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

Citation: HS v [NAME] , 2026  SST  91 Social Security Tribunal of Canada General Division – Income Security Section Decision Appellant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: [NAME] reconsideration decision dated March 11, 2025 (issued by Service Canada) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: Videoconference Hearing date: January 29, 2026 Hearing participants: Appellant Decision date: February 11, 2026 File number: GP-25-497 On this page Decision Overview What the Appellant must prove Reasons for my decision Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] The appeal is dismissed. [ 2 ] The Appellant, H. S., isn’t eligible for a [NAME] ( [NAME] ) disability pension. This decision explains why I am dismissing the appeal. Overview [ 3 ] The Appellant is 31 years old. She has a university degree in nursing. She stopped work in August 2021 as a nurse because of depression, anxiety, trauma and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). She has had two children since then and has not returned to any work. [ 4 ] The Appellant applied for a [NAME] disability pension on December 27, 2023. 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 she cannot concentrate or follow a conversation. Work caused a breakdown and she is now dealing with that. [ 6 ] The Minister says the psychiatrist noted no observed illness barriers. As well, the Minister says her condition is not prolonged because she retains the capacity for some work in the future. What the Appellant must prove [ 7 ] For the Appellant to succeed, she must prove she has a disability that was severe and prolonged by the hearing date. In other words, no later than January 29, 2026, the date of the hearing. Footnote 1 [ 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 2 [ 10 ] A disability is prolonged if it is likely to be long continued and of indefinite duration or is likely to result in death. Footnote 3 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 until she is age 65. [ 11 ] 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 [ 12 ] I find that the Appellant hasn’t proven she has had a severe and prolonged disability by the date of the hearing. I reached this decision by considering if the Appellant’s disability was severe. Is the Appellant’s disability severe? [ 13 ] The Appellant’s disability isn’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 [ 14 ] The Appellant has: depression anxiety childhood and other trauma ADHD [ 15 ] However, I can’t focus on the Appellant’s diagnoses. Footnote 4 Instead, I must focus on whether she has functional limitations that got in the way of her earning a living. Footnote 5 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 6 [ 16 ] I find that the Appellant has functional limitations that affected her ability to work. What the Appellant says about her functional limitations and her ability to work [ 17 ] The Appellant says that her medical conditions have resulted in functional limitations that affect her ability to work. The following is from the Appellant’s testimony on her functional limitations and her ability to work. [ 18 ] The Appellant stated that she has always had personality clashes with others at work. [ 19 ] When she came out of university with a degree as a registered nurse (RN) in 2017, she could not find a job for almost a year. Then in 2018 she got a job as an RN in a city four hours from her home. She had a problem with her manager. She had a problem with the program mentorship because she had issues with time management and delegation of duties. She lasted less than one year and moved to another job two hours from her home. [ 20 ] In 2019 she began working at a second hospital as an RN. There, she had a problem with her co-workers where she felt left out, and felt she was “less than”. She spoke to her manager in 2020. She had a meeting with Human Resources (HR) a week later and was disciplined for her lack of work skills. She had to do some communication courses and read some articles. [ 21 ] At this time, she was getting counselling with social worker [NAME]. She was receiving weekly counselling from [NAME] and weekly group counselling on dialectical behavioural therapy (DBT) Footnote 7 . The Appellant stated the DBT dealt with her perception of others. She also stated that [NAME] asked if she would like to go off work, but she was stubborn and wanted to push through. [ 22 ] She was put on one-on-one mentorship with another nurse. She worked on the surgery floor. She stated she did everything right and was told by her mentor were no problems. Then she had another meeting with the manager regarding professional practice and that she was not performing properly. She felt she could not do anything right. [ 23 ] She was then put on another floor which was less stressful, and the staff were kinder. She was on put on days. There she was mentored with a nurse she did not know. The nurse told her she was doing fine. She was again blindsided when the head nurse told her she was not doing the job right. [ 24 ] The Appellant was suspended three times from this job from 2019 to August 2021. She knew the hospital was deciding to put her on suspension again in August 2021 or fire her. She went on sick leave before they could do either. She remains on long-term disability (LTD) today. [ 25 ] She had four complaints at the [COMPANY] and had to go through their disciplinary process while she was working. She also went through their disciplinary process while off work. [ 26 ] In October 2022 the Appellant had her first child. She did not take maternity leave because she was already on LTD. In May 2025, she had her second child. [ 27 ] She stated her husband does everything. Her mother just moved to her town in October 2025 to help with her children. Currently, her husband is off work on paternity leave. Otherwise, he works a 9-to-5 job and will return to it in a few months. [ 28 ] In the fall of 2022, she switched counsellors from [NAME] to [NAME]. The Appellant stated [NAME] determined she has childhood trauma and trauma from working as a nurse. Treatment sought [ 29 ] The Appellant stated she is followed by psychiatrist [NAME] once every six months who adjusts her medication levels. She takes medications daily. [NAME] diagnosed her with ADHD two years ago and put her on Concerta. It has helped. [NAME] also recently switched anti-anxiety medication (from Effexor to Sertraline) and upped the dosage of Concerta for ADHD. She continues to take bupropion for depression, which she has taken since university. [ 30 ] The Appellant continues to see [NAME] every two weeks for an hour of trauma therapy. The Appellant stated her memory is gone which might be from the post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) from her nursing career. [NAME] is treating the trauma, which is a process. [ 31 ] She has tried EMDR, therapy for PTSD. This was with [NAME], and it was short-lived and not effective. The DBT was a group therapy. The Appellant has never received cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) in any formal capacity. In 2020, she had an assessment with a psychologist provided by her employer. She doesn’t know what it said. There are no plans for a psychological assessment in the future. [ 32 ] The Appellant stated that previously she was able to function in society and go to school. Work caused a breakdown. She is dealing with that in therapy. Functional Limitations [ 33 ] The Appellant stated she has the following functional limitations: She can only do one thing a day. Otherwise, her energy is sapped. Sometimes it is laundry or dishwashing, but it is not both. She can only stay up a few hours then needs to nap. She needs to be reminded to take a shower. She has no memory. She has no focus. She cannot follow conversations. She feels she cannot be retrained because of her cognitive issues noted above. She can only take care of her own child. When the baby naps, she naps. She cannot function for herself and needs help. What the medical evidence says about the Appellant’s functional limitations [ 34 ] The Appellant must provide some medical evidence to support that her functional limitations affected her ability to work no later than the date of the hearing. Footnote 8 [ 35 ] The medical evidence supports what the Appellant says. [ 36 ] On March 14, 2025, [NAME] noted in a letter to the Minister that motivation is the main barrier in the Appellant’s recovery. [NAME] could not identify any specific psychiatric illness or symptoms that could target this barrier, because it is not a purely biological psychiatric illness. However, the Appellant was still treated with medications. The doctor noted there are no illness barriers. [NAME] stated Appellant’s reports of her limited daily functioning (lack of attention to complete a task) contradicts what she would expect. Footnote 9 [ 37 ] In October 2025, [NAME] diagnosed major depressive disorder (MDD) with postpartum onset, borderline personality disorder and ADHD. She noted the Appellant had not complied with recommendations such as healthy sleep cycle, daily hygiene and household tasks. She was fully compliant with taking the Concerta, sertraline and bupropion. The barrier to her recovery was social isolation during the post partum period. Footnote 10 [ 38 ] The Appellant testified that the post-partum period did not last long. Therefore, the barrier to her recovery would have resolved. [ 39 ] On March 4, 2025, [NAME] wrote the Minister stating that the Appellant began counselling in August 2020. She has been diagnosed with MDD, anxiety and ADHD. [NAME] felt the Appellant suffers from childhood and adult workplace traumas and has received CBT, DBT and trauma therapy. The Appellant continues to have low mood, high anxiety, difficulty processing trauma, low motivation, poor self-care, difficulty sleeping, difficulty with focus, memory recall and concentration on tasks. [NAME] will continue to provide counselling on a bi-weekly basis. Her present assessment is that the Appellant will continue to have struggles with mental health and that returning to work is not recommended for the foreseeable future. Footnote 11 [ 40 ] The most recent report is from [NAME] in a [NAME] questionnaire for the Appellant’s LTD, dated October 29, 2025. [NAME] stated the Appellant is not in a place to start EMDR. She has received continued help from her psychiatrist to reduce severe symptoms and a potential reassessment from a psychologist may help improve her function in working toward a return to work. Her prognosis is fair. Footnote 12 [ 41 ] [NAME]’s assessment was done specifically for the Appellant’s return to work as a nurse. However, her assessment of the Appellant’s trauma is mainly focused on her childhood and her work as a nurse. [ 42 ] [NAME] recommended continued treatment from [NAME] to help reduce the severe symptomology. The medications provided by [NAME] are effective. [NAME] does not feel the symptoms are due to a “purely biological psychiatric illness”. She did not find any illness barriers in the Appellant. She found the barrier to recovery was social isolation during post-partum. The post-partum, according to the Appellant, has resolved. Which would mean this barrier to recovery has resolved. [NAME] also questions the functioning barriers as reported by the Appellant. [NAME]’s is treating effectively with medications. As well, [NAME] did not indicate the symptoms were severe. [ 43 ] [NAME] also recommended a psychological reassessment, and continuing psychotherapy in order to consider a return to work. The Appellant has yet to have a current psychological assessment. She has never received counselling from a trained psychologist. [ 44 ] The ongoing counselling with [NAME] would also address the low motivation, which was noted as the barrier to recovery in March 2025. [ 45 ] Treatments have not been exhausted. There is still EMDR to address the trauma, and CBT to address the low motivation, along with a psychological reassessment. As well, the Appellant has not been compliant with the very conservative recommendations of daily hygiene, healthy sleep cycles and performing household tasks. I agree with the Minister that the Appellant’s condition may improve in the future to provide a return to work. The Appellant is young and she has time to pursue the treatments. As the anxiety is in large part from her work as a nurse, it is unlikely she will return to that job. [ 46 ] 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 13 The Appellant can work in the real world [ 47 ] When I am deciding whether 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 such as her: age level of education language abilities past work and life experience [ 48 ] 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 14 [ 49 ] The Appellant is only 31 years old with over 30 years remaining to work, or to retrain. She has a university education. She is fluent in the English language. There are no real-world barriers which would prevent the Appellant from finding suitable employment. [ 50 ] I find that the Appellant can work in the real world. The Appellant hasn’t tried to find and keep a suitable job [ 51 ] 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 conditions. Footnote 15 Finding and keeping a suitable job includes retraining or looking for a job she can do with her functional limitations. Footnote 16 [ 52 ] The Appellant indicated she did try to work. I find the job was not suitable. An issue of credibility [ 53 ] The Appellant explained that she tried to take care of children in her home in 2023. She first stated and that only lasted for two weeks, then stated it was for less than six months. She had her own child at the time who was 1 year old. She took care of four more babies: one aged 1; two two-year olds; and a three-year old. She said she did not get paid. She said that [NAME], her social worker, thought it was a good idea that she tries to do this. [ 54 ] There are numerous issues of credibility which arise with this. The Appellant has consistently stated that she is unable to function for herself. She cannot feed herself. She cannot focus or concentrate. [ 55 ] Yet, for less than six months she claims was taking care of five children between ages 1 and 3. Either her testimony about doing this job is embellished, or not factual, or her testimony about her functional limitations is. [ 56 ] That job would be very physical and stressful and require focus, functioning and an ability to concentrate. If her social worker thought it was a good idea for her try to take care of four babies and one toddler at the same time, then it shows a capacity to work. This means, the social worker felt the Appellant was capable of trying to work in 2023. [ 57 ] If the Appellant has the functional limitations she states, this was not a suitable job for a woman who can barely take care of herself and her own one-year-old. [ 58 ] After 2023 she began treatment with [NAME] who put her on medications for AHDH. The Appellant stated the medications have helped, which means she has improved somewhat since leaving work, or attempting the childcare job. [ 59 ] Therefore, I do not accept that she attempted to work at a suitable job. [ 60 ] As such, I can’t find that the Appellant had a severe disability by the date of the hearing. Conclusion [ 61 ] I find that the Appellant isn’t eligible for a [NAME] disability pension because her disability isn’t severe. Because I have found the Appellant does not have a severe condition, I do not have to address the issue of prolonged. [ 62 ] 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 outlined in GD3. In this case, the Appellant’s coverage period ends after the hearing date, so I have to decide whether she was disabled by the hearing date. Return to footnote 1 Footnote 2 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 2 Footnote 3 Section 42(2)(a) of the [NAME] gives this definition of prolonged disability. Return to footnote 3 Footnote 4 [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2013  FCA  81. Return to footnote 4 Footnote 5 [NAME] v Canada (Social Development) , 2008  FCA  33. Return to footnote 5 Footnote 6 [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2011  FCA  47. Return to footnote 6 Footnote 7 Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT) is a structured therapeutic approach designed to help individuals manage intense emotions and improve their interpersonal relationships. Return to footnote 7 Footnote 8 [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2008  FCA  377; and Canada (Attorney General) v [NAME] , 2020  FC  206. Return to footnote 8 Footnote 9 See GD2-78. Return to footnote 9 Footnote 10 See GD10-2. Return to footnote 10 Footnote 11 See GD2-80. Return to footnote 11 Footnote 12 See GD6-5. Return to footnote 12 Footnote 13 [NAME] v Canada (Social Development) , 2008  FCA  33. Return to footnote 13 Footnote 14 [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2001  FCA  248. Return to footnote 14 Footnote 15 [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2003  FCA  117. Return to footnote 15 Footnote 16 [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2008  FCA  150. Return to footnote 16