CPP Disability Pension Appeal Denied Due to Insufficient Severity of Disability

Citation: [NAME]  v  AF , 2026  [NAME]  299 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Decision Appellant: [redacted] [NAME] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated August 6, 2025 (GP-24-1063) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: Videoconference Hearing date: February 18, 2026 Hearing participants: Appellant’s representative Appellant’s witness Respondent Decision date: April 17, 2026 File number: AD-25-677 On this page Decision The parties Overview Preliminary matters Issue Analysis Why the Claimant’s disability wasn’t severe 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] Canada. 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 59-year-old woman who came to Canada in 2001. After her arrival, she studied English and completed an [NAME]. Footnote 1 Her first jobs in Canada were cleaning jobs. She cleaned hotels and offices. [ 7 ] The Claimant was in a car accident in 2007. This caused a pain condition. But she was able to return to work after that. [ 8 ] In 2008, the Claimant began working as a cook. She described her place of work as an [NAME]. Footnote 2 Medical reports describe the Claimant’s place of work as a retirement home. Footnote 3 [ 9 ] Either way, the Claimant said her job duties included cooking, cleaning, and caring for the patients. She took about a year off work in 2011 because she wasn’t feeling well. She returned to work in 2012 and worked continuously until March 2020 when she was laid off. [ 10 ] The Claimant said her employer told her the lay-off was because she could not concentrate on the work, was forgetting things like recipes, and wasn’t a team player. [ 11 ] The Claimant applied for a [NAME] disability pension in June 2023. Footnote 4 In her application, she said her medical conditions have prevented her from working since March 2020. She said her medical conditions include severe pain, stiffness, frequent headaches, anxiety, and depression. Footnote 5 [ 12 ] The Minister denied the application at both the initial and reconsideration levels of review. Footnote 6 [ 13 ] The Claimant appealed the Minister’s reconsideration decision to the Social Security Tribunal’s General Division. The General Division allowed the appeal, finding the Claimant disabled as of March 2020. [ 14 ] The Minister disagreed with the General Division’s decision, and 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. [ 15 ] On February 18, 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 [ 16 ] I allowed the Claimant to file medical documents after the hearing. This was because: The most recent medical evidence on file at the time of the hearing was dated March 2023. During the hearing, the Claimant spoke about medical consultations that she has had since March 2023 and some of her evidence was about the treatment she has tried. The Claimant explained that she didn’t understand that she could file updated medical evidence. A Tribunal telephone conversation log of January 20, 2026 shows that the Claimant told Tribunal staff that she wasn’t understanding the documents the Tribunal was sending to her. [ 17 ] The Minister didn’t object to me giving the Claimant an opportunity to file medical evidence after the hearing, though the Minister did question whether the evidence would be relevant. [ 18 ] The Claimant filed her updated medical evidence on February 25, 2026. Footnote 7 I shared that evidence with the Minister and gave the Minister an opportunity to comment on it. Footnote 8 [ 19 ] The Minister filed its written submissions on the post-hearing evidence on March 12, 2026. Footnote 9 [ 20 ] I then gave the Claimant an opportunity to reply to the Minister’s submissions. I initially set the deadline for reply as March 27, 2026. Footnote 10 At the Claimant’s request, I extended that deadline to April 7, 2026. Footnote 11 The Claimant didn’t file a reply. Issue [ 21 ] I must decide if the Claimant has proven that she has a disability that was severe and prolonged by December 31, 2022. This date is based on her [NAME] contributions. Footnote 12 [ 22 ] A disability is severe if it makes a person incapable regularly of pursuing any substantially gainful occupation. Footnote 13 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 14 In 2022, that amount was about $17,600. It is currently about $21,000. [ 23 ] 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. Footnote 15 My focus isn’t on the names of the conditions or diagnoses. Footnote 16 [ 24 ] A disability is prolonged if it is likely to be long continued and of indefinite duration, or is likely to result in death. Footnote 17 [ 25 ] 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 2022. Analysis [ 26 ] The Claimant hasn’t proven her case. She hasn’t shown that her disability was likely severe by December 31, 2022. What the Claimant says about her disability [ 27 ] The Claimant signed her application for a disability pension in March 2023. Footnote 18 This was just a few months after December 31, 2022. So, the limitations the Claimant identified in her application are likely relevant considerations. [ 28 ] In her application, the Claimant said her symptoms and limitations include the following: Severe pain in her right arm and neck. Because of this pain, she can’t raise her right arm, and she can’t turn her head to the right. Pain in both shoulders. Difficulty standing or sitting for more than 20 minutes at a time. This is because of the arm, shoulder and neck pain. Swelling in her hands and tingling in her fingers, especially the little fingers. Stiffness in the upper part of her body, along with daily pains. She can’t bend to tie her shoes. Frequent headaches. Problems with concentration and short-term memory. An issue with her eyesight. Depression and anxiety. She feels sad, discouraged and trapped, prefers not to be around people, and has problems with motivation to finish tasks. On bad days, she feels like she is on the verge of crying. Fatigue. Footnote 19 What the medical evidence says [ 29 ] 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 2022. Footnote 20 [ 30 ] The Claimant has provided some medical evidence about her pain conditions and her mental health conditions. [ 31 ] Before I turn to what that evidence says, I will identify the medical conditions that aren’t supported by the medical evidence or that arose after 2022. Some medical conditions are not supported by the medical evidence or arose after December 31, 2022 [ 32 ] Some of the Claimant’s medical conditions are either not supported by the medical evidence or arose after December 31, 2022. This means these medical conditions aren’t relevant to whether the Claimant’s disability was severe by the end of 2022. [ 33 ] There is no medical evidence about headaches before December 31, 2022. The first mention of headaches is in a clinical note of February 2024, more than one year after the end of 2022. That note doesn’t say the headaches had been a problem for over a year. Footnote 21 [ 34 ] There is also no medical evidence about hand numbness or finger tingling before December 31, 2022. The first mention of a hand or finger issue is in a medical report of March 2024. The report doesn’t say when the symptoms began. Footnote 22 Several months later, in January 2025, the Claimant’s family doctor noted paresthesia of the right fifth digit (the little finger). Footnote 23 [ 35 ] There is no medical evidence about any eyesight issues. [ 36 ] In the summer of 2024, the Claimant began having pain in the left side of her face and neck. Footnote 24 That was about one and a half years after the end of 2022. [ 37 ] The medical evidence mentions vertigo, but that condition began in 2024. A clinical note of October 2024 says the Claimant began having vertigo two months ago. Footnote 25 [ 38 ] In December 2024, the Claimant began having left hip discomfort that was radiating to her left abdomen. Footnote 26 That began two years after December 2022. [ 39 ] I will now look at what the medical evidence says about the Claimant’s pain conditions in and around 2022. What the medical evidence says about the Claimant’s pain conditions [ 40 ] The Claimant’s current family doctor is [NAME]. He began treating the Claimant in November 2021. Footnote 27 The Claimant’s previous family doctor was [NAME]. Footnote 28 There is no medical evidence on file from [NAME]. [ 41 ] When the Claimant first saw [NAME], she asked him to fill out the [NAME] medical report. She told him about the car accident of 2007 and about how physiotherapy didn’t work. She said she was worried that she could not do a physical job. [NAME]’s note doesn’t mention any specific areas of pain, and it doesn’t identify limitations. But the Claimant must have mentioned shoulder pain because [NAME] offered to assess her shoulder at the next visit if the Claimant was interested. Footnote 29 [ 42 ] The Claimant didn’t return to see [NAME] until April 13, 2022. The focus of that visit was about her depression and fatigue. The note briefly mentions chronic pain since the car accident. But there is no discussion about a shoulder assessment or any other type of assessment for that matter. [NAME] wrote that ibuprofen wasn’t working and he offered Tylenol 3. But he said the Claimant didn’t want the Tylenol 3 because she had tried it before and didn’t like it. Footnote 30 [ 43 ] In November 2022, the Claimant asked [NAME] to fill out some paperwork for [COMPANY]. [NAME] examined the Claimant and noted, among other things, that her range of movement in the neck was within normal limits. [NAME] noted back pain, but he didn’t give any details about the pain, including the severity of it or resulting limitations. [NAME] said he discussed back pain options with the Claimant, but he didn’t identify what those options were. Footnote 31 [ 44 ] [NAME] filled out the [NAME] medical report on March 29, 2023. He identified one of the Claimant’s medical conditions as chronic pain in the neck, upper back, and right shoulder. He said the pain began in 2007. He explained the pain results in limited range of motion of the neck and limitations with lifting and moving around. Footnote 32 [ 45 ] [NAME]’s office note of the same date (March 29, 2023) says the Claimant had a backache with right shoulder pain. The doctor said he would monitor it for now with over-the-counter conservative treatments, physiotherapy or chiropractic treatment. Footnote 33 [ 46 ] [NAME]’s next clinical note is dated February 26, 2024, more than one year after December 31, 2022. Footnote 34 [ 47 ] I will now look at what the medical evidence says about the Claimant’s mental health conditions in and around 2022. What the medical evidence says about the Claimant’s mental health conditions [ 48 ] In April 2021, the Claimant had a telephone appointment with a psychiatrist, [NAME]. The Claimant told [NAME] that much of her difficulty came from stressors in her previous job. She explained that in the year before she lost her job, she had been having increased conflict with her manager at work. Before that conflict, she had never felt depressed on an ongoing basis. [ 49 ] The Claimant told [NAME] that the conflict with her manager involved things like: Her manager asking her more often to clean, even though her job was to be a cook. Her manager’s negative response to her explanations that cleaning was very difficult for her to do because of her chronic pain. Her belief that her manager was intentionally over-salting the food so that the Claimant would look bad at her job. [ 50 ] The Claimant told [NAME] that her mood had been persistently low since she stopped working. She preferred to spend much of her time in bed. She didn’t have any hobbies, no longer enjoyed socializing, had difficulty reading and doing basic cleaning tasks, often felt hopeless and tearful, had restless sleep, had low energy most of the time, and had stopped cooking which led to weight gain. She was also worrying more, especially about her son. [ 51 ] The Claimant said she wanted to work again but at a job that involved little interaction with others. She also said she felt limited by pain and having English as a second language. [ 52 ] [NAME] diagnosed a major depressive disorder – single episode, of moderate severity with anxious distress. [NAME] also said she was concerned about the possibility of some paranoia, given the Claimant’s remarks about her manager adding salt to the food she cooked. The doctor didn’t think the Claimant met the threshold for psychosis, but she suggested monitoring for any emerging delusional thought content. [ 53 ] [NAME] recommended therapy and medication changes. But she said the Claimant wasn’t willing to explore either of these. Footnote 35 [ 54 ] In April 2022, the Claimant told [NAME] that she wanted to discuss depression and medication. She explained she felt tired and depressed, with little motivation to do things. [NAME] said the Claimant was on the highest dose of escitalopram ([NAME]). He offered to change her medication, but the Claimant was worried it would make things worse. He also offered to augment (add to) her medication, but the Claimant wasn’t interested in that either. [NAME] said he would reduce the [NAME] to 10 mg and would reassess the Claimant in two months. Footnote 36 [ 55 ] The Claimant didn’t see [NAME] again until November 29, 2022. During that visit, the Claimant said she wasn’t sure if the medication for the depression was working. She said she didn’t have any more sad thoughts but was now having concentration problems and fatigue. She said she was in bed all the time. [NAME] said he would change the Claimant’s medication to venlafaxine (Effexor). He didn’t identify the dosage. Footnote 37 [ 56 ] [NAME]’s [NAME] medical report of March 2023 includes a diagnosis of depression. [NAME] said the depression began in April 2019 and results in an inability to concentrate, forgetfulness, and low mood. Footnote 38 What were the Claimant’s limitations by December 31, 2022? [ 57 ] The evidence shows that by the end of 2022, the Claimant had some functional limitations that would have affected what she could and could not do. [ 58 ] The Claimant had pain in her right arm, shoulders, upper back and neck. But I don’t think the pain was as severe or as limiting as the Claimant suggests. [ 59 ] First, the Claimant was able to work for many years after the car accident of 2007. This shows she was able to work within her limitations. There is no medical evidence showing the Claimant’s pain conditions got worse between 2007 and March 2020. [ 60 ] Second, [NAME] reported more than once that the Claimant’s range of motion in her neck was within normal limits. He said this in November 2021 and again in November 2022. Footnote 39 This tells me that there may have been times when the Claimant had difficulty turning her head to the right, but it wasn’t a persistent problem. [ 61 ] Third, [NAME] offered in November 2021 to assess the Claimant’s shoulder when she returned for her next visit. Footnote 40 However, the Claimant didn’t pursue that assessment. Her next visit with [NAME] after November 2021 was in April 2022 and there was no mention of her shoulder condition at that time. Footnote 41 [ 62 ] Fourth, the Claimant was managing her pain conditions conservatively. She took ibuprofen or Tylenol as needed. Footnote 42 She wasn’t taking any prescribed medications for pain by December 31, 2022. She had done physiotherapy years ago, from February 2007 to March 2007. Footnote 43 But she didn’t do any physiotherapy after March 2007 and before the end of 2022. Footnote 44 [ 63 ] The Claimant’s pain condition likely prevented her from heavy lifting, repetitive bending, and prolonged postures. The Claimant said in March 2023 that she is most comfortable when she can change positions between sitting and standing. She said she can do each for about 20 minutes. Footnote 45 She also said she has a fair ability to do housekeeping (such as cleaning, laundry, meal preparation, and shopping) and home maintenance without frequent breaks. Footnote 46 [ 64 ] As for the mental health conditions, the medical evidence shows that by the end of November 2022, the Claimant wasn’t having sad thoughts. Footnote 47 However, she was experiencing concentration problems, low mood, forgetfulness, motivation problems, and fatigue. She was also spending most of her time in bed. [ 65 ] The Minister’s professional witness ([NAME]) testified that fatigue and low motivation are often multi-factorial, meaning they can be caused by many things. However, she said these symptoms are commonly seen in depression, especially when symptoms are only partially treated. [ 66 ] The medical evidence doesn’t include any cognitive testing and so it is difficult to assess the extent of the Claimant’s concentration and memory issues. Footnote 48 But it is worth noting that in March 2023 the Claimant described her abilities with the following tasks as either fair, good, or very good: Footnote 49 Task How the Claimant rated her ability Open and sort mail at home Very good Manage your budget and pay bills Good Use public transportation Good Understand what people say in everyday conversations Good Read a short message Good Write an e-mail Fair Call to mind words that you want to use while talking to someone Fair Decide between two options Fair Put together a shopping list of 10 or more items Fair [ 67 ] By the end of 2022, the Claimant may not have been able to concentrate, focus or remember things as she had before. But her abilities with the tasks noted above suggest that she retained some functional abilities to concentrate and remember things by the end of 2022. Why the Claimant’s disability wasn’t severe [ 68 ] Even though the Claimant had limitations by the end of 2022, I am unable to find that her disability was severe. I will now explain why. The Claimant continued looking for work after March 2020 [ 69 ] The Claimant said that she looked for work after she was let go from her job in March 2020. She explained that after the pandemic restrictions lifted, she began sending out resumes and looking for work in places like nursing homes and cleaning businesses. She said she continued looking for work in 2021 but wasn’t successful in finding a job. She couldn’t remember when she stopped looking for work. [ 70 ] The Claimant also said that she tried to get a volunteer position at a hospital. That was at some point between March 2020 and 2022. She didn’t end up doing any volunteer work because the hospital never called her. [ 71 ] I asked the Claimant if she thinks she could have worked if she had gotten another job before the end of 2022. She said she didn’t know because she didn’t get a chance to test her abilities. She said she knows she can’t work now, but she isn’t sure if she could have worked by the end of 2022. [ 72 ] The Claimant’s continued efforts to find a job suggest she had some ability to work by the end of 2022. The [NAME] didn’t say the Claimant could not work [ 73 ] The Minister argues that none of the Claimant’s [NAME] recommended that she stop working. [ 74 ] I agree with the Minister. [ 75 ] In April 2021, [NAME] didn’t say the Claimant could not work. She appears to have anticipated a return to work after the Claimant engaged in treatment. [ 76 ] [NAME] didn’t say the Claimant’s disability prevented her from working by December 31, 2022. [ 77 ] When the Claimant first met with [NAME] in November 2021, she asked him to fill out the [NAME] medical report. She explained that she had been in a car accident in 2007 and that physiotherapy hadn’t worked. She acknowledged she had worked since the accident, but she explained she had now lost her job and was worried about her current ability to do a physical job. [ 78 ] [NAME] acknowledged he didn’t know the Claimant well, but he said he didn’t think she “needs disability status.” He didn’t identify any significant findings on physical examination. In fact, he said that the range of motion of her neck was within normal limits. He added that he reviewed the notes from the psychiatrist, and they didn’t suggest a need for disability. Footnote 50 [ 79 ] [NAME] filled out the [NAME] medical report on March 29, 2023. But he didn’t say the Claimant could not work. He didn’t respond to the question on the form asking if he expected his patient to return to any type of work in the future. Footnote 51 [ 80 ] [NAME] filled out the [NAME] medical report in March 2023, the Claimant didn’t return to seem him until February 26, 2024, almost one year later. Even then, [NAME]’s clinical note of February 25, 2024 doesn’t mention anything about neck pain, shoulder pain, or depression. It mentions burning with urination and constant headaches. The doctor suggested the headaches could be related to the Claimant’s high blood pressure. Footnote 52 [ 81 ] I am not suggesting the Claimant no longer had neck pain, shoulder pain, or depression by February 2024. She clearly did. [NAME] confirmed these conditions in a medical report he filled out for the [NAME] ( [NAME] ) in March 2024. The Claimant didn’t follow medical advice about her mental health conditions [ 82 ] To receive a disability pension, a claimant must make reasonable efforts to treat their disability and must follow medical advice. Footnote 53 If a claimant doesn’t do this, then they must have a reasonable explanation for not doing so. Footnote 54 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 55 [ 83 ] The Minister argues that the Claimant didn’t follow medical advice for her mental health. [ 84 ] I agree with the Minister. [ 85 ] In April 2021, [NAME] recommended therapy and medication adjustments. [NAME] said the Claimant wasn’t willing to explore either of these options. [ 86 ] The Claimant said that she didn’t refuse [NAME]’s medical advice. She said she has always done what the [NAME] have told her to do. She also said that she had maybe three counselling sessions a year or two ago. She said the counselling sessions were with a psychiatrist and an assistant. [ 87 ] I find the Claimant declined both of [NAME]’s treatment recommendations. [ 88 ] First, [NAME] didn’t just say the Claimant refused treatment. [NAME] gave specific information about the Claimant’s responses to the medical advice. For example, [NAME] said the Claimant was quite resistant to talk therapy because she “does not enjoy opening up.” [NAME] also said the Claimant was quite reluctant to adjust her medication in any way. This seems to be because the Claimant believed her medication ([NAME]) was working. According to [NAME], the Claimant said that the [NAME] didn’t make her happy but had reduced her tearfulness significantly. The Claimant also told [NAME] that she notices a big change if she misses the medication for a few days. Footnote 56 [ 89 ]  Second, [NAME] said that she told the Claimant that because she wasn’t willing to explore treatment, she would send her treatment recommendations to the Claimant’s family doctor in case the Claimant changed her mind about treatment. [ 90 ] Third, the medical records show that the Claimant declined treatment on other occasions. For example, [NAME] said in April 2022 that the Claimant was not interested in augmenting (adding to) her medication. Footnote 57 In January 2025, another psychiatrist ([NAME]) said the Claimant was reluctant to change her medication ([NAME]). Footnote 58 [ 91 ] Fourth, the Claimant told [NAME] in January 2025 that she had never undergone any formal psychotherapy and had not tried any medication changes since seeing [NAME]. Footnote 59 [ 92 ] Before going further, it is important to point out that [NAME] also recommended therapy (and medication changes). He recommended formal psychotherapy using cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) to help with the Claimant’s symptoms of depression and anxiety. Footnote 60 [ 93 ] Although the Claimant testified that she had maybe three counselling sessions a year or two ago, I see no evidence of this. I think the Claimant was probably referring to the appointment she had in January 2025 with [NAME] and his medical resident. [ 94 ] Because the Claimant said she always did what her [NAME] told her to do, she didn’t provide a reason for not following medical advice. So, I considered whether the reasons she gave to [NAME] amounted to a reasonable explanation. [ 95 ] The Claimant told [NAME] she didn’t want to do the talk therapy because she doesn’t “enjoy opening up.” This isn’t a reasonable explanation. The law about following medical advice doesn’t carve out exceptions for treatment that isn’t enjoyable. Also, [NAME] said that the Claimant had never had any type of counselling or therapy and had never been hospitalized for mental illness. Footnote 61 So, the Claimant’s thoughts about how therapy might make her feel are purely speculative. [ 96 ] In my view, participating in therapy would have made a difference to the Claimant’s disability. [ 97 ] The Claimant said in her application for a disability pension that the conditions that prevent her from working include depression, anxiety, a lack of concentration, and problems with short-term memory. Footnote 62 [ 98 ] [NAME] is a specialist in mental health conditions. She believed the Claimant would benefit very much from speaking with a therapist to perhaps work on her perspective and develop coping mechanisms to target her low mood. Footnote 63 [NAME] suggested that the goals of therapy could help the Claimant be successful with a return to work. [NAME] explained that it would help the Claimant to explore coping mechanisms and ways to reframe her outlook prior to possibly returning to work. Footnote 64 [ 99 ] Finally, as I said before, [NAME] isn’t the only doctor who recommended therapy. [NAME] recommended it too. He explained that it could help with her symptoms of depression and anxiety. Footnote 65 [ 100 ] The Claimant’s decision to not do therapy for her mental health conditions is enough to find that the Claimant didn’t comply with medical advice about how to treat those conditions. However, I will also address the Claimant’s reluctance to adjust her medications. [ 101 ] The Claimant’s response to [NAME] about not wanting to adjust her medications can be looked at in different ways. [ 102 ] On the one hand, the Claimant’s reluctance to adjust her medications could be attributed to the Claimant’s belief that a medication change would not help improve her symptoms. If this was the Claimant’s belief, it would not amount to a reasonable explanation. This is because the reasonable explanation test is objective, not subjective. This means a claimant can’t decide if a treatment will help. There needs to be medical evidence showing a treatment won’t work. Footnote 66 [ 103 ] On the other hand, the Claimant’s reluctance to adjust her medications could be attributed to the Claimant’s belief that the [NAME] was managing her symptoms effectively. [ 104 ] There is some other evidence on file that supports either possibility. [ 105 ] For example, in April 2022 the Claimant told [NAME] that she didn’t want to change her medication because she worried her symptoms would get worse. This could support a finding that the Claimant believed a medication change wouldn’t help improve her symptoms. Footnote 67 [ 106 ] As another example, the Claimant told [NAME] in November 2022 that she wasn’t sure if her medication was working and so she agreed to try a different medication (venlafaxine). Footnote 68 This could support a finding that by November 2022 the Claimant no longer thought the [NAME] was managing her symptoms effectively. [ 107 ] Either way, the evidence shows that the Claimant didn’t follow her doctor’s advice. [ 108 ] In April 2022, the Claimant told [NAME] that she didn’t want to change her medications. But she agreed to try a reduced dose of the [NAME]. She was supposed to try the reduced dose (10 mg) for two months to see if it helped. Footnote 69 The Claimant didn’t return to see [NAME] until November 29, 2022, which was more than seven months after her appointment on April 13, 2022. It was at the appointment in November 2022 that the Claimant said she didn’t know if her medication was working. [ 109 ] When [NAME] prescribed the venlafaxine (Effexor) in November 2022, he didn’t identify what dose he started the Claimant on. Footnote 70 However, he reported in March 2023 that the Claimant stopped the medication in January 2023. Footnote 71 There is inconsistent evidence about why that medication stopped. [ 110 ] In March 2023, [NAME] said the Claimant stopped the venlafaxine because it didn’t work. Footnote 72 In September 2025, he said the medication caused minor side effects. Footnote 73 Whatever the reason, there is no medical evidence showing the Claimant consulted with her doctor before stopping the medication. [NAME]’s clinical notes show appointments on November 29, 2022, and March 29, 2023, with nothing in between. Footnote 74 [ 111 ] This is unfortunate. [NAME] testified that one of the advantages of Effexor is that it comes in a wide variety of dosages. This allows for a very gradual taper, which is helpful to patients who are concerned about side effects. [ 112 ] I also note that when [NAME] filled out the [NAME] medical report on March 29, 2023, he didn’t say the Claimant had resumed the [NAME]. He said he didn’t know when the Claimant stopped that medication. Footnote 75 [ 113 ] If the Claimant’s symptoms were not being effectively managed by December 31, 2022, then trying medication adjustments would likely have made a difference. [ 114 ] [NAME] explained that one of her recommendations (to replace the [NAME] with duloxetine) could help the Claimant’s mood but also her chronic pain. Footnote 76 The Claimant could work in the real world by the end of 2022 [ 115 ] A finding about whether a person can work must include a consideration of things like the Claimant’s 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 77 [ 116 ] In December 2022, the Claimant was 56 years old. So, she had about 9 years ahead of her before the average retirement age of 65. [ 117 ] The Claimant has a high school education from Bosnia. She also finished an [NAME] in Canada in the 2000s. [ 118 ] The Claimant used an interpreter during the hearing, but she acknowledged having some English abilities. She said for example that she has a good ability to understand everyday conversations in English. She also said she could follow short orders to deliver pills to patients at her last job. However, she explained that she needed help to fill out the [NAME] application form. She got that help from a [NAME]. [ 119 ] The Claimant’s work experience includes secretarial work but that was a long time ago and it was in Bosnia where she typed in her first language. Her work experience in Canada consists of cleaning and cooking jobs. [ 120 ] Given the Claimant’s age and difficulties with written English, it would not be realistic to expect her to retrain. But I don’t think the Claimant would have needed to retrain for a different type of job by December 31, 2022. As I said before, the Claimant was looking for the same type of work after the pandemic restrictions lifted. She confirmed she looked for that type of work in 2021. She couldn’t remember when she stopped looking for work. The Claimant didn’t show that her work efforts failed because of her medical conditions [ 121 ] When there is evidence of work capacity (as there is here), the Claimant must show that she tried to find and keep a job. She must also show that her efforts were not successful because of her medical conditions. Footnote 78 Finding and keeping a job includes looking for a job that accommodates her limitations. Footnote 79 [ 122 ] There is evidence of the Claimant having work capacity between March 2020 and December 31, 2022. The Claimant hasn’t worked at any job since then. She has therefore not shown that her work efforts failed because of her medical conditions. This means I can’t find her disability was severe by December 31, 2022. The Claimant’s condition got worse after December 31, 2022 [ 123 ] The Claimant’s post-hearing documents include more recent medical reports such as the psychiatric assessment by [NAME]. [ 124 ] However, I can’t rely on what the more recent reports say. This is because the evidence shows that the Claimant’s condition got worse after the end of 2022. [ 125 ] For example, [NAME] reported in November 2024 that the Claimant re-injured her right arm and neck two days ago. He described it as a “sudden onset” of right upper extremity pain. He said she had minimal mobility of her right arm and limited range of movement of the neck towards the injured side. Footnote 80 [ 126 ] In January 2025, the Claimant told [NAME] that her depressive symptoms had gotten worse since she was laid off in 2020. [ 127 ] In September 2025, [NAME] reported that the Claimant’s pain had gotten worse over the years. Footnote 81 [ 128 ] The medical evidence also shows that the Claimant began active treatment for her pain well after 2022. This is consistent with a pain condition that got worse after 2022. For example, the Claimant tried a steroid injection for her right shoulder in December 2024, and she was prescribed a pain medication (gabapentin) in September 2025. Footnote 82 Conclusion [ 129 ] The Minister’s appeal is allowed. The Claimant isn’t eligible for a [NAME] disability pension because her disability wasn’t severe by December 31, 2022. Because the Claimant’s disability wasn’t severe, there is no need to consider whether it was prolonged. Footnotes Footnote 1 See GD2-79 and the Claimant’s testimony. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See the Claimant’s testimony. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See GD2-78 and AD7-38. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See GD2-24. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 See GD2-27. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 The Minister’s initial decision of November 26, 2023, is at GD2-13 to GD2-15. The Minister’s reconsideration decision of May 8, 2024, is at GD2-9 to GD2-11. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 See AD7. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 See the Tribunal’s letter of February 25, 2026. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 See AD8. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 See AD9. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 See AD10. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 The contributory requirements are set out in section 44(2) of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 A severe disability is defined in section 42(2)(a)(i) of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 The term “substantially gainful” is defined in section 68.1(1) of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 14 referrer Footnote 15 [NAME]  v  Canada (Social Development) , 2008  FCA  33 at paragraph 14. Return to footnote 15 referrer Footnote 16 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2013  FCA  81 at paragraph 7. Return to footnote 16 referrer Footnote 17 A prolonged disability is defined in section 42(2)(a)(ii) of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 17 referrer Footnote 18 See GD2-41. Return to footnote 18 referrer Footnote 19 See GD2-27, GD2-30 to GD2-33. Return to footnote 19 referrer Footnote 20 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2008  FCA  377; and Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2020  FC  206. Return to footnote 20 referrer Footnote 21 See AD7-2. Return to footnote 21 referrer Footnote 22 See AD7-22. Return to footnote 22 referrer Footnote 23 See AD7-6. Return to footnote 23 referrer Footnote 24 See AD7-6. Return to footnote 24 referrer Footnote 25 See AD7-3. Return to footnote 25 referrer Footnote 26 See AD7-74. Return to footnote 26 referrer Footnote 27 See GD2-34, GD2-71 and GD2-83. Return to footnote 27 referrer Footnote 28 See GD2-83. Return to footnote 28 referrer Footnote 29 See GD2-83. Return to footnote 29 referrer Footnote 30 See GD2-83 to GD2-84. Return to footnote 30 referrer Footnote 31 See GD2-84. Return to footnote 31 referrer Footnote 32 See GD2-73. Return to footnote 32 referrer Footnote 33 See GD2-84. Return to footnote 33 referrer Footnote 34 See AD7-2. Return to footnote 34 referrer Footnote 35 See GD2-78 to GD2-82. Return to footnote 35 referrer Footnote 36 See GD2-83. Return to footnote 36 referrer Footnote 37 See GD2-84. Return to footnote 37 referrer Footnote 38 See GD2-72. Return to footnote 38 referrer Footnote 39 See GD2-83 and GD2-84. Return to footnote 39 referrer Footnote 40 See GD2-83. Return to footnote 40 referrer Footnote 41 See GD2-83 to GD2-84. Return to footnote 41 referrer Footnote 42 See GD2-27 and GD2-79. Return to footnote 42 referrer Footnote 43 See GD2-28. Return to footnote 43 referrer Footnote 44 See the Claimant’s testimony. Return to footnote 44 referrer Footnote 45 See GD2-30. Return to footnote 45 referrer Footnote 46 See GD2-33. Return to footnote 46 referrer Footnote 47 See GD2-84. Return to footnote 47 referrer Footnote 48 [NAME] said she did not formally assess the Claimant’s cognition. See GD2-80. Return to footnote 48 referrer Footnote 49 See GD2-32 to GD2-33. Return to footnote 49 referrer Footnote 50 See GD2-83. Return to footnote 50 referrer Footnote 51 See GD2-75. Return to footnote 51 referrer Footnote 52 See AD7-2. Return to footnote 52 referrer Footnote 53 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2018  FCA  48; and [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2022  FCA  104. Return to footnote 53 referrer Footnote 54 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2022  FCA  104. Return to footnote 54 referrer Footnote 55 [NAME]  v  Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development) , 2002  FCA  211. Return to footnote 55 referrer Footnote 56 See GD2-81. Return to footnote 56 referrer Footnote 57 See GD2-83. See also AD7-42. Return to footnote 57 referrer Footnote 58 See AD7-60. Return to footnote 58 referrer Footnote 59 See AD7-57. Return to footnote 59 referrer Footnote 60 See AD7-60. Return to footnote 60 referrer Footnote 61 See GD2-79. Return to footnote 61 referrer Footnote 62 See GD2-27. Return to footnote 62 referrer Footnote 63 See GD2-81. Return to footnote 63 referrer Footnote 64 See GD2-81. Return to footnote 64 referrer Footnote 65 See AD7-60. Return to footnote 65 referrer Footnote 66 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2017  FC  193 at paragraph 59. Return to footnote 66 referrer Footnote 67 See GD2-83. Return to footnote 67 referrer Footnote 68 See GD2-84. Return to footnote 68 referrer Footnote 69 See GD2-83. Return to footnote 69 referrer Footnote 70 See GD2-84. Return to footnote 70 referrer Footnote 71 See GD2-72. Return to footnote 71 referrer Footnote 72 See GD2-72. Return to footnote 72 referrer Footnote 73 See AD7-66. Return to footnote 73 referrer Footnote 74 See GD2-84. Return to footnote 74 referrer Footnote 75 See GD2-72. Return to footnote 75 referrer Footnote 76 See GD2-81. Return to footnote 76 referrer Footnote 77 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2001  FCA  248. Return to footnote 77 referrer Footnote 78 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2003  FCA  117. Return to footnote 78 referrer Footnote 79 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2008  FCA  150. Return to footnote 79 referrer Footnote 80 See AD7-4. Return to footnote 80 referrer Footnote 81 See AD7-47. Return to footnote 81 referrer Footnote 82 See AD7-5, AD7-44 and AD7-47. Return to footnote 82 referrer