CPP Disability Appeal Dismissed Due to Insufficient Proof of Severe Disability

Citation: [NAME]  v  [NAME] , 2026  SST  60 Social Security Tribunal of Canada General Division – Income Security Section Decision Appellant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: [NAME] reconsideration decision dated July 25, 2025 (issued by Service Canada) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: Teleconference Hearing date: January 20, 2026 Hearing participant: Appellant Decision date: January 26, 2026 File number: GP-25-1316 On this page Decision Overview What the Appellant must prove Reasons for my decision Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] The appeal is dismissed. [ 2 ] The Appellant, [NAME]., 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 passed away on January 30, 2025, when he was 63 years old. He had bladder cancer and claimed to be disabled as of October 2023. He worked as a self-employed contractor. He received a [NAME] retirement pension from July 2023 until January 2025. Footnote 1 [ 4 ] The Appellant applied for a [NAME] disability pension on June 18, 2024. The [NAME] (Minister) refused his application. The Appellant appealed the Minister’s decision to the Social Security Tribunal’s General Division. [ 5 ] The Appellant’s representative argues that the Appellant meets the test for both [NAME] disability and the PRDB. She says that his condition was much worse than what the documents show. He was trying to be strong and positive, but he was very sick. [ 6 ] The Minister says that the evidence doesn’t support a finding of disability under the [NAME] . The Minister also says that the Appellant doesn’t meet the criteria for a PRDB. Footnote 2 What the Appellant must prove [ 7 ] The [NAME] defines “severe” and “prolonged.” A disability is severe if it makes an appellant incapable regularly of pursuing any substantially gainful occupation. Footnote 3 A disability is prolonged if it is likely to be long continued and of indefinite duration, or is likely to result in death. Footnote 4 He has to prove he has a severe and prolonged disability on a balance of probabilities. [ 8 ] For the Appellant to succeed with the [NAME] disability benefit, he must prove he has a disability that was severe and prolonged by December 31, 2022. This date is based on his [NAME] contributions and international social security agreement contributions in Germany. Footnote 5 [ 9 ] The Appellant worked in Canada. He had valid contributions to the [NAME] from 2006 to 2019. Footnote 6 He had more than 25 years of total valid contributions when his years worked in Canada are combined with his years worked in Germany. His most recent years of valid contributions to the [NAME] are 2017, 2018, and 2019. Footnote 7 This brings his disability MQP date to December 31, 2022. I don’t have the ability to change this date on compassionate or other grounds. Reasons for my decision [ 10 ] I find that the Appellant wasn’t eligible for a [NAME] disability benefit or a PRDB benefit. The Appellant’s health changed declined after the end of 2022 and he passed away in 2025. However, I cannot factor in his later medical conditions and limitations into this decision because he didn’t meet the test by the timeframe needed. [ 11 ] I am sympathetic to the Appellant’s case. However, as a statutory decision maker, I must apply the law as it is written. I don’t have the legal ability to decide in his favour. [ 12 ] First, I explain why the Appellant wasn’t eligible for a [NAME] disability pension. After that I explain why he wasn’t eligible for the PRDB. The Appellant isn’t eligible for a [NAME] disability pension [ 13 ] The Appellant’s disability wasn’t severe by December 31, 2022. I reached this finding by considering several factors. I explain these factors below. The Appellant’s functional limitations affected his ability to work [ 14 ] The Appellant had bladder cancer. I must focus on whether he has functional limitations that got in the way of him earning a living. Footnote 8 [ 15 ] I find that the Appellant had functional limitations that affected his ability to work. What the Appellant said about his functional limitations [ 16 ] The Appellant said that his medical condition resulted in functional limitations that affect his ability to work. In his 2024 [NAME] disability application he says: He had a fair ability to stand for twenty minutes and walk one block. He had a poor ability to use stairs, kneel, bend, push and pull. He had a fair ability to use a computer for twenty minutes. He needed some assistance with cleaning, washing hair, dressing, attending appointments, and medication management. He had a poor ability to adjust easily to unexpected changes. He had a poor ability to concentrate and learn new things. He had brain fog sometimes that caused forgetfulness and frustration. Footnote 9 [ 17 ] The Appellant likely wrote about his functional limitations at the time when he made the [NAME] disability application in June 2024. What the medical evidence says about the Appellant’s functional limitations [ 18 ] The Appellant must provide some medical evidence to support that his functional limitations affected his ability to work no later than December 31, 2022. Footnote 10 [ 19 ] The medical evidence supports that the Appellant had invasive bladder cancer and follicular lymphoma . He was diagnosed in October 2021. He had radiotherapy from February to April 2022. Footnote 11 No limitations were noted in the medical records by the end of 2022. [ 20 ] The medical evidence doesn’t clearly explain his limitations or the impact of his conditions on his ability to work by the end of 2022. However, I accept that he likely had fatigue and other symptoms related at least to his treatment that were noted later on in his medical records. The medical evidence after 2022 [ 21 ] The medical evidence addresses the Appellant’s functional limitations and later health care. Unfortunately, this evidence doesn’t speak to his limitations before the end of 2022. This doesn’t advance his case that he had a severe disability before that time. [ 22 ] [NAME] (urologist) wrote that the Appellant had recurrent disease in April 2023. He developed gross hematuria and obstructive renal failure. In November 2023 he had surgery for a total pelvic exenteration. Since the surgery, he was very tired. He was able to do self-care and limited extra activities. Footnote 12 [ 23 ] [NAME] (medical oncologist) began treating the Appellant in March 2024. He didn’t comment on his limitations before this date. In March 2024, he was quite unwell from cancer. Footnote 13 [ 24 ] The Appellant saw [NAME] (nurse practitioner) since March 2024. He noted that he had disease progression as of September 2023. He had severe fatigue, reduced mobility, shortness of breath, difficulty completing activities of daily living, and an inability to lift moderate to heavy objects. Footnote 14 [NAME]’s letters [ 25 ] Two letters from [NAME] were in the appeal file. One of them the Appellant relies on to establish a date of onset of severe disability. I preferred the August 2024 letter. [ 26 ] In August 2024, [NAME] wrote that the Appellant met the criteria for a severe and prolonged medical condition from April 2023 onwards. In April 2023 he had PET/CT imaging which showed metastatic disease. Footnote 15 [ 27 ] In October 2025, [NAME] wrote another letter that said he had a severe and prolonged disability as of January 2022 onwards. In January 2022 he had PET/CT imaging which showed metastatic disease. Footnote 16 [ 28 ] I preferred [NAME]’s August 2024 letter. The medical evidence, including [NAME]’s evidence, didn’t support that he had imaging in January 2022 with these results. He consistently noted April 2023 as the month when he had recurrent disease. Footnote 17 This also makes sense because in January 2022 he was set to start radiotherapy the following month. [ 29 ] Lastly, [NAME]’s October 2025 letter didn’t explain why he picked a different date of onset than in his first letter. He didn’t explain why he no longer believed that his severe disability began in April 2023. The Appellant could work in the real world by the end of 2022 [ 30 ] When I am deciding whether the Appellant could work, I can’t just look at his medical condition and how it affected what he could do. I must also consider factors such as his: age level of education language abilities past work and life experience Footnote 18 [ 31 ] I find that the Appellant could work in the real world. He was still able to work as of December 31, 2022. [ 32 ] The Appellant’s background and personal characteristics limit employability overall. He already began a [NAME] early retirement pension in July 2023. He has partial high school in Germany. His age and limited education make retraining unlikely. He worked as a [NAME]. He has technical and supervisory skills with some transferability. [ 33 ] The Appellant’s limitations likely impacted his ability to do prolonged or heavy physical work by the end of 2022. He has residual work capacity to do light work part-time and supervisory duties. Next, I explain how I came to this conclusion. The Appellant worked his usual job [ 34 ] The Appellant must show that he tried to find and keep a suitable job. He must also show his efforts weren’t successful because of his medical condition. Footnote 19 Finding and keeping a suitable job includes retraining or looking for a job he can do with his functional limitations. Footnote 20 [ 35 ] The Appellant’s work efforts don’t show that his disability got in the way of him earning a living by December 31, 2022. [ 36 ] The Minister argues that the Appellant continued to work after the end of 2022. He continued to operate his business. Footnote 21 I agree with the Minister. [ 37 ] The Appellant worked in [NAME]. He didn’t have business partners. He used to do all the work himself. His work hours were dependant on what work he had to do. He wrote that after his cancer diagnosis he could no longer do physical duties. He couldn’t climb, lift, or stand for very long. He had fatigue and poor balance. He had employees and subcontractors that he supervised. Footnote 22 [ 38 ] The Appellant continued working until at least June 2024. In the Appellant’s [NAME] disability application, he wrote that he continued to do some work. He did light duty work. He didn’t do heavy lifting, work long hours, or use ladders. He worked part-time. Footnote 23 [ 39 ] The Appellant’s evidence means he was working part-time more than a year after the end of 2022. Supervising and running the administrative roles of a business are work activity. This shows that he could work some types of roles on a continuous basis. [ 40 ] The Appellant’s evidence doesn’t tell me when he no longer could perform physical duties. I accept that he couldn’t perform heavy physical duties as of his diagnosis in the fall of 2021. He could likely do light work by that time. He was able to continue operating the business for the next three years while he supervised and managed the administrative duties of his business. [ 41 ] The Appellant showed that he was able to work, adjust his role, and continue to operate a business. It is his work efforts that I need to analyze, not his income. He had gross earnings from 2021 to 2023. But he didn’t make any valid contributions made to the [NAME] during this time. Footnote 24 [ 42 ] The Appellant’s business didn’t result in positive net earnings. But that doesn’t matter in this analysis. A businesses’ profitability does not necessarily indicate a disability. His business activity and his written evidence shows me that he was still engaged in work activity at least on a part-time basis by the end of 2022. [ 43 ] I can’t find that the Appellant had a severe disability by December 31, 2022. The Appellant isn’t eligible for a PRDB [ 44 ] The Appellant isn’t eligible for a PRDB. [ 45 ] To receive a PRDB, a person must be between 60 to 64 years old, receiving a [NAME] retirement pension, have a severe and prolonged disability, and have a valid PRDB minimum qualifying period. A person must also be determined to be disabled under the [NAME] when they last met contributory requirements. Footnote 25 [ 46 ] The Appellant didn’t meet the eligibility criteria to be awarded a PRDB. Because he had over 25 years of valid contributions, he needed at least three years of valid contributions within a six-year period. But he didn’t have three years of valid contributions in the last six calendar years before he applied. [ 47 ] The Appellant didn’t have a valid PRDB MQP . He was considered for a PRDB when in 2024. He last had valid contributions in 2017, 2018, and 2019. Footnote 26 He turned 60 years old in July 2023, when he started his [NAME] retirement pension. He doesn’t have a valid PRDB MQP calculation. [ 48 ] Because the Appellant didn’t have a valid PRDB MQP , I do not need to continue the analysis because it cannot succeed. [ 49 ] I find that the Appellant wasn’t eligible for a PRDB. Conclusion [ 50 ] I find that the Appellant isn’t eligible for a [NAME] disability pension because his disability wasn’t severe. Because I have found that his disability wasn’t severe, I didn’t have to consider whether it was prolonged. [ 51 ] I find that the Appellant isn’t eligible for a PRDB. [ 52 ] This means the appeal is dismissed. Footnotes Footnote 1 See GD2R-40 and GD2R-182. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See GD6, 9, and 10. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 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 3 referrer Footnote 4 Section 42(2)(a) of the [NAME] gives this definition of prolonged disability. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 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 GD2R-184 and GD5. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 See GD2R-184. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 The Appellant had some [NAME] contributions in 2020, but they didn’t reach the “valid” amount to be considered to bring forward the MQP calculation to the next year. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 [NAME]  v  Canada (Social Development) , 2008  FCA  33. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 See GD2R-162 to 165. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2008  FCA  377; and Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2020  FC  206. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 See GD2R-93, 234, and 8-3. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 See GD2R-234. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 See GD2R-94. Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 See GD2R-222 to 231. Return to footnote 14 referrer Footnote 15 See GD2R-93. Return to footnote 15 referrer Footnote 16 See GD8-3. Return to footnote 16 referrer Footnote 17 See GD2R-238 and 241. Return to footnote 17 referrer Footnote 18 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2001  FCA  248. Return to footnote 18 referrer Footnote 19 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2003  FCA  117. Return to footnote 19 referrer Footnote 20 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2008  FCA  150. Return to footnote 20 referrer Footnote 21 See GD10. Return to footnote 21 referrer Footnote 22 See GD2R-103 to 119. Return to footnote 22 referrer Footnote 23 See GD2R-168 to 169. Return to footnote 23 referrer Footnote 24 See GD2R-118 to 131. Return to footnote 24 referrer Footnote 25 See sections 42 and 44 of the [NAME]. Return to footnote 25 referrer Footnote 26 See GD2R-184. Return to footnote 26 referrer