CPP Disability Pension Appeal Dismissed Due to Lack of Evidence

Citation: MA  v  [NAME] , 2026  SST  103 Social Security Tribunal of Canada [NAME] Security Section Decision Appellant: [redacted] Representative: A. S. Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: [NAME] reconsideration decision dated May 1, 2024 (issued by Service Canada) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: Videoconference Hearing date: January 28, 2026 Hearing participants: Appellant Appellant’s representative Interpreter Decision date: February 13, 2026 File number: GP-25-303 On this page Decision Overview What the Appellant must prove Reasons for my decision Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] The appeal is dismissed. [ 2 ] The Appellant, M. A., isn’t eligible for a [NAME] ( [NAME] ) disability pension. This decision explains why I am dismissing the appeal. Overview [ 3 ] The Appellant is 52 years old. He worked as a heavy machine operator, specifically operating heavy construction equipment. He had a heart attack in February 2018, and hasn’t been able to return to work regularly since then. [ 4 ] The Appellant applied for a [NAME] disability pension on June 16, 2022. The [NAME] (Minister) refused his application. The Appellant appealed the Minister’s decision to the Social Security Tribunal’s [NAME]. [ 5 ] The Appellant says his heart symptoms began before his heart attack in February 2018. He says his heart conditions result in a disability that is severe and prolonged. He says I should consider how close in time his heart attack was to his minimum qualifying period ( MQP ) when I decide this appeal. I will explain more about the MQP later. [ 6 ] The Minister says the Appellant’s disability became severe in 2018 after his MQP of December 31, 2017. It says there is no evidence that the Appellant had a severe and prolonged disability by December 31, 2017. What the Appellant must prove [ 7 ] For the Appellant to succeed, he must prove he has a disability that was severe and prolonged by December 31, 2017. In other words, no later than December 31, 2017. This date is based on his [NAME] contributions. Footnote 1 This is the Appellant’s MQP . He must also prove that he continues to be disabled. 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 must look at all the Appellant’s medical conditions together to see what effect they have on his ability to work. I also have to look at his background (including his age, level of education, and past work and life experience). This is so I can get a realistic or “real world” picture of whether his disability is severe. If the Appellant is capable regularly of doing some kind of work that he could earn a living from, then he 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 must prove he has a severe and prolonged disability. He has to prove this on a balance of probabilities. This means he must show it is more likely than not that he is disabled. Reasons for my decision [ 14 ] I find that the Appellant hasn’t proven he had a severe and prolonged disability by December 31, 2017. I reached this decision by considering whether his condition was severe. 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. There is no credible evidence that the Appellant had any functional limitations that affected his ability to work before his MQP [ 16 ] The Appellant has back pain and right knee pain. He also has high cholesterol and high blood pressure. [ 17 ] However, I can’t focus on the Appellant’s diagnoses. Footnote 5 Instead, I must focus on whether he has functional limitations that got in the way of him earning a living. Footnote 6 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 his ability to work. Footnote 7 [ 18 ] I find that the Appellant didn’t have functional limitations that affected his ability to work by December 31, 2017. What the Appellant says about his functional limitations [ 19 ] The Appellant says that his medical conditions have resulted in functional limitations that affect his ability to work. He says: He has difficulty doing heavy chores at home because of back pain. He can’t kneel on the floor and pray as required for his religion. He can’t sit on hard surfaces for more than 30 minutes at a time. He can’t engage in prolonged walking because of back pain and shortness of breath. What the medical evidence says about the Appellant’s functional limitations [ 20 ] The Appellant must provide some medical evidence to support that his functional limitations affected his ability to work no later than December 31, 2017. Footnote 8 [ 21 ] The medical evidence doesn’t support what the Appellant says. [ 22 ] The only evidence available about the Appellant’s medical condition before December 31, 2017, is a medical report from April 2025. I’m going to explain why I don’t find this medical report to be credible evidence. [ 23 ] The medical report from [NAME] is dated April 14, 2025. Footnote 9 [NAME] is in Fiji. [NAME] says the Appellant has conditions affecting his lumbar spine and multiple joints including his knees, since a motor vehicle accident in Canada in 2017. [ 24 ] [NAME] says there are multiple lumbar root impingements resulting in major dysfunction, as shown on multiple x-rays and MRI tests. The testing wasn’t attached to the report. There is no evidence that [NAME] was treating the Appellant before December 2017. [ 25 ] I don’t find [NAME]’s evidence credible because there is no mention of any back pain, knee pain, or joint pain in any of the Appellant’s medical records from Canada. The Appellant filed approximately 100 pages of medical evidence from Canada for his appeal. [ 26 ] If the accident was in Canada, and the Appellant has been getting medical treatment in Canada for many years, there would be a mention of major spine or joint dysfunction in his records, even in passing as part of his medical history. [ 27 ] The Appellant’s family doctor in Canada completed a medical report for [NAME] . Footnote 10 It doesn’t mention any back, knee, or other joint pain. There are no x-rays or MRIs of the Appellant’s spine, joints or knees in his Canadian medical records. [ 28 ] At the hearing the Appellant told me the motor vehicle accident was in 1995, not 2017. He says he also had back pain from a workplace accident in the past. However, the Appellant did continue to work at his regular job after these accidents. [ 29 ] The evidence about the date of the Appellant’s accident is conflicting. There isn’t one additional piece of medical evidence that corroborates [NAME]’s report. Therefore, I’m not giving any weight to his opinion that the Appellant has had major back and joint dysfunction since 2017. [ 30 ] There is no other medical evidence that the Appellant had any functional limitations before February 2018. [ 31 ] The Appellant asked me to consider how close his heart attack in February 2018 was to his MQP in December 2017 when I make my decision. He argues that his heart condition didn’t arise immediately in February 2018. [ 32 ] I agree that the Appellant may have had indications of heart problems before February 2018. The hospital record from February 7, 2018, briefly says he had a history of high blood pressure and cholesterol. Footnote 11 [ 33 ] However, the issue in this appeal isn’t whether the Appellant can show he may have had an indication of a heart condition before his MQP . It’s whether the condition resulted in a severe and prolonged disability by no later than December 31, 2017. Having symptoms or a condition doesn’t mean that an appellant has a severe and prolonged disability. [ 34 ] There is no evidence before me that the Appellant had any functional limitations related to high blood pressure and high cholesterol by December 31, 2017. There is no medical evidence to show he was actively seeking medical treatment for any type of medical condition by his MQP . [ 35 ] I’m not able to make an exception for the Appellant because his heart attack was close to his MQP date. The law is clear that he must show he had a severe and prolonged disability by no later than December 31, 2017. I must follow what the law says. [ 36 ] The medical evidence doesn’t support that the Appellant’s functional limitations affected his ability to work by December 31, 2017. As a result, he hasn’t proven he had a severe disability. Why I didn’t consider the Appellant’s personal characteristics [ 37 ] 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 12 [ 38 ] 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 13 [ 39 ] In the Appellant’s case, there isn’t any medical evidence to support a finding of disability by December 31, 2017. Since there is no relevant medical evidence, there is no reason to consider his personal characteristics. Conclusion [ 40 ] I find that the Appellant isn’t eligible for a [NAME] disability pension because his disability wasn’t severe. Because I have found that his disability wasn’t severe, I didn’t have to consider whether it was prolonged. [ 41 ] 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 GD2-58. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 In Canada ([NAME])  v  Angell , 2020  FC  1093, the Federal Court said that the appellant must show a severe and prolonged disability by the end of their minimum qualifying period and continuously after that. See also [NAME]  v  Canada ([NAME]) , 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 [NAME]  v  Canada ([NAME]) , 2013  FCA  81. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 [NAME]  v  Canada (Social Development) , 2008  FCA  33. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 [NAME]  v  Canada ([NAME]) , 2011  FCA  47. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 [NAME]  v  Canada ([NAME]) , 2008  FCA  377; and Canada ([NAME])  v  [NAME] , 2020  FC  206. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 See GD6-1. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 See GD2-83. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 See GD2-117. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 [NAME]  v  Canada ([NAME]) , 2001  FCA  248. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 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 ([NAME]) , 2001  FCA  248 at paragraph 50, where the Court said that “[m]edical evidence will still be needed…” Return to footnote 13 referrer