CPP Disability Pension Appeal Dismissed

Citation: PH  v  [NAME] , 2026  SST  23 Social Security Tribunal of Canada General Division – Income Security Section Decision Appellant: [redacted] Representative: S. E. Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: [NAME] reconsideration decision dated February 14, 2025 (issued by Service Canada) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: Videoconference Hearing date: January 15, 2026 Hearing participants: Appellant Appellant’s representative and witness Decision date: January 19, 2026 File number: GP-25-812 On this page Decision Overview What the Appellant must prove Reasons for my decision Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] The appeal is dismissed. [ 2 ] The Appellant, P. H, isn’t eligible for a [NAME] ( [NAME] ) disability pension. This decision explains why I am dismissing the appeal. Overview [ 3 ] The Appellant is 67 years old. He worked for many years for the same company as an IT architect. He developed depression and burn out in 2013 or 2014. He took about 9 months off work. He then went back to work until he was forced to retire as an in June 2016. He says he developed a deep depression when he was forced to retire. He looked for work but couldn’t find a job. He had a heart attack in May 2020, and a stroke with traumatic brain injury in February 2021. [ 4 ] The Appellant applied for a [NAME] disability pension in March 2024. The [NAME] (Minister) refused his application. The Appellant appealed the Minister’s decision to the Social Security Tribunal’s General Division. [ 5 ] In his application the Appellant said that he wasn’t able to work as of February 2021. However, at the hearing he said he wasn’t able to work since June 2016 because of a deep depression. [ 6 ] The Minister says that the Appellant’s disabling condition was a stroke in February 2021. Because he had a stroke after his [NAME] disability pension coverage ended on December 31, 2019, he isn’t eligible for a disability pension. What the Appellant must prove [ 7 ] For the Appellant to succeed, he must prove he has a disability that was severe and prolonged by December 31, 2019. In other words, no later than December 31, 2019. This date is based on his [NAME] contributions. Footnote 1 He must also prove that he continues to be disabled. Footnote 2 [ 8 ] The [NAME] defines “severe” and “prolonged.” [ 9 ] A disability is severe if it makes an appellant incapable regularly of pursuing any substantially gainful occupation. Footnote 3 [ 10 ] This means I have to look at all of the Appellant’s medical conditions together to see what effect they have on his ability to work. I also have to look at his background (including his age, level of education, and past work and life experience). This is so I can get a realistic or “real world” picture of whether his disability is severe. If the Appellant is capable regularly of doing some kind of work that he could earn a living from, then he isn’t entitled to a disability pension. [ 11 ] A disability is prolonged if it is likely to be long continued and of indefinite duration, or is likely to result in death. Footnote 4 [ 12 ] 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. [ 13 ] The Appellant has to prove he has a severe and prolonged disability. He has to prove this on a balance of probabilities. This means he has to show it is more likely than not that he is disabled. Reasons for my decision [ 14 ] I find that the Appellant hasn’t proven he had a severe and prolonged disability by December 31, 2019. Was the Appellant’s disability severe? [ 15 ] The Appellant’s disability wasn’t severe by December 31, 2019. I reached this finding by considering several factors. I explain these factors below. The Appellant’s functional limitations affected his ability to work [ 16 ] The Appellant has the following medical conditions: diabetes since November 2015 coronary artery disease since November 2015 depression since 2013 or 2014 mild obstructive sleep apnea since September 2019 a heart attack in May 2020 a stroke in February 2021 [ 17 ] However, I can’t focus on the Appellant’s diagnoses. Footnote 5 Instead, I must focus on whether he has functional limitations that got in the way of him earning a living. Footnote 6 When I do this, I have to look at all of the Appellant’s medical conditions (not just the main one) and think about how they affected his ability to work. Footnote 7 [ 18 ] I find that the Appellant had functional limitations that affected his ability to work by December 31, 2019. What the Appellant’s spouse said about his functional limitations [ 19 ] The Appellant’s spouse testified that the Appellant developed depression and was off work for about nine months in 2014. He took a three-week mindfulness course. He then went back to work. As I will discuss below, the medical evidence shows that the Appellant had an episode of depression in 2013, not 2014. I don’t know which is accurate but find that it doesn’t matter. [ 20 ] The Appellant’s spouse testified that when the Appellant was forced to retire in June 2016 he developed a deep depression. He spent the whole day in his den and watched television in the evening. She said his depression has slowly gotten worse. [ 21 ] The Appellant’s spouse testified that she completed the Appellant’s application for a [NAME] disability pension. In the application she said he became incapable of working in February 2021 because it was easier. She said it was easier because there wasn’t any evidence of his depression. What the Appellant says about his functional limitations [ 22 ] In his application the Appellant said he felt he could no longer work as of February 2021 because of: Footnote 8 severe stroke brain hemorrhage craniectomy (part of his skull being relieved to remove pressure) acquired brain injury full left side paralysis visual impairment incontinence [ 23 ] He didn’t mention depression as one of his conditions. [ 24 ] At the hearing the Appellant testified he became incapable of working when he had his stroke in February 2021. However, when I asked him about his depression, he said that he has been incapable of working since he was forced to retire in June 2016. [ 25 ] The Appellant testified that his diabetes and sleep apnea did not result in functional limitations which affected his ability to work. What the medical evidence says about the Appellant’s functional limitations [ 26 ] The Appellant must provide some medical evidence to support that his functional limitations affected his ability to work no later than December 31, 2019. Footnote 9 The medical evidence supports that he had functional limitations related to depression before December 31, 2019. [ 27 ] In April 2021, [NAME] treated the Appellant for stroke rehabilitation. As part of the history of the Appellant, [NAME] said that the Appellant was treated for depression in 2013. Footnote 10 It isn’t clear from [NAME]’s history whether it was based on what the Appellant told him or medical records. If it was based on what the Appellant told him, it isn’t medical evidence. [ 28 ] In April 2024, [NAME] assessed the Appellant for post-stroke difficulties, pain and muscle stiffness/tightness. He too noted that the Appellant’s medical history included depression. Footnote 11 Again, it isn’t clear whether this was based on what the Appellant told him or medical records. It also isn’t clear whether [NAME] was talking about the episode of depression in 2013 or 2014, or after the Appellant was forced to retire in 2016. [ 29 ] There is some evidence of functional limitations related to depression by December 31, 2019. The Appellant could work in the real world before December 31, 2019 [ 30 ] I find that the Appellant could work in the real work before December 31, 2019. To come to this conclusion, I considered both his personal characteristics and whether there is medical evidence of functional limitations. The Appellant’s personal characteristics [ 31 ] When I am deciding whether the Appellant could work, I can’t just look at his medical conditions and how they affected what he could do before December 31, 2019. I must also consider factors such as his: age level of education language abilities past work and life experience [ 32 ] These factors help me decide whether the Appellant can work in the real world—in other words, whether it is realistic to say that he can work. Footnote 12 [ 33 ] In December 2019 the Appellant was 61 years old. This put him at a disadvantage. On the other hand, he spoke English fluently, had a high school education and many years of experience as an IT architect. This suggests that he was employable. I find that the factors which show he could work outweigh his age. The evidence doesn’t support that the Appellant had significant functional limitations related to depression before his stroke [ 34 ] Although there is medical evidence that the Appellant had functional limitations related to depression before his stroke, I find that the medical evidence does not show that these functional limitations significantly impacted his ability to work prior to his stroke in February 2021. I say this for several reasons. [ 35 ] First, the Appellant’s family doctor did not diagnose the Appellant with depression in his medical report. Nor did his family doctor identify any depression related functional limitations. [ 36 ] Second, neither [NAME] nor [NAME] actually diagnosed the Appellant with depression. They only noted that he had a history of depression. More importantly, neither of these doctors, nor any doctor for that matter, described any functional limitations related to depression. [ 37 ] Third, although there is evidence that the Appellant took time off in either 2013 or 2014 for depression, he worked after that. This tells me that his depression related functional limitations improved after that episode of depression. [ 38 ] Fourth, in describing his functional limitations, the Appellant said: Footnote 13 No change in behaviour and emotional abilities since February 2021 stroke . Very emotional and cries often. Limited understanding of new situations. Often feels sad and low due to loss of all abilities, hobbies, friends, independence and life in general. Concentration is under one minute - accordingly keeping at any task is near impossible without continuous reminders. Emotions/sadness varies from day to day. Takes anti-depressant. (Emphasis added). [ 39 ] This tells me that, at least in his application, the Appellant didn’t claim to have depressive limitations until he had a stroke in February 2021. My findings about how the Appellant’s functional limitations affected his ability to work [ 40 ] Considering the medical evidence and what the Appellant said in his application, I find that the Appellant’s depression didn’t significantly affect his ability to work until he had a stroke. He had his stroke after December 31, 2019. Conclusion [ 41 ] I find that the Appellant isn’t eligible for a [NAME] disability pension because his disability wasn’t severe by December 31, 2019. Because I have found that his disability wasn’t severe, I didn’t have to consider whether it was prolonged. [ 42 ] This means the appeal is dismissed. Footnotes Footnote 1 Service Canada uses an appellant’s years of [NAME] contributions to calculate their coverage period, or “minimum qualifying period” ( MQP ). The end of the coverage period is called the MQP date. See section 44(2) of the [NAME] . The Appellant’s [NAME] contributions are on GD2-74 and GD2-75. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 In Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2020  FC  1093, the Federal Court said that the appellant has to show a severe and prolonged disability by the end of their minimum qualifying period and continuously after that. See also [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2011  FCA  318. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 Section 42(2)(a) of the [NAME] gives this definition of severe disability. Section 68.1 of the [NAME] says a job is “substantially gainful” if it pays a salary or wages equal to or greater than the maximum annual amount a person could receive as a disability pension. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 Section 42(2)(a) of the [NAME] gives this definition of prolonged disability. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2013  FCA  81. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 [NAME]  v  Canada (Social Development) , 2008  FCA  33. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2011  FCA  47. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 See GD2-52. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2008  FCA  377; and Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2020  FC  206. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 See GD2-211 to GD2-213. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 See GD2-154. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2001  FCA  248. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 See GD2-57. Return to footnote 13 referrer