CPP Disability Appeal Denied for Lack of Sufficient Medical Evidence

Citation: [NAME]  v  [NAME] , 2026  SST  93 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Leave to Appeal Decision Applicant: [redacted] Representative: [NAME]. Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated December 20, 2025 (GP-25-1448) Tribunal member: [NAME] Decision date: February 10, 2026 File number: AD-25-827 On this page Decision Overview Issues I can’t give the Claimant permission to appeal Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] Leave (permission) to appeal is refused. The appeal won’t go forward. Overview [ 2 ] [NAME]. is the Claimant. He has applied for permission to appeal a General Division decision. I will give him permission if he shows an arguable case the General Division made an error. [ 3 ] To qualify for a [NAME] ( [NAME] ) disability pension, the Claimant had to prove his disability was severe and prolonged by December 31, 2021. Footnote 1 [ 4 ] The General Division decided the Claimant didn’t qualify for a disability pension. The evidence didn’t show his disability was severe by the end of 2021. It found there was no medical evidence to support a finding that his functional limitations affected his ability to work at that time. [ 5 ] The Claimant argues the General Division breached natural justice, and made legal, factual, and mixed errors. [ 6 ] The Claimant hasn’t shown an arguable case the General Division breached natural justice or made an error. So I can’t give him permission to appeal. Issues [ 7 ] I have to decide the following issues. Is there an arguable case the General Division used an unfair process by not giving the Claimant the opportunity to make submissions on contradictory evidence in medical reports? made a legal error by misinterpreting the law by requiring medical records dated before 2023? not using the real world approach from the [NAME] decision? giving insufficient reasons for rejecting the Claimant’s argument about continuity of progressive decline? misinterpreting the [NAME] incapacity provision? made a factual error when it found there was no medical evidence before 2023, or by ignoring the Declaration of Incapacity? I can’t give the Claimant permission to appeal [ 8 ] I will give the Claimant permission to appeal if he raises an arguable case the General Division made one of these 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 [ 9 ] Raising an arguable case means a case with a reasonable chance of success. Footnote 3 [ 10 ] The Claimant didn’t set out new evidence in his application. So I won’t consider this reason for giving permission. Footnote 4 [ 11 ] Unfortunately for the Claimant, I can’t give him permission to appeal. As my reasons explain, he hasn’t shown an arguable case the General Division made an error. No arguable case the General Division failed to give the Claimant a chance to know about and respond to contradictory evidence [ 12 ] The Claimant argues, “faced with perceived conflicts, the Member did not seek clarification of retrospective reports, risking unfairness in a written hearing.” Footnote 5 He says this breached natural justice. [ 13 ] It’s the General Division’s job to assess (weigh) the evidence and make factual findings. This job includes identifying and reasoning through conflicting or contradictory evidence. In this appeal, the General Division gave detailed reasons explaining how it weighed the evidence to arrive at its factual findings (paragraphs 21 to 36). [ 14 ] The conflict was among medical documents the Claimant was relying on to show he met the [NAME] test for disability. All the documents were from the Claimant’s physicians. It seems the Claimant believes he had a right to be informed about the conflicting evidence in writing by the General Division. Then a right to respond in writing. [ 15 ] But there isn’t an arguable case this was part of the duty of procedural fairness the General Division owed the Claimant. Footnote 6 [ 16 ] I don’t see an arguable case the General Division’s procedure interfered with his right to know the Minister’s case. The Minister identified the conflicting evidence in its submissions. Footnote 7 The Tribunal sent the Minister’s submission to the Claimant. [ 17 ] I don’t see an arguable case the General Division failed to give the Claimant a full and fair opportunity to present evidence and arguments in response to the Minister’s case. The Claimant sent multiple submissions and other correspondence to the General Division after he received the Minister’s submissions. Footnote 8 The General Division allowed all his submissions into the record. [ 18 ] The fact the Claimant chose to have his hearing in writing doesn’t change my analysis. He knew about the Minister’s argument. And he had a full and fair opportunity to respond in writing, or by sending additional medical evidence to directly address the apparent conflict. [ 19 ] So there isn’t an arguable case the General Division breached procedural fairness. No arguable case the General Division made a legal error [ 20 ] The Claimant argues the General Division made legal errors by misinterpreting the incapacity provision (paragraphs 40 and 41) Footnote 9 treating incapacity as irrelevant to employability misapplying the evidentiary standard by requiring medical records dated before 2023, contrary to the [NAME] decision Footnote 10 refusing to apply the real world assessment from the [NAME] decision Footnote 11 not providing sufficient reasons for rejecting the Claimant’s argument about continuity of decline, contrary to the [NAME] decisions Footnote 12 [ 21 ] The General Division makes a legal error where it misinterprets a section of the [NAME] , doesn’t follow a binding court decision, or its reasons are inadequate. [ 22 ] None of the Claimant’s arguments show an arguable case the General Division made a legal error. No arguable case the General Division misunderstood the [NAME] decision and the legal importance of December 31, 2021 [ 23 ] The Claimant’s argument misunderstands the General Division’s factual finding. The General Division found there is no medical evidence on file earlier than 2023 (paragraph 20). That was part of the General Division’s assessment (weighing) of the evidence (paragraphs 21 to 36). That finding is supported by the evidence. More importantly, the General Division considered the evidence dated after 2023—to see if it showed the Claimant had a severe disability on or before December 31, 2021. [ 24 ] The [NAME] decision says the [NAME] requires a person to have objective medical evidence of their disability. Other court decisions say medical evidence has to be on or before the MQP , or be relevant to the person’s disabling medical conditions at their MQP . Footnote 13 MQP refers to the last day the person was covered for a disability pension. A person has to prove they met the [NAME] disability test before or at their MQP . [ 25 ] So, the law says the Claimant had to have medical evidence to prove he met the [NAME] disability test by his MQP (December 31, 2021). The General Division understood this: [ 21 ] I acknowledge that the requirement to provide medical evidence doesn’t mean that the Appellant was required to file a medical record dated on or before December 31, 2021. But there has to be some documentation related to that date, such as a later report from a doctor or other health care provider who was involved with the Appellant’s treatment during the relevant time. No arguable case the General Division had to use the real world approach from the [NAME] decision [ 26 ] The General Division explained why it didn’t have to consider the Claimant’s personal characteristics to decide whether his disability was severe (paragraphs 37 to 39). It cited [NAME] to support its explanation. [ 27 ] The Claimant could not win his appeal based solely on what he said about his limitations plus his evidence about his personal circumstances (for example, age, education, language skills, work experience). The General Division found the Claimant had no medical evidence to support his claimed functional limitations. And above I found there is no arguable case the General Division made a factual error when it made its findings. [ 28 ] So there’s no arguable case the General Division made a legal error when it skipped the real world approach from [NAME] and dismissed the Claimant’s appeal. No arguable case the General Division failed to follow binding court decisions, and no arguable case its reasons are insufficient [ 29 ] The Claimant argues the General Division failed to provide sufficient reasons for rejecting continuity of progressive decline, contrary to the [NAME] court decisions. Footnote 14 I don’t share the Claimant’s interpretation of those decisions. Neither establishes a legal principle about “continuity of decline” that bound the General Division. [ 30 ] The [NAME] decisions say two things. First, a claimant has to prove with evidence they were unable to do any kind of work at their MQP . Second, it’s up to the General Division to weigh the evidence. And the court won’t interfere unless a party can show the General Division made a reviewable error. [ 31 ] There isn’t an arguable case the General Division’s reasons are insufficient. It considered the medical evidence the Claimant relied on to support his continuity argument (paragraphs 26 to 28). Then gave detailed reasons for finding the evidence didn’t show the Claimant suffered from medical conditions—already present and related to his 2023 stroke and diagnosis of Parkinson’s—that caused functional limitations by December 31, 2021 (paragraphs 29 to 36). And the General Division’s reasons allowed me to meaningfully review its decision. Footnote 15 [ 32 ] The Claimant argues this legal error is also an error of mixed fact and law (mixed error). Footnote 16 He described the General Division’s mixed error as insufficient reasons for rejecting the continuity of decline argument. But continuity of decline isn’t part of the [NAME] legal test for disability. And insufficient reasons is a stand-alone (in legal terms, extricable) legal error. Footnote 17 I don’t need to consider his mixed error argument because I considered and decided the extricable legal error and factual error arguments. The Declaration of Incapacity wasn’t relevant to the [NAME] test for disability and whether the Claimant’s disability was severe by December 31, 2021 [ 33 ] The Claimant put into evidence a Declaration of Incapacity (Declaration) showing the Claimant had been incapacitated since June 2023. Footnote 18 The Claimant’s argument might misunderstand the incapacity provisions of the [NAME] , the purpose of the Declaration, and the General Division decision (paragraphs 40 and 41). [ 34 ] The incapacity provisions the General Division referred to allow a person’s application for a [NAME] disability pension to be treated as the person made earlier because they were incapable of making it earlier. Footnote 19 [ 35 ] The General Division explained the Minister accepted the Claimant’s incapacity. So the Minister treated the Claimant’s application as if he made it earlier. [ 36 ] The Declaration wasn’t relevant to the issue the General Division had to decide—whether the Claimant proved he met the [NAME] disability test by December 31, 2021. The Declaration is a point in time finding about when the Claimant became incapacitated—which [NAME] stated was many months after that date, in June 2023. No arguable case the General Division made a factual error [ 37 ] The General Division makes a factual error when it makes its decision based on a factual finding it arrived at by ignoring or misunderstanding relevant evidence. Footnote 20 Relevant means evidence related to a legal test. [ 38 ] The Claimant argues the General Division made factual errors by ignoring the incapacity finding on the Declaration, which was medical evidence corroborating the Claimant’s functional limitations finding no evidence before 2023 despite continuous family physician care since January 2021 and retrospective specialist reports characterizing evidence as conflicting but elevating one psychiatrist note and MRI intake narrative over longitudinal specialist synthesis and imaging discounting specialist retrospective evidence solely because treatment began in 2023, ignoring probative value Footnote 21 [ 39 ] I don’t accept any of these arguments shows an arguable case the General Division made a factual error in making its decision. [ 40 ] The Claimant says the finding of incapacity on the Declaration corroborated the Claimant’s functional limitations that impacted his employability. Footnote 22 In other words, the Declaration helped to show he met the [NAME] legal test for severe. [NAME] states the Claimant’s incapacity began June 29, 2023. So that evidence of incapacity isn’t relevant to whether the Claimant’s disability was severe by December 31, 2021. And the General Division considered [NAME]’s narrative reports, which set out much more information. [ 41 ] The second argument confuses fact with evidence. Evidence is offered to prove a fact. No one disputed the fact [NAME] began treating the Claimant in January 2021. This doesn’t change the fact [NAME] didn’t include any chart notes, test results, or other evidence from that date to the end of the Claimant’s coverage period (December 31, 2021). And the medical evidence is all dated 2023 or after. The General Division’s reasons show me it reviewed and considered the relevant medical evidence, including what the physicians wrote about the Claimant’s medical conditions and functional limitations before 2023. [ 42 ] Characterizing and comparing evidence, then discounting and preferring some evidence over other evidence, describes how the General Division assesses evidence to arrive at factual findings. So it seems the Claimant’s remaining two arguments ask me to reassess or reweigh the evidence and come to a different finding. But I can’t do that when I decide an application to appeal. [ 43 ] I can’t interfere with the General Division’s assessment of the evidence unless there’s an arguable case it made a factual error. But I don’t see an arguable case. The General Division’s reasons show me it didn’t ignore or misunderstand the probative value of the physicians’ retrospective analysis and opinions. Footnote 23 It considered that in detail (paragraphs 30 to 36). [ 44 ] Because the Claimant is represented by a family member, I reviewed the evidence in the General Division file. Footnote 24 Then compared that with the evidence the General Division relied on to make its decision. I didn’t find an arguable case the General Division made a factual finding that ignores or misunderstands relevant evidence. Conclusion [ 45 ] The Claimant hasn’t shown an arguable case the General Division used an unfair process or made an error in making its decision. [ 46 ] This means he hasn’t met the legal test to get permission to appeal the General Division decision. Footnotes Footnote 1 See the legal test for disability in section 42(4)(a) of the [NAME] ( [NAME] ). Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See sections 58.1(a) and (b) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act ( DESD  Act). Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2024  FC  1793 at paragraph 32; [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2026  FC  36 at paragraph 16. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See section 58.1(c) of the DESD  Act. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 See AD11. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 See the general test for the duty of procedural fairness an administrative decision-maker owes to the parties in Canadian Pacific Railway Company  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2018  FCA  69; Kuk  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2024  FCA  74. I have focused on the two parts of the test the Claimant’s argument rises. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 See GD5-8 and GD5-9. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 See GD6, GD12, GD13, GD16, and GD18. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 See AD1-3 and AD1-11.. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 See AD1-3; [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2008  FCA  377. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 See AD1-3; [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2001  FCA  248. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 See AD1-3; [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2008  FCA  116; [NAME]  v  Canada (Pension Appeal Board) , 2005  FCA  387. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 See Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2020  FC  1093; [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2020  FC  206; [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2017  FCA  99; [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2012  FCA  82; [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2018  FCA  308. Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 See AD1-3 Return to footnote 14 referrer Footnote 15 [NAME]  v  Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development) , 2004  FCA  292 at paragraph 6. Return to footnote 15 referrer Footnote 16 See AD1-11. Return to footnote 16 referrer Footnote 17 [COMPANY]  v  [COMPANY] , 2022  FC  566 at paragraph 27. Return to footnote 17 referrer Footnote 18 See GD2-335. Return to footnote 18 referrer Footnote 19 See sections 60(8) to 60(10) of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 19 referrer Footnote 20 Section 58.1(b) of the DESD  Act says it’s a ground of appeal where the General Division based its decision on an erroneous finding of fact it made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it. I have described this ground of appeal using plain language, based on the words in the Act and the cases that have interpreted the Act. Return to footnote 20 referrer Footnote 21 See AD1-11. Return to footnote 21 referrer Footnote 22 See AD1-10 to AD1-13. Return to footnote 22 referrer Footnote 23 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2012  FCA  82 at paragraph 5: “First, there is very little medical evidence on her condition as from her MQP , December 2001; most of the reports address her medical problems as of a significantly later date and therefore are of limited probative value in supporting her claim that she has been unable to pursue substantially gainful employment since December 2001 because of her condition.” Return to footnote 23 referrer Footnote 24 The Appeal Division should not apply the leave to appeal test mechanistically and in some circumstances it should review the medical evidence in General Division file. [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 24 referrer