CPP Disability Benefits Appeal Dismissed Due to Substantial Gainful Employment

Citation: YG  v  [NAME] , 2026  SST  308 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Decision Appellant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] [NAME] and [NAME] (counsel) Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated October 22, 2025 (GP-24-1909) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: Videoconference Hearing date: March 30, 2026 Hearing participants: Appellant Respondent’s representative Decision date: April 23, 2026 File number: AD-25-752 On this page Decision Overview Issue General legal principles Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] The appeal is dismissed. [ 2 ] The Appellant, Y. G. (Claimant), ceased to be disabled when she returned to work in early 2022. Her employment did not represent failed work attempts, and she did not have a [NAME]. She is disentitled to a [NAME] disability pension as of May 2022. Overview [ 3 ] This appeal is about whether the Claimant remained severely disabled for the purposes of the [NAME] at the end of April 2022. [ 4 ] The Claimant had been receiving [NAME] disability benefits since late 2013. However, the Respondent, the [NAME] (Minister) determined that the Claimant ceased to be disabled at the end of April 2022. The Minister terminated her disability benefits, resulting in an overpayment of benefits. The General Division upheld the Minister’s determination. [ 5 ] The Claimant appealed the General Division decision to the Appeal Division. The Appeal Division granted leave (permission) to appeal the General Division decision, so a new hearing took place. [ 6 ] The Claimant and her spouse, A. P., both testified before the Appeal Division that the Claimant has been continuously struggling with multiple sclerosis (MS) since 2011 and that her MS has been getting progressively worse over time. [ 7 ] The Claimant worked in 2022 and into early 2023. She says that she only tried to work so that the MS did not define her. However, the Claimant argues that this employment represents failed work attempts: there were gaps in her employment in 2022, and she was eventually forced to stop working in 2023 because of the MS. [ 8 ] As she qualified for a disability benefit in 2013, and has been continuously struggling with MS since then, the Claimant argues that she did not cease to be disabled. The Claimant asks the Appeal Division to allow her appeal and to find that she has been severely disabled throughout. [ 9 ] The Minister argues that the evidence shows that the Claimant ceased to be severely disabled in May 2022, allowing for what it says is a three-month equivalent to a work trial after returning to work at a substantially gainful level in January 2022. The Minister denies that the Claimant had a failed work attempt or that she had a [NAME]. The Minister argues that the Claimant’s employment in 2022 and 2023 represents substantially gainful employment. The Minister asks the Appeal Division to dismiss the Claimant’s appeal. Issue [ 10 ] The issue is whether the Claimant ceased to be severely disabled under the [NAME] in May 2022. General legal principles [ 11 ] Under the [NAME] , a disability is severe if it makes a claimant incapable regularly of pursuing any substantially gainful occupation. Footnote 1 A claimant who no longer meets this definition ceases to be disabled for the purposes of the [NAME] and is no longer eligible to receive disability benefits. If they return to work, they have to inform the Minister without delay. Footnote 2 [ 12 ] Section 68.1 of the [NAME] (Regulations) defines a “substantially gainful occupation.” It is an occupation that provides a salary or wages equal to or greater than the maximum annual amount a person can receive as a disability pension. The amount is determined by a formula. In 2022, the substantially gainful occupation threshold was set at $17,610.06. Footnote 3 [ 13 ] However, even if a Claimant has substantially gainful earnings, they may not be engaged in a substantially gainful occupation. Footnote 4 That claimant’s employment could be a failed work attempt, or their employer could be benevolent. [ 14 ] An attempt to return to work can represent a failed work attempt. As the Federal Court of Appeal held in [NAME]  v  Canada , “No doubt a return to work which only lasted a few days would be a failed attempt. However, two years of earnings consistent with what had been earned before cannot be a failed attempt.” Footnote 5 [ 15 ] Or, in the case where a claimant is able to work only because a [NAME] accommodates them, they would not be seen as capable regularly of pursuing a substantially gainful occupation. Background facts [ 16 ] The Claimant had been working in an administrative position. In 1995, she had earnings of about $9,200 and in 1996, collective earnings of $12,050. She did not have any earnings again until 1999, when she earned $1,800. After that, she had only nominal earnings in 2000 and 2021. Footnote 6 [ 17 ] In 2008, the Claimant began experiencing symptoms relating to MS. She testified that she has been struggling since then. She applied for a [NAME] disability pension in November 2014. She stated that she could no longer work as of March 18, 2011, because of her symptoms. The Minister accepted her application and granted her a disability pension. The Claimant had employment in 2022 and 2023 [ 18 ] Years later, the Claimant returned to the workforce. She Claimant testified that she, “wanted to see what [she could] do to earn an honest living and not let the MS define [her], so [she] gave it a try.” Footnote 7 She worked as follows: i. From January 4 to March 31, 2022, the Claimant worked for [COMPANY]. Footnote 8 The Record of Employment shows that she earned $8,610.13 and that stopped working because the contract ended. Footnote 9 ii. From April to June 2022, the Claimant worked as support staff for a member of the [NAME]. The Record of Employment shows that from late October 2021 to June 1, 2022, she earned $5,113.68 for 240 insurable hours. The Earnings History shows that most of the earnings—$4,791—arose in 2022. The Record of Employment also shows that she stopped working due to a shortage of work. Footnote 10 iii. From September 27, 2022, to March 10, 2023, the Claimant worked on a second contract for [COMPANY]., earning $15,744.22. The Record of Employment shows that the contract ended. Footnote 11 [ 19 ] According to details of the Claimant’s earnings, her combined earnings for 2022 were $20,851. Footnote 12 Her earnings for 2023 were $8,294. Footnote 13 [ 20 ] The Claimant described her work for a [NAME] as “extremely, extremely easy.” Footnote 14 She testified that she basically “just sat there,” Footnote 15 in an office. She did not require nor seek any accommodations. [ 21 ] The Claimant testified that the employment with [COMPANY]. was vastly different. She found it a struggle. She worked remotely for eight hours a day, five days a week. She had 15-minute breaks, one in the morning and the other, in the afternoon. She had a half-hour lunch break, which she used to rest. [ 22 ] The Claimant responded to telephone calls through her computer. There was a lot of typing, and it led to cramping in her hand. She sat or stood for long stretches. The work caused back pain, headaches, and fatigue. [ 23 ] She asked her employer for accommodations. She asked for a laptop and mobile device, as she knew that other employees had received these. With these accommodations, she would not have to be at her computer to hear incoming phone calls or to type, and she would be able to dictate and to stretch. [ 24 ] The Claimant did not tell her employer that she has MS. Her employer never accommodated her, even though she kept asking for a laptop or mobile device. She testified that, even so, she was able to largely fulfill her duties and responsibilities, though may have missed a couple of phone calls, “here and there, whatever.” Footnote 16 [ 25 ] The Claimant does not recall whether she had to take any sick leave when she worked in 2022 and 2023. She explained that when she started work in September 2022, she did not feel well and lost her voice. But she was able to work. It involved two months of training. It was simple. She then had a few days off over the Christmas holidays. After returning to work, the work pace picked up. She struggled with pain, fatigue, and headaches. Footnote 17 [ 26 ] The Claimant testified that because her medical condition was getting progressively worse, and as the work was getting much busier, Footnote 18 she wanted to quit. But her employer coincidentally ended her employment in mid-March 2023. [ 27 ] The employer offered her another contract in November 2023. The Claimant testified that the company’s email said, “We’d love to have you back.” Footnote 19 The Claimant declined the offer because she found the work had been too painful. The Claimant’s spouse’s evidence: the Claimant has been struggling and her condition is deteriorating [ 28 ] The Claimant’s spouse worked from home in 2022. He worked in the same room as the Claimant. He testified that the Claimant frequently complained that she was getting a lot of headaches. He encouraged her to take more breaks. But he recalled that his spouse’s employer would not let her take any extended breaks. He described the Claimant as being tired all the time. [ 29 ] The Claimant’s spouse confirmed that the Claimant’s condition has been getting progressively worse over time and that he sees her declining almost on a week-to-week basis now. She had been stable for a while, but her condition is getting worse and she will be placed on other medications. [NAME]’s medical report of October 2022 [ 30 ] [NAME] prepared a consultation report dated October 21, 2022. He noted that the Claimant had been sick in April 2022, likely with COVID , and recently had had another upper respiratory tract infection. She had headaches. Right leg symptoms and the coldness in her right foot were ongoing. She had some urinary urgency. She had episodes of shortness of breath, which he suspected were anxiety related. She also continued to complain about her memory. [ 31 ] [NAME] was of the opinion that the Claimant needed help with emotional issues. He strongly suspected that a significant portion of the cognitive phenomena related to depression and anxiety. He was also of the opinion that certainly some of her mental health issues could be related to MS. [ 32 ] [NAME] also wrote that he told the Claimant repeatedly over the last few years that he thought she needed to be treated. However she did not wish to pursue treatment. She would contact his office if her condition changed or if she decided she was ready for treatment of her MS. Footnote 20 Other medical evidence for 2022 and 2023 [ 33 ] There is no other medical evidence for 2022 in the hearing file. The 2023 medical evidence includes reports dated June and July 2023. [ 34 ] The consultation report of June 2023 indicated that the Claimant had a Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) that showed new lesions that put her at a greater risk for developing a more progressive or fixed disability down the road. [NAME] noted that the Claimant did “not seem as if she is really had any other clear relapses,” despite the MRIs showing interval increase. At the time of her visit, the Claimant reported right-sided weakness and tingling, fluctuating balance, temporary blurred vision, and sometimes forgetting or mixing up words. Footnote 21 [NAME] did not discuss how the Claimant’s condition affected her in 2022 or the early part of 2023. [ 35 ] When the Claimant saw [NAME] in July 2023, she had just been in a motor vehicle accident. Since then, her pre-existing right hemibody symptoms had gotten worse, causing her to question whether she should go on therapy for her MS. Footnote 22 Medication usage [ 36 ] After the Claimant stopped working in March 2023, she went on medication in about August 2023. Footnote 23 However, the medication caused side effects, so she stopped taking them about a year later. [NAME] wants her to start another medication because MRIs show that her MS is progressing. The Claimant argues that she remained disabled [ 37 ] The Claimant denies that she ceased to be disabled. She says that her MS has been uninterrupted and has gotten progressively worse over time. She denies that she had the capacity to regularly pursue a substantially gainful occupation in 2022 and 2023 and says that any employment she had then was short-lived and represents failed work attempts. [ 38 ] The Claimant argues that she needed and asked for accommodations. Her employer did not provide any accommodations. She says that she does not know whether accommodations would have helped anyway or if they would have enabled her to continue working longer. But she says that she was never capable of regularly pursuing a substantially gainful occupation after she was diagnosed with MS. [ 39 ] The [NAME] say the Claimant’s employment ended because of work shortages. But the Claimant denies that there were any work shortages, as other employees continued working. She acknowledged, however, that her employer laid off “a few people and [she] was one of therm.” Footnote 24 She also says that she had been about to quit when her employer let her go. [ 40 ] The Claimant questions why the Minister has determined that she ceased being disabled. After all, her MS has been present since 2008. She still gets MRIs—twice a year now. The MRIs show an increase in lesions. [NAME] also suggested that she get counselling because of her depression. The Minister argues that the Claimant ceased to be disabled [ 41 ] The Minister argues that the Claimant ceased to be eligible for disability benefits effective May 2022, for three reasons. The Minister argues that the Claimant was engaged in substantially gainful employment in 2022, as evidenced by her earnings. Although there were gaps in her employment, her collective earnings were more than $20,000, which is above the substantially gainful threshold of $17,610.06 for that year. [ 42 ] The Minister also argues that the Claimant did not have a [NAME]. And finally, the Minister argues that none of the medical evidence substantiates the Claimant’s assertions that she was unable to work. The Minister notes that the Claimant came to her own assessment regarding her capacity to regularly pursue a substantially gainful occupation. [ 43 ] The Minister argues that the Claimant demonstrated a regular capacity to work. The Minister argues that over a year of full-time employment cannot reasonably be characterized as a failed attempt. The Minister also argues there is no medical evidence that shows the Claimant’s employment ended due to medical reasons. Instead, the Minister argues that the evidence shows that there was a shortage of work or that contracts ended. The Claimant had substantially gainful earnings in 2022 [ 44 ] The Claimant’s combined earnings for 2022 were $20,851. Footnote 25 [ 45 ] The Claimant’s earnings for 2022 exceed the substantially gainful occupation threshold set at $17,610.06 under section 68.1 of the Regulations. By definition then, the Claimant was engaged in a substantially gainful occupation. [ 46 ] However, if a claimant works for a “[NAME],” or if they had a failed work attempt, they may not be engaged in a substantially gainful occupation. Footnote 26 In other words, section 68.1 of the Regulations does not preclude the need to consider whether the Claimant had a [NAME] or had a failed work attempt. The Claimant’s employment was not a failed work attempt [ 47 ] The Claimant argues that her employment in 2022 and 2023 represent failed work attempts. She notes that the first and second jobs lasted just three months each, and that her last job included two months of training starting in September 2022 and a Christmas break. She says that the training and having a few days’ break made work manageable. The Claimant notes that her second job was not taxing on her. [ 48 ] The Claimant argues that it is clear that she was unable to continue her employment by 2023 because of her MS. And, although the last Record of Employment indicates that the contract had ended, she says that it coincided with her intention to quit because of her medical condition. [ 49 ] The Minister argues that the Claimant’s employment in 2022 and 2023 are not failed work attempts. The Minister argues that it is not the employment itself that must be regular, but the incapacity to work. Footnote 27 As the Federal Court of Appeal set out in [NAME] , a disability is severe if it “renders an applicant incapable of pursuing with consistent frequency any truly remunerative occupation.” Footnote 28 Thus, the Minister argues, a claimant who is regularly capable of work is not disabled. [ 50 ] The Minister also argues that a claimant who is capable of working predictably is capable of regular work . Footnote 29 The Minister argues that having regular capacity to work can be evidenced by several factors, including consistent attendance or being able to perform one’s essential duties without any or much assistance. [ 51 ] The Minister argues that any gaps in employment do not necessarily reflect incapacity, particularly if a claimant is able to work full-time when they do have work. Footnote 30 [ 52 ] In [NAME] , the Federal Court noted that with respect to the issue of failed work attempts, the General Division had appropriately considered [NAME]’s employment history, the pay she received, the number of hours worked, the duration of each job, and the fact that she left her jobs for reasons unrelated to her medical limitations. Footnote 31 [ 53 ] The Claimant in [NAME] had attended work at least 70 percent of the time. There was no evidence in that case of any complaints or disciplinary action because of any missed time off work. [NAME] received some help from co-workers and her spouse, she was able to perform the essential tasks of her job without any help. Given this, the Federal Court of Appeal found that it was reasonable that the Appeal Division had determined that [NAME] was capable regularly of pursuing substantially gainful employment. Footnote 32 [ 54 ] In assessing whether the Claimant’s work in 2022 and 2023 represent failed work attempts, I will also consider these factors. [ 55 ] The Claimant’s collective earnings in 2022 were above the substantially gainful amount set out in the Regulations. Notably, the Claimant’s 2022 earnings were far more than she had ever earned in any previous calendar years. [ 56 ] The Claimant did not raise any concerns about her work for a [NAME]. As for her second job, the Claimant was able to perform the tasks necessary to do her job as a phone agent, even if she was in pain, had headaches and felt fatigued. [ 57 ] The Claimant took breaks and a half-hour lunch break, but the number of breaks she had was not out of the norm. She would have benefited from extra breaks, but her employer did not allow for extended or additional breaks. And generally she did not take any extra or longer breaks, mindful that her employer did not allow for employees to be late. She worked full-time hours. [ 58 ] There is no evidence that the Claimant missed any time off work due to her medical condition. She regularly showed up and worked her usual hours. [ 59 ] The Claimant did not get any help from her colleagues or her spouse. She did not receive any accommodations from her employer. Despite the lack of accommodations, she was able to fulfill her usual duties and responsibilities. [ 60 ] The Claimant testified that there had been minor complaints that she had been late for work or missed some calls, but she says that her employer did not call her out for these. And, for the most part, the evidence shows that tardiness or diminished work performance did not frequently arise. [ 61 ] Despite the minor complaints, it is apparent that the Claimant’s employer was satisfied with the Claimant’s performance and found that she was reliable. It offered her employment again in November 2023. The Claimant received an email from the employer, which said, “We’d love to have you back.” Footnote 33 [ 62 ] The first and second jobs ended after three months. But there is no evidence that shows that the Claimant stopped working for medical reasons, or that she could not have continued working. The [NAME] in 2022 confirm that the work assignments ended and that no further work was available for the Claimant. [ 63 ] The Claimant says that she was unable to continue working by March 2023. Although there is no supporting medical evidence, I accept that the Claimant stopped working in March 2023 because of her medical condition. Even so, that does not make her 2022 employment failed work attempts. She had testified that it was only in January and February 2023 “where it actually hit really hard.” Footnote 34 The Claimant did not have a [NAME] in 2022 and 2023 [ 64 ] The Claimant does not suggest that she had a [NAME] in either 2022 or 2023. Even so, I will examine this issue. If the Claimant had a [NAME], then she may not have been capable regularly of pursuing a substantially gainful occupation. [ 65 ] The [NAME] and the Regulations do not define a [NAME]. The Minister argues that a [NAME] is someone who will reduce expectations for performance and productivity for the employee to below what would be expected in the [NAME], often at personal financial cost. Footnote 35 [ 66 ] The Minister cites the [NAME] 36 case where the Federal Court of Appeal addressed the concept of a [NAME]. [ADDRESS] noted that the term was in the [NAME], a document that the Department of Employment and Social Development issues. [ADDRESS] wrote: [ 24 ] [NAME] defined “[NAME]”: A “[NAME]” is someone who will vary the conditions of the job and modify their expectations of the employee, in keeping with her or his limitations. The demands of the job may vary, the main difference being that the performance, output or product expected from the [employee], are considerably less than the usual performance output or product expected from other employees. This reduced ability to perform at a competitive level is accepted by the “benevolent” employer and the [employee] is incapable regularly of pursuing any work in a [NAME]. Work for a [NAME] is not considered to be an “occupation” for the purposes of eligibility or continuing eligibility for a [NAME] disability benefit. [ 67 ] [NAME] is not binding law, but it may be useful in determining whether a claimant has a [NAME]. [ 68 ] Ultimately, the Court found that benevolent employment is an arrangement that does not truly measure a claimant’s capacity to work. Footnote 37 [ 69 ] In [NAME], Mr. [NAME]’s work arrangement was unlike anything in the [NAME]. Footnote 38 He worked when he was able to work. The job was tailored to his disabilities and there were no performance reviews. His work hours varied based on his pain. And his salary was based on the amount necessary to pay his bills, rather than on how many hours he worked. The parties did not dispute the facts, and the Minister did not challenge the Appeal Division’s determination that Mr. [NAME]’s employer was benevolent. [ 70 ] Here, the Minister argues that the Claimant’s situation is unlike the [NAME] case. The Minister argues that if the Claimant had had a [NAME], it would have adjusted performance or productivity expectations to accommodate her. But, as the Claimant did not disclose her medical condition, her employer did not provide any accommodations nor adjust its expectations. The Minister argues that, in fact, her employer must have been satisfied with her performance as it offered her a new contract in November 2023, without having to accommodate her. [ 71 ] The Claimant does not suggest that her employer was benevolent. She asked for accommodations, but it did not provide any. She worked full-time. Her work hours lacked flexibility. Her employer did not provide her with the opportunity to take additional or longer breaks. [ 72 ] There is no evidence or any indication that the Claimant’s employer relaxed any of the job requirements for her, in terms of productivity or performance. Indeed, the Claimant noted that her employer contacted her if she had even been late by two minutes Footnote 39 and reminded her that she was not permitted to be late by even three minutes. Footnote 40 [ 73 ] There were complaints against the Claimant for being late or for missing calls, but it is evident that they were so minor that the employer was prepared to overlook them. In November 2023, it offered to rehire the Claimant, even writing to her saying, “We’d love to have you back.” Footnote 41 [ 74 ] Given all of these considerations, I find that the Claimant’s employer was not benevolent. Medical evidence [ 75 ] The Claimant argues that the medical evidence shows that she has been continuously struggling with MS, even while working. She notes that [NAME] raised concerns in his report of October 2022. She notes that there is no cure for MS and that her MS has only gotten worse over time. She believes that work aggravated her condition. [ 76 ] The medical report shows that the Claimant had headaches, right leg symptoms, coldness in her foot, urinary urgency, episodes of shortness of breath, anxiety, and memory issues. [NAME] was of the opinion that some of these symptoms related to depression and anxiety. He recommended that she seek help for her emotional issues. As he had also advised repeatedly over the years, he recommended that she seek treatment for her MS. She still did not wish to seek treatment for the MS. [ 77 ] The medical evidence falls short in showing that the Claimant had a severe disability in October 2022, or for any part of that year. While the report confirms that the Claimant had symptoms which could have caused some limitations, the report does not specifically address how the Claimant’s medical condition affected her capacity to regularly pursue a substantially gainful occupation, in light of the fact that the Claimant was fully working at that time. There is no indication in the report either that the Claimant voiced any concerns with [NAME] about working, about whether she should continue to work, what limitations she faced, or what accommodations she required. [ 78 ] Medical records show that the Claimant’s condition got progressively worse. However, these records were prepared after the Claimant stopped working in 2023, and are irrelevant in determining whether she ceased to be severely disabled in 2022. [NAME] applications [ 79 ] The Claimant’s condition has gotten progressively worse since she stopped working in March 2023. The Minister’s representative Footnote 42 explained that the Claimant can still reapply for a disability pension under “[NAME].” He explained that it is essentially a regular application for disability benefits that is processed on a priority basis and that it is generally available for those who reapply within five years of ceasing their benefits. However, the Minister’s representative stressed that it is an incentive that is offered to those who self-report their return to work. [ 80 ] The Minister’s representative also explained that the Claimant could potentially make a regular application and rely on the late applicant provisions. She would still need to meet the severe and prolonged requirements for a disability under the [NAME] . He advised that the Claimant could potentially requalify for a disability pension with a new minimum qualifying period as well. [ 81 ] Both the [NAME] and regular applications use the same application form: Form ISP 1151. [ 82 ] Section 70.1 of the [NAME] and sections 71 and 72 of the Regulations lets a claimant ask the Minister for reinstatement of a disability pension. But the Minister’s representative explained that automatic reinstatement is also contingent on that claimant advising the Minister that they have returned to work. As well, the Minister’s representative explained that automatic restatement is no longer available in this case as the period for notifying the Minister of the Claimant’s return to work has passed. [ 83 ] The Minister does not process or decide any new application when there is an ongoing appeal. Conclusion [ 84 ] The appeal is dismissed. The Claimant has had MS continuously since 2011. But in 2022, she was engaged in a substantially gainful occupation. She ceased to be disabled in January 2022, when she began working. Allowing for a three-month work trial period, she became disentitled to payment of a disability pension as of May 2022. Footnotes Footnote 1 Section 42(2)(a)(i) of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 Section 70.1 of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 Respondent’s Submissions, at AD5-9, para 14. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2023  FCA  204. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2010  FC  48 at para 10. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 The Earnings Detail at GD4-8. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 At approximately 17:22 to 17:32 of the audio recording of the Appeal Division hearing. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 See Earnings Detail at GD4-8. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 Record of Employment, at GD2-52/GD2 -90. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 Record of Employment, at GD2-53/GD2-92. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 Record of Employment, at GD2-54/GD2-91. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 The Earnings Detail at GD4-8 shows that the Claimant had earnings of $16,060 and $4,791 from her two jobs in 2022. This means that the Claimant earned $7,449.87 from September 27, 2022, to the end of 2022. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 Earnings Detail at GD4-8. Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 At approximately 47:25 of the audio recording of the Appeal Division hearing. Return to footnote 14 referrer Footnote 15 At approximately 47:14 of the audio recording of the Appeal Division hearing. Return to footnote 15 referrer Footnote 16 At approximately 59:12 of the audio recording of the Appeal Division hearing. Return to footnote 16 referrer Footnote 17 At approximately 52:07 to 55:56 of the audio recording of the Appeal Division hearing. Return to footnote 17 referrer Footnote 18 At approximately 52:07 to 55:56 of the audio recording of the Appeal Division hearing. At 55:56, the Claimant testified that “January and February [2023] is where it actually hit really hard with phone call after phone call, and that’s when I started struggling a lot more.” At 1:00:09, she testified that “it started becoming really heavy loads in January, February…” Return to footnote 18 referrer Footnote 19 At approximately 20:24 of the audio recording of the Appeal Division hearing. Return to footnote 19 referrer Footnote 20 [NAME]’s consultation report dated October 21, 2022, at AD9-2. Return to footnote 20 referrer Footnote 21 Multiple Sclerosis ambulatory consultation report of [NAME], dated June 28, 2023, at GD2-149. Return to footnote 21 referrer Footnote 22 Multiple Sclerosis ambulatory consultation report of [NAME], dated June 28, 2023, at GD2-146. Return to footnote 22 referrer Footnote 23 At approximately 42:56 of the audio recording of the Appeal Division hearing. Return to footnote 23 referrer Footnote 24 At approximately 1:32:46 of the audio recording of the Appeal Division hearing. Return to footnote 24 referrer Footnote 25 Earnings Detail at GD4-8. Return to footnote 25 referrer Footnote 26 Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2023  FCA  204. Return to footnote 26 referrer Footnote 27 Respondent’s Submissions at AD5-6, at para 8, citing [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2014  FCA  187 at para 37. Return to footnote 27 referrer Footnote 28 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2001  FCA  248 at para 38. Return to footnote 28 referrer Footnote 29 Respondent’s Submissions at AD5-7, at para 9, citing [NAME] , at para 38. Return to footnote 29 referrer Footnote 30 Respondent’s submissions at AD5-7, at para 9, citing [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2019  FC  1552 at para 15. Return to footnote 30 referrer Footnote 31 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2019  FC  1493 at para 36. Return to footnote 31 referrer Footnote 32 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2014  FCA  187 at para 38. Return to footnote 32 referrer Footnote 33 At 20:13 to 20:33 of the audio recording of the Appeal Division decision. Return to footnote 33 referrer Footnote 34 At 55:56 of the audio recording of the Appeal Division decision. Return to footnote 34 referrer Footnote 35 Respondent Submissions, at AD5-10. Return to footnote 35 referrer Footnote 36 Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2023  FCA  204 at para 54. Return to footnote 36 referrer Footnote 37 Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2023  FCA  204 at para 41. Return to footnote 37 referrer Footnote 38 [NAME] , at para 58. Return to footnote 38 referrer Footnote 39 At 40:29 of the audio recording of the Appeal Division decision. (40:29) Return to footnote 39 referrer Footnote 40 At 50:38 of the audio recording of the Appeal Division decision. (50:38) Return to footnote 40 referrer Footnote 41 At 20:13 to 20:33 of the audio recording of the Appeal Division decision. (20:13 to 20:33) Return to footnote 41 referrer Footnote 42 [NAME] of Employment and Social Development Canada. Return to footnote 42 referrer