CPP Disability Pension Appeal Denied Due to Age Over 65

Citation: [NAME]  v  [NAME] , 2026  SST  59 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Leave to Appeal Decision Applicant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated December 3, 2025 (GP-25-1491) Tribunal member: [NAME] Decision date: January 28, 2026 File number: AD-25-822 On this page Decision Overview Issues I’m not giving the Claimant permission to appeal Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] Leave (permission) to appeal is refused. The appeal won’t go forward. Overview [ 2 ] M. L. is the Claimant. He applied for a [NAME] ( [NAME] ) disability pension in 2025. He was 74 years old. This was many years after he had a disabling stroke, in 2008. And after he started to receive a [NAME] retirement pension. [ 3 ] The Minister denied his application. So he appealed to this Tribunal’s General Division. The General Division decided because he had reached 65, he didn’t qualify for a disability pension (pension) or the post-retirement disability benefit (post-retirement benefit). So it dismissed his appeal. [ 4 ] The Claimant has applied for permission to appeal the General Division decision. Unfortunately for the Claimant, he hasn’t shown an arguable case the General Division made an error. So I can’t give him permission to appeal. Issues [ 5 ] I have to decide two issues. Is there an arguable case the General Division made a legal error when it used the Claimant’s age to dismiss his appeal? Is there an arguable case the General Division made a factual error by ignoring medical evidence and evidence about the impact of his stroke on his functioning? I’m not giving the Claimant permission to appeal [ 6 ] The Claimant hasn’t raised an arguable case the General Division made a type of error the law lets me consider. This means I can’t give him permission to appeal. The reasons that follow explain this decision. The permission to appeal test [ 7 ] I can give the Claimant permission to appeal if he raises an arguable case the General Division made one of these types of errors didn’t respect natural justice made a jurisdictional error made a legal error, a factual error, or a mixed error of fact and law in making its decision Footnote 1 [ 8 ] The Claimant didn’t set out new evidence in his application to appeal. Footnote 2 So I won’t consider that reason. No arguable case the General Division made a legal error by basing its decision on the Claimant’s age [ 9 ] The Claimant argues the General Division placed undue emphasis on his age when it dismissed his appeal. Footnote 3 [ 10 ] The General Division explained the law says a person has to be under 65 years old to qualify for a pension or the post-retirement benefit. The General Division explained the Claimant could not get the pension or the post-retirement benefit because he wasn’t under 65 years old (paragraph 7). Then the General Division explained he didn’t qualify based on the late application rule. Because he had already reached 65 at the earliest date he could be deemed disabled (paragraphs 10 and 11). [ 11 ] The Claimant seems to be arguing the law should be different. It should not make qualifying for a pension or post-retirement benefit depend on age. But the General Division had to follow the law—it had no power to ignore or change it. The General Division set out then used the proper sections of the [NAME] to decide the Claimant’s appeal. So there’s no arguable case it made a legal error—or another error I can consider—by basing its decision on his age. No arguable case the General Division made a factual error by ignoring evidence of the Claimant’s disability [ 12 ] The Claimant argues the General Division didn’t properly consider the medical evidence and the real, ongoing impact of his stroke on his ability to function and work. Footnote 4 [ 13 ] The General Division makes a factual error when it ignores or misunderstands relevant evidence. [ 14 ] There’s no arguable case the General Division ignored relevant evidence. The General Division decided the Claimant didn’t qualify for either a pension or post-retirement benefit because of his age. The General Division’s decision on this issue determined the outcome of his appeal. [ 15 ] That meant the General Division didn’t have to consider and decide whether his disability was severe and prolonged under the [NAME] disability test. Footnote 5 In other words, the medical evidence and functional limitation evidence weren’t relevant to an issue the General Division had to decide in order to decide his appeal. So the General Division didn’t have to consider that evidence. [ 16 ] I understand the Claimant didn’t know about the [NAME] disability pension until many years after his stroke. Unfortunately, that fact doesn’t change the law. And the Minister had no obligation to tell him he could apply for a disability pension. Conclusion [ 17 ] Permission to appeal is refused. This means that the appeal won’t go forward. Footnotes Footnote 1 See sections 58.1(a) and (b) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act ( DESD  Act). Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See section 58.1(c) of the DESD  Act. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See AD1-4. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See AD1-4. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 See the test for disability in section 42(2)(a) of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 5 referrer