CPP Disability Appeal Dismissed Due to Insufficient Proof of Severe Disability

Citation: TO  v  [NAME] , 2026  SST  45 Social Security Tribunal of Canada General Division – Income Security Section Decision Appellant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: [NAME] reconsideration decision dated February 17, 2025 (issued by Service Canada) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: Teleconference Hearing date: January 13, 2026 Hearing participant: Appellant Decision date: January 23, 2026 File number: GP-25-972 On this page Decision Overview What the Appellant must prove Reasons for my decision Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] The appeal is dismissed. [ 2 ] The Appellant, T. O., isn’t eligible for a [NAME] ( [NAME] ) disability pension. This decision explains why I am dismissing the appeal. Overview [ 3 ] The Appellant was 64 years old in December 2022 when she first applied for [NAME] disability. She turned 65 in July 2023.  She stated that she had been unable to work after suffering injuries in a February 2018 car accident. [ 4 ] The Appellant applied for [NAME] disability again in May 2024. The Minister has set that application aside (put it in abeyance) until the Appellant gets a decision on this appeal. [ 5 ] The [NAME] (Minister) refused the Appellant’s application initially and on reconsideration. She appealed the Minister’s reconsideration decision to the Social Security Tribunal’s General Division. [ 6 ] The Minister says that the Appellant didn’t become disabled until after her eligibility period was over. In addition, she was able to work after she was last eligible for [NAME] disability. What the Appellant must prove [ 7 ] For the Appellant to succeed, she must prove she has a disability that was severe and prolonged by December 31, 2017. In other words, no later than December 31, 2017. This date is based on her [NAME] contributions. Footnote 1 She must also prove that she continues to be disabled. Footnote 2 [ 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 3 [ 10 ] 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 [ 11 ] 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. [ 12 ] The Appellant has to prove she had 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 was disabled. Reasons for my decision [ 13 ] I find that the Appellant hasn’t proven she had a severe disability by December 31, 2017. I reached this decision by considering the following issue: Was the Appellant’s disability severe? Was the Appellant’s disability severe? [ 14 ] 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 didn’t affect her ability to work [ 15 ] The Appellant had a long history of intermittent alcohol abuse, depression and anxiety. [ 16 ] However, I can’t focus on the Appellant’s diagnoses. Footnote 5 Instead, I must focus on whether she has functional limitations that got in the way of her earning a living when she last qualified for [NAME] disability. Footnote 6 [ 17 ] I find that the Appellant did not have functional limitations that affected her ability to work by the end of December 2017. What the Appellant says about her functional limitations [ 18 ] The Appellant says that her medical conditions resulted in functional limitations that affected her ability to work. [ 19 ] I did not rely on the functional limitations that the Appellant listed in her 2022 [NAME] disability application. This was because she submitted it five years after she last qualified for [NAME] disability and after her 2018 car accident. [ 20 ] The Appellant testified that she injured her back in the past. She didn’t remember when this happened, but thought it was perhaps in 2013. Her sore back meant that she could not work in the bush after that. Instead, she was given jobs doing environmental monitoring. This involved sitting by the road and watching projects develop. [ 21 ] At the hearing, the Appellant could not recall any functional limitations as of the end of December 2017 except for back pain. She stated that the job she had in 2017 worsened her back pain. At the hearing, she said that back pain was her biggest concern and that she was living on pain pills. She was getting ready for a walker. [ 22 ] I explained that the test for [NAME] disability was not whether you could do your original job, but whether you could earn a living at any job. The Appellant acknowledged that she was able to work at a substantially gainful job in December 2017. What the medical evidence says [ 23 ] The medical evidence supports that by December 2017, the Appellant didn’t have functional limitations that interfered with her ability to work: She had been sober for many years until she relapsed in 2019. Footnote 7 She had no history of persistent chronic pain before her 2018 accident. Footnote 8 After 2015, her medical record showed only a right knee injury in 2016 and hand pain in 2017. These led to single visits to her health care provider. Footnote 9 After the knee injury, the Appellant’s doctor recommended modified duties. There is no indication that either of these issues interfered with her ability to work in 2017. Before the 2018 accident, the Appellant’s mood had been stable on an antidepressant. Footnote 10 [ 24 ] In February 2018, an X-ray of the Appellant’s back showed only mild abnormal alignment of the bones (anterolisthesis) at one level, along with mild loss of disc space there. Footnote 11 [ 25 ] In September 2022, [NAME], physiatrist, stated that the Appellant’s lower back pain started after her car accident. Footnote 12 I prefer his account to the Appellant’s because the appeal file contains no medical evidence of a serious back condition before the end of December 2017. [ 26 ] The Appellant’s physical and mental health deteriorated significantly after her 2018 accident. [ 27 ] In December 2018, [NAME], psychiatrist, reported that since her February 2018 accident, the Appellant had vertigo and pain in her hands. Dr. [NAME] diagnosed adjustment disorder with depressed mood, rule out major depressive disorder. Footnote 13 [ 28 ] In December 2019, the Appellant’s family doctor reported that she had ischemic heart disease (reduced blood flow to the heart muscle) and major depressive disorder. Footnote 14 [ 29 ] In September 2022, Dr. [NAME] told the Appellant’s lawyer that the 2018 accident led to soft tissue injuries with neck and left shoulder myofascial pain symptoms and concussion. Footnote 15 [ 30 ] By 2022, the Appellant also had mild osteoarthritis on her left knee. Footnote 16 By 2023, she had arthritis in the joints of her fingers. Footnote 17 She had issues with alcohol abuse. Footnote 18 In December 2024, she had worsening back pain, with multilevel disc degeneration and severe spinal stenosis. She also had osteoarthritis in her back. Footnote 19 [ 31 ] I am sympathetic to the Appellant and her health concerns. But I can’t consider any of the conditions that developed after the end of December 2017. I haven’t taken them into consideration in arriving at my decision. [ 32 ] Next, I will look at whether the Appellant followed medical advice. The Appellant followed medical advice [ 33 ] To receive a disability pension, an appellant must follow medical advice. Footnote 20 [ 34 ] The Appellant’s response to medical advice is not an issue on this appeal. The Minister does not say that the Appellant failed to follow medical advice. The Appellant was capable regularly of working at a substantially gainful job [ 35 ] The Federal Court of Appeal has stated, “the capacity of an applicant for a disability pension to regularly engage in remunerative employment was the very antithesis of a severe and prolonged disability.” Footnote 21 [ 36 ] I find that the Appellant was still able to work as of December 31, 2017. From July to December 2017, she was a wildlife monitor for a [COMPANY]. She worked ten hours a day, six days a week. Footnote 22  Her 2017 earnings were more than $55,000. Footnote 23 This is well above the substantially gainful amount for that year of about $15,700. [ 37 ] In September 2022, Dr. [NAME] stated that the Appellant had worked in the natural resource department of X since 1980. Footnote 24 In March 2025, she stated that, over time, she received contracts from the band rather than working directly for them. Footnote 25 [ 38 ] The Appellant’s personal characteristics apparently helped her find work, even after her 2018 accident. Footnote 26 In November 2019, she had an offer for a job about two hours away. She could not take the job because she had no support there. Footnote 27 [ 39 ] For the month of December 2022, the Appellant was a referral worker for Y. Footnote 28 [ 40 ] From October 2022 to June 2023, the Appellant worked as a researcher/knowledge keeper for X. Her employer reported that her attendance and the quality of her work were satisfactory. Footnote 29 Her age, 64 years, didn’t prevent her from finding a job. Her higher education was likely an advantage. In addition, she had years of experience working for [NAME] and as a contract employee. [ 41 ] The Appellant was able to work at a substantially gainful job when she was last eligible for [NAME] disability. Therefore, I can’t find that she had a severe disability by the end of December 2017. Conclusion [ 42 ] 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. [ 43 ] This means the appeal is dismissed. Footnotes Footnote 1 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-I-117-118. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 In Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2020  FC  1093, the Federal Court said that the appellant has to show a severe and prolonged disability by the end of their minimum qualifying period and continuously after that. See also [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2001  FCA  318. 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 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2013  FCA  81. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 [NAME]  v  Canada (Social Development) , 2008  FCA  33. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 See GD2-17, [NAME], social worker, June 2020. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 See GD2-III-136, clinic note of [NAME] dated October 27, 2017. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 See GD2-II-53, [NAME], physiatrist, September 2022 in a report to the Appellant’s lawyer. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 See GD2-II-85, [NAME], psychiatrist, September 2022, in a report to the Appellant’s lawyer. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 See GD2-II-139. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 See GD2-II-55. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 See GD2-II-157. Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 See GD2-III-54. Return to footnote 14 referrer Footnote 15 See GD2-II-53. Return to footnote 15 referrer Footnote 16 See GD2-III-8. Return to footnote 16 referrer Footnote 17 See GD2-III-10. Return to footnote 17 referrer Footnote 18 See GD2-III-21, 53. Return to footnote 18 referrer Footnote 19 See GD2-III-39, 40. Return to footnote 19 referrer Footnote 20 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General), 2018  FCA  48. Return to footnote 20 referrer Footnote 21 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General), 2007  FCA  237. Return to footnote 21 referrer Footnote 22 See GD2-I-98. Return to footnote 22 referrer Footnote 23 See GD2-I-118. Return to footnote 23 referrer Footnote 24 See GD2-II-58. Return to footnote 24 referrer Footnote 25 See GD2-III-46. Return to footnote 25 referrer Footnote 26 When I am considering whether an appellant’s disability is concerned, I must take into account factors including their age, education, past work and life experience. [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2001  FCA  248. Return to footnote 26 referrer Footnote 27 See GD2-III-172. Return to footnote 27 referrer Footnote 28 See GD2-I-44. Return to footnote 28 referrer Footnote 29 See GD2-I-63. Return to footnote 29 referrer