CPP Disability Pension Appeal Dismissed Due to Insufficient Proof of Severe Disability

Citation: RB  v  [NAME] , 2026  SST  238 Social Security Tribunal of Canada General Division – Income Security Section Decision Appellant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: [NAME] reconsideration decision dated April 7, 2025 (issued by Service Canada) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: In person Hearing date: March 19, 2026 Hearing participant: Appellant Decision date: March 19, 2026 File number: GP-25-1630 On this page Decision Overview What the Appellant must prove Reasons for my decision Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] The appeal is dismissed. [ 2 ] The Appellant, R. B., isn’t eligible for a [NAME] ( [NAME] ) disability pension. This decision explains why I am dismissing the appeal. Overview [ 3 ] The Appellant worked as a housekeeper until December 2025. She stopped working because of a workplace conflict. While working, she had limitations from rheumatoid arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis. [ 4 ] The Appellant applied for a [NAME] disability pension in August 2023. The [NAME] (Minister) refused her application. She appealed the Minister’s decision to the Social Security Tribunal’s General Division. [ 5 ] The Appellant says she should get a disability pension. She contributed to the [NAME] . She is entitled because it is her right. [ 6 ] The Minister says the evidence doesn’t show the Appellant had a severe disability by December 31, 2025. Footnote 1 She likely could still work with her limitations. What the Appellant must prove [ 7 ] For the Appellant to succeed, she must prove she has a disability that was severe and prolonged by December 31, 2025. In other words, no later than December 31, 2025. This date is based on her [NAME] contributions. Footnote 2 She must also prove that she continues to be disabled. Footnote 3 [ 8 ] The [NAME] defines “severe” and “prolonged.” [ 9 ] A disability is severe if it makes an appellant incapable regularly of pursuing any substantially gainful occupation. Footnote 4 [ 10 ] This means I have to look at all of the Appellant’s medical conditions together to see what effect they have on her ability to work. I also have to look at her background (including her age, level of education, and past work and life experience). This is so I can get a realistic or “real world” picture of whether her disability is severe. If the Appellant is capable regularly of doing some kind of work that she could earn a living from, then she isn’t entitled to a disability pension. [ 11 ] A disability is prolonged if it is likely to be long continued and of indefinite duration, or is likely to result in death. Footnote 5 [ 12 ] This means the Appellant’s disability can’t have an expected recovery date. The disability must be expected to keep the Appellant out of the workforce for a long time. [ 13 ] The Appellant has to prove she has a severe and prolonged disability. She has to prove this on a balance of probabilities. This means she has to show it is more likely than not that she is disabled. Reasons for my decision [ 14 ] I find the Appellant hasn’t proven she had a severe and prolonged disability by December 31, 2025. I reached this decision by considering the following issues: Was the Appellant’s disability severe? Was the Appellant’s disability prolonged? Was the Appellant’s disability severe? [ 15 ] The Appellant’s disability wasn’t severe. I reached this finding by considering several factors. I explain these factors below. The Appellant’s functional limitations affect her ability to work [ 16 ] The Appellant has rheumatoid arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis. [ 17 ] However, I can’t focus on the Appellant’s diagnoses. Footnote 6 Instead, I must focus on whether she has functional limitations that got in the way of her earning a living. Footnote 7 When I do this, I have to look at all of the Appellant’s medical conditions (not just the main one) and think about how they affected her ability to work. Footnote 8 [ 18 ] I find the Appellant has functional limitations that affected her ability to work. What the Appellant says about her functional limitations [ 19 ] The Appellant says that her medical conditions have resulted in functional limitations that affect her ability to work. [ 20 ] The Appellant says her conditions cause many physical limitations and her energy is low. She says she feels pain and stiffness in her lower back, feet, and fingers. She also has a twisted elbow. She says she is limited with: bending kneeling getting up from a position close to the ground pushing pulling lifting heavy items reaching gripping What the medical evidence says about the Appellant’s functional limitations [ 21 ] The Appellant must provide some medical evidence to support that her functional limitations affected her ability to work no later than December 31, 2025. Footnote 9 [ 22 ] The medical evidence supports the Appellant has limitations that affected her ability to work by December 31, 2025. It shows: Footnote 10 She is chronically stiff in various parts of her body, including her hands, elbow, and back. She has lower back, feet, hand, and joint pain. Her fingers, toes, and feet get swollen. Her pain gets worse with heavier tasks. She can’t make a full fist. [ 23 ] The medical evidence also supports the Appellant saw some benefit with treatment. Footnote 11 At the hearing, she confirmed she had some relief and her symptoms have gotten better. She explained she feels “lighter.” [ 24 ] The medical evidence supports that the Appellant’s medical conditions and limitations affected her ability to work by December 31, 2025. [ 25 ] I now have to decide whether the Appellant can regularly do other types of work. To be severe, the Appellant’s functional limitations must prevent her from earning a living at any type of work, not just her usual job. Footnote 12 The Appellant can work in the real world [ 26 ] When I am deciding if the Appellant can work, I can’t just look at her medical conditions and how they affect what she can do. I must also consider factors like her: age level of education language abilities past work and life experience [ 27 ] These factors help me decide whether the Appellant can work in the real world—in other words, whether it is realistic to say that she can work. Footnote 13 [ 28 ] I find the Appellant can work in the real world. She was still able to work as of December 31, 2025. [ 29 ] First, I considered the Appellant’s personal characteristics. She is 49 years old. She still has many years until the standard retirement age of 65. She can communicate in English. She has a good education, with a background in university and college programs. She also has a good work history as a housekeeper. At the hearing, she said she also has computer skills. To me, her personal characteristics show she could retrain or do work suitable to her limitations. [ 30 ] Second, I considered what the medical evidence and the Appellant says about her limitations. The medical evidence does show she has some limitations. They might affect the types of work she can do, but they don’t stop her from working. And, as noted earlier, both the medical evidence and the Appellant say she has had much improvement in her condition. [ 31 ] Third, I considered the Appellant’s work history and last job. She stopped working near her minimum qualifying period – in early December 2025. She confirmed she stopped working because of an interpersonal conflict. Leading up to the day she stopped work, she worked seven and a half hours a day, five days a week. Footnote 14 She had pain and stiffness, and was tired after work, but she could work with her limitations. She also didn’t stop working because of her limitations. I asked her if she would have continued working if the conflict didn’t happen. She said she would have. [ 32 ] So, I find the evidence as a whole shows the Appellant could more than likely work at a suitable job in the real world. The Appellant is trying to find and keep a suitable job [ 33 ] If the Appellant can work in the real world, she must show that she tried to find and keep a suitable job. She must also show her efforts weren’t successful because of her medical condition. Footnote 15 Finding and keeping a suitable job includes retraining or looking for a job she can do with her functional limitations. Footnote 16 [ 34 ] The Appellant is trying to find work. She said she could work at a different job, including a light-duty job. So, while she has limitations, the evidence doesn’t show her disability got in the way of her earning a living. She can work. She expects to return to work in the future. So, I don’t find her disability was severe by December 31, 2025. This also means, I don’t find she is entitled to a disability pension. Conclusion [ 35 ] I find the Appellant isn’t eligible for a [NAME] disability pension because her disability wasn’t severe. Because I have found that her disability wasn’t severe, I didn’t have to consider whether it was prolonged. [ 36 ] This means the appeal is dismissed. Footnotes Footnote 1 I will explain why this date is important next. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 Service Canada uses an appellant’s years of [NAME] contributions to calculate their coverage period, or “minimum qualifying period” ( MQP ). The end of the coverage period is called the MQP date. See section 44(2) of the [NAME] . The Appellant’s [NAME] contributions are on pages GD4-3 to 4. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 In Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2020  FC  1093, the Federal Court said that the appellant has to show a severe and prolonged disability by the end of their minimum qualifying period and continuously after that. See also [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2011  FCA  318. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 Section 42(2)(a) of the [NAME] gives this definition of severe disability . Section 68.1 of the [NAME] says a job is “substantially gainful” if it pays a salary or wages equal to or greater than the maximum annual amount a person could receive as a disability pension. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 Section 42(2)(a) of the [NAME] gives this definition of prolonged disability. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2013  FCA  81. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 [NAME]  v  Canada (Social Development) , 2008  FCA  33. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2011  FCA  47. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2008  FCA  377; and Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2020  FC  206. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 See GD2-89, GD2-95 to 160, and GD7-8 to 10. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 See GD7-8 to 10 and GD2-14 to 14. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 [NAME]  v  Canada (Social Development) , 2008  FCA  33. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2001  FCA  248. Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 This is also confirmed by the Appellant’s employer who filled out an employer questionnaire. See GD7-51 to 54. Return to footnote 14 referrer Footnote 15 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2003  FCA  117. Return to footnote 15 referrer Footnote 16 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2008  FCA  150. Return to footnote 16 referrer