CPP Disability Pension Appeal Denied Due to Insufficient Medical Evidence

Citation: [NAME]  v  ET , 2026  [NAME]  251 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Decision Appellant: [redacted] [NAME] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated October 16, 2025 (GP-25-1352) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: Teleconference Hearing date: February 26, 2026 Hearing participants: Appellant’s representative Respondent Decision date: March 20, 2026 File number: AD-26-38 On this page Decision The parties Overview Preliminary matters Issue Analysis Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] The Appellant’s appeal is allowed. [ 2 ] The Respondent, [NAME]., 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 [NAME]. I will refer to the Appellant as the Minister . [ 5 ] The Respondent is [NAME]. I will refer to the Respondent as the Claimant . Overview [ 6 ] The Claimant is a 46-year-old woman who has multiple sclerosis (MS). She says she has had the condition for many years. [ 7 ] The Claimant has been a homemaker for most of her adult life. While she has done some work outside the home, that work isn’t recent. She worked as a nanny in the 1990s and she did some cashier work for a short time in 2005. [ 8 ] In 2023, the Claimant applied for a [NAME]. Footnote 1 In her application, she said she can’t work because she has MS. She explained the condition affects her physically, mentally, and emotionally. She didn’t give a date for when she felt unable to work. But she explained that she was diagnosed with the condition in 2005. Footnote 2 [ 9 ] After the Claimant applied for the pension, she said she also has anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Footnote 3 [ 10 ] The Minister denied the application at both the initial and reconsideration levels of review. Footnote 4 [ 11 ] The Claimant appealed the Minister’s reconsideration decision to the Social Security Tribunal’s General Division. The General Division held a hearing by teleconference and allowed the appeal. The General Division found that the Claimant is disabled and that the disability began in January 2005. [ 12 ] The Minister disagreed with the General Division’s decision, and so the Minister asked the Appeal Division for leave (permission) to appeal. In January 2026, one of my colleagues gave the Minister permission to appeal. Preliminary matters [ 13 ] Shortly after this appeal was assigned to me, I scheduled a case conference. This was so I could explain the issue in this appeal, discuss the Claimant’s request for an expedited appeal, and set the timelines for filing documents. [ 14 ] I held the case conference on January 26, 2026, when the following took place: I explained the eligibility requirements for the [NAME], including the requirement that there be medical evidence to support a finding of disability by December 31, 2019, which is the date of the Claimant’s minimum qualifying period ( MQP ). The Minister’s representative confirmed that the Minister would not be contacting the Claimant’s health care providers again to ask for more medical evidence. Footnote 5 I explained that the Claimant could use the filing period to obtain any additional medical evidence she needed to support her case. I agreed to expedite the appeal because the Claimant said she is having financial difficulties and is facing eviction. The Minister’s representative didn’t object to the Claimant’s request for an expedited appeal. I set the filing deadline as February 9, 2026, and the response deadline as February 16, 2026. The parties agreed with these deadlines. [ 15 ] After the case conference, I sent the parties a letter summarizing what we discussed and what was decided. Footnote 6 Issue [ 16 ] To succeed with her appeal, the Claimant must prove she has a disability that was severe and prolonged by her MQP of December 31, 2019. This date is based on her [NAME] contributions. Footnote 7 She must also prove that she continues to be disabled. Footnote 8 [ 17 ] A disability is severe if it makes a person incapable regularly of pursuing any substantially gainful occupation. Footnote 9 A job is substantially gainful if it gives a person an income that is the same as or more than the maximum annual [NAME]. Footnote 10 In 2019, that amount was about $16,350. It is currently about $21,000. [ 18 ] When I am assessing if a disability is severe, I must focus on whether the Claimant’s medical conditions result in functional limitations that get in the way of her earning a living. My focus isn’t on the name of the condition or diagnosis. [ 19 ] A disability is prolonged if it is likely to be long continued and of indefinite duration, or is likely to result in death. Footnote 11 [ 20 ] This means the Claimant’s disability can’t have an expected recovery date. The disability must be expected to keep the Claimant out of the workforce for a long time. [ 21 ] 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 2019. Analysis [ 22 ] The Claimant hasn’t proven her case. She hasn’t shown with medical evidence that her disability was likely severe by December 31, 2019. What the Claimant says about her disability [ 23 ] The Claimant says that she was diagnosed with MS in 2005. That same year, her then-husband had back surgery and needed to be off work for one year. Because her husband could not work, she tried to work as a cashier in a grocery store. But after a week or a month, she ended up in the hospital for a couple of days or weeks. After she got out of the hospital, she tried to go back to work but she didn’t last more than a week. She could not continue working after that. [ 24 ] In 2018, the Claimant’s daughter and the Claimant’s then-husband left the home. Before that, the Claimant had been doing the cleaning and cooking, though with help. Since June 2018, she has been completely on her own and it has been hard. [ 25 ] By December 31, 2019, her main symptoms were: constant and intolerable pain in her hands, arms, feet, and legs constant numbness in her hands, arms, feet, and legs constant fatigue [ 26 ] She started to isolate herself when the pandemic began. Then in 2021, everything got worse. She links this to her divorce. In 2021, she started getting headaches and increased pain and fatigue. [ 27 ] The Claimant says that her doctor told her years ago that she should not work. She says there is no way she could be a reliable employee. This is because she needs a lot of rest and would only be able to work an hour or two a week. The medical evidence doesn’t support a finding of disability by the end of 2019 [ 28 ] The Minister argues that it isn’t enough for the Claimant to say she was disabled. She must support her claim with objective medical evidence. The Minister says there is no medical evidence of a severe disability in January 2005, when the MS was diagnosed. The Minister also says there is no medical evidence showing the Claimant’s disability worsened over time and became severe by December 31, 2019. [ 29 ] I agree with the Minister. [ 30 ] The Claimant was required to provide medical evidence to support a finding that her medical condition or conditions affected her ability to work no later than December 31, 2019. Footnote 12 [ 31 ] This doesn’t mean that the Claimant was required to file a medical record dated on or before December 31, 2019. But there has to be some documentation related to that date, such as a later report from a doctor or other health care provider who was involved with the Claimant’s treatment during the relevant time. Footnote 13 [ 32 ] There is no medical evidence on file about anxiety, depression, or PTSD. This means I can’t consider how these conditions may have contributed to the Claimant’s disability by the end of 2019. [ 33 ] There is also no medical evidence on file from 2019 or before 2019. This seems to be because the Claimant didn’t have regular medical visits. Footnote 14 [ 34 ] The earliest medical evidence on file is from April 2021. The medical notes from April 2021 show that on April 8, 2021, Dr. [NAME] prescribed three days of IV treatment for MS. Footnote 15 The notes also show the Claimant had the treatment (Solu-Medrol infusions) on April 12, 2021; April 13, 2021; and April 14, 2021. Footnote 16 [ 35 ] The notes don’t provide a history of the Claimant’s condition and don’t mention any symptoms or limitations. This means these notes don’t help me understand how the Claimant’s disability was affecting her by the end of 2019. [ 36 ] The medical evidence also shows that the Claimant had another three days of Solu-Medrol infusions from September 6, 2022, to September 8, 2022. Footnote 17 Again, these notes don’t provide a history of the Claimant’s condition and don’t mention any symptoms or limitations. As with the notes from April 2021, the notes of September 2022 aren’t helpful to the issue I must decide. [ 37 ] The only other medical report on file is the [NAME] medical report that was filled out by an ER doctor (Dr. [NAME]) on May 10, 2023. Footnote 18 In that report, Dr. [NAME] said the following: The Claimant has had MS since January 2005. The MS results in pain in the arms and legs, generalized weakness, and the need to rest after 10 to 15 minutes because of the pain. The MS results in multiple flares that prevent the Claimant from working full time. When the Claimant gets a flare, she needs to restart physiotherapy, acupuncture, and chiropractic treatment for months. The Claimant had physiotherapy, acupuncture, and massage therapy from 2007 to September 2019 with good responses. The Claimant occasionally uses methylprednisolone. The Claimant can’t work due to her MS, as per Dr. MacLean. Footnote 19 [ 38 ] Dr. [NAME] didn’t identify who Dr. MacLean is. However, the file shows the Claimant told one of the Minister’s adjudicators in September 2024 that Dr. MacLean is a neurologist she had seen in the past. The Minister tried to get medical information from Dr. MacLean but wasn’t successful. Footnote 20 [ 39 ] I return now to Dr. [NAME]’s report. This report is dated more than three years after December 2019. Generally, medical evidence that is dated after the MQP is of little value in establishing a medical condition before the MQP . Footnote 21 However, Dr. [NAME]’s report talks about impairments and functional limitations that began in 2005. So, the report may have some relevance. I must consider and weigh the report for its probative value. Footnote 22 In other words, I must assess how useful the report is in supporting a finding of a severe disability by the end of 2019. [ 40 ] In my view, the report isn’t very useful. This means I am unable to give the report much weight. [ 41 ] First, Dr. [NAME] said he only saw the Claimant on one occasion. That was on May 10, 2023, when he filled out the [NAME] medical report. This means Dr. [NAME] wasn’t treating the Claimant in or around 2019. So, he isn’t well positioned to comment on her medical condition at that time. [ 42 ] Second, Dr. [NAME] said he had a specialist’s report or reports to support the information he provided. Footnote 23 However, he didn’t include any reports, didn’t refer to the dates of any reports he may have looked at, and didn’t identify the specialist or specialists he was referring to. Dr. [NAME] said the Claimant can’t work “as per Dr. MacLean”, but it is unclear whether he simply wrote what the Claimant told him or whether he had Dr. MacLean’s medical records to review. [ 43 ] Third, I can’t infer from Dr. [NAME]’s report that the Claimant’s impairments and limitations have been the same since the onset of symptoms in January 2005. Dr. [NAME] acknowledged that treatment provided the Claimant with good responses. More than that, the Claimant has repeatedly said that her condition has gotten worse over the years, especially since her divorce in 2021. Footnote 24 This means the Claimant’s condition got worse after her MQP and before she saw Dr. [NAME]. Why I didn’t consider the Claimant’s personal characteristics [ 44 ] When I am deciding whether a disability is severe, I usually have to consider a claimant’s personal characteristics. Factors like age, level of education, language abilities, and past work and life experience, may affect whether a claimant can work in the real world. Footnote 25 [ 45 ] It isn’t necessary for me to consider the Claimant’s personal characteristics. This is because a claimant can’t qualify for a disability pension based on their personal characteristics alone. There must still be medical evidence to support a finding of disability at the time of the MQP . Footnote 26 [ 46 ] In the Claimant’s case, there isn’t enough medical evidence to support a finding of disability by December 31, 2019. This means there is no reason to consider her personal characteristics. I can’t make decisions based on financial hardship [ 47 ] The Claimant explained that she has significant financial stresses and is facing eviction. [ 48 ] I am sympathetic to the Claimant’s circumstances. I know this decision is going to be disappointing to her. But I have to follow the law. The law doesn’t allow me to make decisions based on financial hardship or even compassion. It doesn’t matter how compelling those circumstances may be. Footnote 27 Conclusion [ 49 ] The Claimant isn’t eligible for a [NAME] because the medical evidence doesn’t show her disability was likely severe by December 31, 2019. [ 50 ] This means the Minister’s appeal is allowed. Footnotes Footnote 1 See GD2R-198. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See GD2R-189. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See GD1-13, GD2R-22, and GD5-1. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 The Minister’s initial decision of April 1, 2025, is at GD2R-44 to GD2R-46. The Minister’s reconsideration decision of August 13, 2025, is at GD2R-6 to GD2R-8. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 The file shows that the Minister had tried to get medical information before. See GD2R-12, GD2R-16, GD2R-30, GD2R-51, GD2R-54, GD2R-60, GD2R-70, GD2R-76, GD2R-84, GD7-4, and AD6-6. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 See AD3. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 The MQP is the period in which a claimant last had coverage for a [NAME]. Coverage is established by [NAME] contributions. The Claimant’s [NAME] contributions are at GD2R-223 and are from a division of unadjusted pensionable earnings (sometimes called a credit split). The contributory requirements are set out in section 44(2) of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 See Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2015  FC  1348, at paragraph 31. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 A severe disability is defined in section 42(2)(a)(i) of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 The term “substantially gainful” is defined in section 68.1(1) of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 A prolonged disability is defined in section 42(2)(a)(ii) of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2008  FCA  377; and Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2020  FC  206. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 [NAME]  v  [NAME] , 2021  [NAME]  267 at paragraph 19. While other Appeal Division decisions aren’t binding, they may be persuasive. Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 See, for example, GD6-1. Return to footnote 14 referrer Footnote 15 See GD2R-250. Return to footnote 15 referrer Footnote 16 See GD2R-247 to GD2R-249. Return to footnote 16 referrer Footnote 17 See GD2R-241 to GD2R-246. Return to footnote 17 referrer Footnote 18 It is possible the date is September 10, 2023, rather than May 10, 2023. See GD2R-259. Nothing turns on whether the report is dated May or September 2023. Return to footnote 18 referrer Footnote 19 See GD2R-255 to GD2R-259. Return to footnote 19 referrer Footnote 20 See GD2R-70, GD2R-84, GD2R-76, and GD2R-238. Return to footnote 20 referrer Footnote 21 See Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2015  FC  1348 at paragraph 48; and Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2020  FC  206 at paragraph 27. Return to footnote 21 referrer Footnote 22 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2018  FC  308. Return to footnote 22 referrer Footnote 23 See GD2R-259. Return to footnote 23 referrer Footnote 24 See GD2R-204 to GD2R-207 and the Claimant’s testimony. Return to footnote 24 referrer Footnote 25 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2001  FCA  248. Return to footnote 25 referrer Footnote 26 See section 42(2)(a) of the [NAME] . See also [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2001  FCA  248 at paragraph 50; and [NAME]  v  [NAME] , 2024  [NAME]  918 at paragraph 75. Return to footnote 26 referrer Footnote 27 See Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development)  v  [NAME] , 2004  FC  1567; and [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2008  FC  1046. Return to footnote 27 referrer