CPP Disability Pension Appeal Denied: Claimant Not Eligible

OUTCOME: Dismissed

Citation: [APPELLANT] and [NAME]  v  PS , 2026  [NAME]  175 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Decision Appellant: [redacted] [NAME] Respondent: [redacted] General Division decision dated July 25, 2025 (GP-25-319) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: Videoconference Hearing date: March 24, 2026 Hearing participants: [COUNSEL] representative [COUNSEL] witness Respondent Decision date: May 20, 2026 File number: AD-25-644 On this page Decision The parties Overview Preliminary matters Issue Analysis Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] The appeal is allowed. [ 2 ] The Respondent, [RESPONDENT]., isn’t eligible for a [NAME] ( [NAME] ) disability pension. The parties [ 3 ] It can sometimes be difficult for people to understand the different words that are used to describe the parties. Because of this, I will explain who the parties are and how I will refer to them in this decision. [ 4 ] The Appellant is the [APPELLANT] and [NAME]. I will refer to the Appellant as the Minister . [ 5 ] The Respondent is [RESPONDENT]. I will refer to the Respondent as the Claimant . Overview [ 6 ] The Claimant is a 58-year-old woman who worked for many years as an educational assistant ([NAME]). She worked with [NAME]. It was a demanding job, both physically and mentally. She stopped working at that job in October 2022 for medical reasons. [ 7 ] After she stopped working as an [NAME], the Claimant worked as a part-time cashier at a [NAME] and then as a part-time assistant librarian. She hasn’t worked at all since January 2023. Footnote 1 [ 8 ] The [APPELLANT] applied for a [NAME] disability pension in September 2023. Footnote 2 In her application, she said that she can’t work because of widespread osteoarthritis, trigeminal neuralgia, possible chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and a possible autoimmune disorder. Footnote 3 [ 9 ] The Minister denied the application at both the initial and reconsideration levels of review. Footnote 4 [ 10 ] The [APPELLANT] appealed the Minister’s reconsideration decision to the Social Security Tribunal’s General Division. The General Division allowed the appeal, finding the [APPELLANT] disabled as of January 2023. [ 11 ] The Minister disagreed with the General Division’s decision. So, the Minister asked the Appeal Division for leave (permission) to appeal. In October 2025, one of my colleagues gave the Minister permission to appeal. [ 12 ] On March 24, 2026, I held a de novo hearing. A de novo hearing means I wasn’t looking at whether the General Division made a mistake. I was taking a fresh look at the case, as if it hadn’t been decided before. Preliminary matters The Claimant asked me to limit access to the hearing [ 13 ] About one month before the hearing, the Claimant asked me to limit access to the hearing. She didn’t want the Minister’s observers to attend the hearing. She explained that because she has anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), the presence of [NAME] would hinder her ability to testify. Footnote 5 [ 14 ] I responded to the [APPELLANT] request by sending her a letter explaining what the law says about the open court principle and the circumstances in which I can issue a confidentiality order that limits access to all or part of a hearing. I told the [APPELLANT] that if, after reading my letter, she thought the circumstances warranted a confidentiality order, then she should write to the Tribunal and identify the serious risk or risks being invoked. I also said that she could provide evidence or point to evidence that supports her argument about the serious risk or risks. Footnote 6 [ 15 ] The [APPELLANT] responded by confirming her intention to seek a confidentiality order. She said that allowing an observer to attend the hearing would pose a serious risk to the fairness of the proceeding that outweighs the societal interest that the hearing be public. She also pointed to evidence in the file that she believed supported her request. Footnote 7 [ 16 ] The Minister didn’t object to a confidentiality order limiting access to the hearing. Footnote 8 [ 17 ] On March 20, 2026, I issued an interlocutory decision denying the [APPELLANT] request. I explained that the circumstances didn’t warrant an order limiting access to the hearing. This was because of the following: The [APPELLANT] hadn’t provided evidence of a serious risk to the fairness of the proceeding. The absence of evidence of a serious risk to the fairness of the proceeding meant that the societal interest that hearing proceedings be open outweighed the [APPELLANT] interest in a limited access proceeding. Alternative measures could adequately mitigate (reduce) a serious risk to the fairness of the proceeding. These include an instruction to [NAME] to turn off their cameras during the hearing; allowing the [APPELLANT] extra time to testify and provide oral argument; and allowing the [APPELLANT] to take breaks as needed. [ 18 ] [NAME] attended the hearing and ensured their cameras were turned off. The hearing went ahead as scheduled. I allowed documents to be filed after the hearing [ 19 ] Near the end of the hearing, the [APPELLANT] raised concerns about the accuracy of a medication chart that had been prepared by the Minister’s professional witness, Dr. [APPELLANT]. The [APPELLANT] said she wanted an opportunity to get evidence to show she took her medications more regularly than the chart shows. [ 20 ] [NAME] argued that the chart was filed well before the hearing and so the Claimant could have gotten her evidence sooner. [ 21 ] I acknowledged the Minister’s concern. But I decided to allow the [APPELLANT] an opportunity to file evidence after the hearing. This was because I didn’t think the Claimant understood the chart until Dr. [APPELLANT] explained it at the hearing. [ 22 ] The Claimant filed her post-hearing evidence on March 25, 2026, and March 30, 2026. Footnote 9 I then gave the Minister an opportunity to comment on that evidence. The Minister filed its written submissions on April 13, 2026. Footnote 10 [ 23 ] At the [APPELLANT] request, I allowed her to file a reply to the Minister’s response. Footnote 11 She filed her reply on April 14, 2026. Footnote 12 Issue [ 24 ] I must decide whether the Claimant has proven that she has a disability that was severe and prolonged by December 31, 2025. This date is based on her [NAME] contributions. Footnote 13 [ 25 ] A disability is severe if it makes a person incapable regularly of pursuing any substantially gainful occupation. Footnote 14 A job is substantially gainful if it gives a person an income that is the same as or more than the maximum annual [NAME] disability pension. Footnote 15 In 2025, that amount was about $20,000. [ 26 ] When I am assessing whether a disability is severe, I must focus on whether [NAME] medical conditions result in functional limitations that get in the way of her earning a living. Footnote 16 My focus isn’t on the names of the conditions or diagnoses. Footnote 17 [ 27 ] A disability is prolonged if it is likely to be long continued and of indefinite duration, or is likely to result in death. Footnote 18 [ 28 ] The Claimant has to prove her case. She has to prove it on a balance of probabilities. This means she has to show it is more likely than not that she was disabled by the end of 2025. Analysis [ 29 ] The Claimant hasn’t proven her case. She hasn’t shown that her disability was likely severe and prolonged by December 31, 2025. This is because: She had functional limitations, but they would not have prevented her from working by the end of 2025. She has favourable employability factors. She didn’t follow medical advice. She didn’t try to find and keep a job that suits her limitations. There is still a treatment to try for the pain. Was [NAME] disability severe by the end of 2025? [ 30 ] I will start by looking at what the Claimant says about her medical conditions and resulting functional limitations. What the Claimant says about her functional limitations [ 31 ] The [APPELLANT] says that her medical conditions result in functional limitations that affect her ability to work. She says: Her main problem is that she can’t be on her feet for a long time. If she is on her feet for a long time, then she gets ankle swelling, foot pain, back pain, and headaches from neck strain. She can walk for one hour at the most. That hasn’t changed since December 2025. She has very significant osteoarthritis in her right foot. It causes a lot of pain and swelling. She also has recurrent swelling in her left ankle. Sometimes she can’t put any weight on her feet at all. This is because of pain or swelling. Things like walking on uneven surfaces or turning too quickly make her right foot worse. She sometimes feels off balance. She stumbles often and in different directions (forwards, backwards, and sideways). Because of this, she has grab bars in her washroom. She also has a stool in her shower. She has a hard time going up or down stairs. She has to take the stairs slowly and one step at a time. She needs handrails. She has tingling and numbness in her hands and feet. Her fine motor skills are slower and fumbled. The osteoarthritis in her neck is multi-level. She has a tingling and burning sensation in her neck. She also has pain. The neck pain is continuous and leads to headaches. She feels like she can’t hold her head up for too long. When she stands to do dishes, she needs to take a break every 15 minutes because of the pain and stiffness. She has radiating pain in her shoulder blades and leg pain on her left side. The severity of the osteoarthritis prevents her from doing a lot of things in everyday life. Because of this, she has lost some independence. She has had to modify all her activities. She needs to do everything quite slowly and mindfully. She finds it increasingly difficult to bend forward. This is because her spine feels “stuck” like a straight pole. She gets frequent muscle spasms in the rib cage area. The spasms occur when sitting and twisting her torso. She has osteoporosis. This means her bones are weak. She has to be careful because things like coughing, sneezing, or bending can cause fractures. She has two compression fractures in her lumbar spine and she has slipped discs. As a result, she has to avoid “repetitive and excessive” motions of the spine to avoid making her condition worse. Also, her family doctor told her that if her disc at L4-L5 slips any further, then she could be in “big trouble.” Her doctor didn’t explain what “big trouble” means, but she thinks it means severe complications. She can sit for 30 to 45 minutes at the most. Her tolerance was the same in December 2025. She can’t sit longer because of tailbone pain, tailbone numbness, low back pain, and neck pain. The tailbone pain goes into her vaginal area which becomes extremely painful and debilitating. She has chronic headaches. She has trigeminal neuralgia, which causes facial numbness and episodes of pain that feels like a lightning bolt. It happens randomly. Sometimes it happens many times in one day. Other times it happens a few times a week or once a month. Each episode can last from seconds to minutes. Her fatigue and chronic pain have led to isolation and depression. She often feels agitated and overwhelmed with “loudness.” She can’t concentrate. She sometimes has difficulty remembering things. She gets short of breath. She doesn’t have the ability to be a reliable employee. She would not be able to attend work predictably. If she tried to work tomorrow, she would maybe last one hour. That is because of the chronic pain and stiffness. What the medical evidence says about the [APPELLANT] functional limitations [ 32 ] The Claimant was required to provide medical evidence to support a finding that her functional limitations affected her ability to work by the end of 2025. Footnote 19 [ 33 ] The [APPELLANT] has filed a lot of imaging reports. Those reports show objective findings of medical conditions, like osteoarthritis and degenerative disc disease. But the imaging reports don’t help me understand how the conditions affect [NAME] functionality. [ 34 ] For this reason, I will focus mostly, though not only, on what the medical evidence says about [NAME] symptoms and limitations. I will start with her musculoskeletal conditions. [NAME] musculoskeletal conditions [ 35 ] On March 29, 2023, the Claimant spoke with her family doctor (Dr. [APPELLANT]) about pain in her right hip. She said she had been having the pain for more than three months and that the pain began suddenly. She also said the pain gets worse with walking. Dr. [NAME] examined her hip and noted a normal range of motion, with no swelling or tenderness. He prescribed naproxen and ordered X-rays of both hips. Footnote 20 [ 36 ] The hip X-rays were done on March 31, 2023. They showed mild degenerative changes in both hips consistent with osteoarthritis. Footnote 21 [ 37 ] On April 4, 2023, Dr. [APPELLANT] spoke to the Claimant about X-rays that had been done on her lumbar spine and hips. He said she has degenerative arthritis. He prescribed tramadol and referred the Claimant for [NAME]. Footnote 22 [ 38 ] On May 19, 2023, the Claimant spoke with Dr. [APPELLANT] about right knee pain and swelling at the back of the knee. Dr. [NAME] said she has arthritis in her right knee and a [NAME] cyst. He prescribed Celebrex and a knee brace for support. He planned to follow up with her in four weeks. Footnote 23 [ 39 ] On June 8, 2023, the Claimant saw Dr. [APPELLANT] about pain in both knees. She said the pain was worse in her left knee. She also said the pain was getting worse and was making it harder to walk. Dr. [APPELLANT] said the Claimant didn’t have any swelling or deformity, but she did have limited flexion. He ordered X-rays and recommended Celebrex and Tylenol Arthritis. Footnote 24 [ 40 ] The knee X-rays showed mild-to-moderate degenerative change in both knees, with the left being slightly worse than the right. Footnote 25 [ 41 ] On August 24, 2023, Dr. [APPELLANT] referred the Claimant to a rheumatologist. He said the Claimant had a positive ANA test and he identified her symptoms as headache, fatigue, and myalgia. Footnote 26 [ 42 ] Dr. [NAME] filled out the [NAME] medical report on September 30, 2023. His diagnoses include osteoarthritis of the knee, spine, and right foot. He said the symptoms began in June 2018 and result in knee pain and stiffness, and back pain. Dr. [APPELLANT] said that because of these conditions, the Claimant has mobility problems and difficulties with sitting and standing. Footnote 27 [ 43 ] The Claimant saw a rheumatologist (Dr. [APPELLANT]) in July 2024. Dr. [NAME] explained that, because of the positive ANA test, there was a need to determine whether the musculoskeletal concerns were because of an autoimmune disorder. [ 44 ] Dr. [APPELLANT] said the Claimant has had lower back and neck pain for a long time. More recently, the Claimant had noticed discomfort in her feet, ankles, and shoulders. She gets tired easily, has headaches, and sometimes has a sense of being off balance, though she has never fallen. She sometimes gets muscle spasms around her costal margin (lower rib cage area) when driving. She is generally stiff in the morning, but it doesn’t last longer than about 30 minutes. She reports gelling phenomenon after sitting for a long time. [ 45 ] Dr. [NAME] examination findings didn’t reveal significant limitations. The doctor noted the following: normal hand, wrist, and elbow examinations an impingement of the left shoulder yet preserved range of motion in both shoulders good range of motion of both hips and knees marked tightness of the heel cords and hamstrings no abnormalities of the feet other than some mild bony ridging at the first metatarsophalangeals (the big toes) discomfort with flexion (bending forward) but able to touch her toes limited back extension (backward arching) tenderness of the paraspinal musculature (back muscles) and trapezius bands [ 46 ] Dr. [APPELLANT] reviewed [NAME] imaging studies and concluded she has chronic mechanical low back pain, a mildly positive rotator cuff impingement of the left shoulder, and a mild compression of the T12 vertebra, which she said was longer standing (not new). Dr. [NAME] said there was no evidence to support a diagnosis of lupus or other systemic inflammatory disease. She thought [NAME] weakly positive ANA could be linked to her thyroid disease. Footnote 28 [ 47 ] In January 2025, the Claimant saw a spine surgeon (Dr. [APPELLANT]) to determine whether she has a condition called cauda equina. Dr. [APPELLANT] reported that the Claimant had long-standing back pain that is mostly localized to the cervical and lumbar spine. She denied having any real radicular symptoms in her arms or legs. She denied having any real bowel dysfunction, acknowledging she had never lost control or soiled herself. She described having bladder urgency. The Claimant also told Dr. [APPELLANT] about some hand numbness and some loss of balance. Dr. [NAME] said the symptoms were non-specific and had been present for at least three years with no recent changes. [ 48 ] Dr. [APPELLANT] said [NAME] X-rays of her lumbar spine and cervical spine didn’t show anything concerning. He examined the Claimant and said she can ambulate independently, heel walk, toe walk, stand on one leg, squat and rise, and has normal strength of the upper and lower extremities. [ 49 ] Dr. [APPELLANT] concluded the Claimant has back dominant pain with no evidence of radiculopathy claudication (compression of the nerve). He said she doesn’t have any consistent red flags that would suggest cauda equina-type symptoms. He said the Claimant didn’t need surgery for her back pain, nor did she need any advanced imaging or other spine investigations. He suggested a referral to a urogynecologist for the urinary urgency issue. Footnote 29 [ 50 ] The medical evidence doesn’t show that a referral to a urogynecologist was made. [ 51 ] In March 2025, Dr. [APPELLANT] said that an X-ray of [NAME] foot and ankle (he didn’t specify which one) showed degenerative changes of the ankle joint. He recommended Tylenol Arthritis. Footnote 30 The X-rays from March 2025 are included in the file, and they show mild soft tissue swelling over the outer side of the right ankle. Both feet had well-maintained joint spaces, with no acute fractures. Footnote 31 [ 52 ] From what I see, [NAME] musculoskeletal conditions likely resulted in some functional limitations by the end of 2025. The limitations are the following: An inability to work within the first 30 minutes or so of waking. This is because the Claimant told Dr. [APPELLANT] that she is generally stiff in the morning, but the stiffness doesn’t last longer than about 30 minutes. An inability to do overhead work. This is because Dr. [APPELLANT] said the Claimant has a mildly positive left rotator cuff impingement. Though Dr. [APPELLANT] said the Claimant had preserved range of motion of both shoulders, Dr. [NAME] testified that the left shoulder condition would probably limit [NAME] ability to do overhead work. Dr. [APPELLANT] explained that overhead work would likely irritate the left (non-dominant) shoulder. An inability to do any type of job that requires back extension (backward arching), though there aren’t many jobs that would require this movement. This limitation is based on Dr. [APPELLANT] finding of [NAME] limited back extension. An inability to do a job that requires prolonged sitting, standing, or walking. This is because of [NAME] pain in various parts of her body and based on Dr. [NAME] report of issues with mobility, sitting, and standing. [NAME] neurological conditions [ 53 ] In September 2022, the Claimant spoke to Dr. [APPELLANT] about being off balance and having tingling in both hands. She said she had been having these symptoms on and off for about six months. Dr. [NAME] referred her to a neurologist. Footnote 32 [ 54 ] It is unclear from the evidence what happened with that referral. [ 55 ] In August 2023, the Claimant told Dr. [APPELLANT] that she had been having right frontal headaches on and off for three months. She described a feeling of electric jabbing pain. She also said she was having balance issues. Dr. [NAME] prescribed carbamazepine and ordered a CT scan of the brain. Footnote 33 [ 56 ] The CT of the brain was done on August 28, 2023. It didn’t identify a cause for the headaches. Footnote 34 [ 57 ] On September 1, 2023, the Claimant told Dr. [APPELLANT] that she discontinued the carbamazepine due to side effects. Footnote 35 Shortly after that, Dr. [NAME] changed the medication to gabapentin. Footnote 36 [ 58 ] On September 19, 2023, the Claimant reported ongoing symptoms of tingling and numbness in both hands and legs. She denied having weakness or tremors. Footnote 37 Dr. [APPELLANT] again referred the Claimant to a neurologist. Footnote 38 [ 59 ] Dr. [APPELLANT] [NAME] medical report of September 30, 2023 includes a diagnosis of neuropathic leg pain that began in May 2018. He said it results in burning leg pain and painful feet that gets worse with walking. Footnote 39 [ 60 ] The Claimant saw a neurologist ([APPELLANT]. [APPELLANT]) in February 2024. The Claimant told Dr. [APPELLANT] that the facial pain is like an electric shock and is mainly around the forehead and eye. She said it lasts only seconds and hadn’t occurred in over a month. She also described an intermittent tingling/numbness on the left side of the face that lasts between 20 and 60 minutes. It can be triggered by driving or concentrating. The Claimant said she has paresthesia in both hands when she wakes in the morning, but it goes away with movement. She said she gets muscle spasms from time to time. She also raised concerns about stumbling, but she said she has never fallen. [ 61 ] Dr. [APPELLANT] examined the Claimant and noted a normal neurological exam. He said, among other things, that her strength is 5/5 throughout both upper and lower extremities, her coordination and gait are within normal limits, and she can perform tandem gait. Dr. [NAME] said the paresthesia in the hands is likely due to compression of the median nerve. He recommended night splints. He also thought the face pain was due to trigeminal neuralgia, but he ordered an MRI to rule out other causes. He didn’t prescribe medication but said the gabapentin may already be helping. He also encouraged the Claimant to do balance exercises. Footnote 40 [ 62 ] Dr. [APPELLANT] called the Claimant about a month later. He told her the MRI didn’t reveal any pathology. He described the frequency of the trigeminal neuralgia as very low, and he suggested she use the gabapentin more often when the episodes of trigeminal neuralgia occur. Footnote 41 [ 63 ] The medical evidence doesn’t show the [APPELLANT] has many functional limitations from her neurological conditions. [ 64 ] She may have a reduced walking tolerance because of the burning leg and foot pain. [ 65 ] Dr. [NAME] said she has paresthesia in her hands when she wakes up, but it goes away with movement. Footnote 42 So this would just limit [NAME] ability to work with her hands for a short time after waking. [ 66 ] The Claimant has reported to [NAME] that she has a sense of being off balance. So, she probably would not be able to do jobs that require good balance for safety, like jobs at heights. [ 67 ] The medical evidence doesn’t support more serious limitations from her balance issues. The Claimant can still drive a motor vehicle. She could also perform a tandem gait (heel-to-toe walk) during her neurological exam in February 2024. Footnote 43 In January 2025, Dr. [APPELLANT] reported the Claimant could ambulate independently (walk or move around safely without assistance), heel walk, toe walk, stand on one leg, squat and rise. Footnote 44 Dr. [NAME] testified that all of this shows good balance. [ 68 ] The medical evidence incudes sporadic references to restless leg syndrome. Footnote 45 But there are no reported limitations from this condition. [ 69 ] I also don’t see any functional limitations from the trigeminal neuralgia. Dr. [NAME] said it doesn’t happen often. And the medical evidence doesn’t show that it has increased in frequency or intensity to the degree the [APPELLANT] described. Dr. [APPELLANT] also confirmed that this condition can be treated with gabapentin as needed. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) [ 70 ] It is unclear from the medical evidence whether the Claimant has COPD. [ 71 ] In September 2022, Dr. [APPELLANT] said the COPD is unconfirmed. Footnote 46 But Dr. [NAME] [NAME] medical report from September 2023 includes a COPD/emphysema diagnosis. In that report, Dr. [NAME] said the symptoms began in January 2021. The condition causes breathing problems, dyspnea (shortness of breath), wheezing, reduced tolerances, and tiredness. Footnote 47 [ 72 ] As a side note, Dr. [NAME] testified that there are two types of COPD. One is emphysema. The other is chronic bronchitis. So, the emphysema isn’t an additional medical condition. [ 73 ] Despite the medical report from September 2023, the Claimant told Dr. [APPELLANT] in July 2024 that she had been diagnosed with possible COPD. Footnote 48 [ 74 ] Dr. [NAME] testified that a diagnosis of COPD requires a spirometry or pulmonary function test, and neither of those are on file. [ 75 ] I agree that the evidence doesn’t include a spirometry or pulmonary function test. So, it remains unclear how Dr. [NAME] arrived at his diagnosis of COPD in September 2023. [ 76 ] It doesn’t matter whether the Claimant has COPD. This is because the evidence doesn’t show the condition causes significant limitations. [ 77 ] The Minister points to the results of an exercise stress test that was done in October 2022. The date of the test is important because it is the same month the Claimant says she had to stop working as an [NAME] for medical reasons and because it is almost two years after Dr. [NAME] said the COPD symptoms began. [ 78 ] The cardiologist (Dr. [APPELLANT]) wrote that the Claimant didn’t report any shortness of breath during the exercise stress test. She stopped the test due to fatigue, not pain. Even then, she exercised for nine minutes and achieved a workload of 10.2 METS. Dr. [NAME] testified that this is equivalent to vigorous physical effort or comparable to engaging in a soccer game. The stress test report concludes the Claimant has average aerobic capacity. Footnote 49 [ 79 ] On top of this, Dr. [APPELLANT] reported in September 2023 that the Claimant has been using a salbutamol inhaler since January 2021, and it effectively controls her symptoms. Footnote 50 [NAME] mental health conditions [ 80 ] The Claimant testified that she was diagnosed with clinical depression years ago. This may be true, but the medical evidence doesn’t show the depression was ongoing. Dr. [APPELLANT] clinical note of September 2022 says the Claimant denied being depressed. Footnote 51 And there is little to no other mention of mental health issues until May 2024. [ 81 ] On May 15, 2024, the Claimant told Dr. [APPELLANT] that she had been having severe anxiety symptoms and that she had a history of stress and trauma at a young age. She reported having flashbacks. She explained she has poor sleep with lots of worries and sometimes has a low mood. Dr. [NAME] diagnosed her with generalized anxiety disorder. He referred the Claimant for psychotherapy and prescribed paroxetine (Paxil) at 10 mg for one week, followed by 20 mg. Footnote 52 [ 82 ] The Claimant acknowledged that medication has made her symptoms much better. Footnote 53 I also see no evidence that the Claimant spoke to Dr. [APPELLANT] about changing her medication because of ongoing mental health symptoms. [NAME] other medical conditions don’t cause any limitations [ 83 ] The Claimant has hypothyroidism . It is treated with Synthroid. Dr. [NAME] clinical notes consistently mention that this condition is stable and that the Claimant wasn’t raising concerns about it. Footnote 54 All of this tells me that this condition is managed effectively with medication. [ 84 ] In September 2022, the Claimant told Dr. [APPELLANT] that she wanted to get checked for ADHD . She said she has a short attention span, and gets easily distracted, frustrated, and angry. Dr. [NAME] gave her an ADHD self-report scale for adults. Footnote 55 There is no other medical information about this condition on file. So, the diagnosis of ADHD isn’t confirmed or otherwise addressed. [ 85 ] The medical evidence doesn’t show significant limitations with fatigue . In fact, the medical evidence shows this symptom has improved. In July 2024, the Claimant told Dr. [APPELLANT] that her sleep had improved with [NAME]. Footnote 56 In December 2024, Dr. [APPELLANT] reported that the Claimant denied having fatigue. Footnote 57 At the hearing, the Claimant said that she isn’t seeking a disability benefit based on fatigue. She is seeking it because of pain. [ 86 ] The Claimant says she has osteoporosis . This diagnosis isn’t confirmed in the medical evidence. Dr. [NAME] testified that the diagnosis requires a bone mineral density test. Dr. [NAME] reported in August 2024 that he requested a bone mineral density test in September 2023, but the [APPELLANT] didn’t show up. He ordered another one in August 2024. Footnote 58 The Claimant still hasn’t had that done. [ 87 ] In any event, Dr. [NAME] explained that osteoporosis is asymptomatic. In other words, it isn’t a condition that has symptoms. The Minister provided a document about osteoporosis. It says that the first warning sign of osteoporosis is often a fracture. Footnote 59 [ 88 ] The Claimant believes she has fractures. She said she has two compression fractures in her spine. [ 89 ] I am not convinced the Claimant has fractures. [ 90 ] First, the imaging reports don’t say the [APPELLANT] has a fracture. The reports refer to a stable mild anterior compression of the T12 vertebra and a stable mild superior endplate compression at the L3 vertebra. Footnote 60 [ 91 ] Second, Dr. [APPELLANT] testified that the wedging or compression the Claimant has in her spine doesn’t meet the threshold for a fracture. Dr. [NAME] explained that for a compression to be called a compression fracture, there needs to be a 20% to 25% height deformity. The Claimant has a 10% height deformity, which is mild. Dr. [APPELLANT] also pointed out that the medical evidence says the Claimant had a bad fall when she was a child. Dr. [APPELLANT] said this could be the cause of the change in her vertebra, which would mean the condition is long-standing and stable. What functional limitations does the Claimant have? [ 92 ] To recap, [NAME] functional limitations by the end of 2025 were as follows: an inability to work within the first 30 minutes or so of waking an inability to do overhead work an inability to do jobs that require good balance for safety an inability to do any type of job that requires back extension (backward arching) an inability to do a job that requires prolonged sitting, standing, or walking [NAME] limitations prevent her from working by the end of 2025? [ 93 ] The Minister argues that [NAME] medical conditions don’t create limitations that would stop her from doing all types of work. The Claimant, on the other hand, says her limitations are severe and would prevent her from working. [ 94 ] In my view, the biggest limitations the Claimant has are the reduced tolerances for sitting, standing, and walking. There is no objective testing on file about what [NAME] tolerances are. But I don’t think her tolerances are as limiting as she describes. [ 95 ] First, the reports of the specialists (Dr. [NAME], Dr. [APPELLANT], Dr. [APPELLANT], and Dr. [APPELLANT]) don’t portray the Claimant as a person with significant mobility issues. [ 96 ] Second, the medical evidence shows that [NAME] pain responds to medication. In September 2023, Dr. [APPELLANT] reported that [NAME] medications (Celebrex, tramadol, and gabapentin) provide moderate relief for the knee, spine, and right foot pain. Footnote 61 Dr. [APPELLANT] also reported that gabapentin is effective for [NAME] neuropathic leg pain (the burning pain). Footnote 62 In October 2024, Dr. [APPELLANT] noted that [NAME] back pain was relieved with naproxen. Footnote 63 [ 97 ] Third, even though [NAME] pain responds to medications, the [NAME] don’t show that she has needed to take her medications consistently. Her [NAME] show inconsistent use of tramadol, baclofen, and gabapentin. [ 98 ] For example, Dr. [NAME] testified that between October 2022 and December 2025, the Claimant got 360 tablets of tramadol, which is the equivalent of six months of treatment over that entire time. The [NAME] the Claimant provided after the hearing show only an additional 120 tablets (or an additional two months of treatment) for that period. Footnote 64 [ 99 ] As another example, Dr. [APPELLANT] testified that in 2025 the Claimant got the equivalent of three months of treatment of gabapentin. The [NAME] the Claimant provided after the hearing only change this number slightly. Those records show the Claimant got an additional 60 capsules of gabapentin 100 mg (which is one month of treatment) on July 17, 2025. Footnote 65 [ 100 ] Fourth, I am reluctant to rely only on what the Claimant says her tolerances are because she has shown a tendency to overstate her limitations. [ 101 ] For example, the Claimant testified that she has to be careful about what she does. She said that, because of the osteoporosis, things like coughing or sneezing can cause a fracture. But as I said before, the medical evidence doesn’t show the Claimant has osteoporosis. Besides, the Claimant acknowledged that no doctor has told her she needs to limit her activities because of a risk of fracture related to osteoporosis. [ 102 ] The [APPELLANT] also testified that she doesn’t want to make her condition worse by working. She believes that because she has slipped discs and two compression fractures in her spine that “repetitive and excessive” motions of her spine will speed up her condition. She also said that Dr. [NAME] told her that she could be in “big trouble” if her disc at L4-5 slips more. But when I asked the Claimant whether Dr. [APPELLANT] told her to limit her activities because of the slipped disc issue, she acknowledged he had not. [ 103 ] Also, Dr. [APPELLANT] explained that the medical evidence shows that [NAME] disc slippage is a stable grade 1 anterolisthesis, which is a type of spinal malalignment where a vertebra slips forward over the vertebra below it. Footnote 66 Dr. [NAME] explained that this condition goes from a grade 1 to grade 5 and that the grading is based on the degree of slippage. A grade 1 means there is 0% to 25% slippage. Dr. [NAME] also explained that the term stable means that there is no neurological compromise and that the spine’s alignment doesn’t change with movement or functional activity. [ 104 ] In addition to all the above, I note that there is only one opinion on file about [NAME] ability to work. That was Dr. [APPELLANT] opinion. Still, he didn’t provide that opinion in his [NAME] medical report from September 2023. In fact, he left the section about work capacity blank. Footnote 67 But in April 2025, Dr. [NAME] filled out a medical report for a [NAME]. In that report, Dr. [APPELLANT] said the Claimant can’t return to her former job and she can’t do any other type of work. Footnote 68 [ 105 ] I haven’t given Dr. [NAME] opinion of April 2025 much weight. Here is why: Dr. [APPELLANT] opinion isn’t explained. The report only lists [NAME] medical conditions and her medications and then indicates the Claimant can’t work. The report doesn’t identify any functional limitations, discuss the effectiveness of any of [NAME] medications, or address [NAME] compliance with recommended treatment and investigative tests. Dr. [NAME] report raises a concern about objectivity. He reported, for example, that the Claimant needs a special diet because of anorexia. Footnote 69 Yet, there is no mention of this condition in any of Dr. [APPELLANT] clinical notes or other reports. The Claimant could work in the real world [ 106 ] I have considered [NAME] age, level of education, language abilities, and past work and life experience. These factors help me decide whether the Claimant could work in the real world. Footnote 70 [ 107 ] I acknowledge that by December 2025, the Claimant was 57 years old. But her age wasn’t a barrier to her getting jobs soon after she stopped working as an [NAME] in October 2022. [ 108 ] Her other characteristics suggest that she can work. [ 109 ] The Claimant has a good level of education. She finished an [NAME] program in college. [ 110 ] The Claimant is fluent in English. So, there would be more job opportunities available to her than to someone with limited to no language abilities in either of Canada’s two official languages. [ 111 ] [NAME] previous job as an [NAME] would provide many transferable skills including interpersonal skills, an ability to follow and implement program plans, adaptability, and computer skills. And the Claimant has other recent work experience including cashier and [NAME] work, though these jobs didn’t last long. The Claimant didn’t follow medical advice [ 112 ] To receive a disability pension, a claimant must make reasonable efforts to treat their disability and must follow medical advice. Footnote 71 If a claimant doesn’t do this, then they must have a reasonable explanation for not doing so. Footnote 72 If they don’t have a reasonable explanation, then I must consider what effect, if any, the medical treatment or advice might have had on the disability. Footnote 73 [ 113 ] The Minister says the Claimant hasn’t made reasonable efforts to pursue treatment recommendations. This is because the Claimant: [redacted] hasn’t taken her medications as prescribed hasn’t had a sleep study or a bone mineral density test [ 114 ] I will address each of the Minister’s arguments. The Minister’s argument about the Claimant not going to [NAME] [ 115 ] The Claimant has been told more than once that she needs [NAME]. The recommendations are as follows: In April 2023, Dr. [APPELLANT] referred the Claimant for [NAME] for the lumbar spine and hip. Footnote 74 In June 2023, Dr. [APPELLANT] recommended [NAME] for the [APPELLANT] knees. Footnote 75 In July 2024, Dr. [APPELLANT] recommended [NAME] for a stretching/reconditioning exercise program with a focus on protecting her joints, and a specific program for her rotator cuff impingement. Footnote 76 In October 2024, Dr. [APPELLANT] referred the Claimant to [NAME] (and massage therapy) for back pain. Footnote 77 [ 116 ] Despite these recommendations, the Claimant hasn’t seen a physiotherapist. [ 117 ] The [APPELLANT] said that she hasn’t gone to [NAME] because she can’t afford it. She explained she lives in rural Saskatchewan and can’t afford the [NAME] sessions or the travel cost to get there. [ 118 ] The [APPELLANT] said that because of these obstacles, she has done a lot of online research and found exercises to do. She filed pictures and handouts of the exercises she found, and she said she does them regularly. Footnote 78 She also said that Dr. [NAME] told her it would be fine (for now) for her to do the exercises she found online. [ 119 ] At the hearing, the [APPELLANT] acknowledged that she got some of the exercises from [NAME]. The [NAME]’s name appears on one of the pages of exercises the [APPELLANT] filed. Footnote 79 So, it appears that at least some of the exercises the [APPELLANT] filed were designed as part of a [NAME] program for someone else. [NAME] asked the [COUNSEL] whether Dr. [COUNSEL] was okay with her doing the exercise program made for [NAME]. The [APPELLANT] said the program wasn’t made for [NAME]. She said the exercises are generic. [ 120 ] I have considered whether the [APPELLANT] explanations for not seeing a physiotherapist are reasonable. I don’t think they are. [ 121 ] First, the [APPELLANT] acknowledged during the hearing that she drives independently. [ 122 ] Second, the [APPELLANT] has shown an ability to travel for medical appointments, imaging tests, and [NAME] prescriptions when needed. [ 123 ] The Claimant moved to Aberdeen, Saskatchewan on October 31, 2025. Footnote 80 The closest city centre is Saskatoon. Dr. [APPELLANT] office is in Saskatoon. The [APPELLANT] said that it takes about 20 to 30 minutes to drive from Aberdeen to Saskatoon. Before moving to Aberdeen, the Claimant lived in Bruno, Saskatchewan. As I understand it, [APPELLANT] is further from Saskatoon than Aberdeen is. Still, the Claimant was able to get to medical appointments in Saskatoon. She was also able to get to Humbolt, where she said she had some of her imaging tests done. [ 124 ] Third, the Claimant said that as of March 5, 2026, she has been on a waiting list for free [NAME] at the [COMPANY]. She implied that she will be going to [NAME] when she receives the call. So, this tells me that travelling to Saskatoon for [NAME] is not that big of an obstacle. [ 125 ] Fourth, the Claimant acknowledged at the hearing that she never spoke to Dr. [NAME] about any financial barriers that would prevent her from going to [NAME]. [ 126 ] The Minister argues she should have notified Dr. [NAME] about her financial concerns as soon as possible. I agree. Had she done so, Dr. [NAME] may have been able to get her on a waiting list for free [NAME] sooner. Or, he may have recommended a different type of treatment. [ 127 ] Fifth, some of the exercises the Claimant filed with the Tribunal were clearly part of an exercise program that was designed specifically for [NAME]. So, it is hard to understand why the Claimant would think that she would benefit from a program tailored for someone else. More than that, the Claimant acknowledged at the hearing that she never showed any of the exercises she found or got from [NAME] to Dr. [NAME] or any other health care provider. The Minister’s argument about compliance with medications [ 128 ] During the hearing, the Minister argued that the medication table that Dr. [APPELLANT] prepared showed that the Claimant wasn’t taking her medication as prescribed. I won’t spend too much time on the details of this argument because after the hearing the Claimant filed additional [NAME]. [ 129 ] The Minister reviewed the additional [NAME] and changed its argument about the Claimant not complying with medications. The Minister now accepts that the Claimant consistently took the Synthroid, paroxetine (Paxil), Celebrex, and [NAME] medications. [ 130 ] But the Minister says that the [NAME] still show that the Claimant didn’t consistently take the gabapentin, tramadol, and baclofen. The Minister argues that the inconsistent use of these three medications doesn’t align with [NAME] prescriptions because none of them specify that the medications should be taken as needed. Footnote 81 [ 131 ] I don’t agree with the Minister. [ 132 ] First, during the hearing, the Minister didn’t raise compliance issues with [NAME] occasional use of tramadol and baclofen. In fact, Dr. [NAME] testified that taking these medications occasionally and on an as-needed basis is “okay” if that is all the Claimant needed. [ 133 ] Second, although Dr. [APPELLANT] testified that gabapentin is a medication that should be taken consistently, I don’t see medical evidence confirming that the Claimant was aware of this. In fact, I see evidence that suggests she may have been led to think it was okay to take the gabapentin as needed. [ 134 ] In March 2024, Dr. [APPELLANT] reported the Claimant was taking gabapentin on an as-needed basis. He didn’t raise concerns with this. In fact, he said that if the episodes of trigeminal neuralgia get more frequent then the Claimant could take gabapentin more often or even have an ongoing prescription for it. Footnote 82 I don’t see medical evidence after March 2024 that says the Claimant was instructed to take the gabapentin consistently. [ 135 ] In my view, the inconsistent use of tramadol, baclofen, and gabapentin is more about the Claimant not needing the medications on a more frequent basis than it is about compliance with treatment recommendations. The Minister’s argument about [NAME] failure to have a bone mineral density test and a sleep study [ 136 ] Dr. [NAME] recommendations of July 2024 include a recommendation for a bone mineral densitometry study and a recommendation for a sleep study to rule out obstructive sleep apnea and restless leg syndrome. Footnote 83 [ 137 ] The Minister says the Claimant didn’t follow either of these recommendations. [ 138 ] The [APPELLANT] testified that she had a bone mineral density test a while ago and it showed osteopenia, which she says is a precursor to osteoporosis. She said she didn’t go for another bone mineral test because she “never heard from them” and because it is too late for the test since she has already had a fracture and so the condition is advanced. [ 139 ] [NAME] explanation isn’t reasonable. As I said before, the diagnosis of osteoporosis isn’t confirmed, and the medical evidence doesn’t show fractures. It doesn’t make sense that Dr. [NAME] and Dr. [NAME] would recommend the test if there wasn’t a need for it. [ 140 ] As for the sleep study, the [APPELLANT] acknowledged she hasn’t had it done. She said she doesn’t have sleep apnea. She said she did a test at home many years ago where she wore some kind of harness and heart monitor to bed and it showed she didn’t have sleep apnea. She also said that when she needs to get some sleep she uses zopiclone. She added that her disability claim isn’t about fatigue. It is about pain. [ 141 ] The [APPELLANT] explanation isn’t reasonable. Even if she had a negative test for sleep apnea years ago (and I am not convinced she did), she could have developed the condition after that. Also, the Claimant seems to misunderstand what sleep apnea is because she focused on her ability to sleep with medication and implied she doesn’t struggle with fatigue. Would compliance with medical advice have made a difference? [ 142 ] Going to [NAME] would have made a difference to [NAME] disability status. The biggest reason she says she can’t work is because of the pain. Dr. [NAME] recommended [NAME] for various pain conditions, and he recommended it more than once. Dr. [NAME] also recommended it for pain and for the left shoulder condition. And Dr. [NAME] put her recommendation in bold, showing that this therapy is important. Footnote 84 [ 143 ] The [APPELLANT] failure to have a bone density test is curious because she often talked about osteoporosis. But I don’t think that this failure would have made a difference to her disability status. Whatever the test may have shown, [NAME] functional limitations would have been the same in December 2025. [ 144 ] Lastly, the sleep study could have made a difference because of how pain and sleep apnea can affect each other. Dr. [NAME] testified that untreated sleep apnea can perpetuate a pain condition and can contribute to other symptoms including fatigue and headaches. [ 145 ] The Claimant didn’t follow treatment recommendations that would have made a difference to her disability status. She didn’t provide a reasonable explanation for not following those treatment recommendations. This means her disability can’t be found to be severe. The Claimant hasn’t tried to find and keep a job that suits her limitations [ 146 ] The Minister says the Claimant didn’t make a meaningful attempt to find and keep a suitable job. [ 147 ] I will explain why this is an important consideration. [ 148 ] When there is evidence that a claimant has work capacity (like there is here), the Claimant must show that she tried to find and keep a job. She must also show that her efforts weren’t successful because of her medical conditions. Footnote 85 Finding and keeping a job includes retraining or looking for a job that accommodates her limitations. Footnote 86 [ 149 ] The [APPELLANT] said that after she stopped working as an [NAME] in October 2022, she tried to work at two other jobs. She said she worked as a cashier and [NAME] attendant for a few months and then as an assistant librarian. [ 150 ] The evidence includes an employer’s questionnaire from the [NAME] the [APPELLANT] worked at. It shows the [APPELLANT] worked seven shifts as an assistant librarian from January 17, 2023, to January 27, 2023. It also shows she quit the job. Footnote 87 [ 151 ] The evidence doesn’t include a similar questionnaire for the [NAME] job. So, I can’t confirm when that work took place. But I don’t think it was for a few months because the [APPELLANT] stopped working as an [NAME] on October 11, 2022, and began working at the [NAME] on January 17, 2023. [ 152 ] Either way, the jobs didn’t suit the [APPELLANT] limitations. The [APPELLANT] testified that both jobs required her to be on her feet throughout the shifts. She explained that at first she thought the [NAME] job would allow her to have some sitting time, but it didn’t. She said there were no sitting opportunities at the [NAME] job. She was on her feet all day. [ 153 ] The Claimant hasn’t tried a job that allows her to change positions while being less physically demanding than her job as an [NAME]. So, she hasn’t tried working at a job that suits her limitations. [ 154 ] This means that I can’t find the [APPELLANT] disability was severe as of the end of 2025. The [APPELLANT] argument about another Tribunal decision [ 155 ] The Claimant found a decision from the Tribunal’s General Division that she believes is similar to her case. Footnote 88 I will call that decision the [NAME] case. In the [NAME] case, the General Division found the claimant disabled and awarded her a disability pension. The Minister appealed the General Division’s decision to the Appeal Division. The Appeal Division found the General Division had made errors of law about when the disability began. But the Appeal Division also found, on agreement between the parties, that the claimant was disabled. Footnote 89 [ 156 ] I acknowledge that there are some similarities between the [NAME] case and [NAME] case. The [NAME] case involved a claimant who, among other things, had pain from conditions like osteoarthritis and degenerative disc disease. [ 157 ] But there are important differences between the [NAME] case and this one. For example, in the [NAME] case, the General Division found significant functional limitations including a very limited ability to walk, a lot of fatigue, and breathlessness just going from one room to another. The General Division also found that the claimant hadn’t unreasonably refused treatment that would have made a difference to her disability. [ 158 ] Because of these important differences, I don’t agree with the Claimant that the outcome of this appeal should be the same as in the [NAME] case. Was [NAME] disability prolonged by December 1, 2025? [ 159 ] Because I have found that [NAME] disability wasn’t severe by December 31, 2025, it isn’t necessary for me to assess whether it was prolonged. Footnote 90 [ 160 ] But it is worth noting that, even if the Claimant had provided a reasonable explanation for not going to [NAME], I would have been unable to find that her disability was prolonged by December 31, 2025. [ 161 ] This is because the Claimant has been on a waiting list for free [NAME] since March 2026. So, it is too soon to know what the outcome of that treatment will be. But since [NAME] has been repeatedly recommended for [NAME] pain condition, it is reasonable to expect some improvement with treatment. Conclusion [ 162 ] The Minister’s appeal is allowed. The Claimant hasn’t shown that her disability was severe and prolonged by December 31, 2025. This means she isn’t eligible for a [NAME] disability pension. Footnotes Footnote 1 See GD2R-60 and [NAME] testimony. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See GD2R-49. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See GD2R-52. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 The Minister’s initial decision of July 8, 2024, is at GD2R-35 to GD2R-37. The Minister’s reconsideration decision from January 8, 2025, is at GD2R-7 to GD2R-9. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 See AD18. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 See AD19. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 See AD21. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 See AD23. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 See AD26 to AD28. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 See AD29. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 See AD31. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 See AD32. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 The contributory requirements are set out in section 44(2) of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 A severe disability is defined in section 42(2)(a)(i) of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 14 referrer Footnote 15 The term “substantially gainful” is defined in section 68.1(1) of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 15 referrer Footnote 16 [NAME]  v  [NAME]) , 2008  FCA  33 at paragraph 14. Return to footnote 16 referrer Footnote 17 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2013  FCA  81 at paragraph 7. Return to footnote 17 referrer Footnote 18 A prolonged disability is defined in section 42(2)(a)(ii) of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 18 referrer Footnote 19 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2008  FCA  377; and Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2020  FC  206. Return to footnote 19 referrer Footnote 20 See GD2R-116. Return to footnote 20 referrer Footnote 21 See GD2R-117. Return to footnote 21 referrer Footnote 22 See GD2R-118. Return to footnote 22 referrer Footnote 23 See GD2R-121 and GD2R-175. Return to footnote 23 referrer Footnote 24 See GD2R-123 and GD2R-177. Return to footnote 24 referrer Footnote 25 See GD2R-122 and GD2R-176. Return to footnote 25 referrer Footnote 26 See GD2R-126 and GD2R-182. Return to footnote 26 referrer Footnote 27 See GD2R-222. Return to footnote 27 referrer Footnote 28 See AD11-3 to AD11-5. Return to footnote 28 referrer Footnote 29 See AD11-6 and AD11-7. Return to footnote 29 referrer Footnote 30 See AD11-11. Return to footnote 30 referrer Footnote 31 See GD3-2. Return to footnote 31 referrer Footnote 32 See GD2R-106 and GD2R-162. Return to footnote 32 referrer Footnote 33 See GD2R-125. Return to footnote 33 referrer Footnote 34 See GD2R-128. Return to footnote 34 referrer Footnote 35 See GD2R-132. Return to footnote 35 referrer Footnote 36 See GD2R-133. Return to footnote 36 referrer Footnote 37 See GD2R-190. Return to footnote 37 referrer Footnote 38 See GD2R-135. Return to footnote 38 referrer Footnote 39 See GD2R-224. Return to footnote 39 referrer Footnote 40 See GD2R-151 and GD2R-152. Return to footnote 40 referrer Footnote 41 See GD2R-147. Return to footnote 41 referrer Footnote 42 See GD2R-193. Return to footnote 42 referrer Footnote 43 See GD2R-193. Return to footnote 43 referrer Footnote 44 See AD11-6 to AD11-7. Return to footnote 44 referrer Footnote 45 See GD2R-132 and GD2R-158. Return to footnote 45 referrer Footnote 46 See GD2R-105. Return to footnote 46 referrer Footnote 47 See GD2R-223. Return to footnote 47 referrer Footnote 48 See AD11-3. Return to footnote 48 referrer Footnote 49 See GD2R-109. Return to footnote 49 referrer Footnote 50 See GD2R-223. Return to footnote 50 referrer Footnote 51 See GD2R-162. Return to footnote 51 referrer Footnote 52 See GD2R-142, GD2R-143, and GD2R-199. Return to footnote 52 referrer Footnote 53 See the General Division’s decision of July 2025 at paragraph 19. Return to footnote 53 referrer Footnote 54 See GDR-103 and GDR-104, GD2R-110, GD2R-126, GD2R-146, GD2R-160, and GD2R-182. Return to footnote 54 referrer Footnote 55 See GD2R-162. Return to footnote 55 referrer Footnote 56 See AD11-4. Return to footnote 56 referrer Footnote 57 See AD11-10. Return to footnote 57 referrer Footnote 58 See AD11-8. Return to footnote 58 referrer Footnote 59 See AD12-28. Return to footnote 59 referrer Footnote 60 See GD3-3, GD4-20, and GD4-21. Return to footnote 60 referrer Footnote 61 See GD2R-222. Return to footnote 61 referrer Footnote 62 See GD2R-224. Return to footnote 62 referrer Footnote 63 See AD11-9. Return to footnote 63 referrer Footnote 64 See AD27-3. [NAME] prescription is one 50 mg tablet twice a day. Return to footnote 64 referrer Footnote 65 See AD27-4. [NAME] prescription is two capsules (so 200 mg) once a day. Return to footnote 65 referrer Footnote 66 See AD9-2 and Dr. [NAME] testimony. Return to footnote 66 referrer Footnote 67 See GD2R-225. Return to footnote 67 referrer Footnote 68 See GD4-4 and GD4-5. Return to footnote 68 referrer Footnote 69 See GD4-5. Return to footnote 69 referrer Footnote 70 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2001  FCA  248. Return to footnote 70 referrer Footnote 71 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney Genera) , 2018  FCA  48; and [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2022  FCA  104. Return to footnote 71 referrer Footnote 72 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2022  FCA  104. Return to footnote 72 referrer Footnote 73 [NAME]  v  Canada ([NAME]) , 2002  FCA  211. Return to footnote 73 referrer Footnote 74 See GD2R-118 and GD2R-172. Return to footnote 74 referrer Footnote 75 See GD2R-124 and GD2R-178. Return to footnote 75 referrer Footnote 76 See AD11-5. Return to footnote 76 referrer Footnote 77 See AD11-9. Return to footnote 77 referrer Footnote 78 See AD13-1 to AD13-9 and AD15-1 to AD15-23. Return to footnote 78 referrer Footnote 79 See AD13-6 and [NAME] testimony. Return to footnote 79 referrer Footnote 80 See AD7. Return to footnote 80 referrer Footnote 81 See AD29. Return to footnote 81 referrer Footnote 82 See GD2R-147. Return to footnote 82 referrer Footnote 83 See AD11-05. Return to footnote 83 referrer Footnote 84 See AD11-5. Return to footnote 84 referrer Footnote 85 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2003  FCA  117. Return to footnote 85 referrer Footnote 86 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2008  FCA  150. Return to footnote 86 referrer Footnote 87 See AD5-9 to AD5-12. Return to footnote 87 referrer Footnote 88 [NAME]  v  [APPELLANT] and [NAME] , 2022  [NAME]  857. Return to footnote 88 referrer Footnote 89 [APPELLANT] and [NAME]  v  [NAME], 2022  [NAME]  856. Return to footnote 89 referrer Footnote 90 [NAME]  v  [NAME]) , 2008  FCA  33 at paragraph 10. Return to footnote 90 referrer