CPP Disability Pension Appeal Dismissed Due to Insufficient Evidence

Citation: [NAME] v [NAME] , 2026  [NAME]  55 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Decision Appellant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] [NAME] and [NAME] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated April 3, 2025 (GP-24-871) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: In Writing Decision date: January 27, 2026 File number: AD-25-388 On this page Decision Overview Issues Analysis Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] The appeal is dismissed. The Claimant is not entitled to a [NAME] ( [NAME] ) disability pension. Overview [ 2 ] In this decision, I will refer to the Appellant, [NAME]., as the “Claimant.” I will refer to the Respondent, the [NAME], as the “Minister.” [ 3 ] The Claimant worked for many years at a government agency (Agency). As his work was sensitive, I will not provide too many details about it. His last job at the Agency was a supervisory position related to cybersecurity. He did that from July 2012 until August 2020. He has not worked since then. Footnote 1 [ 4 ] The Claimant applied soon after for disability insurance through the Agency’s insurer. However, he did not apply for a [NAME] disability pension until January 2023. At that time, he said he was unable to work due to autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and “associated burnout/regression symptoms.” He said his ASD was undiagnosed until late 2020, after a severe “burnout” episode brought on by changes at work. Footnote 2 [ 5 ] The Minister denied the Claimant’s claim initially and on reconsideration. The Claimant then appealed to the General Division of the Social Security Tribunal (Tribunal). After a written hearing, the Tribunal’s General Division dismissed his appeal. He then obtained leave to appeal that decision from one of my Appeal Division colleagues. He once again requested a written hearing, due to his difficulties with most forms of communication. Footnote 3 [ 6 ] The Claimant argued that he is disabled by ASD and the associated ASD burnout he suffered in 2020. He said he continues to receive appropriate treatment from a psychotherapist but is still unable to work. He said he does not take medication for ASD because ASD is not treatable in that way. He added that ASD is not static over time. He said his symptoms and limitations prevented work by August 2020, although he has always had ASD and could work before. [ 7 ] The Minister argued that the Claimant could work with ASD for much of his life. The Minister said he may have been temporarily disabled around late 2020 by the combined impact of ASD and other conditions such as anxiety, depression, or an adjustment disorder. However, the Minister said those other conditions have either passed or have not been treated appropriately. He also had residual work capacity and did not pursue work. Thus, the Minister said he isn’t entitled to a [NAME] disability pension. [ 8 ] I must decide whether the Claimant had a severe and prolonged disability by December 31, 2024. [ 9 ] For the reasons set out below, I find that the Claimant did not have a severe and prolonged disability by the end of 2024. Issues [ 10 ] The issues in this appeal are: a) Did the Claimant have a severe disability by the end of 2024? b) If so, did he also have a prolonged disability? c) If the answer to b) is “yes,” when does his [NAME] disability pension start? Analysis [ 11 ] The Claimant’s MQP , or coverage period, ended on December 31,  2024. Footnote 4 That is the date by which he must establish a disability. His disability must also have been continuous since then. Footnote 5 [ 12 ] Under the [NAME] , a disability must be both severe and prolonged. [ 13 ] The [NAME] says a disability is severe if it makes a person incapable regularly of pursuing any substantially gainful occupation. Footnote 6 [ 14 ] When assessing severity, I must look at all of the Claimant’s medical conditions together to see what effect they have on his work ability. Footnote 7 If he can regularly do some type of work from which he could earn a living, he is not entitled to a disability pension. [ 15 ] The [NAME] says a disability is prolonged if it is likely to be long continued and of indefinite duration, or is likely to result in death. Footnote 8 Did the Claimant have a severe disability by the end of 2024? [ 16 ] I find that the Claimant did not have a severe disability by the end of 2024. I will first set out his claimed functional limitations. What were the Claimant’s functional limitations by the end of 2024? [ 17 ] The Claimant’s main functional limitations by the end of 2024 were in the areas of uncertainty and social interaction. [ 18 ] The Claimant bases his appeal on ASD. He said his core autistic symptoms leave him incapable of working. He does not argue that depression or anxiety render him unable to work. Footnote 9 Further, both he and the Minister appear to agree that he no longer suffered from an adjustment disorder. An adjustment disorder is clinically defined as lasting no more than six months, and his original diagnosis was in November  2020. Footnote 10 [ 19 ] However, I must focus on the Claimant’s functional limitations, rather than the nature or name of his medical conditions. Footnote 11 In turn, this focus must be on his functional limitations as of December 31, 2024. If he did not have a severe disability at that time, it is irrelevant that he might have had one at other times. [ 20 ] This makes the evidence around the end of 2024 especially important. The Claimant stopped working in 2020, and I see a lot of medical evidence from then. But he also had an adjustment disorder at that time. The period around the end of 2024, after the adjustment disorder had passed, therefore has much more probative value. [ 21 ] In my view, the most pertinent limitations would have been the ones given by the Claimant in February 2025. At that time, he set out the functional limitations that prevented him from working by December 31, 2024. Footnote 12 [ 22 ] The Claimant said he had moderate to severe autistic problems in two areas. The first area is social communication and interaction. The second area is restricted/repetitive behaviour and intolerance of uncertainty. Footnote 13 [ 23 ] Regarding social interaction, the Claimant listed the following limitations: Footnote 14 Difficulty processing or describing emotions. Extreme literalism in interactions. Sudden withdrawal from conversations. Unable to tolerate expression of opinion. Unable to regulate expression. Often speaks with eyes closed or in an “unfriendly” way. Can only mask his reactions for brief periods and in predictable situations. [ 24 ] For restricted/repetitive behaviour and uncertainty intolerance, the Claimant listed the following limitations: Footnote 15 Extreme anxiety about consequential interactions. Not tolerant of schedule disruptions. Hyperanalysis of information and “rabbit holing”. Extreme interest in a few niche subjects. Extreme adherence to routine. Not tolerant of outcome uncertainty. Very limited resiliency to normal events such as a minor illness, bad weather, minor breakdowns, filling out forms, or going to appointments. [ 25 ] Finally, the Claimant said he had some common ASD “comorbidities”: Footnote 16 Moderate to severe generalized anxiety disorder (especially about health, security, safety, and people in general). Disordered sleep. Memory difficulty: forgets what he has done or recalls doing things that he did not actually do. [ 26 ] I will now see if the medical evidence could support the claimed limitations by the end of 2024. This is important because [NAME] disability applicants must provide some medical evidence about their underlying conditions. Footnote 17 Does the medical evidence support the claimed limitations? [ 27 ] I find that the medical evidence could support the claimed limitations. I will now explain why. [ 28 ] In June 2024, [NAME] (family doctor) said he recommended that the Claimant stop working because of ASD. Footnote 18 [ 29 ] In June 2025, [NAME] said the Claimant’s medical conditions were andropause, ASD, and fatty liver. Footnote 19 [ 30 ] [NAME] diagnosed ASD both before and after December 31, 2024. As noted, the Claimant attributed his functional limitations entirely to ASD. His claimed functional limitations do appear to be consistent with an ASD diagnosis. It follows that the medical evidence could support those limitations around the end of 2024. [ 31 ] Next, I will look at the Claimant’s personal characteristics. What were the Claimant’s relevant personal characteristics? [ 32 ] When deciding whether the Claimant had a severe disability, I must consider factors such as his: Footnote 20 Age Language ability Education level Past work and life experience [ 33 ] These factors will help me decide whether the Claimant could work in the real world. I will look at each of them in turn. [ 34 ] The Claimant was 52 years old at the end of 2024. He was still more than 12 years away from the typical retirement age of 65. His age might only have been a factor for work with significant physical demands or that needed extensive new learning. However, under very specific conditions, he continues to attend the [NAME] five times per week. Footnote 21 He has also denied having any physical limitations. Footnote 22 This points to at least some capacity for physical tasks. [ 35 ] The Claimant speaks English fluently. English is one of Canada’s official languages. Thus, his language ability would not interfere with his ability to work in the real world. He had some ability to speak French too, which is also an official language. Footnote 23 [ 36 ] The Claimant is very well educated. He has a bachelor’s degree in history. He also took masters’ level courses in political science for two years. Further, he showed a capacity to learn independently. He taught himself the technical skills that formed the core of his employment with the Agency. Footnote 24 For the vast majority of jobs, his education would not be a barrier. [ 37 ] The Claimant has had significant work experience. He worked at the Agency for more than twenty years. His last role involved supervising and directing technical staff in cybersecurity operations. He also performed cybersecurity operations himself. He had at least one other supervisory role at the Agency. Footnote 25 [ 38 ] Before working for the Agency, the Claimant held a variety of positions for a year or two at a time. This included roles working: Footnote 26 as a line cook. in other food service positions. as a bicycle messenger. as a research assistant and ghost writer for a professor. in a [NAME] (through a temp agency). as a legal assistant. [ 39 ] Finally, the Claimant says he easily notices patterns in numbers and things. Footnote 27 [ 40 ] The Claimant’s work and life experience are focused primarily on cybersecurity and related supervisory roles. But he has shown an aptitude for bike courier work, general office work, work involving pattern recognition, food service work, and researching and writing. [ 41 ] Without considering the Claimant’s medical conditions , I find that his personal characteristics would have prepared him for work in cybersecurity, technical supervisory roles, clerical work, food service and preparation, and research and writing. Despite his bike courier experience, and his ongoing [NAME] workouts, I find such work less appropriate for a 52-year-old whose work has been mostly in offices. [ 42 ] I will now apply the Claimant’s personal characteristics to his limitations, so I can decide whether he had any residual work capacity by the end of 2024. I need to focus on the period leading up to the end of 2024 because that was the end of his MQP . If he was not severely disabled continuously since then, his appeal cannot succeed. Did the Claimant have any residual work capacity by the end of 2024? [ 43 ] The Claimant did not have residual work capacity by the end of 2024. I will now explain why. [ 44 ] I note that some of the Claimant’s claimed limitations do not preclude all forms of work. In fact, traits such as “rabbit holing”, extreme literalism, and extreme interest in a few niche subjects may even be desirable for some research or computer-related roles. [ 45 ] To support his appeal, the Claimant submitted recent evidence from his [NAME]. This evidence is from shortly before and after the end of 2024. I’ll look at the 2024 evidence first. 2024 evidence from [NAME] [ 46 ] In April 2024, [NAME] (psychotherapist) recommended that the Claimant medically retire from his Agency job. Mr. [NAME] said he would not be able to tolerate a return to work, even with reduced responsibilities. Mr. [NAME] said no known treatments or plausible workplace accommodations would let him do his job in any capacity. Footnote 28 [ 47 ] In particular, Mr. [NAME] said: Footnote 29 ...[He] continues to express symptoms of severe burnout due to [his] very limited tolerance for many types of common and unavoidable external stimulation. [He] will rapidly become extremely exhausted and display maladaptive behaviours including severe anxiety, obsessive thinking, and avoidance when exposed to specific types of stimulation for too long. Examples of stimulation types that can trigger exhaustion or other behaviours include: A variety of executive functioning tasks including planning, organizing, and decision making Anticipation of events (tasks to be performed, …meetings, deadlines) Changes in [his] routine (even minor) or that of things or people around [him] Socialization outside of very specific controlled circumstances The sensation that [he] is being perceived by another person, including online The presence of people, outside of a very small number of familiar individuals, whether [he] is required to interact or not information gathering and retention, or any substantial cognitive effort (e.g. writing text or computer code, or having to understand complex information) Engaging in any form of communication, including digital, verbal and written. [ 48 ] Mr. [NAME] added: Footnote 30 [As his] working role requires the ability to manage stimulation in all of the above areas, [he] wouldn’t be able to tolerate a return to work, even with reduced responsibilities. The above would negatively impact his ability to communicate with others in any format, to manage people, to engage in problem solving, to gather information, to engage in listening processes, to follow directions and to recognize patterns, all of which are necessary for [him] to perform [his] role… Should [he] return to work in any capacity, not only would it promote [him] to maintain [his] current burnout, but it would cause further harm to [him]. [ 49 ] In my view, Mr. [NAME]’s conclusions focus on the Claimant’s former supervisory role at the Agency. But the [NAME] definition of severity is not based on a person’s last job. As a result, Mr. [NAME]’s conclusions are not determinative. However, some of the specific stimulation comments may still be relevant. I will address those later. [ 50 ] In June 2024, [NAME] made a declaration in support of the Claimant’s medical retirement from the Agency. [NAME] selected the option stating that the Claimant, “is permanently incapable of pursuing regularly any substantially gainful occupation commencing [August 25,  2020].” Footnote 31 [ 51 ] Also in June 2024, [NAME] said he had recommended that the Claimant stop working because of ASD. [NAME] said he would never be able to resume his usual work, due to the “severe psychological effects of ASD.” For the same reason, [NAME] also said he would never be able to engage in any gainful occupation (based on his education, training, or experience). [NAME] again set the date of disability as August  2020. Footnote 32 [ 52 ] Unlike Mr. [NAME] in April 2024, [NAME]’s June 2024 conclusions address both the Claimant’s usual job and his ability to pursue regularly any substantially gainful occupation. I’ll now look at what Mr. [NAME] and [NAME] said in 2025. 2025 evidence from [NAME] [ 53 ] In June 2025, [NAME] said the Claimant had andropause, a fatty liver, and ASD (which had caused severe anxiety and depression). [NAME] concluded by saying the Claimant needed, “extensive psychological support to deal with diagnosis and is not functioning well reports are inc” [ sic ]. [NAME] may have been referring to ASD here, but it is not clear. Nor is it clear that [NAME]’s letter is complete, given the absence of punctuation and the use of “inc” [ sic ]. Footnote 33 [ 54 ] I do not find [NAME]’s June 2025 letter to be very helpful. It really only says that the Claimant is “not functioning well.” That does not say much about work capacity. [ 55 ] In August 2025, Mr. [NAME] recommended that the Claimant not be considered for any sustained employment, including any part-time or casual role. Footnote 34 [ 56 ] Mr. [NAME] said performing any type of work, “may promote additional harm.” Mr. [NAME] said the Claimant’s energy was not consistent from day to day, so he often had to cancel plans. Mr. [NAME] said he could not maintain, “any type of employment consistency, without risk.” Mr. [NAME] said that energetic days often came at a cost, as the Claimant would need consistent rest over the following days. Footnote 35 [ 57 ] But then Mr. [NAME] added: Footnote 36 [the Claimant] would also not be a good fit for any stay-at-home position where the emphasis is on communication, whether written or verbal. Even when [he] is fully energized, social communication, whether written or verbal, comes at a substantial cost and results in overstimulation. This means that [he] would not be able to provide timely responses to any questions and/or requests. This also means that remote work is not a suitable fit for [him]. [His] fluctuating energy is also unlikely to be changed with any type of medication based off of [ sic ] current research into autistic burnout. Finally, [the Claimant] also presents with substantial fears relating to online security and monitoring. These fears contribute to delays in online correspondences being responded to in a timely fashion. [ 58 ] Mr. [NAME] specifically mentions stay-at-home (remote) work, and suggests that the Claimant could not do it. But he also appears to qualify that by saying the Claimant would not be a good fit for such work if the emphasis were on social communication. But work such as coding or research does not need to have a regular emphasis on social communication. The Claimant’s background supports such work. As noted, some of his limitations might even enhance his ability to do such work. [ 59 ] In my view, Mr. [NAME] has muddied the waters by excluding a specific type of remote work. It follows that other forms of remote work may not be precluded. Footnote 37 Mr. [NAME]’s August 2025 opinion is more helpful on the issue of full-time employment for the Claimant. Full-time work would likely exacerbate the risks identified by Mr. [NAME]. Conclusions on the 2024 and 2025 evidence [ 60 ] I see a fairly definitive June 2024 conclusion from [NAME] that the Claimant was severely disabled under the [NAME] . However, [NAME]’s June 2025 statement is of little value. [ 61 ] Mr. [NAME]’s April 2024 statement focuses on the Claimant’s supervisory role at the Agency. Mr. [NAME]’s August 2025 statement initially suggests that he had no work capacity at all, even on a part-time basis, but then introduces doubt about remote work that did not emphasize communication. [ 62 ] I agree that the Claimant could not do his former job as a supervisor at the Agency. Nor could he work in any supervisory role or in an office setting. The Claimant’s ongoing difficulty with social interaction would preclude that. [ 63 ] Similarly, I do not think it is reasonable for the Claimant to work in any food service role. Dealing with patrons or fellow employees would be an essential component of such work. I do not see him succeeding in that environment, particularly with the periods of intense pressure that often arise in such work. [ 64 ] I further accept that the Claimant would not have the ability to work full-time. [ 65 ] But I am left with some doubt that, by the end of 2024, the Claimant did not have any capacity for part-time, remote, and relatively independent work such as coding or research. To resolve this, I will turn to his own timely evidence. The Claimant’s own evidence [ 66 ] In February 2025, the Claimant said he was often capable of relatively complex computer-related or mechanical tasks on a one-off basis. However, he said he needed to do those things in extremely familiar and safe settings. This meant other people, except for his wife or a close friend, couldn’t see or hear him. He also said he needed to extensively plan tasks in advance. He said he could not reliably respond to external requests to do such a task if: Footnote 38 Communication with other people was required, Any degree of accountability was required, Priorities or desired outcomes changed, The task might not go as expected, or He experienced any other outside disruption of his normal routine. [ 67 ] Also in February 2025, the Claimant said he was “intermittently able to perform some relatively complex tasks.” But he did not think he could earn enough money to reach the “substantially gainful” threshold. He gave similar evidence in August  2025. Footnote 39 I will address this issue shortly. [ 68 ] The Claimant’s February 2025 statements point to some work capacity, albeit with extensive restrictions that may be unworkable in the real world. However, his other evidence indicates that these restrictions may not be as extensive as they first appear. [ 69 ] For example, the Claimant still attends a [NAME] five times per week. He has done this for years. He goes at off-peak times. He uses headphones and avoids communicating with anyone. Footnote 40 However, he cannot control who else would be there. People other than his wife and close friends could see him. Something unusual could always happen. In other words, with accommodations such as headphones and little social interaction, he has shown that he can carry out this task regularly. [ 70 ] Similarly, the Claimant continues to drive a car. Footnote 41 Driving is a complex, and potentially dangerous, activity. A driver is responsible for both his own safety and the safety of others. A driver must constantly react to unexpected events. Sometimes, routes change or delays occur. Other drivers may break the rules or not act rationally. To suggest that he could not handle any degree of accountability or any unexpected event is inconsistent with continuing to drive a car. [ 71 ] I accept that unpredictable events are less comfortable for the Claimant. Ideally, the roads and the [NAME] would be empty, and nothing would interfere with his planned activities. But he has shown that he can regularly offset less-than-ideal conditions by headphones and careful scheduling. Similarly, working from home and with other social accommodations would help minimize the situations that he finds the most challenging. [ 72 ] Assessing work capacity is not restricted to work that is not accommodated. Accommodated work is available and can be considered too. Footnote 42 The necessary accommodations could certainly be made in researching or coding. The Claimant could also largely rely on written communication, which is his preference. Footnote 43 [ 73 ] Furthermore, work capacity does not need to be full-time. I note that substantially gainful work would amount to earnings of only $16,651.92 in 2020. Footnote 44 The Claimant’s income from cybersecurity work in 2020 was at least $58,700.00, although it likely was far more. This is because $58,700.00 was the maximum amount of unadjusted pensionable earnings in 2020. The Claimant had it. In fact, he had the maximum pensionable earnings every year from 2000 to 2020. Footnote 45 [ 74 ] A closer look at the Claimant’s earnings suggests that his income from cybersecurity work was over $100,000.00 per year, starting in 2014. Footnote 46 Accordingly, if he did research or coding in this area at anywhere close to his previous hourly rate, Footnote 47 he would only have to work a small fraction of full-time hours to achieve substantially gainful earnings. A lack of supervisory responsibilities would likely affect his earnings somewhat, but he still has technical expertise in a lucrative sector. [ 75 ] I find that, on a balance of probabilities, the Claimant retained some capacity for remote coding or researching. As noted above, he is suited for those roles. [ 76 ] I acknowledge Mr. [NAME]’s April 2024 statement that writing text or computer code could lead to exhaustion for the Claimant. Footnote 48 But Mr. [NAME]’s opinion was in the context of the Claimant’s old job. It was also a possibility, as opposed to a certainty. Further, it is not clear to me that Mr. [NAME] considered part-time work when he made that statement. As noted, the Claimant might only need to work a couple of hours per day to reach the substantially gainful threshold. That would likely reduce the risk of exhaustion. [ 77 ] When a [NAME] disability applicant has some work capacity, he must show that efforts at obtaining and maintaining employment have been unsuccessful because of his health condition. The Federal Court of Appeal’s decision in a case called [NAME] mandates this. Footnote 49 I will now look at the Claimant’s efforts in that regard. Were the Claimant’s efforts at obtaining and maintaining employment unsuccessful because of his health conditions? [ 78 ] The Claimant’s efforts to obtain and maintain suitable work did not fail around the end of 2024 because of his health condition. I will now explain why. [ 79 ] The Claimant has not worked since August 2020. He has not applied for any jobs since August 2020. Footnote 50 [ 80 ] The Claimant did not try to obtain or maintain work at the relevant times. This means he cannot say that his efforts in that regard failed due to his health condition. This means he cannot establish a severe disability. His appeal cannot succeed. [ 81 ] I appreciate that the Agency continued to “employ” the Claimant until his medical retirement took effect in October 2024. Further, based on a different standard of disability, he had been getting a disability benefit from a private insurer. As he freely admits, he is not facing financial hardship and did not need to seek employment. Footnote 51 [ 82 ] In those unique circumstances, it may not be surprising that the Claimant did not attempt or pursue work after August 2020. However, I must apply the applicable law. This includes binding Federal Court of Appeal decisions, such as [NAME] . Did the Claimant also have a prolonged disability? [ 83 ] As I found that the Claimant did not have a severe disability, I do not need to answer this question. Conclusion [ 84 ] The appeal is dismissed. The Claimant is not entitled to a [NAME] disability pension. His disability was not severe, under the [NAME] , by December 31, 2024. Footnotes Footnote 1 See GD2-36. Return to footnote 1 Footnote 2 See GD2-23 and GD2-26. Return to footnote 2 Footnote 3 See AD1-11. Return to footnote 3 Footnote 4 This date is based on the Claimant’s [NAME] contributions. His [NAME] contributions are at GD2-6. Service Canada uses a person’s years of [NAME] contributions to calculate their coverage period ( MQP ). See section 44(2) of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 4 Footnote 5 See Canada (Attorney General) v [NAME] , 2015 FC  1348, at paragraph 31. Return to footnote 5 Footnote 6 See section 42(2)(a) of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 6 Footnote 7 [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2011 FCA  47, at paragraph 8. Return to footnote 7 Footnote 8 See section 42(2)(a) of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 8 Footnote 9 See AD15-2. Return to footnote 9 Footnote 10 See GD2-71, AD11-2 and AD13-2. Return to footnote 10 Footnote 11 [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2013 FCA  81, at paragraph 7. Return to footnote 11 Footnote 12 See GD11-3 and GD12-3. Return to footnote 12 Footnote 13 See GD12-3. The Claimant affirmed this in November 2025 at AD15-2. Return to footnote 13 Footnote 14 See GD12-3. Return to footnote 14 Footnote 15 See GD12-3. Return to footnote 15 Footnote 16 See GD12-3. Return to footnote 16 Footnote 17 [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2008 FCA  377, and Canada (Attorney General) v [NAME] , 2020 FC  206. Return to footnote 17 Footnote 18 See AD4-35. Return to footnote 18 Footnote 19 See AD4-1. Return to footnote 19 Footnote 20 [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2002 FCA  248. Return to footnote 20 Footnote 21 See GD2-101 and GD6-3. Return to footnote 21 Footnote 22 See GD2-29 and GD12-4. Return to footnote 22 Footnote 23 See GD12-5. Return to footnote 23 Footnote 24 See GD12-5. Return to footnote 24 Footnote 25 See GD2-36 and AD11-2. Return to footnote 25 Footnote 26 See AD11-2. Return to footnote 26 Footnote 27 See GD6-14. Return to footnote 27 Footnote 28 See AD4-33. Return to footnote 28 Footnote 29 See AD4-32 to AD4-33. Return to footnote 29 Footnote 30 See AD4-33. Return to footnote 30 Footnote 31 See GD5-4. Return to footnote 31 Footnote 32 See AD4-35. Return to footnote 32 Footnote 33 See AD4-1. Return to footnote 33 Footnote 34 See AD6-26. Return to footnote 34 Footnote 35 See AD6-26. Return to footnote 35 Footnote 36 See AD6-26. Return to footnote 36 Footnote 37 This type of inference is mentioned in decisions such as Stroud v Canada (Attorney General) , [1999] FCJ 200, at paragraph 10. Return to footnote 37 Footnote 38 See GD12-3. Return to footnote 38 Footnote 39 See GD12-3 and AD6-3. Return to footnote 39 Footnote 40 See, for example, GD2-101, GD2-107, GD2-133, GD6-3, GD6-9, GD6-18, GD12-4, and AD6-3. Return to footnote 40 Footnote 41 See, for example, GD2-29, GD2-95, GD2-101, GD2-133, GD6-3, GD6-9, and GD6-14. Return to footnote 41 Footnote 42 See, for example, RG v [NAME] , 2022 [NAME]  1356, at paragraph 65. While other Tribunal decisions are not binding, they can be persuasive. Return to footnote 42 Footnote 43 See, for example, AD1-11. Return to footnote 43 Footnote 44 See s. 68.1(1) of the [NAME] . Substantially gainful earnings are equal to the maximum annual amount of a [NAME] disability pension. In 2020, that amount was $16,651.92. Return to footnote 44 Footnote 45 See GD2-6. Return to footnote 45 Footnote 46 See GD2-44 to GD2-45 and GD2-49 to GD2-50. Return to footnote 46 Footnote 47 The Claimant may have been paid a salary rather than an hourly rate. Even so, it would not be difficult to determine a rough hourly rate based on his salary and his total hours worked. Return to footnote 47 Footnote 48 See AD4-33. Return to footnote 48 Footnote 49 [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2003 FCA  117, at paragraph 3. Return to footnote 49 Footnote 50 See GD7-2, GD7-3, GD12-3 (responding to GD11-3), and AD11-2 (responding to AD10-3). Return to footnote 50 Footnote 51 See GD7-3 and AD11-2. Return to footnote 51