CPP Disability Appeal Dismissed Due to Insufficient Proof of Severe Disability

Citation: TD  v  [NAME] , 2026  SST  26 Social Security Tribunal of Canada General Division – Income Security Section Decision Appellant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: [NAME] reconsideration decision dated September 16, 2024 (issued by Service Canada) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: Teleconference Hearing date: January 15, 2026 Hearing participants: Appellant Interpreter Decision date: January 19, 2026 File number: GP-24-2137 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. D., isn’t eligible for a [NAME] ( [NAME] ) disability pension. This decision explains why I am dismissing the appeal. Overview [ 3 ] The Appellant is 58 years old. He moved to Canada in 1998. He works as a part-time pizza delivery driver. He bases his [NAME] disability claim on chest pain, back pain, and vision problems. He claims to have been disabled since January 2020. Footnote 1 [ 4 ] The Appellant applied for a [NAME] disability pension on October 24, 2022. The [NAME] (Minister) refused his application. The Appellant appealed the Minister’s decision to the Social Security Tribunal’s General Division. [ 5 ] The Appellant says that he meets the test for [NAME] disability. He says he has chronic fatigue, shortness of breath, and chest pain from coronary artery disease. He says that he can’t work physical jobs and has poor English. He speaks Punjabi. Footnote 2 [ 6 ] The Minister says that the evidence doesn’t support a finding of disability under the [NAME] . The Minister says that the recent medical evidence shows he can work part-time. The Minister also noted that he continued to work, although his work was slow. Footnote 3 What the Appellant must prove [ 7 ] For the Appellant to succeed, he must prove he has a disability that was severe and prolonged by the hearing date. In other words, no later than January 15, 2026. Footnote 4 [ 8 ] The [NAME] defines “severe” and “prolonged.” A disability is severe if it makes an appellant incapable regularly of pursuing any substantially gainful occupation. Footnote 5 A disability is prolonged if it is likely to be long continued and of indefinite duration, or is likely to result in death. Footnote 6 [ 9 ] The Appellant has to prove he has a severe and prolonged disability on a balance of probabilities. He must show it is more likely than not that he is disabled. Reasons for my decision [ 10 ] I find that the Appellant hasn’t proven he had a severe and prolonged disability by the hearing date. I reached this decision by considering whether his disability was severe. Because I found that his disability wasn’t severe, I didn’t consider whether it was prolonged. He can work enough at a suitable job to earn a living. Was the Appellant’s disability severe? [ 11 ] 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 his ability to work [ 12 ] The Appellant has: chronic back pain chronic fatigue coronary artery disease diabetes II dyslipidemia hyperlipidemia hypertension mild ocular surface disorder [ 13 ] However, I can’t focus on the Appellant’s diagnoses. Footnote 7 Instead, I must focus on whether he has functional limitations that got in the way of him earning a living. Footnote 8 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 his ability to work. Footnote 9 [ 14 ] I find that the Appellant has functional limitations that affected his ability to work. What the Appellant says about his functional limitations [ 15 ] The Appellant says that his medical conditions have resulted in functional limitations that affect his ability to work. He says that: He says that he gets knee pain when he stands up. He believes this is from diabetes. He has blurred vision sometimes. Two times he hit a curb while driving. He continues to drive. He can’t lift heavy items because of back and chest pain. He has back pain when he climbs hills and he has difficulty bending. He has stress because of financial issues. Footnote 10 [ 16 ] At the hearing, the Appellant said that he doesn’t have limitations to walking or sitting. He didn’t say that he had limitations to standing either. This contrasts with his self-assessed abilities in the 2022 [NAME] disability application where he wrote that he could not stand or sit for 20 minutes. He wrote that he had a very good ability to walk one block. He wrote that he had a poor ability to drive a car and was scared. He reported almost all of his physical and emotional abilities to be poor. Footnote 11 [ 17 ] I preferred the Appellant’s statement of functional abilities made at the hearing. It is a current self-assessment of his 2026 abilities, rather than his 2022 abilities. His stated abilities at the hearing were likely more accurate than what he wrote on the forms. It is possible that he may have had problems understanding the English form, because he isn’t fluent in English. I prefer to rely on the verbatim Punjabi interpretation. What the medical evidence says about the Appellant’s functional limitations Footnote 12 [ 18 ] The Appellant must provide some medical evidence to support that his functional limitations affected his ability to work no later than the hearing date. Footnote 13 [ 19 ] The medical evidence supports that the Appellant had coronary artery disease since January 2021. He had surgery in 2021. He has limitations from shortness of breath, limited walking, and climbing. In April 2024 he reported pain in his chest and legs when lifting heavy items at work. Footnote 14 [ 20 ] The Appellant’s family doctor wrote that he had some chronic back pain and chronic fatigue since August 2021. He had limitations at that time to walking, climbing, bending, and sitting for long periods. Yet in August 2024, he had no restrictions to his functional abilities. Footnote 15 [ 21 ] This suggests to me that the Appellant’s limitations connected to his coronary artery disease reduced after surgery and rehabilitation. I think this because the onset of his mobility and fatigue limitations coincided with his heart problems. I accept that he has difficulty bending and lifting because of back pain. [ 22 ] The Appellant was diagnosed with mild ocular surface disorder in March 2024. He has one cataract and dry eyes. He had episodes of blurred vision, which came on gradually. The blurred vision lasted for between seconds to 10 to 15 minutes. Footnote 16 [ 23 ] The Appellant reported that he had no eye concerns as of March 2024. He was driving without glasses. The plan was to follow up in one year for an annual eye exam and to use artificial tears for comfort. Footnote 17 This doesn’t support that he had eye issues that affected his ability to drive. The doctor didn’t suggest that he shouldn’t be driving because of an eye condition. [ 24 ] The Appellant has diabetes II , hypertension , and hyperlipidemia . In 2023, the medical evidence notes that his blood sugar levels and blood pressure was under control with medication. As of 2024, he didn’t have hypertensive retinopathy or diabetic retinopathy. Footnote 18 The medical evidence and Appellant testimony didn’t support that he had limitations connected with these conditions. [ 25 ] It isn’t clear to me how the Appellant believes that his knee pain is connected with diabetes II. There isn’t evidence to support this. There isn’t medical evidence that addresses limitations from knee pain. I accept that in 2024 he reported right knee pain with no trauma. He got pain in his legs when he lifted heavy items at work. The medical evidence includes a 2024 right knee x-ray that didn’t find any problems. Footnote 19 I accept that he cannot do heavy lifting. [ 26 ] I accept that the Appellant’s financial situation may have caused him stress as he claims. However, the medical evidence doesn’t support that he had any psychological limitations related to stress that impacted his ability to work. Because of that, I didn’t factor in stress or any mental health symptoms into this analysis. [ 27 ] The medical evidence supports that the Appellant’s limitations prevented him from doing heavy lifting and heavy physical tasks. [ 28 ] Next, I will look at whether the Appellant followed medical advice. The Appellant followed medical advice [ 29 ] To receive a disability pension, an appellant must follow medical advice. Footnote 20 [ 30 ] The Appellant followed medical advice. [ 31 ] The Appellant finished his cardiac rehabilitation in January 2022. Footnote 21 [ 32 ] The Appellant takes metformin for diabetes II. He took eye drops for one month in August 2023 for dry eyes. Footnote 22 [ 33 ] In December 2021, the Appellant was told that he needed to walk regularly to help his leg weakness and pain. He was given B12 injections because his vitamin level was a bit low. Footnote 23 [ 34 ] The Appellant takes Tylenol for back pain. Footnote 24 [ 35 ] I now have to decide whether the Appellant can regularly do other types of work. To be severe, the Appellant’s functional limitations must prevent him from earning a living at any type of work, not just his usual job. Footnote 25 The Appellant can work in the real world [ 36 ] When I am deciding whether the Appellant can work, I can’t just look at his medical conditions and how they affect what he can do. I must also consider factors such as his: age level of education language abilities past work and life experience Footnote 26 [ 37 ] I find that the Appellant can work as of the hearing date. [ 38 ] The Appellant’s background and personal characteristics add barriers to his employability. He has less than a decade left before the age of retirement in Canada. He speaks Punjabi and some English. He moved to Canada in 1998. He took two weeks of English classes in 1998. He has an international bachelor’s degree. He has work experience in driving and as a machine operator. He doesn’t have computer skills, but he can use a computer for basic tasks. [ 39 ] Next, I factored in the Appellant’s limitations. He isn’t suited to moderate or heavy physical work. He is likely able to do sedentary work or light physical labour. He doesn’t have limitations to sitting, walking, or standing. The medical evidence didn’t suggest that his eye problems would affect him working or driving. [ 40 ] The Appellant has work capacity. He can likely do some type of work in the real world to earn a living. I decided this based on his medical evidence, testimony, work history, and real-world characteristics. His family doctor thought he could at least do a seated job. Footnote 27 He is working a suitable job but didn’t consistently earn enough to support a living. The Appellant continues to work his usual job [ 41 ] If the Appellant can work in the real world, he 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 conditions. Footnote 28 Finding and keeping a suitable job includes retraining or looking for a job he can do with his functional limitations. Footnote 29 [ 42 ] The Appellant did try to work. His efforts don’t show that his disability got in the way of him earning a living. [ 43 ] The Appellant works his usual job delivering pizza. He works two or three days a week – Friday, Saturday, and sometimes Sunday. He only works these days because he is low on the seniority list and coworkers get more shifts. In the appeal file, he noted that “work was slow.” Footnote 30 At the time of the hearing, he was working 40 hours per week for about one month while a coworker was on vacation. [ 44 ] The amount of work the Appellant does isn’t tied to his disability. First, the Appellant believes he can work full-time hours now. He didn’t tell me that he was struggling or couldn’t do these hours. Second, he works part-time hours because of his low seniority. [ 45 ] At the hearing, I asked the Appellant if he stopped working as a pizza delivery driver since his medical issues began in 2021. He told me that he turned down other shifts for the employer that involved heavy lifting of supplies. Since 2021, he worked all the pizza delivery shifts available to him. This fits his limitation to heavy lifting. [ 46 ] The Appellant says that he can work a pizza delivery job with his limitations. There is no lifting or heavy work. He applied to other pizza delivery jobs to work more hours, but couldn’t find work locally. He couldn’t remember when he last applied to other jobs. [ 47 ] I cannot consider socio-economic factors such as the availability of jobs locally or other labour market conditions in the Appellant’s community. Footnote 31 His statement reinforces that he can work regularly, not just his part-time hours, but likely more. The Appellant’s earnings [ 48 ] I reviewed the Appellant’s earnings. Footnote 32 I considered his earnings against “substantially gainful” amounts. Substantially gainful earnings are work income that is as much as the maximum annual amount a person could receive for a [NAME] disability pension. Footnote 33 [ 49 ] The Appellant’s income fluctuated over the years before his claimed date of disability. He didn’t earn a substantially gainful amount each year. However, his evidence doesn’t logically show a connection between his income and medical conditions. The years when he had the most health struggles he earned the highest amounts. [ 50 ] The medical report from October 2022 noted that he was weak after heart surgery. He wasn’t likely to improve. Footnote 34 Despite this poor prognosis, he earned above the substantially gainful amount. He earned the most he had since 2012. [ 51 ] The medical evidence from August 2024 through August 2025 shows that the family doctor’s opinion improved. The family doctor stated that he should be able to do at least part-time sedentary work. Footnote 35 Yet in 2024 he didn’t earn a substantially gainful amount. [ 52 ] This suggests that the Appellant’s earnings from 2021 to 2024 were not due to his functional limitations or an inability to reliably work because of his disabilities. It was likely due to other factors, such as the availability of work. Year Appellant’s earnings Substantially gainful 2024 $11,393 $19,339 2023 $16,300 $18,508 2022 $22,795 $17,610 2021 $12,609 $17,025 [ 53 ] I can’t find that the Appellant had a severe disability by the hearing date. Conclusion [ 54 ] 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. [ 55 ] This means the appeal is dismissed. Footnotes Footnote 1 See GD2-31 to 48. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 The hearing was held with verbatim Punjabi interpretation. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See GD11. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 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 GD3-6 to 7. In this case, the Appellant’s coverage period ends after the hearing date, so I have to decide whether he was disabled by the hearing date. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 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 5 referrer Footnote 6 Section 42(2)(a) of the [NAME] gives this definition of prolonged disability. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2013  FCA  81. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 [NAME]  v  Canada ([NAME]) , 2008  FCA  33. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2011  FCA  47. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 See GD2-38. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 See GD2-37. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 See GD2-168. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2008  FCA  377; and Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2020  FC  206. Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 See GD2-54 to 58 and 198. Return to footnote 14 referrer Footnote 15 See GD2-198. Return to footnote 15 referrer Footnote 16 See GD2-139 to 141, 167, and 191. Return to footnote 16 referrer Footnote 17 See GD2-167. Return to footnote 17 referrer Footnote 18 See GD2-62, 69, 178, and 167. Return to footnote 18 referrer Footnote 19 See GD2-168 and 195. Return to footnote 19 referrer Footnote 20 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2018  FCA  48. Return to footnote 20 referrer Footnote 21 See GD2-72. Return to footnote 21 referrer Footnote 22 See GD2-178 to 179 and 196. Return to footnote 22 referrer Footnote 23 See GD2-186 to 187. Return to footnote 23 referrer Footnote 24 See GD2-195. Return to footnote 24 referrer Footnote 25 [NAME]  v  Canada ([NAME]) , 2008  FCA  33. Return to footnote 25 referrer Footnote 26 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2001  FCA  248. Return to footnote 26 referrer Footnote 27 See GD2-198 and GD4-1. Return to footnote 27 referrer Footnote 28 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2003  FCA  117. Return to footnote 28 referrer Footnote 29 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2008  FCA  150. Return to footnote 29 referrer Footnote 30 See GD10-2. Return to footnote 30 referrer Footnote 31 [NAME])  v  [NAME] , 2002  FCA  47. Return to footnote 31 referrer Footnote 32 See GD3-7. Return to footnote 32 referrer Footnote 33 See section 68.1(1) of the  [NAME]. Also see https://www.canada.ca/en/services/benefits/publicpensions/[NAME]/payment-amounts.html Return to footnote 33 referrer Footnote 34 See GD2-57. Return to footnote 34 referrer Footnote 35 See GD2-198 and GD4-1. Return to footnote 35 referrer