CPP Disability Appeal Dismissed Due to Insufficient Proof of Severe Disability

Citation: KA  v  [NAME] , 2026  SST  173 Social Security Tribunal of Canada General Division – Income Security Section Decision Appellant: [redacted] Representative: [NAME] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: [NAME] reconsideration decision dated August 25, 2025 (issued by Service Canada) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: Videoconference Hearing date: May 14, 2026 Hearing participants: Appellant Appellant’s representative Decision date: May 15, 2026 File number: GP-25-1659 On this page Decision Overview What the Appellant must prove Reasons for my decision Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] The appeal is dismissed. [ 2 ] The Appellant, K. A., isn’t eligible for a [NAME] ( [NAME] ) disability pension or a post-retirement disability benefit (PRDB). This decision explains why I am dismissing the appeal. Overview [ 3 ] The Appellant is 62 years old. She was diagnosed with bi-polar disorder in 2005. She has periods of mania and depression. She was hospitalized for her condition between April 2006 and March 2008. She has been working for [NAME] as a secretary for a number of years. She continues to work for [NAME]. [ 4 ] The Appellant applied for a [NAME] in March 2024. Because she had started to receive a [NAME] retirement pension, the [NAME] (Minister) also considered whether she was eligible for a PRDB. [ 5 ] The Minister refused her application. The Appellant appealed the Minister’s decision to the Social Security Tribunal’s General Division. [ 6 ] The Appellant says she isn’t capable of working in the real world. She says that her employer is a benevolent employer. I will explain what that is later in this decision. [ 7 ] The Minister says that although the Appellant has limitations, she is capable of working in the real world. What the Appellant must prove The minimum qualifying period [ 8 ] A person is eligible for a [NAME] or a PRDB if they prove they have a severe and prolonged disability by the end of their minimum qualifying period. The minimum qualifying period is based on their contributions to the [NAME] . Footnote 1 The Appellant’s minimum qualifying period for a [NAME] [ 9 ] The law says that for the purposes of a [NAME] a person must be deemed to be disabled prior to the start date of a [NAME] retirement pension. Footnote 2 The Appellant began receiving a [NAME] retirement pension in March 2024. Footnote 3 That means her minimum qualifying period for a [NAME] was February 29, 2024. The Appellant’s minimum qualifying period for a post retirement disability benefit (PRDB) [ 10 ] The rules about the minimum qualifying period for a PRDB changed on May 5, 2023. I find that the new rule applies to this case because the Appellant applied for a PRDB on March 8, 2024, which is after the new rule took effect. Footnote 4 [ 11 ] Under the new rule, the Appellant’s minimum qualifying period is calculated the same way as it is for a [NAME]. Because the Appellant has over 25 years of contributions, it is the latest six-year period in which she has three years of [NAME] contributions. Footnote 5 [ 12 ] I find that for the purposes of a PRDB the Appellant’s minimum qualifying period is December 31, 2026. [ 13 ] For the Appellant to succeed in her request for a PRDB, she must prove she has a disability that was severe and prolonged by the hearing date. In other words, no later than May 14, 2026. Footnote 6 What severe and prolonged means [ 14 ] The [NAME] defines “severe” and “prolonged.” [ 15 ] A disability is severe if it makes an appellant incapable regularly of pursuing any substantially gainful occupation. Footnote 7 [ 16 ] This means I have to look at all of the Appellant’s medical conditions together to see what effect they have on her ability to work. I also have to look at her background (including her age, level of education, and past work and life experience). This is so I can get a realistic or “real world” picture of whether her disability is severe. If the Appellant is capable regularly of doing some kind of work that she could earn a living from, then she isn’t entitled to a disability pension. [ 17 ] A disability is prolonged if it is likely to be long continued and of indefinite duration, or is likely to result in death. Footnote 8 [ 18 ] 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. [ 19 ] The Appellant has to prove she has a severe and prolonged disability. She has to prove this on a balance of probabilities. This means she has to show it is more likely than not that she is disabled. Reasons for my decision [ 20 ] I find that the Appellant hasn’t proven she had a severe and prolonged disability by the either February 29, 2024, or the hearing date. Was the Appellant’s disability severe? [ 21 ] 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 [ 22 ] The Appellant has: bipolar I disorder insomnia anxiety joint pain [ 23 ] However, I can’t focus on the Appellant’s diagnoses. Footnote 9 Instead, I must focus on whether she has functional limitations that got in the way of her earning a living. Footnote 10 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 11 [ 24 ] I find that the Appellant has functional limitations that affected her ability to work. What the Appellant says about her functional limitations [ 25 ] The Appellant says that her medical conditions have resulted in functional limitations that affect her ability to work. [ 26 ] In her application the Appellant said her conditions were bipolar I disorder, cervical strain and shoulder strain. Footnote 12 She said she was hospitalized in a psychiatric facility for her bipolar I disorder from April 2006 to March 2008. Footnote 13 She said that she was incapable of working as of March 2004. Footnote 14 [ 27 ] The Appellant rated all of her physical abilities as “fair” or “poor.” She said: I feel discomfort doing tasks for more than ten (10) [minutes] due to my neck and shoulder pain. Changing my diet to fish and vegetables has lessened the pain in the neck and shoulder area. I am most comfortable lying down on a hard flat sofa and having physical therapy. Footnote 15 [ 28 ] The Appellant rated all of her behavioural and emotional abilities as “fair or “poor.” She said: I suffer from mild depression making it difficult to [get] up in the morning to work. In addition, I have social events that make it difficult for me to participate as well. My anxiety rises when this occurs. My medication helps alleviate severe symptoms. Footnote 16 [ 29 ] The Appellant rated all of her communication and thinking abilities as “fair” or “poor.” She said: My bipolar disorder has made it very hard to sleep at night. I usually sleep 3 hours only everyday. I wake up either 3 or 5 in the morning with difficulty going back to sleep. Because of this, I have difficulty concentrating at work and doing my tasks. Footnote 17 [ 30 ] The Appellant rated all of her other activities of daily living as “fair” or “poor.” She said: “These past few months fatigue has been overwhelming. Quality performance on the job has diminished making it difficult for me to function daily.” Footnote 18 [ 31 ] The Appellant said that she continued to work full-time as a marketing consultant. Footnote 19 However, she said: “My workplace [does] not provide me a lot of tasks in order to alleviate stress on the job.” [ 32 ] In her request for reconsideration (received by the Minister in August 2025) the Appellant said: My bipolar disorder causes significant mood swings, including severe depressive episodes and manic phases, which impair my concentration, energy levels, and ability to maintain regular employment. Despite ongoing treatment, including medication and therapy, I continue to experience symptoms that prevent me from performing any substantially gainful work. [ 33 ] At the hearing the Appellant said she had unpredictable symptoms including pain, episodes of mania, and depression. She said she struggles to do the simple tasks. She said doing complex tasks is very difficult for her. She needs help with things like cooking and cleaning. [ 34 ] I will say more later about what the Appellant said at the hearing about her job. What the medical evidence says about the Appellant’s functional limitations [ 35 ] The Appellant must provide some medical evidence to support that her functional limitations affected her ability to work no later than February 29, 2024, for a [NAME], and by the hearing date for a PRDB. Footnote 20 [ 36 ] The medical evidence supports what the Appellant says. [ 37 ] The Appellant’s psychiatrist, [NAME], wrote an undated letter. Footnote 21 She said she had been treating the Appellant for bipolar I since March 2005. She said that the Appellant was in partial remission. [ 38 ] [NAME] completed a medical report in January 2024. Footnote 22 She said she had been treating the Appellant for “bipolar disorder, mild.” The doctor said that the Appellant’s impairments were: labile emotions easily distracted, specifically at work an overthinker [ 39 ] The doctor said her workload had to be light and limited to secretarial tasks. [ 40 ] [NAME] did not recommend that the Appellant stop working and said she expected her to return to work performing “simple office tasks.” [ 41 ] In October 2025, [NAME], psychiatrist, completed a psychiatric evaluation report. Footnote 23 He said the Appellant was diagnosed with bipolar disorder in 2005 and that she also had insomnia, anxiety and joint pains. He said she had “limitations in attention, memory and cognitive processing, increased absenteeism and decreased productivity.” The doctor said: Frequent insomnia causing fatigue, constantly unable to focus and concentrate doing simple tasks, slow doing work and need reminders due to being forgetful. She cannot sit or walk for more than 30 minutes. She cannot lift more than 5 pounds due to joint pains. She needs constant breaks and rest. She has social withdrawal because of anxiety and depression. She needs assistance for her activities of daily living such as cooking, cleaning and personal hygiene. [ 42 ] The doctor said that psychological tests showed severe anxiety and moderate depression. He said that the Appellant’s bipolar disorder and functional limitations were long-term and severe. [ 43 ] The medical evidence supports that the Appellant’s functional limitations mean she requires accommodations by her employer. [ 44 ] Next, I will look at whether the Appellant followed medical advice. The Appellant followed medical advice [ 45 ] To receive a disability pension, an appellant must follow medical advice. Footnote 24 [ 46 ] The Appellant followed medical advice. The Minister doesn’t argue otherwise, and I find that she has followed medical advice. The Appellant’s employer isn’t benevolent What is a benevolent employer [ 47 ] If an employer is benevolent, a person may be disabled even if they are working. [ 48 ] To determine the Appellant’s employer is benevolent I need to ask questions like: Footnote 25 Was her work productive? Was her employer satisfied with her performance? Was she expected to do significantly less than other employees? Did her employer accommodate her beyond what would be required in the competitive marketplace? Did her employer experience hardship as a result of those accommodations? What the Appellant’s employer said [ 49 ] The Appellant’s employer sent an undated letter. Footnote 26 The employer said that the Appellant’s “condition substantially restricts her ability to work regularly and perform essential job functions.” What the Appellant says [ 50 ] At the hearing the Appellant said she works as a clerk in [NAME] about five or six hours a day, five days a week. She said that although she is scheduled for 40 hours a week, she sneaks out for a few hours everyday. She rarely calls in sick. Her duties include filing and other clerical tasks. Sometimes she makes cold calls to potential clients. [ 51 ] The Appellant said she is very slow and when she has episodes of mania or depression she makes a lot of mistakes. She also said that during hyper manic episodes her employer allows her to work in a quiet space. [ 52 ] The Appellant said that her position was specifically created for her. [ 53 ] I asked the Appellant if people had to redo the work she did or correct her mistakes. She said they didn’t and that the way they accommodated her was by giving her more time to do things and sometimes repeating instructions. [ 54 ] The Appellant says that if she wasn’t working for her family she would be fired. Why the Appellant’s employer isn’t benevolent [ 55 ] The Appellant has a real job. She does clerical/secretarial work. I asked her if someone else would need to do her job if she didn’t do it. She said yes. [ 56 ] I acknowledge that the Appellant’s employer accommodates her. But allowing her more time to complete tasks and a quiet place to work isn’t anything that wouldn’t be offered by any employer in a competitive labour market. Nor is allowing her to work five or six hours a day, five days a week, as opposed to forty hours a week. I don’t need to consider the Appellant’s personal factors [ 57 ] When I am deciding whether a person can work, I generally have to consider factors like their age, education, language abilities, and experience. These factors help me decide whether they can work in the real world—in other words, whether it is realistic to say that they can work. Footnote 27 [ 58 ] I don’t have to consider the Appellant’s personal factors in this case because she has already shown that she can work in the real world. Conclusion [ 59 ] I find that the Appellant isn’t eligible for a [NAME] or a PRDB 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. [ 60 ] This means the appeal is dismissed. Footnotes Footnote 1 See sections 44(2), (4), and (5) of the [NAME] . The Appellant’s contributions are at GD2R-60 to GD2R-62. The Minister also considered the Appellant’s contributions in the Philippines (see GD7). Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See section 66.1 of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See GD2R-63. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 [NAME]  v  LG , 2024  SST  1315. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 See sections 44(4) and (5) of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 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] . Service Canada also considers whether an appellant has made valid contributions under as international social security treaty. 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 6 referrer Footnote 7 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 7 referrer Footnote 8 Section 42(2)(a) of the [NAME] gives this definition of prolonged disability. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2013  FCA  81. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 [NAME]  v  Canada ([NAME]) , 2008  FCA  33. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2011  FCA  47. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 See GD2R-42. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 See GD2R-42 and also GD2R-85. Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 See GD2R-42. Return to footnote 14 referrer Footnote 15 See GD2R-44. Return to footnote 15 referrer Footnote 16 See GD2R-45. Return to footnote 16 referrer Footnote 17 See GD2R-46, Return to footnote 17 referrer Footnote 18 See GD2R-47. Return to footnote 18 referrer Footnote 19 See GD2R-49. Return to footnote 19 referrer Footnote 20 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2008  FCA  377; and Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2020  FC  206. Return to footnote 20 referrer Footnote 21 See GD2R-22. Return to footnote 21 referrer Footnote 22 See GD2R-76 to GD2R-84. Return to footnote 22 referrer Footnote 23 See GD1-8. Return to footnote 23 referrer Footnote 24 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2018  FCA  48. Return to footnote 24 referrer Footnote 25 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2014  FCA  187; and Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2023  FCA  204. Return to footnote 25 referrer Footnote 26 See GD2R-23 and GD2R-24. Return to footnote 26 referrer Footnote 27 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2001  FCA  248. Return to footnote 27 referrer