CPP Disability Appeal Denied Due to Res Judicata

Citation: [NAME] v [NAME] , 2026  [NAME]  101 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Leave to Appeal Decision Applicant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated November 4, 2025 (GP-25-827) Tribunal member: [NAME] Decision date: February 12, 2026 File number: AD-25-833 On this page Decision Overview Issues I can’t give the Claimant permission to appeal Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] Leave (permission) to appeal is refused. This means the appeal won’t go forward. Overview [ 2 ] [NAME]. is the Claimant. She wants to appeal a General Division decision. I can give her permission to appeal if she shows an arguable case the General Division made an error. Or if she has new evidence. [ 3 ] The Claimant has applied for a [NAME] ( [NAME] ) disability pension three times. The Minister refused each application—originally then on reconsideration. [ 4 ] In 2008, the Claimant lost her appeal to the Review Tribunal of the Minister’s first reconsideration decision. The Review Tribunal decided she didn’t qualify for a disability pension by the end of her coverage period. (The end date of her coverage period is the same for all her applications.) In 2015, she lost her appeal to the General Division of the Minister’s second reconsideration decision. The General Division dismissed her appeal because the Review Tribunal had already decided she didn’t qualify. Footnote 1 [ 5 ] The Claimant is now appealing the Minister’s reconsideration decision refusing her third application. The General Division dismissed her appeal, applying the rule against deciding something already decided. The General Division uses the legal term for this— res judicata . I will call this the “Rule against deciding again.” [ 6 ] Unfortunately for the Claimant, she hasn’t shown an arguable case the General Division made an error. And her evidence doesn’t count as new evidence. So I can’t give her permission to appeal. Issues [ 7 ] I have to decide three issues when I consider whether to give the Claimant permission to appeal. Is there an arguable case the General Division used an unfair process? Is there an arguable case the General Division made a factual error in making its decision? Has the Claimant set out new evidence—in other words, evidence the General Division didn’t have—in her application? I can’t give the Claimant permission to appeal [ 8 ] The Claimant hasn’t raised an arguable case the General Division made an error the law lets me consider. And the evidence she says the General Division didn’t have doesn’t count as new evidence. So I can’t give her permission to appeal. The permission to appeal test [ 9 ] I can give the Claimant permission to appeal if she raises an arguable case the General Division made one of these types of errors didn’t respect natural justice made a jurisdictional error made a legal error, a factual error, or a mixed error of fact and law in making its decision Footnote 2 [ 10 ] I can also give the Claimant permission to appeal if she set out new evidence in her application to appeal. Footnote 3 The Claimant’s reasons for appeal and what the General Division decided [ 11 ] The Claimant’s reasons for appeal set out the key issues and central arguments I have to consider. Footnote 4 The Claimant’s arguments about errors are very vague. Footnote 5 She doesn’t give any examples from the hearing or refer to the General Division decision. [ 12 ] When I look at what she says about new evidence, it seems she’s challenging the General Division decision because she believes she qualifies for a [NAME] disability pension. But the General Division didn’t consider and decide that issue. It found the Review Tribunal already decided in 2008 she didn’t qualify for a disability pension. So the General Division dismissed her appeal based on the Rule against deciding again. [ 13 ] The Claimant’s reasons don’t seem to challenge the General Division reasons for dismissing her appeal. Even so, I will consider her procedural fairness argument and her factual error argument. And because the Claimant is representing herself, I will look beyond her arguments when I apply the permission to appeal test. Footnote 6 No arguable case the General Division used an unfair procedure [ 14 ] The Claimant argues the General Division process was unfair to her because she wasn’t given a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Footnote 7 [ 15 ] I considered the Claimant’s argument, reviewed the General Division file, and listened to the hearing recording. I don’t see an arguable case the General Division process was unfair to the Claimant. The General Division asked the Minister to submit a complete reconsideration file, including the Claimant’s previous [NAME] disability pension applications and related tribunal decisions. Footnote 8 The General Division told the Claimant it was adding the Review Tribunal and General Division decisions—from her first two applications and appeals. Footnote 9 Next it sent her a letter to explain the Rule against deciding again, how it might apply to her appeal, and to tell her that her appeal could only proceed if she showed it would be unjust to apply the Rule. Footnote 10 The General Division sent her the Minister’s reconsideration file and submissions before the hearing. Footnote 11 The Minister asked the General Division to dismiss the Claimant’s appeal based on the Rule against deciding again. Footnote 12 At the hearing the General Division explained the legal issues in the Claimant’s appeal. It identified the issue it had to deal with first—the Rule against deciding again. The Claimant confirmed she had received the Tribunal’s letter explaining this legal issue. The General Division explained again what the letter said, focusing on the 2008 Review Tribunal decision, and the 2015 General Division decision that applied the Rule against deciding again. The General Division gave the Claimant an opportunity to send in evidence and arguments in writing before the hearing. And an opportunity to testify and make arguments at the hearing about whether it would be unjust to dismiss her appeal under the Rule against deciding again. At the end of the hearing, the General Division member said if she decided to hear the Claimant’s appeal of being denied a [NAME] disability pension, the General Division would schedule a hearing for that. [ 16 ] All of this shows me there’s no arguable case the Claimant wasn’t aware of the Minister’s case and the legal issues in her appeal. And there’s no arguable case the General Division failed to give her a full and fair opportunity to respond to the Minister’s case and address the issues. No arguable case the General Division ignored relevant evidence [ 17 ] The Claimant argues the General Division didn’t consider key evidence, relied on incomplete or incorrect facts, and didn’t explain why it rejected her evidence. Footnote 13 I understand the Claimant is referring to evidence about her medical diagnoses, symptoms, and functional impairments. [ 18 ] The General Division makes a factual error where it makes a factual finding by ignoring or misunderstanding relevant evidence. Relevant refers to evidence that relates to the legal test the General Division had to use to decide an issue in the appeal. [ 19 ] The Claimant’s evidence about her medical diagnoses, symptoms, and functional impairments wasn’t relevant. The General Division decided it could not re-hear her appeal of the Minister’s decision to deny her a [NAME] disability pension. Because the Review Tribunal already decided that issue in 2008. This meant the General Division didn’t have to consider her medical evidence then decide whether she met the [NAME] disability test. [ 20 ] The General Division’s decision shows me it considered the relevant evidence. Two pieces of evidence were relevant. The 2008 Review Tribunal decision that found she didn’t qualify for a [NAME] disability pension (paragraphs 16 to 20). And the Claimant’s testimony about why it would be unjust to dismiss her appeal despite the Review Tribunal’s decision (paragraphs 24, 30). Footnote 14 So, the relevant evidence supports the General Division’s decision. The Claimant didn’t set out new evidence in her application [ 21 ] In her application, the Claimant says she has “important medical evidence” the General Division didn’t have. Footnote 15 [ 22 ] This evidence doesn’t meet the leave to appeal test for new evidence. Footnote 16 Medical evidence wasn’t relevant to the legal issue the General Division decided—whether the Rule against deciding again applied to her appeal. Footnote 17 The General Division decided it applied, so it could not hear her appeal. So it didn’t need to consider whether she had a severe and prolonged disability by the end of her coverage period. I didn’t find an arguable case of an error I can consider [ 23 ] I didn’t find an arguable case the General Division made a legal error. [ 24 ] The General Division set out then used the correct legal test (paragraphs 15 to 31). It cited then used leading court decisions it had to follow— [NAME] , and [NAME] (footnote 11). These decisions are about issue estoppel, the type of res judicata the General Division properly relied on dismiss the Claimant’s appeal. [ 25 ] The General Division reasons are adequate. I was able to review the General Division decision and apply the permission to appeal test. When I read the decision as a whole, I understood the General Division’s explanation of how it applied the law to the facts to reach its decision. In other words, the reasons add up. Conclusion [ 26 ] The Claimant hasn’t shown an arguable case the General Division made an error. She didn’t set out new evidence in her application. And I looked but didn’t find an arguable case of an error. [ 27 ] This means I can’t give the Claimant permission to appeal the General Division decision. And her appeal won’t go forward. Footnotes Footnote 1 The law about [NAME] appeals changed between the Claimant’s first two appeals. The General Division of the Social Security Tribunal replaced the Review Tribunal as the first level of appeal of a Minister’s reconsideration decision. Return to footnote 1 Footnote 2 See sections 58.1(a) and (b) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act ( DESD  Act). Return to footnote 2 Footnote 3 See section 58.1(c) of the DESD  Act. Return to footnote 3 Footnote 4 [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2024  FC  928 at paragraph 13. Return to footnote 4 Footnote 5 See the two application forms the Claimant filed, AD1 and AD1B. Return to footnote 5 Footnote 6 The Federal Court has said the Appeal Division should not apply the leave to appeal test mechanistically and should review the General Division record in some cases. See for example [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2016  FC  874; [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2016  FC  615; [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2017  FC  391. Return to footnote 6 Footnote 7 The legal test for procedural fairness is set out in Canadian Pacific Railway Company v Canada (Attorney General) , 2018  FCA  69; Kuk v Canada (Attorney General) , 2024  FCA  74. Return to footnote 7 Footnote 8 See GD3. Return to footnote 8 Footnote 9 See GD6. Return to footnote 9 Footnote 10 See GD7-2. Return to footnote 10 Footnote 11 See GD2R (parts 1 and 2), GD4, and GD8. Return to footnote 11 Footnote 12 See GD8-5 to GD8-9. Return to footnote 12 Footnote 13 See AD1 and AD1B. Return to footnote 13 Footnote 14 Listen to the General Division hearing recording from 8:26 to 16:18. Return to footnote 14 Footnote 15 See AD1B-4. Return to footnote 15 Footnote 16 See section 58.1(c) of the DESD  Act. Return to footnote 16 Footnote 17 [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2026  FC  36 at paragraphs 67 and 68. Return to footnote 17