CPP Disability Pension Appeal Denied Due to Insufficient Medical Evidence

Citation: [NAME]  v  WM , 2026  [NAME]  309 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Decision Appellant: [redacted] [NAME] and [NAME] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated June 23, 2025 (GP-24-708) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: Teleconference Hearing date: March 31, 2026 Hearing participants: Appellant’s representative Appellant’s witness Respondent Decision date: April 23, 2026 File number: AD-25-595 On this page Decision Overview Issues Analysis Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] The appeal is allowed. The Respondent is not entitled to a [NAME] ( [NAME] ) disability pension. She did not have a severe and prolonged disability with an onset date in any of the potential coverage periods. Overview [ 2 ] I will refer to the Appellant, the [NAME], as the “Minister.” I will refer to the Respondent, W. M., as the “Claimant.” [ 3 ] The Claimant is 56 years old. Some of her more recent jobs included driving a taxi, working for Y, and [NAME] houses. A turning point in her life appears to be the month of July 2011. She attended the emergency department several times that month. The first time was for a head laceration from a fall. Two days later, she attended emergency again for related head, neck, and coccyx pain. Footnote 1 [ 4 ] The Claimant asked [NAME] (family doctor) to complete a [NAME] medical report in October 2011. However, I see no application going with that report. She eventually applied for a [NAME] in August 2023. She said her main medical condition was degenerative disc disease (DDD). She said she also had very high anxiety. She said she could no longer work in October 2019, due to her conditions. Footnote 2 [ 5 ] The Minister denied the Claimant’s application initially and on reconsideration. She then appealed to the Social Security Tribunal (Tribunal). The Tribunal’s General Division allowed her appeal. It found she had a severe disability since July 2011 and was entitled to [NAME] disability payments starting in September 2022. Footnote 3 [ 6 ] The Minister then requested leave to appeal at the Tribunal’s Appeal Division. One of my Appeal Division colleagues granted the Minister leave to appeal. The Minister asked for a teleconference hearing. Footnote 4 [ 7 ] The Minister submitted that the Claimant had work capacity until at least 2021. That is well beyond any disability coverage period under the [NAME] . The Minister also said that the medical evidence does not reveal any real changes or any suggestion that her condition was worsening. While the Claimant had many short-term jobs, the Minister noted that her work attempts did not fail because of her medical conditions. The Minister added that the Claimant’s inability to do a prior job is not enough to establish severity. [ 8 ] The Claimant submitted that the evidence from Dr. [NAME] (family doctor) was definitive. She said that evidence confirmed she had a severe and prolonged disability at the relevant times. She also said her disability, and her many medications, would continue for the rest of her life. She admitted making repeated attempts to work, due to financial need, but stopped because she just couldn’t do it anymore. She said she could no longer do anything but lie around. She now receives [NAME]. [ 9 ] I must decide whether the Claimant had a severe and prolonged disability by December 31, 2013. If she didn’t, I must also decide whether she developed a severe and prolonged disability during one of two other periods: (1) between January 1, 2019, and November 30, 2019; or (2) between January 1, 2020, and February 29, 2020. [ 10 ] For the reasons set out below, I find that the Claimant did not have a severe and prolonged disability by December 31, 2013. I also find that she did not develop a severe and prolonged disability during the other coverage periods in 2019 and 2020. Issues [ 11 ] The issues in this appeal are: a) Did the Claimant have a severe disability by December 31, 2013? b) If not, did she develop a severe disability (i) between January 1, 2019, and November 30, 2019, or (ii) between January 1, 2020, and February 29, 2020? c) If the answer to a) or b) is “yes,” did she also have a prolonged disability? d) If the answer to c) is “yes,” when does her [NAME] start? Analysis [ 12 ] The Claimant’s minimum qualifying period ( MQP ), or coverage period, ended on December 31, 2013. Footnote 5 That would usually be when she must establish the onset of a disability, as defined by the [NAME] . Her disability must also have been continuous since then. Footnote 6 [ 13 ] Coverage periods generally cover entire calendar years. However, in rare cases, the [NAME] provides for additional coverage in partial calendar years. These are called prorated periods. Prorated periods can arise when an applicant has earnings, but they are below the yearly basic exemption for disability. In this case, the Claimant has two such prorated periods. The first period is from January 1, 2019, to November 30, 2019. The second period is from January 1, 2020, to February 29, 2020. Footnote 7 [ 14 ] Under the [NAME] , a disability must be both severe and prolonged. [ 15 ] The [NAME] says a disability is prolonged if it is likely to be long continued and of indefinite duration, or is likely to result in death. Footnote 8 [ 16 ] The [NAME] says a disability is severe if it makes a person incapable regularly of pursuing any substantially gainful occupation. Footnote 9 When assessing severity, I must look at all of the Claimant’s medical conditions together to see what effect they have on her work ability. Footnote 10 If she can regularly do some type of work from which she could earn a living, she isn’t entitled to a disability pension. [ 17 ] Before determining whether the Claimant had a severe disability arising during any of the coverage periods, I will look at her personal characteristics. What were the Claimant’s relevant personal characteristics? [ 18 ] When deciding whether the Claimant had a severe disability, I must consider factors such as her: Footnote 11 Age Language ability Education level Past work and life experience [ 19 ] These factors will help me decide whether the Claimant could work in the real world. I will look at each of them in turn. [ 20 ] The Claimant was 44 years old at the end of 2013. She was more than 21 years away from the typical retirement age. By February 29, 2020, she was 50 years old and 15 years away from the typical retirement age. Her age likely would not have affected her work capacity in the real world by the end of 2013 or even by February 29, 2020. [ 21 ] The Claimant speaks English fluently. English is an official language in Canada. Her language ability would not have affected her work capacity in the real world. [ 22 ] The Claimant completed Grade 11 but not Grade 12. She last attended school in September 1989. Footnote 12 In the real world, this means she likely would be limited to unskilled and semi-skilled employment that did not formally require a high school education. [ 23 ] The Claimant has had a variety of jobs. She used to be a waitress. Footnote 13 She worked as a cook for a [NAME]. She once sold bags of scallops. At Y, she started as a cashier. She then worked in a couple of departments within the store. She eventually became a department manager. She later cleaned houses and worked as a cleaner in a [NAME]. She also drove a taxi. Footnote 14 [ 24 ] The Claimant had other life experiences that could be relevant. She said she was a homemaker for a while. She also cooked, cleaned, and dusted for her mother, when her mother started to need a lot of care. Footnote 15 [ 25 ] Without considering the Claimant’s medical conditions , her personal characteristics meant that she was most suited for unskilled and semi-skilled work that did not formally require a high school education. This would include most of her jobs, such as [NAME], taxi driving, and making pizza. However, she also showed that she could manage a retail department. That would typically require finishing high school. These findings apply to all periods of [NAME] disability coverage. Concerns with work-related evidence [ 26 ] Much of the Claimant’s evidence about her work history was not reliable. I accept that she had the jobs she described. But she had great trouble with the timing and nature of those jobs. This is complicated by the fact that she did some of her work on a cash basis. Footnote 16 This means that objective evidence, such as a T4 slip or [NAME] contribution, is rarely available to resolve contradictions. It also means that her officially reported earnings don’t fully capture her actual earnings or her work capacity. [ 27 ] My concerns with the reliability of the Claimant’s evidence are important, as the timing of her jobs is highly relevant to deciding whether she became disabled at any of the relevant times. I will now set out some examples of that lack of reliability. These examples cover all her recent work, as well as her ongoing receipt of [NAME]. Y [ 28 ] In October 2023, the Claimant said she worked at Y from October 2003 to July 2011. Footnote 17 However, at the Appeal Division hearing, she said she started working at Y in October 1993, and stopped in 2001. When confronted with evidence pointing to much later Y work, she agreed that it was actually from 2003 to 2011. By itself, this error could easily be ignored. However, she gave inconsistent evidence about every other recent job too. X [ 29 ] At the Appeal Division hearing, the Claimant thought she worked at X for 10 months in 1993, before starting at Y. As noted above, she actually started working at Y in 2003, so the X work may have been as late as 2003. However, later in the hearing, she was asked about a clinical note that appeared to be from 2014 or 2015. That note mentioned a job that ended because of problems with her employer. Footnote 18 She said that must have been her X job. [ 30 ] I cannot reconcile this evidence. Her evidence about driving a taxi was even less reliable. Z (driving a taxi) [ 31 ] In October 2023, the Claimant said she worked at Z from January 2016 to October 2003 ( sic ) and left because she started a new job. Those dates are clearly impossible. But, on the same form, she also said she stopped this work in February 2011 ( sic ) because of COVID-19 . Footnote 19 That date is also impossible for a job that started in 2016. The reason also contradicts her earlier answer. Further, I take official notice that the COVID-19 pandemic hit Canada in early 2020 (not 2011). [ 32 ] These impossible dates were further muddied at the Appeal Division hearing. The Claimant said she started working for Z in 2017. But she then revised her answer, and said she actually started in 2016. She said she stopped in 2018 in order to work for [NAME] (W) in May 2019. But then she said she started driving a taxi again in November 2020 and continued until February 2021 when COVID hit. Again, the COVID-19 date pandemic started in Canada in early 2020, not 2021. [ 33 ] However, in June 2023, the Claimant said her only job in the last six years was working as a [NAME] housekeeper. In September 2023, she said she was a self-employed taxi driver in 2016 and 2017, and had not worked since August 2020. Footnote 20 O [ 34 ] In October 2023, the Claimant said she worked at O from August 2011 to June 2012. Footnote 21 [ 35 ] At the Appeal Division hearing, the Claimant said she worked at O in 2018 and 2019. She said her job lasted from June 4, 2018, to January 5, 2019. When asked about the previous dates of 2011 to 2012, she said that was wrong. She affirmed that she only worked there from 2018 to 2019. [ 36 ] However, in June 2023, the Claimant said her only job in the last six years was working as a [NAME] housekeeper. This contradicts her claimed work at O. But even her [NAME] housekeeper work contained major inconsistencies. W [ 37 ] In June 2023, the Claimant said she worked as a [NAME] housekeeper for W from June 2019 to August 2020. In October, she said she worked at W from August 2012 to September 2015. However, on that same form, she also said her last job was as a hotel maid, and she had not worked since December 2021. Footnote 22 [ 38 ] In December 2025, she said she worked for W from June 1, 2019, to October 4, 2019. Footnote 23 [ 39 ] At the Appeal Division hearing, the Claimant said the 2012 to 2015 dates were wrong. She said she actually worked for W in 2019 and 2020. But she also said she worked for W from 2018 to 2019. Self-employment [ 40 ] On an October 2023 form, and in a later phone call, the Claimant said she was self-employed from November 2019 to December 2021. This appeared to refer to being a hotel maid, although her other answers suggested her self-employment was as a taxi driver from January 2016 to December 2017. Footnote 24 She also completed a December 2025 form about “self-employment,” but her answers were about her work for W. She said that work only lasted from June 2019 to October 2019. Footnote 25 [ 41 ] At the Appeal Division hearing, the Claimant said her self-employment was as a [NAME]. She said she did this for only two months. She started after she stopped working at W, but before her last taxi stint that ended in February 2021. That would put her period of self-employment as roughly October 2020 to November 2020. In any case, I cannot reconcile it with her earlier answers. [ 42 ] As noted, however, in June 2023 the Claimant said her only job in the last six years was as a [NAME] housekeeper. She said she hadn’t worked since August 2020. Footnote 26 [NAME] [ 43 ] At the Appeal Division hearing, the Claimant initially said that she received [NAME] in 2025 and 2026. She wasn’t sure if she received it in 2024. When asked why she didn’t apply before, she replied, “because I was working.”  She was then asked if she had worked since 2021. She said she had not. She then said she may have been on [NAME] since 2021. [ 44 ] As with the evidence about her jobs and her self-employment, it is very difficult to reconcile the Claimant’s evidence about receiving [NAME]. To the extent that I can rely on objective evidence to understand what happened, I will. [ 45 ] I will now set out the functional limitations identified by the Claimant. The Claimant’s functional limitations [ 46 ] The Claimant’s main reported functional limitations were wide-ranging. In general terms, her behaviours and emotional abilities appeared to be the most limiting. However, she also reported significant limitations with more physically demanding tasks and tasks related to memory and concentration. [ 47 ] In her June 2023 application for the [NAME], the Claimant said her main conditions were DDD and anxiety. When asked about her ability to do various tasks, she rated her ability as “poor” for 30 different tasks. This included all possible tasks related to behaviours and emotional abilities. When giving additional information about her limitations, she focused on her back and her panic attacks. She said her back would never improve, although medication improved her anxiety slightly. Footnote 27 [ 48 ] I will now see if the medical evidence could support the claimed limitations. This is important because [NAME] disability applicants must provide some medical evidence about their underlying conditions. Footnote 28 Does the medical evidence support the claimed limitations? [ 49 ] The medical evidence could support the limitations with behaviours, emotional abilities, and physically demanding tasks. But it does not support the claimed limitations with memory and concentration. These findings apply to both the end of 2013 and the prorated periods up to the end of February 2020. I will now explain why. [ 50 ] In February 2013, [NAME] (psychologist) diagnosed the Claimant with panic disorder and generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). Dr. [NAME] affirmed the GAD diagnosis in his July 2023 medical report for [NAME] purposes. Footnote 29 [ 51 ] In September 2011, a CT scan of the Claimant’s lumbar spine revealed significant DDD at the L5-S1 level. [NAME] (neurosurgeon) did not think the DDD would have caused her back pain. He did not recommend surgery. However, Dr. [NAME] (orthopedic surgeon) seemed to think that surgery could possibly help the issues at the L5-S1 level. Footnote 30 More recently, Dr. [NAME] provided a diagnosis of chronic back pain in his July 2023 medical report for [NAME] purposes. Footnote 31 [ 52 ] Despite those findings, I did not see any medical support for limitations with memory or concentration. That lack of support existed up to, and beyond, the end of February 2020. However, as I see medical support for at least some claimed limitations, I will continue with my analysis of severity. I will start with the period ending on December 31, 2013. Did the Claimant have a severe disability by December 31, 2013? [ 53 ] The Claimant did not have a severe disability by December 31, 2013. I will now explain why. [ 54 ] I will first decide whether the Claimant had any residual work capacity by the end of 2013. Did the Claimant have any residual work capacity by the end of 2013? [ 55 ] The Claimant had residual work capacity by the end of 2013. I based this primarily on her actual work activity of driving a taxi. [ 56 ] In August 2014, [NAME] recommended that the Claimant be granted the requested class of licence for driving a taxi. [NAME] said she should not have any restrictions on that licence. Dr. [NAME] also made the same recommendation, without restrictions, in May 2016. Footnote 32 That was almost two years later, and points to a prolonged capacity for work after the end of 2013. Driving a taxi is also within the Claimant’s abilities, based on her personal characteristics. [ 57 ] Importantly, the Claimant also described driving a taxi after the end of 2013. She clearly requested the above two medical reports for taxi driving purposes. And, on several occasions, she also said she drove a taxi for a period of years. Footnote 33 [ 58 ] In 2013, [NAME] said that the Claimant would be able to accept light employment as of April 1, 2013. She also had no limitations on her activities of daily living. Footnote 34 That also supports residual work capacity by the end of 2013. [ 59 ] When a [NAME] disability applicant has some work capacity, she must show that efforts at obtaining and maintaining employment have been unsuccessful because of her health condition. Footnote 35 I will now look at the Claimant’s efforts in that regard. Were the Claimant’s efforts around the end of 2013 at obtaining and maintaining work unsuccessful because of her health conditions? [ 60 ] The Claimant’s efforts to obtain and maintain suitable work did not fail around the end of 2013 because of her health conditions. I will now explain why. [ 61 ] I found the Claimant’s work evidence to be unreliable, especially for dates. However, together with objective evidence, her evidence establishes that her taxi driving work shortly after 2013 was not unsuccessful because of her health conditions. This work lasted for at least two full years, and also resumed later. [ 62 ] This finding is supported firstly by the Claimant’s multiple requests for medical reports confirming her ability to drive. Two different doctors, in August 2014 and May 2016, recommended that she get a taxi license with no restrictions. This suggests she was driving a taxi as early as 2014. However, shortly after that, she lost a job due to conflict with her employer. Footnote 36 This was not the case for her next taxi driving job. [ 63 ] The Claimant previously said she worked as a self-employed taxi driver in 2016 and 2017. Footnote 37 She once said she worked 25-30 hours per week, but added that she was the last one hired and thus was “filling in.” At the Appeal Division hearing, she confirmed driving a taxi for two full years and said she worked 40 hours per week throughout all of those two years. She said that it was “a little too much” for her in 2018, so she eventually started at W in 2019. But she said she later “regrouped” and started taxi driving again around 2020. [ 64 ] Two years of full-time work, at a suitable job, is not an unsuccessful return to work. This is particularly true when the work continued until about four years after her initial qualifying period ended in 2013. In a decision called [NAME] , the Federal Court said a return to work could be considered a failure if it lasted only a few days. While the Court did not give a specific threshold, it did say that two years of earnings consistent with prior earnings could not be considered a failed attempt. Footnote 38 [ 65 ] The Claimant’s reported self-employment earnings for 2016 and 2017 were remarkably consistent. Footnote 39 They are also broadly similar to prior earnings, especially considering that reported self-employment earnings could be affected by inaccurate reporting of income and by the deduction of expenses. Her 2016 and 2017 reported earnings appear low for the reported number of hours worked. In any case, she did work for at least two full years and appeared to maintain a steady workload throughout those two years. I cannot call her return to work unsuccessful. [ 66 ] This finding is supported by the lack of any dated medical evidence between May 18, 2016, and February 20, 2019. Even then, the May 18, 2016, medical report was Dr. [NAME]’s support for her to get an unrestricted taxi driving licence. The last dated medical report before that was July 15, 2015. Footnote 40 [ 67 ] This is not the end of my analysis, however. The Claimant can still succeed if she can show the onset of a severe disability in the first eleven months of 2019 or the first two months of 2020. As a gap of only one month separates those two periods, and I see no evidence about December 2019, I will look at those two periods together. Did the Claimant have any residual work capacity by the end of February 2020? [ 68 ] The Claimant had residual work capacity by the end of February 2020. I will now explain why. [ 69 ] It is not easy to ascertain the Claimant’s exact activity during this period. She was not consistent in describing which jobs were regular employment and which one(s) fell under self-employment. But the evidence still establishes work capacity around this time. This is due to her extensive work activity. That activity appears to be equivalent to full-time for much or even all of the period in question. [ 70 ] On October 10, 2023, the Claimant said she was self-employed from November 2019 to December 2021. Footnote 41 Eight days later, she confirmed those self-employment dates. She said she worked an average of 40 hours per week for $20.00 per hour, although the hours were not consistent from week to week. Furthermore, her earnings were on a cash basis. Footnote 42 Such prolonged self-employment points to work capacity. [ 71 ] The Claimant later said her 2019 work at W was self-employment. Footnote 43 However, at the Appeal Division hearing, the Claimant said her only self-employment was for a brief two-month period around late 2020 when she worked as a [NAME]. She said she was paid “under the table” for that work, at only $13.00 per hour. She said she worked only 2-6 hours per day and 3-4 days per week. But her reported earnings for [NAME] purposes suggest that her only self-employment was in 2016 and 2017. Footnote 44 [ 72 ] The Claimant also described other work around this time. She said she worked for W as a housekeeper for two years. She initially said this was in 2019 and 2020, but then changed it to 2018 and 2019. She earned $12.00 per hour, but the work wasn’t year-round because the [NAME] shut the [NAME] down for the winter. She gave different estimates of the hours involved. Her most specific estimate was roughly 5 hours per day and 4-5 days per week, although it varied with the number of guests. [ 73 ] The Claimant also mentioned working for O in 2018 and 2019. She said it wasn’t steady work because she was the last one hired. During the hearing, she read from a Record of Employment ( ROE ) that said she worked there from June 4, 2018, to January 5, 2019. Her paycheques ranged from $162.00 to $430.00. [ 74 ] Finally, the Claimant also drove a taxi again around this time. She said she started in November 2020 but stopped in February 2021 when COVID-19 hit. However, as noted, the biggest impact of COVID-19 would have been in early 2020 rather than early 2021. I note that, in February 2020, Dr. [NAME] referred to her driving a taxi for at least the previous two months. Dr. [NAME] also said she was working (at an unnamed job) in February 2019. Finally, Dr. [NAME] completed a driver’s medical report for her in March 2021, although the report itself does not appear in the file. Footnote 45 [ 75 ] I cannot reconcile the conflicting dates for the various roles, even without considering the Claimant’s written evidence that puts some of this work five or more years earlier. But the evidence still shows considerable work capacity in the period between 2018 and 2021. Regardless of whether it was true self-employment, I can’t see why she would claim to have worked 40 hours per week for a two-year period if she hadn’t actually worked that much. [ 76 ] I also note that the different jobs described are consistent with what the Claimant could have done in the real world, given her personal characteristics. While some jobs appear to be more physically demanding than what she claimed she could do, that may reflect the fact that she set out her claimed limitations in June 2023. She did say that her conditions worsened over time. Footnote 46 [ 77 ] I will now look at the Claimant’s efforts around this time and determine if they failed because of her health conditions. Were the Claimant’s efforts at obtaining and maintaining work unsuccessful around February 2020 because of her health conditions? [ 78 ] The Claimant’s efforts to obtain and maintain suitable work did not fail around the February 2020 because of her health conditions. I will now explain why. [ 79 ] I find that the Claimant did numerous jobs around this time. At the hearing, she read from an ROE about her work for O. Although the ROE itself was not filed as evidence, the information she read was very specific and I find it reliable. In particular, it said she stopped working for them in January 2019 because of a “shortage of work.” This means that she didn’t stop working then because of her health conditions. [ 80 ] An ROE from one of the Claimant’s periods of employment with W was in the file. It said she stopped working on September 30, 2019, due to “shortage of work/end of contract or season.” Her return date was unknown. Footnote 47 [ 81 ] In contrast, the Claimant said in December 2025 she worked for W until October 4, 2019. She said she stopped because it was “too much to handle on my back.” Footnote 48 However, at the Appeal Division hearing, she said the [NAME] job ended due to a shortage of work. She said the [NAME] shut down the [NAME] for the winter each year in October. She also said the [NAME] were an older couple and were in the process of selling the business. She endorsed what was on the W ROE . [ 82 ] I prefer the objective evidence from the W ROE . The Claimant also relied on it at the Appeal Division hearing. Further, it is consistent with her other testimony at the hearing about why her work with W ended each year. This means she did not stop working there because of her health conditions. This would apply to 2019, as well as her other year of work there. That other year was either 2018 or 2020. [ 83 ] Also at the hearing, the Claimant said she stopped driving a taxi due to the COVID-19 pandemic. She said the company owner told her to “park the taxi.” Although she thought this was in February 2021, COVID-19 ’s commercial effects were first felt in Canada in March 2020. Further, Dr. [NAME] wrote a driver’s medical report for her in March 2021. That would have allowed her to continue driving a taxi. Footnote 49 [ 84 ] The dates are clearly in conflict. But regardless of which one is correct, she would have stopped in February 2020 or at some point afterward. And the evidence does not suggest that she stopped driving a taxi because of her health conditions. [ 85 ] This means that the Claimant’s work for [NAME], O, and the [COMPANY] did not end due to her health conditions. The only work stoppage she clearly attributed to her health conditions was self-employment as a [NAME]. She said it lasted only two months. As noted, this may not have been self-employment. But she said it was after she stopped working for W, and before she started driving a taxi again. [ 86 ] The Claimant said she stopped this work because it was too hard on her back. However, she had just done similar work at W. She was also able to drive a taxi afterward. Further, as noted, she said in October 2023 that she averaged 40 hours per week of self-employment from November 2019 to December 2021. She stopped that work, which paid $20.00 per hour, due to pain and periodic bad anxiety. Footnote 50 [ 87 ] I place little weight on the reasons for stopping her self-employment. One account points to an inability to work only around December 2021. That followed two years of full-time work, and is long after February 2020. I cannot regard two years of full-time work as a failed attempt, especially as the Claimant may have done other work at the same time. Her other claim about being self-employed for only two months does not help, as she later did a taxi job that didn’t end because of her health. Either way, her attempts at suitable work didn’t fail around February 2020 due to her health conditions. [ 88 ] As the Claimant’s efforts at obtaining and maintaining work were not unsuccessful around February 2020 because of her health conditions, she cannot establish a severe disability in either of the prorated periods leading up to February 29, 2020. This means she cannot succeed, and the Minister’s appeal is allowed. [ 89 ] I acknowledge that the Claimant’s recent reported earnings have not been substantially gainful. However, I do not place weight on this because some of her recent work has been on a cash (“under the table”) basis. This means it is not reflected in her reported earnings. Similarly, her reported earnings in 2016 and 2017 were in the form of self-employment. Her reported income from those years does not match her reported hours, as she said she worked 40 hours per week throughout those years. Footnote 51 [ 90 ] I will now discuss Dr. [NAME]’s evidence, as it formed a major part of the Claimant’s submissions at the hearing. The evidence of Dr. [NAME] [ 91 ] I see two reports from Dr. [NAME] that, at first glance, could be very supportive. [ 92 ] The first report is the detailed [NAME] medical report that Dr. [NAME] completed in July 2023. He said the Claimant’s GAD and lower back pain were both severe and prolonged, and prevented her from doing gainful work. However, he did not say when those conditions became severe. He only said he had treated her main condition since May 18, 2016. But May 18, 2016, was when he completed a medical form stating that she could operate a taxi without restrictions. Footnote 52 That was a suitable job for her. [ 93 ] The second report is a November 2023 letter from Dr. [NAME] to the Minister. He affirmed that the Claimant’s illness was severe and prolonged, and that she will have it for the rest of her life. Footnote 53 [ 94 ] While those letters support a severe disability in 2023, they do not assist the Claimant in establishing a severe disability by February 29, 2020. In February 2020, Dr. [NAME] was aware that she was driving a taxi. But he did not suggest that she stop such work. In fact, he completed another driver’s medical report for her in March 2021. Footnote 54 As with his 2016 driver’s medical report, that would have let her continue driving a taxi. That is not consistent with a severe disability, as she was well suited for such work. [ 95 ] Finally, I note that deterioration after the coverage period ends does not lead to eligibility for a [NAME]. Footnote 55 The Claimant also reported new medical issues after February 2020, such as type 2 diabetes and sleeping issues. Footnote 56 Did the Claimant also have a prolonged disability? [ 96 ] I found that the Claimant did not have a severe disability by the end of 2013 or arising in either of the prorated periods. As a result, I do not need to decide whether her disability was also prolonged. Conclusion [ 97 ] The appeal is allowed. The Claimant did not have a severe and prolonged disability by the end of 2013. Nor did she have a severe and prolonged disability arising between January 1, 2019, and November 30, 2019, or January 1, 2020, and February 29, 2020. Footnotes Footnote 1 See GD4-189 to GD4-191. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See GD2-35 and GD4-169. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See AD1-9. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See AD1-4. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 This date is based on the Claimant’s [NAME] contributions. Her [NAME] contributions are at GD9-3. Service Canada uses a person’s years of [NAME] contributions to calculate their coverage period ( MQP ). See section 44(2) of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 See Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2015  FC  1348, at paragraph 31. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 Section 19 of the [NAME] sets out the formula for determining prorated periods. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 See section 42(2)(a) of the [NAME]. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 See section 42(2)(a) of the [NAME]. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2011  FCA  47, at paragraph 8. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2002  FCA  248. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 See GD2-45 and GD4-64. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 See GD4-266. Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 See GD4-64 and the Claimant’s testimony at the Appeal Division hearing. Return to footnote 14 referrer Footnote 15 See GD4-38 and the Claimant’s testimony at the Appeal Division hearing. Return to footnote 15 referrer Footnote 16 See GD2-90 (more than two years of self-employment, averaging 40 hours per week, on a cash basis) and AD7-3 (worked as a maid on a cash basis). At the Appeal Division hearing, the Claimant also said her self-employment was “under the table” but said it only lasted two months. Return to footnote 16 referrer Footnote 17 See GD2-16. Return to footnote 17 referrer Footnote 18 See GD4-37. Although this record is undated, it is part of a chronological series of clinical notes at GD4-20 to GD4-40. The preceding note at GD4-36 refers to a new job driving a taxi, and the doctor had to complete a medical report attesting to her ability to drive. That report appears at GD4-88. It is dated August 28, 2014. This suggests that the subsequent note at GD4-37 is probably from late 2014 or 2015. Return to footnote 18 referrer Footnote 19 See GD2-15 and GD2-16. Return to footnote 19 referrer Footnote 20 See GD2-44 and GD2-97. Return to footnote 20 referrer Footnote 21 See GD2-16. Return to footnote 21 referrer Footnote 22 See GD2-16, GD2-17, and GD2-44. Return to footnote 22 referrer Footnote 23 See AD7-3. Return to footnote 23 referrer Footnote 24 See GD2-13, GD2-15, GD2-16, GD2-17, and GD2-90. Return to footnote 24 referrer Footnote 25 See AD7-2 to AD7-4. Return to footnote 25 referrer Footnote 26 See GD2-44. Return to footnote 26 referrer Footnote 27 See GD2-35 and GD2-39 to GD2-42. Return to footnote 27 referrer Footnote 28 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2008  FCA  377, and Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2020  FC  206. Return to footnote 28 referrer Footnote 29 See GD2-123 and GD4-65. Return to footnote 29 referrer Footnote 30 See GD4-45, GD4-75 to GD4-76, and GD4-153. Return to footnote 30 referrer Footnote 31 See GD2-124. Return to footnote 31 referrer Footnote 32 See GD4-88 to GD4-91 and AD7-15 to AD7-17. Return to footnote 32 referrer Footnote 33 See GD2-15, GD2-16, GD2-97, and the Claimant’s testimony at the Appeal Division hearing. Return to footnote 33 referrer Footnote 34 See GD4-107 and GD4-108. Return to footnote 34 referrer Footnote 35 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2003  FCA  117, at paragraph 3. Return to footnote 35 referrer Footnote 36 See GD4-36 and GD4-37. Return to footnote 36 referrer Footnote 37 See GD2-97. Return to footnote 37 referrer Footnote 38 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2010  FC  48, at paragraph 10. See also [NAME]  v  [NAME] , 2025  [NAME]  71, at paragraph 36. While other Tribunal decisions aren’t binding, they can be persuasive. Return to footnote 38 referrer Footnote 39 See GD2-19 and GD2-21. Return to footnote 39 referrer Footnote 40 See GD4-82, GD6-20, and AD7-15 to AD7-17. Return to footnote 40 referrer Footnote 41 See GD2-16 and GD2-17. Return to footnote 41 referrer Footnote 42 See GD2-90. Return to footnote 42 referrer Footnote 43 See AD7-2 to AD7-6. Return to footnote 43 referrer Footnote 44 See GD9-3. See also GD8-7, where 2016 and 2017 are the only years of self-employment (T1 income). Return to footnote 44 referrer Footnote 45 See GD6-14, GD6-18, and GD6-20. Return to footnote 45 referrer Footnote 46 See, for example, GD2-9. Return to footnote 46 referrer Footnote 47 See AD7-8. Return to footnote 47 referrer Footnote 48 See AD7-3 and AD7-4. Return to footnote 48 referrer Footnote 49 See GD6-14. Return to footnote 49 referrer Footnote 50 See GD2-16, GD2-17, and GD2-90. Return to footnote 50 referrer Footnote 51 See GD9-3 for her earnings. If she worked 40 hours per week, she would have worked close to 2,000 hours per year. But her earnings were only just over $10,000.00, giving an hourly wage of only $5.00. Return to footnote 51 referrer Footnote 52 See GD2-122 to GD2-134 and GD2-126 and AD7-15 to AD7-17. Return to footnote 52 referrer Footnote 53 See GD2-10. Return to footnote 53 referrer Footnote 54 See GD6-14 and GD6-18. Return to footnote 54 referrer Footnote 55 See, for example, [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2008  FCA  116, at paragraph 3. Return to footnote 55 referrer Footnote 56 See GD6-5 and GD6-15. Return to footnote 56 referrer