CPP Disability Pension Appeal Denied Due to Lack of Evidence

OUTCOME: Dismissed

Citation: MO  v  [RESPONDENT] and [NAME] , 2026  [NAME]  212 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Decision Appellant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] [COUNSEL] under appeal: [NAME] decision dated October 3, 2025 (GP-23-1314) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: Teleconference Hearing date: April 2, 2026 Hearing participants: Appellant Respondent’s representative Decision date: May 27, 2026 File number: AD-25-748 On this page Decision Overview Preliminary matters Issue Analysis Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] The appeal is dismissed. [ 2 ] The Appellant, [APPELLANT]., isn’t eligible for a [NAME] ( [NAME] ) disability pension. Overview [ 3 ] The Appellant is a 62-year-old woman who used to have her own [NAME]. She cleaned homes, businesses, and swimming pools. She says she stopped working in [NAME] in 2014 for medical reasons. After that, she worked sporadically for her daughter, who also had a [NAME]. [ 4 ] The Appellant returned to regular work a few years after 2014. I will talk more about that later. [ 5 ] The Appellant applied for the [NAME] in August 2022. Footnote 1 In her application, she said she can’t work because of dizziness and vertigo, falls, fibromyalgia, joint pain, migraines, depression, an inability to concentrate or think clearly, and a lack of energy. Footnote 2 [ 6 ] The [RESPONDENT] and [NAME] (Minister) denied the application at both the initial and reconsideration levels of review. Footnote 3 [ 7 ] The Appellant appealed the Minister’s reconsideration decision to the Social Security Tribunal’s [NAME]. The [NAME] held an in-person hearing in September 2025 and dismissed the appeal. [ 8 ] The Appellant disagreed with the [NAME]’s decision. So, she asked the Appeal Division for leave (permission) to appeal. In November 2025, one of my colleagues gave the Appellant permission to appeal. [ 9 ] On April 2, 2026, I held a de novo hearing. A de novo hearing means I wasn’t looking at whether the [NAME] made a mistake. I was taking a fresh look at the case, as if it hadn’t been decided before. Preliminary matters [ 10 ] The Appellant came to Canada in 1988. Footnote 4 Before that, she lived and worked in Uruguay. [ 11 ] The file shows that in September 2024, the Minister began looking into whether the Appellant might be helped by the [NAME] between Canada and Uruguay (the Agreement). Footnote 5 The Minister explained that if the Appellant contributed to the [NAME] in Uruguay, then her coverage for the [NAME] could be extended by one year. Footnote 6 [ 12 ] The Minister says that it sent requests to the pension office in Uruguay on September 13, 2024, November 20, 2024, and February 19, 2025. But it didn’t receive a reply. The Minister also wrote to the Appellant to explain the situation. At the same time, the Minister explained the type of information the Minister needed, in the event the Appellant was able to get the information herself directly from Uruguay. Footnote 7 [ 13 ] At the beginning of the hearing, I asked [NAME] if the Minister had any new developments about this issue. The representative said she had no other information than what is in the file. She confirmed the Minister is no longer actively investigating the Appellant’s eligibility under the Agreement. [ 14 ] The Appellant told me that, despite her efforts, she could not get the information herself directly from Uruguay. [ 15 ] I decided to go ahead with the hearing. This is because of the following: A lot of time has passed since the Minister first contacted the pension office in Uruguay in September 2024. Despite efforts from both parties, no information has been received from Uruguay. And there is no indication that information will be received soon. I am required to make sure that the appeal process is as simple and quick as fairness allows. Footnote 8 Neither party objected to the hearing going ahead as scheduled. Issue [ 16 ] The Appellant must prove she has a disability that was severe and prolonged by December 31, 2014, and continuously after that. The date of December 31, 2014, is based on her [NAME] contributions. Footnote 9 [ 17 ] A disability is severe if it makes [NAME] incapable regularly of pursuing any substantially gainful occupation. Footnote 10 [ 18 ] When I am assessing whether a disability is severe, I must focus on whether the Appellant’s medical conditions result in functional limitations that get in the way of her earning a living. Footnote 11 My focus isn’t on the names of the conditions or diagnoses. Footnote 12 [ 19 ] A disability is prolonged if it is likely to be long continued and of indefinite duration or is likely to result in death. [ 20 ] This means the Appellant’s disability can’t have an expected recovery date. The disability must be expected to keep the Appellant out of the workforce for a long time. [ 21 ] The Appellant has to prove her case. She has to prove it on a balance of probabilities. This means that she has to show it is more likely than not that she was disabled by the end of 2014, and continuously after that. If the Appellant became disabled after 2014, then she doesn’t qualify for the disability pension. Analysis [ 22 ] The Appellant hasn’t proven her case. She hasn’t shown she likely had a severe disability by December 31, 2014. The evidence shows that she was able to work after 2014. And the work she did after 2014 shows she had the capacity regularly to pursue a substantially gainful occupation. What the Appellant says about her disability [ 23 ] The Appellant says that she stopped working in [NAME] around October 2014. She says she stopped working because she wasn’t well and her daughters told her she needed to take a break. She thought that after she took a break, she would return to [NAME]. But that didn’t happen. She eventually closed the business, but she doesn’t remember when that was. [ 24 ] The Appellant says that her symptoms and limitations by the end of 2014 were as follows: She had fatigue. This is because of her [NAME] condition and the difficulty her doctor had in optimizing the dosage of her [NAME] medication. She was very weak, had dizziness, and was falling. She initially thought this was because she was tired from working so much. She had pain from fibromyalgia. She had bad headaches. The headaches began around 1995. She had migraines. The migraines began in 2012 or 2013. When she had a migraine, she could not get out of bed. She had high blood pressure. This triggered the headaches and migraines. She had difficulties with focus, concentration, and memory. What the medical evidence says [ 25 ] The Appellant was required to provide medical evidence to support a finding that her medical conditions affected her ability to work no later than December 31, 2014. Footnote 13 [ 26 ] This doesn’t mean that the Appellant was required to file a medical record dated on or before December 31, 2014. But there has to be some documentation related to that date, like a later report from a doctor or health care provider who was involved in the Appellant’s treatment during the relevant time. Footnote 14 [ 27 ] The Appellant provided medical evidence. The medical evidence shows the Appellant had some medical issues in 2014 but nothing too serious. It also shows that the Appellant’s health got worse in 2019. What the [NAME] medical report says [ 28 ] Dr. [APPELLANT] has been the Appellant’s family doctor since 2004. Footnote 15 She filled out the [NAME] medical report on April 11, 2022. In that report, Dr. [NAME] identified four conditions that contribute to the disability. The conditions are as follows: vertigo (the sensation of spinning or falling) hypothyroidism (an underactive [NAME] gland) hypocalcaemia (low levels of calcium in the blood) hypertension (high blood pressure). Footnote 16 [ 29 ] Dr. [NAME] report isn’t of much help. Dr. [NAME] didn’t provide any information about when the symptoms began for the vertigo. Footnote 17 So, I don’t know if the Appellant had vertigo in 2014. [ 30 ] Dr. [APPELLANT] didn’t identify when the hypothyroidism began. But she said the symptoms are fatigue and tiredness. Footnote 18 I can link these symptoms to 2014, but only because of another report on file. I will address that report shortly. [ 31 ] Dr. [NAME] said the hypocalcaemia began after the parathyroidectomy. Footnote 19 She didn’t say when the surgery was, but other reports on file show it was in 2016. So, this means the symptoms from the hypocalcaemia began after 2014. [ 32 ] Dr. [NAME] said the hypertension symptoms began in 2011. But she didn’t identify what the symptoms are. In any case, she said the condition is stable with medication. Footnote 20 What the medical evidence from 2014 says [ 33 ] Dr. [NAME] clinical notes from 2014 are on file. These notes don’t say anything about headaches, migraines, dizziness, vertigo, falls, mental health concerns, cognitive difficulties, or problems managing the high blood pressure. The notes also don’t say anything about the Appellant having to stop work for medical reasons. [ 34 ] The Appellant said she didn’t go to her doctor for every issue she had, including dizziness and falls. [ 35 ] I accept that the medical evidence about an appellant’s limitations doesn’t need to perfectly align with or specifically mention every limitation identified by an appellant. For example, medical evidence that says an appellant is having problems with vertigo or dizziness could support a finding of falls even if the medical evidence doesn’t specifically mention the falls. [ 36 ] But the issue I see with the Appellant’s argument about not going to her doctor for every issue she had is that Dr. [NAME] notes show she went to her doctor regularly in 2014 and she spoke to her doctor about issues that seem less serious than episodes of dizziness resulting in falls. [ 37 ] Dr. [NAME] clinical notes from 2014 and some other medical evidence from 2014 show the following: The Appellant had appointments for routine things like blood work results and prescription refills. On March 6, 2014, the Appellant had a normal x-ray of her temporomandibular joints. Footnote 21 In April and May 2014, the Appellant complained of an earache and sore throat. Footnote 22 The Appellant’s [NAME] continued to be monitored because of a lump on the right side. An ultrasound of May 21, 2014, showed an enlarged and heterogeneous [NAME] gland, which was similar to previous studies of 2011 and 2013. The lymph nodes were normal in size. Footnote 23 On May 20, 2014, the Appellant complained of pain in her left hip that went to her left leg. Footnote 24 On July 14, 2014, the Appellant complained of a sore throat. Footnote 25 In August 2014, the Appellant had an abnormal breast screen. She had further imaging done on August 26, 2014. That imaging showed a small breast nodule with no aggressive features. She was to have more imaging in six months. Footnote 26 Later screening showed normal results. Footnote 27 On August 28, 2014, the Appellant saw her [NAME] because she thought she could feel new nodules. The doctor thought he could feel a couple of nodules too. So, he ordered another ultrasound. He said the Appellant didn’t have any overt symptoms of hypo or hyperthyroidism, though she complained of recent weight gain and fatigue. He was to see the Appellant again in two months. Footnote 28 On September 10, 2014, the Appellant saw her doctor about contact dermatitis (a rash) on her hands. Dr. [APPELLANT] prescribed medication and told the Appellant to avoid the use of chemicals. Footnote 29 On September 17, 2014, an ultrasound report of the [NAME] said the results were unchanged from October 2011. Footnote 30 On December 4, 2014, the Appellant spoke about pain in the sacral and coccyx area (low back and tailbone). Footnote 31 On December 18, 2014, the Appellant spoke about a sore throat. Footnote 32 [ 38 ] I am unable to find that the medical conditions mentioned above, whether considered alone or in combination, would have affected the Appellant’s ability to work by the end of 2014. I will now explain why. [ 39 ] First, Dr. [NAME] notes don’t mention any functional limitations that result from the conditions discussed in 2014. This is just one factor I considered. It isn’t determinative. [ 40 ] Second, the [NAME] noted fatigue in August 2014. But the Appellant testified that the fatigue is not what stopped her from working. In fact, she said that if she just had the fatigue, she would have been able to keep working. She stressed it was the dizziness with falls and the fibromyalgia pain that prevented her from working. [ 41 ] Third, the [NAME] noted recent weight gain. The Appellant didn’t say that weight gain was a condition that affected her ability to work. Also, the [NAME] said the Appellant had recently seen a Dr. [APPELLANT] about the weight issue. Dr. [NAME] report isn’t on file. So, I don’t know what that doctor’s findings or treatment recommendations were. [ 42 ] Fourth, the evidence doesn’t include a follow-up report from the re-assessment the Appellant was supposed to have with her [NAME] two months after August 2014. However, the ultrasound of September 2014 shows the [NAME] condition remained stable. The Appellant had [NAME] surgery, but not until 2016. Even then, the surgery was for a benign (non-cancerous) goiter. Footnote 33 [ 43 ] Fifth, Dr. [NAME] recommended exercise and medication (Naprosyn) for the left hip and left leg pain. Footnote 34 This treatment either helped or the condition got better on its own because there is no further mention of this pain in 2014 or even in 2015. [ 44 ] Sixth, Dr. [NAME] appears to have ordered an x-ray for the sacral and coccyx pain. Footnote 35 But there is no evidence that the x-ray was done. There is no other mention of back pain until December 2016. Footnote 36 So, it seems like this pain either wasn’t a big problem or it got better before it recurred in late 2016. [ 45 ] Finally, the Appellant reported in her application that her medical conditions prevented her from working as of September 2019. Footnote 37 She said the same thing in a previous application she made in 2021. Footnote 38 This tells me that it was the medical events of September 2019 (which I will address shortly) that rendered the Appellant unable to work. What the medical evidence after 2014 shows [ 46 ] Most of the medical evidence in this file is from after 2014. I have looked at that evidence to see if it could support a finding of medical conditions that resulted in functional limitations by the end of 2014. It doesn’t. [ 47 ] On March 10, 2015, the Appellant saw Dr. [APPELLANT] for severe pain in her right shoulder. Footnote 39 This was close in time to December 2014. But there is nothing to show the shoulder pain began before the end of 2014. The clinical note of March 10, 2015, doesn’t say how long the Appellant had been having the shoulder pain. If the shoulder pain had begun before the end of 2014, then presumably it would have been mentioned in Dr. [NAME] clinical notes of 2014. But it isn’t mentioned. [ 48 ] Other medical evidence after 2014 shows the following: The Appellant began to experience regular headaches and significant dizziness with falls in or around September 2019. Footnote 40 The Appellant was diagnosed with fibromyalgia in 2020. I acknowledge the Appellant told a [NAME] in March 2020 that she had been having muscle and joint pain for the “last few years.” Footnote 41 But this just means the pain began before 2020. It doesn’t show the pain dated back to 2014. Dr. [NAME] noted complaints of body aches in her clinical note of December 2018. Footnote 42 But that was four years after December 2014. Even so, Dr. [APPELLANT] later reported that the Appellant’s body aches and muscle and joint pain began in December 2019. Footnote 43 The Appellant injured her left ankle in a fall of May 2021. Footnote 44 In November 2021, the Appellant had testing done for numbness in her hands. The report says the Appellant had been having the hand numbness for “quite some time.” Footnote 45 This shows the numbness began before 2021. It doesn’t show the numbness was happening in 2014. The earliest report I see of hand tingling or numbness is a clinical note of September 2016. Footnote 46 What were the Appellant’s functional limitations by the end of 2014? [ 49 ] The medical evidence doesn’t show that the Appellant had much in the way of functional limitations by the end of 2014. [ 50 ] She had fatigue but she said the fatigue is not what prevented her from working. [ 51 ] She may have had some low back pain and tailbone pain. But, like the left hip and leg pain, that pain appears to have been short-lived or was successfully managed with medication. [ 52 ] She had a rash on her hands, for which she was prescribed medication. I could not find anything in the medical records about the Appellant’s response to that medication. In any event, there is no indication the Appellant could not manage the condition with gloves while doing her cleaning work. The Appellant could work in the real world by the end of 2014 [ 53 ] A finding about whether [NAME] can work must include a consideration of things like the Appellant’s age, level of education, language abilities, and past work and life experience. These factors help me decide whether the Appellant could work in the real world. Footnote 47 [ 54 ] In December 2014, the Appellant was 50 years old. So, she still had about 15 years before the average retirement age of 65. [ 55 ] I acknowledge the Appellant has limited education. She said she finished at least two years of secondary school but didn’t get her diploma. Footnote 48 I also acknowledge that the Appellant has some limitations with the English language. She testified that her abilities range from poor to so-so to good, depending on the circumstances. She said, for example, she can go to a grocery store and ask about tomatoes. But she said she doesn’t think she could have a casual conversation with someone in English. She also said that she always has a family member with her to translate during medical appointments. [ 56 ] [NAME] pointed out that there is conflicting evidence in the medical reports about whether the Appellant has always had someone with her to translate. For example, a report of a telephone consult with a [NAME] from March 2020 makes no mention of the Appellant having anyone with her during the call. Footnote 49 But a report one year later from the same doctor says the Appellant had her daughter with her during the call. Footnote 50 [ 57 ] Nothing turns on the Appellant’s language proficiency in English. In other words, the Appellant’s abilities in English are not a big factor in this case. This is because the evidence doesn’t show that the Appellant couldn’t continue with her regular work by the end of 2014. [ 58 ] This would be enough to find the Appellant ineligible for the [NAME]. But there is another important issue that I need to address. That issue is about the Appellant’s work activity after 2014. The Appellant worked after 2014 [ 59 ] The Appellant worked regularly at two jobs after 2014. [ 60 ] The Appellant worked for her daughter’s cleaning company for about one year. That was from about February 2018 to February 2019. I don’t have any information about this work activity, other than what the Appellant told me. She said she dusted and cleaned furniture. She said she worked two or three days a week, though there were some weeks when she didn’t work at all. [ 61 ] The Appellant said she was still working for her daughter when she got a job as a room attendant at a [COMPANY] in February 2019. She worked at that job from February 4, 2019, to September 9, 2019. Her job duties included cleaning the guest rooms and making the beds. Footnote 51 She stopped working at the [COMPANY] for medical reasons. Why it matters that the Appellant worked after 2014 [ 62 ] The Appellant’s work activity after 2014 is important for two reasons. [ 63 ] The first reason is that the definition of a severe disability is directly linked to [NAME]’s ability to work. This is because the [NAME] disability program is designed to provide social insurance to those who experience a loss of earnings due to disability. Footnote 52 [ 64 ] The second reason is that the Appellant is required to show that she was disabled by the end of 2014 and continuously after that . Footnote 53 [ 65 ] That said, the fact that the Appellant worked after 2014 does not, by itself, mean that her disability wasn’t severe. I must decide if the work she did was indicative of a capacity regularly to pursue a substantially gainful occupation. The Appellant’s work at the [COMPANY] shows she had a capacity regularly to pursue a substantially gainful occupation after 2014 [ 66 ] As I said before, there is no information on file about the work the Appellant did for her daughter’s cleaning company in 2018 and 2019. I can’t confirm, for example, how much she worked or how much she earned. [ 67 ] But if I focus on the work the Appellant did at the [COMPANY], that work shows she had the capacity regularly to pursue a substantially gainful job. I will explain why. The Appellant was capable regularly of working [ 68 ] I considered whether the Appellant was a reliable employee. In other words, I looked at whether the Appellant was capable regularly of working. She was. [ 69 ] First, the Appellant worked at the [COMPANY] for about seven continuous months. This is a good amount of time. This was also right after she worked for her daughter’s cleaning company for about one year. So, this is not a case involving a sudden attempt to try to work after not working for many years. It is also not a case involving sporadic or intermittent periods of work attempts. [ 70 ] Second, the Appellant worked full-time hours at the [COMPANY] (40 hours a week). This was confirmed by the Appellant’s [NAME]. Footnote 54 [ 71 ] Third, the Appellant had good attendance at work. This again was confirmed by the Appellant’s [NAME]. Footnote 55 In fact, the employer provided a copy of the Appellant’s Timecard Report. It shows the Appellant had only one unpaid sick day, three personal days, and four vacation days. Footnote 56 [ 72 ] Fourth, the date the Appellant stopped working (September 2019) aligns with the time she began having significant difficulties with dizziness and falls. This suggests that she didn’t stop working due to the medical conditions she had before then. The Appellant’s earnings were substantially gainful [ 73 ] A job is substantially gainful if it provides a salary or wages that is the same as or more than the maximum annual amount [NAME] could receive as a disability pension. Footnote 57 [ 74 ] The Appellant’s earnings in 2019 were higher than the maximum annual [NAME] in 2019. In 2019, the most [NAME] could receive as a [NAME] was $16,347.60. Footnote 58 The Appellant earned $27,596 for about seven months of work. Footnote 59 The Appellant didn’t have a [NAME] [ 75 ] A [NAME] is one who will change the working conditions and lower the expectations of an employee who has limitations. A [NAME] expects significantly less from the disabled employee than from other employees. A [NAME] accepts that the employee can’t work at a competitive level. Footnote 60 [ 76 ] If the Appellant had a [NAME], then it could mean she wasn’t actually capable of pursuing a substantially gainful occupation, despite what her income shows. [ 77 ] The Appellant didn’t say she had a [NAME], or words to that effect. But I considered it anyway. [ 78 ] Evidence from the Appellant’s employer shows that the Appellant may have had some accommodations at work. But having accommodations at work isn’t the same as having a [NAME]. [ 79 ] The things the employer did to help the Appellant don’t show that the employer expected considerably less from the Appellant compared to other employees. I say this because of the following: The employer said the Appellant needed help from co-workers to strip beds, but the employer described the help as slight and the employer said the help was mainly provided on heavier check-out days. Footnote 61 The employer said the Appellant possibly had a lower number of rooms assigned to her. The employer explained that the standard assignment is 14 rooms in an 8-hour shift. The employer didn’t explain how much the Appellant’s assignment may have been reduced by. It is likely this mainly happened on heavier check-out days because the employer also said the Appellant didn’t need any special arrangements at work. Footnote 62 The employer said the Appellant had the ability to handle the demands of the job with simple modifications. Footnote 63 The employer said they were satisfied with the quality of the Appellant’s work at the [COMPANY]. Footnote 64 The employer paid the Appellant a competitive wage – $22.00 an hour. Footnote 65 The Appellant reported in each of her two applications that she didn’t have to do a lighter job or different type of work because of her medical conditions. Footnote 66 [ 80 ] All of this shows that the Appellant had the capacity regularly to pursue a substantially gainful occupation. This means I can’t find that her disability was severe. Conclusion [ 81 ] The appeal is dismissed. The Appellant isn’t eligible for a [NAME] because her disability wasn’t severe by December 31, 2014, and continuously after that. Footnotes Footnote 1 See GD2-67. Even though the Appellant filed her application in August 2022, the Minister recognized an application date of May 2022. This is when the Minister received the [NAME] medical report from the Appellant’s family doctor. See AD6-5. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See GD2-70. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 The Minister’s initial decision from November 10, 2022, is at GD2-63 to GD2-65. The Minister’s reconsideration decision from May 17, 2023, is at GD2-11 to GD2-14. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See GD2-68. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 See GD22. The Agreement is formally called the Agreement on Social Security Between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Eastern Republic of Uruguay. It came into force on January 1, 2002. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 See GD20. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 See GD30. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 See section 8(1) of the Social Security Tribunal Rules of Procedure . Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 The Appellant’s [NAME] contributions are at GD3-7. The contributory requirements are in section 44(2) of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 A severe disability is defined in section 42(2)(a)(i) of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 [NAME]  v  [NAME]) , 2008  FCA  33 at paragraph 14. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 [NAME]  v  Canada ([NAME] [NAME]) , 2013  FCA  81 at paragraph 7. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 [NAME]  v  Canada ([NAME] [NAME]) , 2008  FCA  377; and Canada ([NAME] [NAME])  v  [NAME] , 2020  FC  206. Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 See LR  v  [RESPONDENT] and [NAME] , 2021  [NAME]  267 at paragraph 19. While other Appeal Division decisions aren’t binding, they may be persuasive. Return to footnote 14 referrer Footnote 15 See GD2-176 and GD2-408. Return to footnote 15 referrer Footnote 16 The Minister explained these medical terms at GD13-2 to GD13-4. Return to footnote 16 referrer Footnote 17 See GD2-300 and GD2-301. Return to footnote 17 referrer Footnote 18 See GD2-301. Return to footnote 18 referrer Footnote 19 See GD2-302. Return to footnote 19 referrer Footnote 20 See GD2-304. Dr. [NAME] said something similar in May 2023. See GD2-76. Return to footnote 20 referrer Footnote 21 See GD2-292. Return to footnote 21 referrer Footnote 22 See GD2-289 and GD2-291. Return to footnote 22 referrer Footnote 23 See GD2-199. Return to footnote 23 referrer Footnote 24 See GD2-294. Return to footnote 24 referrer Footnote 25 See GD2-294. Return to footnote 25 referrer Footnote 26 See GD2-277, GD2-279, and GD2-282. Return to footnote 26 referrer Footnote 27 See GD2-432. Return to footnote 27 referrer Footnote 28 See AD8-3, AD8-4 and AD8-21. Return to footnote 28 referrer Footnote 29 See GD2-278. Return to footnote 29 referrer Footnote 30 See AD8-5. Return to footnote 30 referrer Footnote 31 See GD2-283. Return to footnote 31 referrer Footnote 32 See GD2-283. Return to footnote 32 referrer Footnote 33 See GD2-149, GD2-176, and GD2-191. Return to footnote 33 referrer Footnote 34 See GD2-294. Return to footnote 34 referrer Footnote 35 See GD2-283. The handwriting is difficult to read. Return to footnote 35 referrer Footnote 36 See GD2-281. Return to footnote 36 referrer Footnote 37 See GD2-70. Return to footnote 37 referrer Footnote 38 See GD2-106. Return to footnote 38 referrer Footnote 39 See GD2-283. Return to footnote 39 referrer Footnote 40 See GD2-183, GD2-211, GD2-255, GD2-258, GD2-261, GD2-264, GD2-267, GD2-379, GD2-403, and GD2-408. Return to footnote 40 referrer Footnote 41 See GD2-247 and GD2-320. Return to footnote 41 referrer Footnote 42 See GD2-260. Return to footnote 42 referrer Footnote 43 See GD2-379. Return to footnote 43 referrer Footnote 44 See GD2-307. Return to footnote 44 referrer Footnote 45 See GD2-217. Return to footnote 45 referrer Footnote 46 See GD2-272. Return to footnote 46 referrer Footnote 47 [NAME]  v  Canada ([NAME] [NAME]) , 2001  FCA  248. Return to footnote 47 referrer Footnote 48 See GD2-80. Return to footnote 48 referrer Footnote 49 See GD2-319. Return to footnote 49 referrer Footnote 50 See GD2-314. Return to footnote 50 referrer Footnote 51 See GD2-165. Return to footnote 51 referrer Footnote 52 [NAME]  v  Canada ([RESPONDENT] and Immigration) , [2000] 1 S.C.R., 703 at paragraph 9. Return to footnote 52 referrer Footnote 53 See Canada ([NAME] [NAME])  v  [NAME] , 2015  FC  1348, at paragraph 31; [NAME]  v  Canada ([NAME] [NAME]) , 2022  FCA  104 at paragraph 9; [NAME]  v  Canada ([NAME] [NAME]) , 2024  FCA  4 at paragraph 36; and [RESPONDENT] and [NAME]  v  [NAME] , 2025  [NAME]  1264, at paragraphs 158 to 175. I am bound by decisions from the Federal Court of Appeal. I am not bound by other Tribunal decisions. But I agree with the reasoning in [RESPONDENT] and [NAME]  v  [NAME] , 2025  [NAME]  1264 and I note that reasoning was followed in [RESPONDENT] and [NAME]  v  AA , 2026  [NAME]  8 at paragraphs 18 to 27. Return to footnote 53 referrer Footnote 54 See GD2-165. Return to footnote 54 referrer Footnote 55 See GD2-165 and GD2-166. Return to footnote 55 referrer Footnote 56 See GD2-169 to GD2-173. Return to footnote 56 referrer Footnote 57 See section 68.1(1) of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 57 referrer Footnote 58 I calculated this by multiplying the maximum monthly disability pension for 2019 ($1,362.30) by 12. The Minister says the substantially gainful threshold for 2019 was $18,508.36 (see AD6-4). It appears the Minister may have mistakenly used the threshold from 2023 rather than 2019. Return to footnote 58 referrer Footnote 59 See GD2-7, GD2-125, GD3-7, and GD13-14. Return to footnote 59 referrer Footnote 60 [NAME]  v  Canada ([NAME] [NAME]) , 2014  FCA  187; and Canada ([NAME] [NAME])  v  [NAME] , 2023  FCA  204. Return to footnote 60 referrer Footnote 61 See GD2-167. Return to footnote 61 referrer Footnote 62 See GD2-166 to GD2-167. Return to footnote 62 referrer Footnote 63 See GD2-167. Return to footnote 63 referrer Footnote 64 See GD2-166. Return to footnote 64 referrer Footnote 65 See GD2-165. Return to footnote 65 referrer Footnote 66 See GD2-80 and GD2-115. Return to footnote 66 referrer