CPP Disability Pension Appeal Dismissed Due to Insufficient Evidence

Citation: SR v [NAME] , 2026  [NAME]  286 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Decision Appellant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] [NAME] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated August 12, 2025 (GP-25-483) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: Teleconference Hearing date: March 20, 2026 Hearing participants: Appellant Respondent’s representative Respondent’s witness Decision date: April 10, 2026 File number: AD-25-678 On this page Decision Overview Issues Analysis Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] The appeal is dismissed. The Appellant is not entitled to a [NAME] ( [NAME] ) disability pension. Overview [ 2 ] I will refer to the Appellant, S. R, as the “Claimant.” I will refer to the Respondent, the [NAME], as the “Minister.” [ 3 ] The Claimant was 45 years old by the end of 2008. She said her last long-term job ended in March 2009. This was a physically demanding role as a personal support worker (PSW). She had held that job since June 2000. She said she had to stop due to her medical conditions. Footnote 1 The evidence suggests she did not work much since then. [ 4 ] The Claimant applied for a [NAME] in December 2023. At that time, she said her main medical conditions preventing work were fibromyalgia, varicose veins, a hysterectomy, a left ear condition, and spinal conditions (including scoliosis). She also identified menopause and some other conditions related to her main conditions. She said she was no longer able to work on March 15, 2009, due to her medical conditions. Footnote 2 [ 5 ] The Minister denied the Claimant’s application initially and on reconsideration. She then appealed to the Social Security Tribunal (Tribunal). The Tribunal’s General Division dismissed her appeal. She then requested leave to appeal at the Tribunal’s Appeal Division. One of my Appeal Division colleagues granted her leave to appeal. The Claimant wanted a teleconference hearing. Footnote 3 Nobody asked me to consider the testimony from the General Division hearing. [ 6 ] The Claimant submitted that she has had her medical conditions from birth. The conditions have worsened over time, and other secondary conditions have flowed from those main conditions. She also said it was very hard for others to assess the severity of her disability when they haven’t experienced what she has gone through. She also suggested that some important information from her previous [NAME] was not available. She said those [NAME] have either retired or died. [ 7 ] The Minister acknowledged that the Claimant has medical concerns, but said she did not prove that she was disabled under the [NAME] by the end of 2008. The Minister said this was mainly due to a lack of medical documents from that time. Specifically, the Minister said the Claimant’s back, hearing, and varicose vein issues did not affect her work capacity by the end of 2008. The Minister added that her other concerns did not arise until after 2008, and the later work she attempted was not suitable for her. [ 8 ] I must decide whether the Claimant had a severe and prolonged disability by December 31, 2008. [ 9 ] For the reasons set out below, I find that the Claimant did/did not have a severe and prolonged disability by December 31, 2008. Issues [ 10 ] The issues in this appeal are: a) Did the Claimant have a severe disability by December 31, 2008? b) If so, did the Claimant also have a prolonged disability? c) If the answer to b) is “yes,” when does the Claimant’s [NAME] start? Analysis [ 11 ] The Claimant’s minimum qualifying period ( MQP ), or coverage period, ended on December 31, 2008. Footnote 4 That is when she must establish the onset of a disability, as defined by the [NAME] . Her 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 her work ability. Footnote 7 If she can regularly do some type of work from which she could earn a living, she isn’t 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 December 31, 2008? [ 16 ] The Claimant did not have a severe disability by December 31, 2008. I will now explain why. [ 17 ] I will first review the Claimant’s functional limitations by December 31, 2008. The Claimant’s functional limitations by the end of 2008 [ 18 ] I find that the Claimant’s main reported functional limitations by the end of 2008 were likely with hearing, tasks requiring hand strength, or tasks requiring back or leg exertion. I will now explain why. [ 19 ] While the Claimant identified many medical conditions and symptoms, she did not identify functional limitations as often. She also tended to focus on her current limitations rather than her functional limitations at the end of 2008. As she said her condition has worsened over time, some current limitations may have existed in 2008. [ 20 ] At the hearing, the Claimant specifically mentioned hearing loss, limitations related to “heavy” or weak limbs, and trouble holding things. But I will also look at the limitations she identified when she applied for the [NAME] in late 2023. [ 21 ] On her application, the Claimant said all her behaviours and emotional abilities were excellent. Her communication and thinking abilities were all excellent too. Except for her housekeeping ability, which she rated as “fair,” all her other daily abilities were good to excellent. Footnote 9 However, she identified six “poor” physical abilities: Footnote 10 Get into a kneeling or squatting position and back up again Change a light bulb in the ceiling above her head Sit for at least 20 minutes in a straight-back chair Pull or push a heavy door to open it Pick up two bags of groceries and walk a block Open a can with a manual can opener [ 22 ] In her written explanations, the Claimant expanded on her pain complaints. But she did not identify many specific functional limitations. I can infer that she was unable to perform tasks that required a certain amount of leg strength. Footnote 11 [ 23 ] I will now see if the medical evidence could support the claimed limitations by the end of 2008. This is important because [NAME] disability applicants must provide some medical evidence about their underlying conditions. Footnote 12 Does the medical evidence support the claimed limitations? [ 24 ] The medical evidence could support the limitations with hearing and tasks requiring back or leg exertion by the end of 2008. But I don’t see any medical evidence supporting hand strength limitations by the end of 2008. I will now explain why. [ 25 ] [NAME] (family doctor) completed a report for [NAME] disability purposes in October 2023. However, of the four diagnoses given by [NAME], only the Claimant’s varicose vein and hearing issues existed by the end of 2008. Her chronic S1 radiculopathy and fibromyalgia only started in 2017 and 2014 respectively. Footnote 13 [ 26 ] As for the medical documents up to the end of 2008, they all pertain to the Claimant’s ears except for a single 2005 lumbar spine X-ray. That X-ray arose from a complaint of low back pain. While it revealed a “transitional L5 vertebral body”, and spina bifida occulta (SBO), I see no follow-up or treatment for pain for several years either before or after the end of 2008. Footnote 14 [ 27 ] I see medical evidence up to the end of 2008 that could be connected to the claimed hearing and back-related limitations. The varicose vein issue could impact the Claimant’s leg-related limitations too. However, I do not see any medical evidence linked to hand limitations. [ 28 ] The above evidence does have problems. For example, it is not clear that the Claimant’s hearing condition continuously affected her ability to work since 2008, as her doctor gave the onset date as both 2004 and 2009. Footnote 15 Similarly, as noted, the low back concern seems to have disappeared for a long time after the 2005 X-ray. However, at this stage of my analysis, those concerns are relatively less important. They will be more important when I look at whether she had work capacity by the end of 2008. [ 29 ] I will now look at the Claimant’s personal characteristics. What were the Claimant’s relevant personal characteristics? [ 30 ] When deciding whether the Claimant had a severe disability, I must consider factors such as her: Footnote 16 Age Language ability Education level Past work and life experience [ 31 ] These factors will help me decide whether the Claimant could work in the real world. I will look at each of them in turn. [ 32 ] The Claimant was 45 years old at the end of 2008. She was still 20 years away from the typical retirement age in Canada. Her age would not have affected her work capacity in the real world. [ 33 ] The Claimant speaks English fluently. English is an official language in Canada. Her language ability would not have affected her work capacity in the real world. [ 34 ] The Claimant completed both high school and a college diploma. The diploma was in the [NAME]. With this education, she would have been qualified for many semi-skilled or unskilled positions that required a high school education but no further qualifications. She could also have worked as a PSW. [ 35 ] Most of the Claimant’s work experience was as a PSW. She reported having a full-time PSW position from June 2000 to March 2009. Footnote 17 She also said all her post-2009 work attempts were as a PSW. At the hearing, she was also asked about her income from 1984 to (May) 2000, because she had reported income from every one of those years. Footnote 18 She said that all this income was from “menial jobs.” When asked which menial jobs, she said all this income was from babysitting. [ 36 ] I have concerns about the Claimant’s explanation. She first referred to “menial jobs,” which implies more than one type of job, but then said she had only done one type. Nor is it clear that caring for children could be called “menial.” I also note that she had [NAME] during this period, and appeared to shuttle back and forth between Ontario and Nova Scotia. Footnote 19 Further, babysitting is rarely done on an employee-employer basis with statutory deductions for taxes and other government programs such as [NAME] . Instead, it often is on a private, cash basis. [ 37 ] Given the above, I prefer the Claimant’s original answer that referred to “menial jobs” rather than her subsequent “babysitting only” answer. I find that she likely worked in multiple roles during this time, including babysitting, even if she could not provide specifics. Her work history would therefore be consistent with menial work, babysitting, and being a PSW. But it would likely preclude any skilled work outside the [NAME]. [ 38 ] Without considering the Claimant’s medical conditions , her personal characteristics meant that she was suited for PSW work, babysitting, and many jobs that did not require more than a high school education. This includes jobs that are unskilled, semi-skilled, or menial. They may have had significant physical or repetitive demands, although those elements weren’t essential. [ 39 ] I will now apply the Claimant’s personal characteristics to her limitations, so I can decide whether she had any residual work capacity by the end of 2008. I need to focus on that period, as that was when her coverage ended. If she did not have a severe disability continuously since then, her appeal cannot succeed. Did the Claimant have any residual work capacity by the end of 2008? [ 40 ] The Claimant had residual work capacity by the end of 2008. I’ll now explain why. [ 41 ] This question requires me to look at the Claimant’s alleged functional limitations involving hearing and back and leg exertion. I must assess the true extent of those limitations by the end of 2008 and compare those limitations to the work she could have done in the real world. [ 42 ] The Claimant placed a lot of emphasis on the fact that she has SBO. She said this was the catalyst that led to her other disabling conditions. [ 43 ] I accept that the Claimant has had SBO since birth. Both she and Dr. [NAME], the Minister’s medical witness, gave evidence about that. However, I also accept [NAME]’s evidence that SBO can be present in healthy adults. [NAME] said most people with SBO don’t have any symptoms at all. This is one of the reasons I need to focus on functional limitations rather than diagnoses. Footnote 20 I also note that [NAME] did not even mention SBO in her report for [NAME] disability purposes. Footnote 21 [ 44 ] Despite having SBO since birth, the Claimant earned $20,135.00 in 2005 and $26,312.00 in 2006. Footnote 22 This reinforces that having SBO since birth does not necessarily preclude substantially gainful employment. I note that in 2014, a “substantially gainful” occupation paid only $14,836.20 per year. Footnote 23 [ 45 ] I would now like to comment on the Claimant’s evidence about her work history. The Claimant’s evidence about her work history [ 46 ] The earnings above may understate the Claimant’s actual income. She said she worked both full- and part-time as a PSW from June 15, 2000, to March 15, 2009. However, her earnings for [NAME] purposes were $0.00 in 2008 and 2009. Her earnings for [NAME] purposes were also under $10,000.00 for 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2007. Footnote 24 [ 47 ] The Claimant’s explanation at the Appeal Division hearing muddied this unclear work and earnings situation further. She said her PSW job was full-time and casual, so she would not necessarily work every week. However, she still said she usually worked 24-32 hours per week. This is not at all consistent with, for example, having zero earnings in both 2008 and 2009 and earning only $3,354.00 in 2004.I further note that she reported earnings from [NAME] in 2003 and 2004. Footnote 25 [ 48 ] As noted above, the Claimant also gave puzzling evidence about her income from 1984 to 1999. She said it was all from babysitting. However, babysitting earnings often do not appear as income for [NAME] purposes. [ 49 ] The Claimant’s answers to questions about her 2008 tax return also raise concerns. On that return, she reported no employment income but $1,116.00 in “ [NAME] and other benefits” and $1,406.40 in “Other income.” Footnote 26 She was asked about this return at the Appeal Division hearing. She said her tax accountant had handled her taxes for 20-25 years, but she signed it every year. However, the 2008 and 2009 returns were only filed in 2024. Footnote 27 She also suggested that her earnings were perhaps included with her husband’s earnings. Earlier in 2024, she said her 2008 return should show earnings. Footnote 28 [ 50 ] The Claimant also gave conflicting evidence at the Appeal Division hearing about her work after March 15, 2009. She first said she never worked after that date. Later, when asked about apparent earnings for [NAME] purposes after that date, she said she went to a training session for a PSW job but was unable to do the work. [ 51 ] However, the Claimant had income for [NAME] purposes in four years (2011, 2012, 2019, and 2020) after 2009. Footnote 29 She suggested that these additional years could have been PSW work as well, but she had to give that work up because she couldn’t do the work. She also told a specialist in 2018 that she, “spends her entire working day standing.” She told another specialist in 2013 that she worked as a PSW. Footnote 30 This suggests she was working in 2013 and 2018 too. [ 52 ] Further, in January 2026, the Claimant said, “in 2015 and 2017 measures for gainful employment were unsuccessful.” This suggests she also worked in 2015 and 2017. At the hearing, she said these “measures” consisted of attending orientation for a casual and lighter PSW job. But she stopped after the learning of the job details. All the above is at odds with her initial testimony that she did not work after March 2009. [ 53 ] Finally, at the Appeal Division hearing, the Claimant could not accurately provide the dates that she received regular [NAME] benefits after 2004. She said she once received such benefits for a year, and it was more than 15 years ago, but she was not sure if it was before or after the December 2008 operation. She said it was so long ago that she could not remember. Later in the hearing, however, she said she didn’t receive [NAME] benefits after she stopped work in March 2009 because she did not make enough [NAME] contributions. [ 54 ] The issue of [NAME] benefits could be important, as regular [NAME] benefits are usually only payable to a person who is “capable of and available for work.” Footnote 31 [ 55 ] Looking at all the Claimant’s evidence about her work history, I cannot find it reliable. This includes the nature of the work, the timing of the work, and her ability to do it. I am not suggesting that she deliberately gave incorrect evidence. Credibility and reliability are two different things. I also accept that recalling past events is not always easy. But my many concerns about this issue mean that I prefer to rely on objective (medical) evidence about the key period leading up to December 31, 2008. [ 56 ] Evidence created in and around the period in question is usually much more reliable than evidence created many years later about that period. However, I will consider both types of evidence. The medical evidence about the Claimant’s limitations by the end of 2008 [ 57 ] After the Claimant’s June 2005 X-ray and before her early 2012 hysterectomy, her only medical evidence related to her ears. Dr. [NAME] (ear specialist) gave most of this. Some comes from [NAME] (ear surgeon). I accept that the Claimant had a left ear concern. This led to surgery by [NAME] in December 2008. However, I am not convinced that her functional limitations with hearing at this time were extensive. [ 58 ] In April 2008, Dr. [NAME] said the Claimant’s hearing was “slightly depressed” on the left. She also had some periodic discomfort, which could occur in either ear. But it was mild and did not require medication. In June 2008, the only functional limitation noted by Dr. [NAME] was conductive hearing loss in the left ear. In August 2008, Dr. [NAME] said the left-sided hearing loss continued and made a referral for consideration of surgery. Footnote 32 [ 59 ] [NAME] operated on the Claimant’s left ear in December 2008, although he did not comment on her symptoms or functional limitations. The procedure appeared to be complete and successful. Footnote 33 In February 2009, her hearing was within normal limits but with severe hearing loss at the highest frequencies (over 4000 Hertz). Footnote 34 [ 60 ] The only other medical document before February 2012 was a September 2009 MRI of the head. This was largely unremarkable. The only finding was a small amount of fluid in the left mastoid air cells. This was connected to the left ear issue that was treated by surgery. The report gave no ongoing functional limitations. Footnote 35 [ 61 ] This review shows that the only functional limitation around 2008 would have been some conductive hearing loss in the Claimant’s left ear. This would not have significantly affected her work capacity. Conductive hearing loss is generally treatable, while sensorineural hearing loss usually requires hearing aids. Footnote 36 It is notable that hearing aids were only recommended in 2023 due to sensorineural hearing loss. Footnote 37 The retrospective medical evidence about the Claimant’s functional limitations by the end of 2008 [ 62 ] Most of the later medical evidence arose in the ordinary course of treatment. When it referred to conditions that existed before 2009, the references were general and did not provide details of pertinent functional limitations at the time. For example, vein stripping (for varicose veins) in 2004 was mentioned. However, as the Claimant needed that procedure again in 2012, her varicose veins were described as “recurrent” rather than a condition with continuous functional limitations since 2004. Footnote 38 [ 63 ] This suggests that the Claimant’s 2004 vein stripping procedure was successful in the short to medium term. Her varicose veins only required attention again (and may have created functional limitations) at some point well after 2008. [ 64 ] Even then, [NAME] (vein specialist) noted in 2017 that the Claimant didn’t have any actual discomfort from the varicose veins themselves. She asked [NAME] at that time if she could go on disability because of her varicose veins. [NAME] replied in the negative. Footnote 39 This evidence is persuasive. I do not know which disability program the Claimant had in mind. However, I note that the disability threshold under the [NAME] has been described as possibly the highest in North America. Footnote 40 [ 65 ] The Claimant’s history of ear conditions was sometimes mentioned in reports after 2008. However, when it was mentioned, I see nothing about specific functional limitations that existed by the end of 2008 and continued to affect her. Before 2023, no [NAME] mentioned any difficulty communicating with her. Footnote 41 Between 2012 and 2022, care providers reviewing her medical past often didn’t mention an ear condition. Footnote 42 [ 66 ] In October 2023, [NAME] said the Claimant’s ear conditions contributed to her overall disability. However, the only limitation was difficulty communicating with others. No other ear-related limitations, such as poor balance, were listed. Footnote 43 Conclusion about functional limitations by the end of 2008 [ 67 ] Given the above evidence, I find that the Claimant’s only functional limitation by the end of 2008 may have been some conductive hearing loss in the left ear. But even this limitation would likely have been minor. While she suggested that the December 2008 surgery did not fix the problem, I see no medical evidence at all between September 2009 and February 2012. According to [NAME], the surgery should have resulted in some improvement to the conductive hearing loss. [ 68 ] The Claimant mentioned her left ear when she completed the [NAME] in November 2023. Footnote 44 However, she did not give any functional limitations related to her ears. In fact, she said she was “excellent” at understanding what people say in everyday conversations. Footnote 45 Her ability to answer the telephone was “very good.” Footnote 46 [ 69 ] As the Claimant has also said that her conditions have gradually worsened since childhood, Footnote 47 the left ear condition’s impact on her work capacity was likely minimal around the end of 2008. Applying the Claimant’s personal characteristics to her functional limitations [ 70 ] In my view, the Claimant’s only possible functional limitation by the end of 2008 was minor hearing loss in her left ear. But the functional impact was so minimal that hearing aids were not suggested until 2023. Footnote 48 The minor hearing loss, as it existed in 2008, might have precluded certain extremely specialized jobs that focused on hearing. Such jobs would have required an exceptionally high amount of audio communication and strong hearing over all frequencies (without amplification) in both ears. [ 71 ] However, based on her personal characteristics, the Claimant was suited for PSW work, babysitting, and many jobs that did not require more than a high school education. This included jobs that were unskilled, semi-skilled, or menial. I cannot find that her left ear condition precluded any such work by the end of 2008. Her work capacity was therefore essentially full by the end of 2008. This is not consistent with a severe disability. [ 72 ] As noted, I cannot rely on the Claimant’s retrospective evidence. Even that evidence, however, suggests she worked on essentially a full-time basis in a demanding PSW role until at least March 15, 2009. Footnote 49 This is, of course, after the end of 2008. While I do not need to rely on it, she may also have been receiving regular [NAME] benefits at that time. As noted, such benefits require being “capable or and available for work.” Were the Claimant’s efforts at obtaining and maintaining work unsuccessful because of her health conditions? [ 73 ] When a [NAME] disability applicant has some work capacity, she must show that efforts at obtaining and maintaining employment have been unsuccessful because of her health condition. Footnote 50 [ 74 ] However, as I have already mentioned, the Claimant did not have reliable evidence about her work efforts around the end of 2008. Even if I could rely on her evidence that she worked until March 15, 2009, it still does not show that her work efforts would have been unsuccessful at the end of 2008. As noted, she also claimed that her medical conditions did not prevent her from working until March 15, 2009. [ 75 ] Due to the lack of reliable evidence about the Claimant’s work efforts after 2008, I do not need to consider whether those efforts were in appropriate roles. But I note that the only such efforts she described were in physically demanding PSW roles. Had she established functional limitations by the end of 2008 besides some left ear hearing loss, I would have to consider whether PSW work was even appropriate. Footnote 51 [NAME] said, for example, that extended standing was very bad for someone with varicose veins. Footnote 52 [ 76 ] I conclude that the Claimant’s efforts to obtain and maintain suitable work at the relevant times did not fail because of her health conditions. This means that her disability was not severe by December 31, 2008. The Claimant’s current status [ 77 ] The Claimant may have a severe disability now. [NAME] suggested this in October 2023. Footnote 53 [NAME] (family doctor) took a similar position in December 2025. Footnote 54 [ 78 ] However, the key issue in this appeal is not whether the Claimant is disabled now. Her irregular history of [NAME] contributions means that the key date is December 31, 2008. She needs to prove a severe disability by then. Evidence after 2008 is not relevant unless she also appeared to prove she had a severe disability by the end of 2008. Footnote 55 Only in exceptional circumstances will much later evidence help to establish a severe disability by the earlier date. Footnote 56 Those circumstances are not present in this case. [ 79 ] [NAME] also said in October 2023 that, of the Claimant’s four main conditions, fibromyalgia had the greatest functional impact. But the onset date for her fibromyalgia was not until 2014. Footnote 57 Similarly, her chronic S1 radiculopathy had an onset date of October 2017. Footnote 58 Of the four main conditions, only her ear and varicose vein issues had potential onset dates before the end of 2008. However, I already addressed the evidence relating to those conditions and the need to focus on functional limitations rather than diagnoses. Issues about evidence [ 80 ] The Claimant said the medical records did not capture the nature and duration of her conditions. She said it was not her fault that other records were not available. She said she tried to get older medical records from Nova Scotia, but failed. Footnote 59 [ 81 ] I accept that some records may be difficult or even impossible to obtain at this time. However, that cannot overcome the burden of proof in this case. The Claimant has brought this appeal. She must establish, on a balance of probabilities, that she had a severe and prolonged disability by the end of 2008. If she does not produce the evidence necessary for such a finding, the Tribunal cannot overlook the lack of such evidence. Nor can the Tribunal get that evidence for her. Footnote 60 [ 82 ] The Claimant also suggested that [NAME] supported her appeal, and advised the Tribunal to “read her notes.” Footnote 61 However, while [NAME] first treated the Claimant in January 2005 Footnote 62 , the earliest document prepared by [NAME] appears to be a clinical note from 2018. I saw no medical documents after that note, from anyone, for more than two years. In total, I saw only two clinical notes (from 2018 and 2020) from [NAME]. Footnote 63 [ 83 ] [NAME]’s later reports for [NAME] purposes were not persuasive about the extent of functional limitations by the end of 2008. For example, in August 2024, [NAME] first revealed that the Claimant had chronic pelvic pain since 1993. Footnote 64 This early date did not appear in previous reports from [NAME]. In any case, the functional impact in the years leading up to 2008 was likely not significant. As noted, 2005 and 2006 were the Claimant’s two highest years of earnings. Did the Claimant also have a prolonged disability? [ 84 ] I found that the Claimant did not have a severe disability by the end of 2008. For this reason, I do not need to decide whether her disability was prolonged. Conclusion [ 85 ] The appeal is dismissed. The Claimant did not have a severe and prolonged disability by December 31, 2008. Footnotes Footnote 1 See GD2-125. Return to footnote 1 Footnote 2 See GD2-117. Return to footnote 2 Footnote 3 See AD12-1. Return to footnote 3 Footnote 4 This date is based on the Claimant’s [NAME] contributions. Her [NAME] contributions are at GD2-165 to GD2-167. 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 GD2-121 to GD2-123. Return to footnote 9 Footnote 10 See GD2-120. Return to footnote 10 Footnote 11 See GD2-120 and GD2-123. Return to footnote 11 Footnote 12 [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2008 FCA  377, and Canada (Attorney General) v Dean , 2020 FC  206. Return to footnote 12 Footnote 13 See GD2-296 to GD2-299. Return to footnote 13 Footnote 14 See GD2-56. Return to footnote 14 Footnote 15 See GD2-298. Return to footnote 15 Footnote 16 [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2002 FCA  248. Return to footnote 16 Footnote 17 See GD2-125. Return to footnote 17 Footnote 18 See GD2-165 to GD2-166. Return to footnote 18 Footnote 19 See GD2-165. Return to footnote 19 Footnote 20 See, for example, [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2013 FCA  81, at paragraph 7. See also [NAME] v Canada ([NAME]) , 2008 FCA  33, at paragraph 14. Return to footnote 20 Footnote 21 See GD2-292 to GD2-301. Return to footnote 21 Footnote 22 See GD2-166 to GD2-167. Return to footnote 22 Footnote 23 See section 68.1(1) of the [NAME] . Since 2014, that section has formally defined a “substantially gainful” occupation. It is an occupation that provides a salary or wages equal to or greater than the maximum amount of a [NAME]. That amount was $14,836.20 in 2014. Return to footnote 23 Footnote 24 See GD2-125, GD2-166, and GD2-167. Return to footnote 24 Footnote 25 See GD2-166 and GD2-167. Return to footnote 25 Footnote 26 See GD2-97. Return to footnote 26 Footnote 27 See GD2-99 and GD2-103. Return to footnote 27 Footnote 28 See GD2-107. Return to footnote 28 Footnote 29 See GD2-167. Return to footnote 29 Footnote 30 See GD2-49 and GD2-344. Return to footnote 30 Footnote 31 See section 18(1) of the Employment Insurance Act . Return to footnote 31 Footnote 32 See GD2-319, GD2-320, and GD2-322 Return to footnote 32 Footnote 33 See GD2-311 to GD2-312. Return to footnote 33 Footnote 34 See GD2-313. Return to footnote 34 Footnote 35 See GD2-314. Return to footnote 35 Footnote 36 [NAME]’s testimony at the Appeal Division hearing. Return to footnote 36 Footnote 37 See GD2-58 and GD2-298. Return to footnote 37 Footnote 38 See GD2-49, GD2-205, GD2-230, GD2-231, GD2-297, GD2-324, GD2-325, and GD2-335. Return to footnote 38 Footnote 39 See GD2-230. Return to footnote 39 Footnote 40 [NAME] v Minister of [NAME] , (2004) CP18522 (Pension Appeals Board). The Tribunal has cited this non-binding but persuasive decision from time to time. See, for example, [NAME]. v [NAME] , 2017 CanLII 91805. Return to footnote 40 Footnote 41 See, for example, GD2-215, GD2-230, GD2-258, and GD2-340. Return to footnote 41 Footnote 42 See GD2-49 (2018), GD2-211 (2020), GD2-231 (2012), GD2-267 (2012), GD2-325 (2022), GD2-327 (2021), and GD2-343 (2013). Return to footnote 42 Footnote 43 See GD2-298. Return to footnote 43 Footnote 44 See GD2-117. Return to footnote 44 Footnote 45 See GD2-122. Return to footnote 45 Footnote 46 See GD2-123. Return to footnote 46 Footnote 47 See GD6-1. Return to footnote 47 Footnote 48 See GD2-58 and GD2-298. Return to footnote 48 Footnote 49 See GD2-125. Return to footnote 49 Footnote 50 [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2003 FCA  117, at paragraph 3. Return to footnote 50 Footnote 51 See, for example, [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2008 FCA  150, at paragraphs 3 to 5. Return to footnote 51 Footnote 52 [NAME] said this at the Appeal Division hearing. In May 2018, [NAME] reported that the Claimant was a PSW who spent her entire working day standing: see GD2-228. Return to footnote 52 Footnote 53 See GD2-300. Return to footnote 53 Footnote 54 See AD7-8. Return to footnote 54 Footnote 55 See Canada (Attorney General) v [NAME] , 2015 FC  1348, at paragraph 48. Return to footnote 55 Footnote 56 [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2018 FC  308, at paragraph 11. Return to footnote 56 Footnote 57 See GD2-296. Return to footnote 57 Footnote 58 See GD2-299. It wasn’t diagnosed until several years later. Return to footnote 58 Footnote 59 See GD6-1. Return to footnote 59 Footnote 60 See, for example, [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2017 FC  363, at paragraph 18. Return to footnote 60 Footnote 61 See GD6-1. Return to footnote 61 Footnote 62 See GD2-32 and GD2-205. Return to footnote 62 Footnote 63 See GD2-278 to GD2-279. Return to footnote 63 Footnote 64 See GD2-33. Return to footnote 64