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

Citation: CG  v  [NAME] , 2026  SST  366 Social Security Tribunal of Canada General Division – Income Security Section Decision Appellant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: [NAME] reconsideration decision dated September 22, 2025 (issued by Service Canada) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: Teleconference Hearing date: February 23, 2026 Hearing participants: Appellant Appellant’s witness Decision date: February 27, 2026 File number: GP-25-1592 On this page Decision Overview What the Appellant must prove Matters I considered first Reasons for my decision Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] The appeal is dismissed. [ 2 ] The Appellant, C. G., isn’t eligible for a [NAME] ( [NAME] ) disability pension. This decision explains why I am dismissing the appeal. Overview [ 3 ] The Appellant is 56 years old. She stopped working in 2016 when she was injured in a car accident. [ 4 ] The Appellant applied for a [NAME] disability pension on April 11, 2025. The [NAME] (Minister) refused her application. The Appellant appealed the Minister’s decision to the Social Security Tribunal’s General Division. [ 5 ] The Appellant says in her application that she could no longer work as of 2016. She fractured her arm and had surgery. She has ongoing difficulties using her right arm. She also has trouble with her legs. [ 6 ] The Minister says that the Appellant didn’t have a severe and prolonged disability by September 30, 1989. This is called her prorated minimum qualifying period ( MQP ). I will explain what that means later in the decision. What the Appellant must prove [ 7 ] For the Appellant to succeed, she must prove she has a disability that was severe and prolonged by September 30, 1989. In other words, no later than September 30, 1989. This date is based on her [NAME] contributions. Footnote 1 It’s also based on proration which I will explain later in the decision. The Appellant must also prove that she continues to be disabled since September 30, 1989. Footnote 2 [ 8 ] The [NAME] defines “severe” and “prolonged.” [ 9 ] A disability is severe if it makes an appellant incapable regularly of pursuing any substantially gainful occupation. Footnote 3 [ 10 ] This means I have to look at all of the Appellant’s medical conditions together to see what effect they have on 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 4 [ 12 ] This means the Appellant’s disability can’t have an expected recovery date. The disability must be expected to keep the Appellant out of the workforce for a long time. [ 13 ] The Appellant has to prove 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. Matters I considered first The Appellant doesn’t have an MQP without proration [ 14 ] The Minister considered proration to give the Appellant an MQP because the Appellant doesn’t have at least four years of valid (sufficient) contributions to the [NAME] to have an MQP without proration. Footnote 5 [ 15 ] Because the Minister used proration it says Footnote 6 and I agree that the Appellant has to prove she has a disability that became severe and prolonged between January 1, 1989, and September 30, 1989. A decision of one of my colleagues also supports my finding. Footnote 7 Reasons for my decision [ 16 ] I find that the Appellant hasn’t proven she had a disability that became severe and prolonged between January 1 and September 30, 1989. I reached this decision by considering whether the Appellant’s disability was severe. Was the Appellant’s disability severe? [ 17 ] 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 didn’t affect her ability to work [ 18 ] The Appellant has soft tissue injuries to her right upper back, neck, and arm with reflex sympathetic dystrophy. [ 19 ] However, I can’t focus on the Appellant’s diagnoses. Footnote 8 Instead, I must focus on whether she has functional limitations that got in the way of him earning a living. Footnote 9 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 10 [ 20 ] I find that the Appellant doesn’t have functional limitations that affected her ability to work. What the Appellant says about her functional limitations [ 21 ] The Appellant says that her medical conditions resulted in functional limitations that affect her ability to work. But she says it wasn’t until 2016 that she felt she could no longer work. [ 22 ] The Appellant said at the hearing that she didn’t have any functional limitations that affected her ability to work by September 30, 1989. What the medical evidence says about the Appellant’s functional limitations [ 23 ] The medical evidence confirms what the Appellant says. It says that she didn’t have functional limitations that affected her ability to work until 2016. [ 24 ] Therefore, there wasn’t any medical evidence to support that the Appellant’s functional limitations affected her ability to work between January 1 and September 30, 1989. As a result, she hasn’t proven she had a severe disability. Why I didn’t consider the Appellant’s personal characteristics [ 25 ] When I am deciding whether a disability is severe, I usually have to consider an appellant’s personal characteristics. Factors like age, level of education, language abilities, and past work and life experience, may affect whether an appellant can work in the real world. Footnote 11 [ 26 ] But I didn’t consider the Appellant’s personal characteristics. This is because an appellant can’t qualify for a disability pension based on their personal characteristics alone. There must still be medical evidence to support a finding of a disability. Footnote 12 [ 27 ] In the Appellant’s case, there isn’t any medical evidence to support a finding that the Appellant had a disability that became severe between January 1 and September 30, 1989. Since there is no medical evidence, there is no reason to consider her personal characteristics. Conclusion [ 28 ] I find that 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. [ 29 ] This means the appeal is dismissed. Footnotes Footnote 1 Service Canada uses an appellant’s years of [NAME] contributions to calculate their coverage period, or “minimum qualifying period” ( MQP ). The end of the coverage period is called the MQP date. See section 44(2) of the [NAME] . The Appellant’s [NAME] contributions are on GD2-46. There is an updated record of contributions at GD15. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 In Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2020  FC  1093, the Federal Court said that the appellant has to show a severe and prolonged disability by the end of their minimum qualifying period and continuously after that. See also [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2011  FCA  318. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 Section 42(2)(a) of the [NAME] gives this definition of severe disability. Section 68.1 of the [NAME] says a job is “substantially gainful” if it pays a salary or wages equal to or greater than the maximum annual amount a person could receive as a disability pension. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 Section 42(2)(a) of the [NAME] gives this definition of prolonged disability. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 This is based on sections 19 and 44(2.1) of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 See Minister’s submissions at GD8 and at GD14-11 at para.

18. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 See also, [NAME]  v  Minister (Employment and Social Development) , 2025  SST  152 Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2013  FCA  81. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 [NAME]  v  Canada (Social Development) , 2008  FCA  33. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2011  FCA  47. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2001  FCA  248. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 Section 42(2)(a) of the [NAME] says that a person is disabled only if they have a severe and prolonged mental or physical disability . See also [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2001  FCA  248 at paragraph 50, where the Court said that “[m]edical evidence will still be needed…” Return to footnote 12 referrer