that this failure may preclude her from a determination of a severe disability under the [NAME] . Footnote 25 [ 36 ] The Appellant argues that she has made reasonable treatment efforts. At the hearing, the Appellant said that she didn’t want to try Remeron because she was afraid of adding a second medication. She said that her body tolerates [NAME] the best in comparison to the other medications she tried in the past. She said she had weight gain with [NAME], which caused her to be more socially anxious. She was afraid of weight gain with additional medications. [ 37 ] At the hearing, the Appellant discussed why she stopped seeing Dr. [APPELLANT] in March 2024. She said that he was intimidating and she felt anxious. The Appellant’s treatment decision was unreasonable [ 38 ] The Appellant didn’t follow advice from Dr. [APPELLANT] to augment her medication. She didn’t give a reasonable explanation for not following the advice. [ 39 ] From the records, I can see that the Appellant identified side effects with Zoloft (an SSRI) and with [NAME] (an SNRI). She then tried [NAME]. Footnote 26 Her explanation for not adding a second medication isn’t reasonable. It isn’t reasonable to refuse a second medication outright. The medical evidence didn’t support this belief that her body won’t tolerate any other classifications or types of medications. [ 40 ] The Appellant’s decision not to try a suggested medication because of possible weight gain is unreasonable. She once mentioned a five-pound weight change in 2022. Dr. [NAME] recommended that she stay on the medication, which suggests he believed that the benefits outweighed the weight change. [ 41 ] The later medical evidence doesn’t note any other side affects after the 2022 weight change. Dr. [NAME] charting from March 2024 didn’t mention any side effects from [NAME]. Dr. [NAME] note from 2026 didn’t report any adverse side effects either. Footnote 27 [ 42 ] I appreciate that the Appellant’s anxiety features cause her to worry about judgement from others, which could include judgment of her physical appearance. But if the medication worked to reduce her anxiety, then these fears around her body size could be reduced as well. [ 43 ] The Appellant’s decision to stop seeing her mental health care practitioner without seeking alternative medical care for a disabling condition isn’t reasonable. This prevented her from having a continuity of care for her disabling conditions. The evidence doesn’t support that she sought a referral to an [NAME] to receive care or discussed her concerns with any of her primary care physicians. [ 44 ] The evidence doesn’t support that the Appellant addressed her concerns about Dr. [APPELLANT] being intimidating with Dr. [NAME], Dr. [NAME], or another health care practitioner. This is important because the doctors noted that she continued to have serious limitations and two doctors noted that her treatment was not optimized, which suggests that she still needed to be under a doctor’s care. Following treatment might have impacted the Appellant’s disability status [ 45 ] I must now consider whether following this medical advice might have affected the Appellant’s disability. I find that following the medical advice might have made a difference to the Appellant’s disability. [ 46 ] Dr. [APPELLANT] strongly believed that augmenting the Appellant’s medication was critical to her mental health improvement. Otherwise, he wouldn’t have recommended it six times. Dr. [NAME] emphasized that [NAME] alone wouldn’t treat her symptoms. The medical evidence supports that following treatment advice to try [NAME] would likely have had a meaningful impact on her disability status. [ 47 ] The Appellant didn’t follow medical advice that might have affected her disability. She failed to mitigate her disability, which interferes with a finding of severity. This means that her disability wasn’t severe. [ 48 ] When I am deciding whether a disability was severe, I usually have to consider an appellant’s personal characteristics. This allows me to realistically assess an appellant’s ability to work. Footnote 28 [ 49 ] I don’t have to do that here because the Appellant didn’t follow medical advice and didn’t give a reasonable explanation for not following the advice. This means she hasn’t proven that her disability was severe by the hearing date. Footnote 29 Conclusion [ 50 ] I find that the Appellant isn’t eligible for a [NAME] disability pension because her disability wasn’t severe. Because I have found that her disability wasn’t severe, I didn’t have to consider whether it was prolonged. [ 51 ] This means the appeal is dismissed. Footnotes Footnote 1 See GD2-46. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See GD10. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 Service Canada uses an appellant’s years of [NAME] contributions to calculate their coverage period, or “minimum qualifying period” ( MQP ). The end of the coverage period is called the MQP date. See section 44(2) of the [NAME] . The Appellant’s [NAME] contributions are on GD2-65. In this case, the Appellant’s coverage period ends after the hearing date, so I have to decide whether she was disabled by the hearing date. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 Section 42(2)(a) of the [NAME] gives this definition of severe disability. Section 68.1 of the [NAME] says a job is “substantially gainful” if it pays a salary or wages equal to or greater than the maximum annual amount a person could receive as a disability pension. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 Section 42(2)(a) of the [NAME] gives this definition of prolonged disability. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 [NAME]  v  Canada ([NAME] [NAME]) , 2013  FCA  81. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 [NAME]  v  Canada ([NAME]) , 2008  FCA  33. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 [NAME]  v  Canada ([NAME] [NAME]) , 2011  FCA  47. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 See GD2-49 to 52. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 See GD9-30 to 33. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 [NAME]  v  Canada ([NAME] [NAME]) , 2008  FCA  377; and Canada ([NAME] [NAME])  v  [NAME] , 2020  FC  206. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 See GD2-112 to 113, 119 to 123, 125, 132 to 135, and GD9-3 to 21. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 See GD2-181 to 182 and 187 to 189. Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 See GD2-136. Dr. [NAME] identifies himself as a “GP with focused practice in mental health and psychopharmacology.” See GD9-24 to 28 for the Appellant’s more recent medical care focused on her physical health. Return to footnote 14 referrer Footnote 15 See GD2-119 to 136. Return to footnote 15 referrer Footnote 16 [NAME]  v  Canada ([NAME] [NAME]) , 2018  FCA  48. Return to footnote 16 referrer Footnote 17 [NAME]  v  Canada ([NAME] [NAME]) , 2022  FCA  104. Return to footnote 17 referrer Footnote 18 [NAME]  v  Canada ([NAME] ), 2002  FCA  211. Return to footnote 18 referrer Footnote 19 See GD2-129 to 131. Return to footnote 19 referrer Footnote 20 See GD2-130 to 134. Return to footnote 20 referrer Footnote 21 See GD2-134 to 135. Return to footnote 21 referrer Footnote 22 See GD2-135. Return to footnote 22 referrer Footnote 23 See GD9-30 to 31. Return to footnote 23 referrer Footnote 24 See GD9-38 to 39. Return to footnote 24 referrer Footnote 25 See GD10-8 and 10. Return to footnote 25 referrer Footnote 26 See GD2-131. SSRI stands for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor. SNRI stands for serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor. Return to footnote 26 referrer Footnote 27 See GD2-135, GD9-18, and 38. Return to footnote 27 referrer Footnote 28 [NAME]  v  Canada ([NAME] [NAME]) , 2001  FCA  248. Return to footnote 28 referrer Footnote 29 [NAME]  v  Canada ([NAME] [NAME]) , 2018  FCA  48. Return to footnote 29 referrer