CPP Disability Pension Appeal Dismissed Due to Insufficient Medical Evidence

Citation: SD  v  [NAME] , 2026  [NAME]  351 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Decision Appellant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] [NAME] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated June 13, 2025 (GP-24-1213) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: Teleconference Hearing dates: April 13, 2026, and June 8, 2026 Hearing participants: Appellant Respondent’s representative Respondent’s witness Decision date: June 23, 2026 File number: AD-25-568 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 ] In this decision, I will refer to the Appellant, S. D., as the “Claimant.” I will refer to the Respondent, the [NAME], as the “Minister.” [ 3 ] The Claimant is now 45 years old. She spent most of her working career as a correctional officer. She last worked in December 2013, when she began a maternity leave. However, during her leave, she had a tumour removed behind the ovary. It revealed thyroid cancer. She later had her thyroid removed. She also had radiation treatment. The cancer does not appear to have returned. [ 4 ] The Claimant has applied three times for a [NAME]. She filed the first two applications in April 2018 and September 2020. Footnote 1 Neither was successful. She filed her current application in December 2022. The Claimant said then that her cancer treatment caused neuropathy in her hands, arms and feet. Other impacts included migraines, fatigue, weight gain, vomiting, diarrhea, pain, dizziness, periodic voice loss, sore neck and throat, loss of feeling in her extremities, and numbness and tingling. Footnote 2 [ 5 ] The Minister denied her application initially and on reconsideration. The Claimant then appealed to the Social Security Tribunal (Tribunal). After a teleconference hearing, the Tribunal’s General Division dismissed her appeal. Footnote 3 She then requested leave to appeal at the Tribunal’s Appeal Division. One of my Appeal Division colleagues granted her leave to appeal. I did not consider the testimony from the General Division hearing, as neither party requested it. Footnote 4 [ 6 ] The Claimant said her appeal should be allowed because every day remains a struggle for her. For her, having a few good hours is a “win.” She said she did everything she could, within her financial limitations, to get better. She said her husband was unemployed and she had three small children when physiotherapy was recommended to her. She said she would love to go back to work, but it hasn’t been possible. [ 7 ] The Minister disagreed. The Minister said the Claimant did not have a severe disability by the end of 2022. The Minister cited a lack of specialist concern and treatment for her condition, especially after 2019. The Minister also said she failed to attend recommended physiotherapy. The Minister further said she had residual work capacity but did not make meaningful attempts to work or be retrained. [ 8 ] I must decide whether the Claimant had a severe and prolonged disability by December 31, 2022. [ 9 ] For the reasons set out below, I find that the Claimant did not have a severe and prolonged disability by December 31, 2022. Issues [ 10 ] The issues in this appeal are: a) Did the Claimant have a severe disability by December 31, 2022? b) If so, did she also have a prolonged disability by then? c) If the answer to b) is “yes,” when does her [NAME] start? Analysis [ 11 ] The Claimant’s minimum qualifying period ( MQP ), or coverage period, ended on December 31, 2022. Footnote 5 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 6 [ 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 7 [ 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 8 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 9 Did the Claimant have a severe disability by December 31, 2022? [ 16 ] The Claimant did not have a severe disability by December 31, 2022. I will now explain why. [ 17 ] Before looking at the Claimant’s functional limitations, I will summarize the key medical evidence before the end of 2022. [ 18 ] The last medical evidence before the end of 2022 is a September 2021 [NAME] medical report from [NAME] (family doctor). He said the Claimant’s only medical condition was a “dermal cyst with papillary thyroid cancer.” He did not provide an onset date, although he said elsewhere he had treated that condition since September 2014. When asked about the Claimant’s impairments and limitations, he merely said, “please see [physiotherapy] and consultant reports.” He did not expect her to return to work, but offered no other information. Footnote 10 [ 19 ] Before that September 2021 report and a June 2021 pharmacy list of prescriptions, the last medical evidence was a February 2019 letter from [NAME]. At that time, [NAME] said he was not one of the doctors dealing with the Claimant’s medical issue. He said he had not examined her and could not comment on her prognosis or future treatments. However, while she had some dermatology treatments up to September 2018, I see no relevant specialist evidence after a July 2017 report from [NAME] (oncology). Footnote 11 [ 20 ] The lack of recent medical evidence by the end of 2022 is an important aspect of the Claimant’s appeal. Further, I see only one medical report after the end of 2022. That is a letter written by Dr. [NAME] (new family doctor) for [NAME] purposes in April 2024. Dr. [NAME] outlined several symptoms and limitations. He said the Claimant was not regularly seen because nothing could be done for her condition. But he provided no recent clinical notes. Footnote 12 [ 21 ] I will now review the Claimant’s functional limitations by the end of 2022. The Claimant’s reported functional limitations by the end of 2022 [ 22 ] The Claimant’s main reported functional limitations by the end of 2022 were with physically demanding tasks. She also struggled with tasks involving strength or a lot of dexterity in her hands. I will now explain how I made those findings. [ 23 ] The Claimant signed her current disability pension application in November 2022. Footnote 13 That makes it a timely record of her reported limitations by the end of 2022. In that document, she was asked to rate her ability to do various tasks on a five-point scale. The five possible ratings were excellent, very good, good, fair, and poor. [ 24 ] The Claimant said she did not have any behavioural or emotional problems that limited her ability to work. She did not have any communication or thinking problems that limited her ability to work either. But she did identify some limitations with physical and other activities. Specifically, she said her ability to do the following tasks was poor: Footnote 14 Remain on her feet for at least 20 minutes Walk a block on flat ground Go up and down 12-15 steps Get down into a kneeling or squatting position and back up again Bend down to pick up coins from the floor Change a light bulb in the ceiling above her head Pick up two bags of groceries and walk a block Open a can with a manual can opener Pound a nail with a hammer Use her index finger to press the keys on a computer keyboard Do housekeeping and home maintenance without frequent breaks Use public transportation [ 25 ] The Claimant also said that she could answer a phone but could not hold it. She had to use the “speaker” function. Footnote 15 [ 26 ] I will now see if the medical evidence could support the claimed limitations by the end of 2022. This is important because [NAME] disability applicants must provide some medical evidence about their underlying conditions. Footnote 16 Does the medical evidence support the claimed limitations? [ 27 ] By the end of 2022, the medical evidence could support the claimed limitations. While I see little recent medical evidence leading up to the end of 2022, a combination of much earlier and later evidence creates the possibility that the medical evidence is supportive. I will now explain why. [ 28 ] As noted, Dr. [NAME]’ April 2024 letter is potentially problematic for several reasons. It is not supported by any contemporaneous evidence, such as clinical notes or specialist reports. Dr. [NAME] may not even have treated the Claimant up to that point, as [NAME] had been her primary care provider. Dr. [NAME] also said the Claimant hadn’t been seen regularly. And Dr. [NAME] wrote the letter more than 15 months after the end of 2022. Footnote 17 [ 29 ] Nonetheless, Dr. [NAME] does refer to chronic neuropathy that arose from thyroid cancer treatment in 2014. He also mentions concerns such as problems with dexterity, balance, weakness, and endurance. These align with the limitations cited by the Claimant. But a key aspect of his otherwise late letter is the reference to the July 2017 functional abilities evaluation by [NAME] (physiotherapist). Dr. [NAME] suggested that the Claimant’s functional limitations in 2024 were similar to those identified by Ms. [NAME] in 2017. Footnote 18 [ 30 ] Ms. [NAME]’s 2017 report pointed to limitations arising from the Claimant’s cancer treatment. In particular, Ms. [NAME] said the Claimant’s major concerns were numbness and tingling in the hands and feet. She said this resulted in issues with balance, hand weakness, dexterity, dizziness, falling, and headaches. Footnote 19 [ 31 ] When I read Dr. [NAME]’s 2024 report together with Ms. [NAME]’s 2017 report, the medical evidence could possibly support the limitations identified by the Claimant at the end of 2022. At this stage of my analysis, the Claimant does not need to establish more than that. [ 32 ] However, while the medical evidence could support the Claimant’s reported limitations, this does not necessarily mean that those limitations actually existed by the end of 2022. Nor does it necessarily mean that she lacked work capacity, even if she had the claimed limitations. Those determinations will require a closer look at all of the evidence. I will start by looking at her personal characteristics. Do the Claimant’s personal characteristics limit her employability? [ 33 ] When deciding whether the Claimant had a severe disability by the end of 2022, I must consider factors such as her: Footnote 20 Age Language ability Education level Past work and life experience [ 34 ] These factors will help me decide whether the Claimant could work in the real world. I will look at each of them in turn. [ 35 ] The Claimant was 41 years old at the end of 2022. She still had 24 years until the traditional Canadian retirement age. This means her age would not have limited her work capacity in the real world. [ 36 ] The Claimant speaks English fluently. English is one of Canada’s official languages. Her language ability would not have affected her real-world capacity either. [ 37 ] The Claimant has a college education. She finished a corrections program. She did not mention any other training on her last two applications for the [NAME]. However, on her first application, she said she also had training in areas such as First Aid, fire response, chemical agents, and mental health. Footnote 21 [ 38 ] Given her educational background, the Claimant would have been suited for a broad range of jobs. However, she would not have been suited for positions requiring a university degree. She would also have been precluded from work requiring specialist qualifications other than correctional training and the various certificates (such as First Aid) she obtained through her work. [ 39 ] The Claimant has significant work and life experience. She was the primary caregiver for her three children. Footnote 22 She worked as a correctional officer for more than ten years. Most of her work there involved patrolling the inmate range and interacting with inmates, but she also did other security tasks. When she was put on light duties, she did paperwork. Before her correctional job, she worked with [NAME]. She also worked as a grocery cashier. Footnote 23 [ 40 ] The Claimant’s work and life experiences only appear to preclude heavy physical labour. She had experience with both sedentary work (her duties at her light correctional job) and work with moderate physical demands (parenting and her usual correctional job). The skills acquired in her cashier job would also translate to many other jobs with relatively minimal physical demands but extended periods in one position. [ 41 ] When I look at all of the Claimant’s personal characteristics together, she has real-world work potential in a broad range of careers. Without considering her medical conditions , she would only be precluded from jobs requiring specific certification (other than corrections and certain related skills), a university degree, or heavy physical labour. [ 42 ] I will now apply the Claimant’s personal characteristics to her limitations. This will help me decide whether she had any residual work capacity by the end of 2022. I need to focus on that period because her coverage ended then. Did the Claimant have any residual work capacity by the end of 2022? [ 43 ] The Claimant likely had some residual work capacity by the end of 2022. I will now explain why. [ 44 ] Assessing the Claimant’s work capacity at the end of 2022 is not easy, due to a lack of objective information from that period. [NAME] completed a report in September 2021 and didn’t expect her to return to work. However, he deferred (to other health care providers) any opinion on her actual abilities and provided no explanation for his conclusion about her work future. Footnote 24 [ 45 ] In the past, [NAME] was reluctant to comment on the Claimant’s prognosis. For example, in February 2019, he said he had not examined her and could not comment on her prognosis or any future treatments. He stressed, in capital letters, that he was not one of her treating physicians. Footnote 25 He provided similar responses in March 2015 and June 2017, when asked for an update on her medical condition. Footnote 26 [ 46 ] [NAME] again declined to give a prognosis for the Claimant in March 2018. He said the Minister would have to ask her specialist. He deferred any significant commentary to other care providers, such as her specialists and Ms. [NAME]. Footnote 27 [ 47 ] I accept that Ontario’s family doctors face many demands on their time. However, I cannot disregard [NAME]’s 2018 and 2019 refusals to comment on her prognosis. These refusals, and the reasons behind them, make it very difficult to assign too much weight to his September 2021 opinion. This is magnified by the lack of other medical evidence (beyond one prescription list) between February 2019 and September 2021. As noted, he provided no comments to support his opinion. [ 48 ] To assess the Claimant’s work capacity, I will now turn to the other evidence. [ 49 ] First, I note that both [NAME] and Dr. [NAME] rely on Ms. [NAME]’s July 2017 Functional Abilities Evaluation. However, that evaluation was to determine whether the Claimant could return to her correctional officer job. Ms. [NAME] described that job as “demanding.” Footnote 28 But being able to work as a correctional officer is not the test in this appeal. Based on the Claimant’s personal characteristics, I also need to consider whether she could do a less demanding job. [ 50 ] Ms. [NAME] herself said in 2016 that the Claimant had “no problem with sitting.” In July 2017, Ms. [NAME] said her sitting was still “OK, but [she had] tingling in hands.” Footnote 29 Although it was earlier, [NAME] said in both March 2016 and September 2016 that the Claimant had no impairments at all with cognition, speaking, hearing, visiting, “psychological,” and sitting. All those abilities are consistent with some capacity for sedentary work. Footnote 30 [ 51 ] I acknowledge that Ms. [NAME] recorded a lot of significant physical limitations, particularly in her July 2017 assessment. The Claimant’s subjective complaints to Ms. [NAME] included the following: Footnote 31 Nauseated and loss of appetite Difficulty sleeping, with nightmares Concentration difficulty Coordination and balance problems Depression due to limitations and side effects Frequent falls due to dizziness Dexterity and fine motor problems, including difficulty with lifting and carrying Extreme dry mouth, making it difficult to talk Difficulty with steps, carrying laundry, childcare, and home maintenance [ 52 ] Despite all these complaints, Ms. [NAME] still believed that an eight-week course of physiotherapy would prepare the Claimant for a modified return-to-work program. Footnote 32 [ 53 ] It is also essential to note that Ms. [NAME]’s assessment was concerned with determining work capacity for the correctional job. When the Claimant saw her regular care providers, her list of complaints was much shorter. [ 54 ] For example, the specialist [NAME] reported in November 2016 that the Claimant continued to feel well overall. Her only concern was sharp menstrual pain that improved after the first 48 hours. Footnote 33 And in July 2017, after Ms. [NAME]’s second assessment, the only concern recorded by [NAME] was that the Claimant had “some numbness in her fingers on occasion.” Footnote 34 [ 55 ] This lack of complaints echoes a routine May 2017 check-up by [NAME]. At that time, [NAME] reported that the Claimant generally felt well. The only concern was that, on certain days, her arms felt weighted down and her brain was “foggy.” Footnote 35 [ 56 ] The Claimant’s evidence leading up to 2022 also reveals issues with the exact nature and degree of her limitations, especially as they relate to more sedentary work. [ 57 ] For example, in February 2018, the Claimant said she lost her voice after a few minutes. In November 2022, she said her voice came and went. Footnote 36 But in both September 2020 and November 2022, she said she had no limitations at all with communication. Footnote 37 In November 2022, she said her ability to answer the phone was “very good,” although she had to use the speaker function rather than holding the phone in her hands. Footnote 38 As noted, she didn’t have any speaking limitations in 2016 either. [ 58 ] I also cannot infer that the more sedentary limitations identified by Dr. [NAME] in April 2024 affected the Claimant in 2022. For example, Dr. [NAME] said she had difficulty with focus and concentration. He urged the reader to consult Ms. [NAME]’s 2016 and 2017 assessments. Footnote 39 But the Claimant herself said in both September 2020 and November 2022 that she had no limitations with any behaviours or any emotional, communication, or thinking abilities. Footnote 40 In February 2018, she said she had no limitations with concentration either. Footnote 41 [ 59 ] The Claimant has consistently identified numbness and tingling in her hands as one of her symptoms. However, this does not necessarily preclude work involving at least some use of her hands. Going back to March and September 2016, she said she had only a “slight” impairment with dexterity and a “moderate” impairment with driving. This was despite reporting a “severe” impairment with sensation at the same time. Footnote 42 [ 60 ] The Claimant’s ability to use her hands is important. A November 2017 insurer’s document reinforced this by saying her main barrier for sedentary work was numbness and poor dexterity in her hands. Footnote 43 But she demonstrated an ongoing ability to get at least some productive use out of her hands. [ 61 ] For example, the Claimant was still driving in April 2018. It is difficult to imagine driving if she had profound hand limitations. She said she did not drive far and had company when she drove for more than 10 km. But being able to drive 10 km (or more) shows she could still make moderate use of her hands for something that involved both skill and risk. In that same document, she identified no limitations with reaching. Footnote 44 She said her ability to drive was still “fair” in 2020 and 2022. Footnote 45 [ 62 ] Balance and dizziness were also major concerns in Ms. [NAME]’s 2016 and 2017 reports. However, in September 2018, [NAME] said the Claimant’s dizziness had been better, since she stopped taking Labetalol (a blood pressure medication). Despite seeing her family doctor on several more occasions in 2018 and 2019, she made no further mention of dizziness. Footnote 46 I saw no family doctor’s clinical notes after 2019. [ 63 ] In fact, I see no record of any actual treatment after 2019, with the indirect exception of a June 2021 pharmacy record. That document sets out the medications prescribed to the Claimant from July 2013 to June 2021. Footnote 47 [ 64 ] A list of prescriptions has relatively low probative value, without supporting evidence. But even the latest prescriptions do not suggest that the Claimant’s functional limitations precluded all work capacity. As the prescriptions were not explained, I asked Dr. [NAME] (the Minister’s medical witness) to describe what they were. Other than “Thyroid,” which clearly refers to thyroid medication, the latest prescriptions (from 2021) and Dr. [NAME]’s corresponding descriptions were as follows: Footnote 48 PMS-Rabeprazole – for heartburn Taro-Clobetasol – a topical corticosteroid used for infection or psoriasis Tranexamic – usually for menstrual cramping Viacoram – for high blood pressure Mint-Cetirizine – for allergies SDZ-Olopatadine – usually used to stabilize seasonal allergies Otezla – for psoriasis or oral ulcers [ 65 ] This medication list was created more than 18 months before the end of 2022. This means that its probative value for the Claimant’s limitations at the end of 2022 is already limited by its age. And in the unlikely event that she still took all the June 2021 medications by December 31, 2022, they still would not establish any relevant functional limitations for her. Most of these medications could be described as periodic or transient care for non-disabling conditions. [ 66 ] Ultimately, the Claimant’s lack of documented medical treatment after 2019 is a notable impediment to establishing a lack of work capacity. [ 67 ] I accept that the Claimant could likely not return to her correctional officer role by the end of 2022. Ms. [NAME] confirmed that it was a demanding job. Footnote 49 I agree that it had at least moderate physical demands. The Claimant also said she was eventually granted a medical retirement from her correctional role. But I am not persuaded that she had no capacity for sedentary work or work with lighter physical demands. [ 68 ] The Claimant showed she was capable of such work when she did lighter duties in the [NAME]. Such work is also consistent with her other personal characteristics, such as her college education. I also find it important, when looking at less physical roles, that she had no cognitive complaints in either 2020 or 2022. [ 69 ] The Claimant’s repeated references to hand numbness and tingling may preclude a heavily keyboard-focused role. However, not all less physical jobs require a lot of typing, prolonged hand dexterity, or repetitive hand movements. Her ability to drive a car and raise her children might have been better before she developed neuropathy. But she could still do those tasks. And those tasks require at least some hand involvement. On a balance of probabilities, I must conclude that she had at least some capacity for suitable work by the end of 2022. [ 70 ] As the Claimant had some residual work capacity by the end of 2022, I must now look at her attempts to work around that time. 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 Were the Claimant’s attempts to obtain and maintain suitable work unsuccessful because of her health condition? [ 71 ] I find that the Claimant’s attempts to obtain and maintain suitable work were not unsuccessful because of her health condition. I will now explain why. [ 72 ] The Claimant testified that she had not applied for any jobs since she stopped working in the [NAME] in 2013. She added that she could not apply for a job and still receive disability payments through her former employer. [ 73 ] In 2020, the Claimant said she had not done any lighter or different work because light duties were “not available in that line of work.” Footnote 51 This may contradict her hearing testimony that she previously did paperwork when she was put on light duties. In any case, her 2020 statement was focused on correctional officer work. However, a [NAME] disability applicant cannot be that selective in their work efforts. They must be willing to contemplate jobs that, for example, lie outside their preferred field or pay less than what they used to make. Footnote 52 [ 74 ] As the Claimant made no attempts to obtain and maintain suitable work, she cannot say that those attempts were unsuccessful due to her health condition. This means she has not established a severe disability under the [NAME] . This means that her appeal cannot succeed. [ 75 ] I am not suggesting that the Claimant had no symptoms before the end of 2022. Nor am I saying that she had no medical conditions. But my focus must be on her functional limitations by the end of 2022, and the effect they had on her ability to work. [ 76 ] I acknowledge that the Claimant may have had compelling financial reasons for not seeking work outside her previous employer. Seeking other work might have jeopardized the financial support she was receiving. Not seeking work may have been reasonable, when viewed from the perspective of that other financial support. But it does not provide a valid justification regarding the [NAME]. [ 77 ] Given the above conclusion, it is not necessary for me to assess whether the Claimant unreasonably failed to comply with recommended treatment. Did the Claimant also have a prolonged disability by the end of 2022? [ 78 ] As I found that the Claimant did not have a severe disability by the end of 2022, I do not need to answer this question. Conclusion [ 79 ] The appeal is dismissed. The Claimant did not have a severe and prolonged disability by the end of 2022. She is not entitled to a [NAME]. Footnotes Footnote 1 See GD2-127 and GD2-167. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See GD2-30 and GD2-33. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See AD1A-1. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 Testimony from the General Division hearing can only be considered when a request is made and approved according to the Practice Direction on “Using testimony from General Division hearings in Income Security appeals at the Appeal Division.” Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 This date is based on the Claimant’s [NAME] contributions. Her [NAME] contributions are at GD2-182. The years excluded under the [NAME] ’s Child-Rearing Provisions are at GD2-8. 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 5 referrer Footnote 6 See Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2015  FC  1348, at paragraph 31. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 See section 42(2)(a) of the [NAME]. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2011  FCA  47, at paragraph 8. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 See section 42(2)(a) of the [NAME]. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 See GD2-266, GD2-267, and GD2-270. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 See GD2-388 and GD2-404. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 See GD2-292 to GD2-296 and GD2-424. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 See GD2-47. Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 See GD2-36 to GD2-39. Return to footnote 14 referrer Footnote 15 See GD2-39. Return to footnote 15 referrer Footnote 16 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2008  FCA  377, and Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2020  FC  206. Return to footnote 16 referrer Footnote 17 See GD2-424. At the Appeal Division hearing, the Claimant also submitted that the April 2024 letter from Dr. [NAME] may have arisen from her first meeting with Dr. [NAME]. Return to footnote 17 referrer Footnote 18 See GD2-424. Return to footnote 18 referrer Footnote 19 See GD2-253. Return to footnote 19 referrer Footnote 20 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2002  FCA  248. Return to footnote 20 referrer Footnote 21 See GD2-42, GD2-139, and GD2-414. Return to footnote 21 referrer Footnote 22 See GD2-31 to GD2-32, GD2-43 to GD2-44, GD2-128 to GD2-129, GD2-140 to GD20-141, GD2-168, and GD2-171. Return to footnote 22 referrer Footnote 23 See GD2-41, GD2-138, GD2-414, and the Claimant’s testimony at the Appeal Division hearing. Return to footnote 23 referrer Footnote 24 See GD2-267 and GD2-270. Return to footnote 24 referrer Footnote 25 See GD2-386. Return to footnote 25 referrer Footnote 26 See GD2-223 and GD2-246 to GD2-247. Return to footnote 26 referrer Footnote 27 See GD2-399 to GD2-403. Return to footnote 27 referrer Footnote 28 See GD2-252 and GD2-256 to GD2-258. Return to footnote 28 referrer Footnote 29 See GD2-235 and GD2-255. Return to footnote 29 referrer Footnote 30 See GD2-231 and GD2-239. Return to footnote 30 referrer Footnote 31 See GD2-253. Return to footnote 31 referrer Footnote 32 See GD2-258. Return to footnote 32 referrer Footnote 33 See GD2-290. Return to footnote 33 referrer Footnote 34 See GD2-404. Return to footnote 34 referrer Footnote 35 See GD2-249. Return to footnote 35 referrer Footnote 36 See GD2-33 and GD2-417. Return to footnote 36 referrer Footnote 37 See GD2-38 and GD2-135. Return to footnote 37 referrer Footnote 38 See GD2-39. Return to footnote 38 referrer Footnote 39 See GD2-424. Return to footnote 39 referrer Footnote 40 See GD2-37 to GD2-38 and GD2-134 to GD2-135. Return to footnote 40 referrer Footnote 41 See GD2-417. Return to footnote 41 referrer Footnote 42 See GD2-231 and GD2-239. Return to footnote 42 referrer Footnote 43 See GD2-261 to GD2-262. Return to footnote 43 referrer Footnote 44 See GD2-417. Return to footnote 44 referrer Footnote 45 See GD2-36 and GD2-133. Return to footnote 45 referrer Footnote 46 See GD2-388 to GD2-390. Return to footnote 46 referrer Footnote 47 See GD2-293 to GD2-296. Return to footnote 47 referrer Footnote 48 See GD2-296. Return to footnote 48 referrer Footnote 49 See GD2-258. Return to footnote 49 referrer Footnote 50 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2003  FCA  117, at paragraph 3. Return to footnote 50 referrer Footnote 51 See GD2-139. Return to footnote 51 referrer Footnote 52 [NAME]  v  DP , 2022  [NAME]  1050 ( [NAME] Appeal Division), at paragraph 23. While other Tribunal decisions are not binding, they can be persuasive. The cited Tribunal decision also relied on binding Federal Court of Appeal decisions in [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2014  FCA  193, and [NAME]  v  Canada ([NAME]) , 2008  FCA  225, at paragraphs 15-16. Return to footnote 52 referrer