CPP Disability Pension Appeal Dismissed Due to Lack of Medical Evidence

Citation: MH  v  [NAME] , 2026  [NAME]  262 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Decision Appellant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] [NAME] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated September 22, 2025 (GP-25-420) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: Teleconference Hearing date: March 18, 2026 Hearing participants: Appellant Respondent’s representative Decision date: March 26, 2026 File number: AD-25-724 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 ] I will refer to the Appellant, M. H., as the “Claimant.” I will refer to the Respondent, the [NAME], as the “Minister.” [ 3 ] The Claimant is 56 years old. She lives in a small community that appears to have relatively few [NAME]-round employment options. She applied for a [NAME] disability pension in July 2024. She said her main medical conditions were chronic lower back pain, chronic knee pain, and arthritis. Besides pain, she said these conditions caused numbness and weakness in various parts of her body. They also affected her ability to stand and hold on to things. Footnote 1 [ 4 ] The Minister denied the Claimant’s application initially and on reconsideration. She then appealed to the Social Security Tribunal (Tribunal). The Tribunal’s General Division dismissed her appeal. She then requested leave to appeal at the Tribunal’s Appeal Division. One of my Appeal Division colleagues granted her leave to appeal. The Claimant wanted, and was granted, a teleconference hearing. Footnote 2 Nobody asked me to consider the testimony from the General Division hearing. [ 5 ] Although the Claimant initially claimed that she had been disabled since June 2023, she later took the position that she was disabled before 1988. Footnote 3 She was only 18 years old then. She relied on her family doctor’s June 2025 evidence to support that. She also said her condition continued to get worse. She said she knew that she could not work at any job. [ 6 ] The Minister said the Claimant’s appeal should fail for two reasons. Firstly, there was no objective medical evidence by February 29, 1988. That was her last date of coverage. Secondly, she engaged in frequent work activity after her coverage ended. This included three years of seasonal road work ending in 2023, for which she also received regular employment insurance ( EI ) benefits when she was laid off each fall. [ 7 ] I must decide whether the Claimant had a disability that became severe and prolonged between January 1, 1988, and February 29, 1988. [ 8 ] For the reasons set out below, I find that the Claimant did not have a disability that became severe and prolonged between January 1, 1988, and February 29, 1988. Issues [ 9 ] The issues in this appeal are: a) Did the Claimant have a disability that became severe between January 1, 1988, and February 29, 1988, and remained severe until the hearing date? b) If so, did the Claimant also have a prolonged disability? c) If the answer to b) is “yes,” when does the Claimant’s [NAME] disability pension start? Analysis [ 10 ] The Claimant’s work history is unusual. Much of her reported income was from seasonal work. According to her [NAME] summary of earnings and contributions, she never earned more than $13,093.00 in a [NAME]. She has also had long gaps in reported earnings. For example, I see no reported earnings between 1994 and 2007 inclusive. Footnote 4 [ 11 ] However, the evidence also reveals that some of the Claimant’s work activity does not appear in her [NAME] summary. For example, between 2000 and 2005, she provided [NAME] services to an elderly man. But this appeared to be on a cash basis, with no tax or other deductions. Footnote 5 [ 12 ] Due to this unusual history, the Claimant’s minimum qualifying period ( MQP ), or coverage period, existed for only a very brief period of time. It lasted from January 1, 1988, to February 29, 1988. Footnote 6 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 7 [ 13 ] Under the [NAME] , a disability must be both severe and prolonged. [ 14 ] The [NAME] says a disability is severe if it makes a person incapable regularly of pursuing any substantially gainful occupation. Footnote 8 [ 15 ] 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 9 If she can regularly do some type of work from which she could earn a living, she isn’t entitled to a disability pension. [ 16 ] 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 10 Did the Claimant have a disability that became severe between January 1, 1988, and February 29, 1988, and remained severe until the hearing date? [ 17 ] The Claimant did not have a disability that became severe between January 1, 1988, and February 29, 1988, and remained severe until the hearing date. I will now explain why. [ 18 ] I will first review the Claimant’s functional limitations by February 29, 1988. The Claimant’s functional limitations by the end of February 1988 [ 19 ] The Claimant did not create any of her evidence in or around 1988. As a result, I must look at her much later statements about her functional limitations. [ 20 ] Based on that later evidence, the Claimant’s main claimed functional limitations by the end of February 1988 appear to fall into two main categories. First, she could do very little with her hands. Second, she was very limited in physical activities that placed significant demands on her back, arms, and legs. This included standing or sitting for extended periods, and activities such as walking or bending. [ 21 ] I’ll now set out some of the evidence which supports that conclusion. [ 22 ] When the Claimant applied for the [NAME] disability pension in 2024, her functional limitations were essentially physical. They arose from pain and arthritis. She said she could not stand for long, could not hold on to items, and had little strength in her hands. Footnote 11 When asked about some specific physical activities, she also rated her ability as “poor” for the following activities: Footnote 12 Remaining 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/squatting position and back up again Bend down to pick up coins from the floor Remove an item from her back pocket Change an overhead light bulb Sit at least 20 minutes in a straight-back chair Push or pull a heavy door to open it Open a can with a manual can opener Pound a nail with a hammer Press keys on a computer keyboard Stare at a computer screen for at least 20 minutes [ 23 ] In September 2025, the Claimant said her pain and hand difficulties went back to high school. She also said standing for long periods had long been a problem. Footnote 13 [ 24 ] I will now see if the medical evidence could support the claimed limitations by the end of February 1988. This is important because [NAME] disability applicants must provide some medical evidence about their underlying conditions. Footnote 14 Does the medical evidence support the claimed limitations? [ 25 ] I find that the medical evidence could support the claimed limitations related to the Claimant’s back. I will now explain why. [ 26 ] I agree with the Minister that the Claimant has not produced any medical evidence from around 1988. The earliest report, which was for an unrelated medical concern, was from 2002. The first potentially relevant report did not appear until 2011. Footnote 15 As the Claimant must establish a severe disability by the end of February 1988, there may be limits on how much weight I can assign the later medical reports. However, at this stage of my analysis, those report dates are relatively less important. Footnote 16 [ 27 ] [NAME] (family doctor) wrote in September 2024 that he had only been treating the Claimant’s main condition since 2006. Other conditions started even later. Footnote 17 However, the Claimant relied almost entirely on [NAME]’s June 2025 letter. His letter suggested that she stopped working in 1988 because of back problems. He also mentioned the 2007 emergence of low back pain and osteoarthritis. Footnote 18 While I have concerns about how much weight I can ultimately give to his 2025 conclusions, his letter could conceivably support the claimed limitations (related to her back only) in 1988. [ 28 ] I will now look at the Claimant’s personal characteristics. What were the Claimant’s relevant personal characteristics? [ 29 ] When deciding whether the Claimant had a severe disability, I must consider factors such as her: Footnote 19 Age Language ability Education level Past work and life experience [ 30 ] These factors will help me decide whether the Claimant could work in the real world. I will look at each of them in turn. [ 31 ] The Claimant was only 18 years old in February 1988. This is when most Canadians begin to work, and is 47 years away from the typical retirement age of 65. Her age would not have affected her ability to work in the real world. If anything, her age would have enhanced her ability to work in the real world. [ 32 ] The Claimant speaks English fluently. As English is one of Canada’s official languages, her language ability would not affect her real-world work ability. [ 33 ] The Claimant completed Grade 11, but left school before starting Grade 12. However, she later earned a General Education Development (GED) diploma. She also started, but did not complete, a hairdressing course. The GED is considered equivalent to a high school diploma. Even with the GED, she would not be able to do work needing more than a high school education. However, her education was still enough for many entry-level jobs. This would include work with significant physical or repetitive demands. [ 34 ] The Claimant’s work experience was mostly in jobs involving physical exertion or repetitive tasks. She first worked in a [NAME]. Later, she worked in various [NAME] or personal care assistant roles. Her latest job was working as a flagger and labourer on a road construction crew. While she did those things after 1988, they still show a capacity for such work. Her work history suggests that she would not be suited for “office work” or any other work with minimal physical demands. [ 35 ] Without considering the Claimant’s medical conditions , her personal characteristics meant that she was suited for the types of jobs she eventually did. She would also be suited for other jobs that involved significant physical or repetitive demands but did not require more than a high school education. [ 36 ] I will now apply the Claimant’s personal characteristics to her limitations, so I can decide whether she had any residual work capacity by the end of February 1988. I need to focus on that period, as her coverage ended then. If she did not have a severe disability continuously since then, her appeal cannot succeed. Did the Claimant have any residual work capacity by the end of February 1988? [ 37 ] The Claimant has residual work capacity by the end of February 1988. I will now explain why. [ 38 ] The Claimant had turned 18 years old in November 1987. She had worked in 1987 and also worked for a period in 1988. Her 1988 work was a seasonal job in a [NAME]. This was in the summer months. Footnote 20 [ 39 ] More generally, the Claimant has worked on many other occasions since 1988. For example, [NAME] said she worked part-time in [NAME] from 2000 to 2005. She worked again in [NAME] from 2011 to 2014 and from 2019 to 2020. And she worked as a flag person and labourer from 2021 to 2023. Footnote 21 All these positions lasted for multiple years, even if they were seasonal or part-time. Work capacity is not shown only by full-time, [NAME]-round work. [ 40 ] All these positions support work capacity around or after February 1988. The positions were also suitable for the Claimant, as they all had significant physical demands but did not require higher education. Her work capacity after February 1988 is relevant because she must show that she has remained severely disabled since then. The [NAME] disability pension is not payable for temporary periods. Footnote 22 She also said on several occasions that her condition worsened over time. Footnote 23 Thus, if she had work capacity after February 1988, she likely also had it by February 1988. [ 41 ] While I do not need to rely on it for determining work capacity, the Claimant also received regular EI benefits on multiple occasions from 1988 to the present. At the hearing, she said she likely received them after the [NAME] laid her off in 1988. She also said she received them each [NAME] from 2021 to 2023 after being laid off from her seasonal flag person job. Footnote 24 Regular EI benefits are usually payable only when a person is capable of and available for work. Footnote 25 [ 42 ] 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 26 I will now look at the Claimant’s efforts in that regard. Were the Claimant’s efforts at obtaining and maintaining work unsuccessful because of her health conditions? [ 43 ] The Claimant’s efforts to obtain and maintain suitable work did not fail around (and since) the end of February 1988 because of her health conditions. I will now explain why. [ 44 ] As noted above, the Claimant found suitable work on multiple occasions despite her health conditions. The question is whether her efforts to maintain that work failed because of her health conditions. On at least two occasions, her efforts to maintain work did not fail because of her health conditions. [ 45 ] The first occasion was the [NAME] work the Claimant did from 2000 to 2005. At the hearing, she said it was a split shift consisting of roughly two or three hours early in the day and two hours later in the day. This work did not show up in her [NAME] contributions summary as it was a private arrangement for a [NAME]. However, it was still work activity. She confirmed that this job stopped because the man died. [ 46 ] I conclude that this job did not fail because of the Claimant’s health conditions. She likely would have continued with the role had the elderly man remained alive and at home. In any case, it lasted for five years. The Federal Court has suggested that sustaining a job for even two years is still too long to be a failed work attempt. Footnote 27 [ 47 ] The second occasion was the Claimant’s flag person job from 2021 to 2023. For this job, the employer “[NAME]” gave extensive information. [NAME] confirmed that she worked from September 2021 to November 2021, May 2022 to September 2022, and August 2023 to November 2023. She had gaps because it was a seasonal position on a road crew. Footnote 28 Such work can only be done at certain times during the [NAME]. [ 48 ] [NAME] confirmed that the Claimant worked 40 hours per week. Besides flagging, the job also involved labour duties such as shovelling and raking. [NAME] said her attendance was “good,” which was the highest possible rating. She did not have any absences for medical reasons. The quality of her work was satisfactory, which again was the highest possible rating. She did not need special equipment, help from her co-workers, or any other special arrangements. Footnote 29 [ 49 ] This work appeared to be suitable for the Claimant, as set out in my discussion of her personal characteristics. [NAME] also confirmed that she could handle the job demands. She stopped working for [NAME] because it was seasonal work and the season had ended. Footnote 30 Furthermore, she said she collected regular EI benefits after each period of employment with [NAME]. [ 50 ] Once again, I conclude that this was not a failed work attempt. The Claimant did the demanding full-time work on three separate occasions over more than two years. Had it not been seasonal work, she likely would have continued it during the off-season. [ 51 ] [NAME]’s comments and the Claimant’s receipt of regular EI benefits reinforce her ability to do the work until at least November 2023. Had she been unable to work due to her health conditions, sickness EI benefits were an option. As with the home-care work she did from 2005 to 2010, such a long period of work is not compatible with a failed work attempt. If her health conditions prevented her from working, that only happened after she stopped working in November 2023. [ 52 ] While I do not need to rely on it, the Claimant may have had at least one other job that did not end because of her health conditions. The [NAME] position from January 2009 to October 2011 involved personal care assistance, light housekeeping, meal preparation, and being a companion. It was therefore suitable for her. She worked 24-25 hours per week. The employer was unaware of any health condition, and did not attribute the end of that work to any health condition. Footnote 31 [ 53 ] The Claimant had at least two work attempts after February 1988 that did not fail because of her health conditions. This means I cannot consider her disability severe during those attempts. In turn, this means her appeal must fail, because she has not shown that she has had a severe disability since at least February 29, 1988. [ 54 ] While this is sufficient to dispose of the appeal, I would like to address the June 2025 letter from [NAME]. The Claimant relied heavily on that letter. The June 2025 letter from [NAME] [ 55 ] I must assess all the evidence. When evidence on a relevant issue conflicts, I must determine what is more likely. But I cannot accept or reject evidence merely because of who gave it. This applies to doctors too. Footnote 32 [ 56 ] In this case, [NAME] suggested in June 2025 that the Claimant had a severe and prolonged disability “since prior to 1988” and remained disabled since then. Footnote 33 The Claimant said this statement proved her case. [ 57 ] Firstly, such a statement does not appear to help the Claimant because she needed to establish the onset of a severe disability between January 1, 1988, and February 29, 1988. “Prior to 1988” is not in that narrow window of time. The Claimant had no disability coverage under the [NAME] before 1988. [ 58 ] Secondly, I do not find this evidence to be very reliable. [NAME] only started treating the Claimant in 1993. At the hearing, the Claimant was not sure when she first met [NAME] but thought it was in either 1989 or 1990. He was treating a couple of her family members at that time. In my view, [NAME] could not have assessed her level of disability “prior to 1988,” or even before 1989. At best, he first saw her in 1989. But even that was not in the context of a doctor-patient relationship. [ 59 ] [NAME]’s June 2025 evidence about a pre-1988 disability also appears to contradict his earlier evidence that he only started treated the Claimant’s main disabling condition in 2006 and her other disabling conditions started even later. Footnote 34 [ 60 ] I also have concerns that [NAME] did not properly apply the definition of severity in his June 2025 letter. For example, he said she could manage only “limited hours” between 2000 and 2005 and could not work full-time. Footnote 35 This implies that she was severely disabled then because she could not work full-time. However, severity is not established just by being unable to work full-time. The test for severity involves pursuing a substantially gainful occupation. That is not restricted to full-time work. [ 61 ] [NAME] also concluded that the Claimant was severely disabled even when she worked full-time on a seasonal basis from September 2021 to November 2023. He said she was limited and could not continue with this work. He said they discussed this and, “determined that she should not try working again.” He did not provide a specific date for this determination, other than saying it was sometime in 2023. Footnote 36 [ 62 ] I find that this discussion about not trying to work again likely took place after the Claimant stopped working in November 2023. It would not make sense to talk about “trying to work again” if she were still working at the time. This means she did not stop working because of her health condition. The clear evidence of [NAME] is that she stopped working in November 2023 due to the end of construction season, and not for any reason related to her health. [ 63 ] Whatever the exact discussion date, [NAME]’s advice to stop working is not helpful even if he did give it in 2023. It does not overcome the fact that the Claimant worked full-time on a seasonal basis starting in September 2021. [NAME]’s objective evidence is that she had no significant work restrictions during this time and was a fully contributing employee. That is not compatible with a severe disability. [ 64 ] For all these reasons, [NAME]’s June 2025 evidence cannot support a finding that the Claimant became severely disabled in the first two months of 1988 and has remained severely disabled since then. The other evidence in the file is more reliable and suggests that any severe disability started no earlier than November 2023. [NAME]’s 2024 evidence that the Claimant could “no longer” maintain gainful employment points to a much later onset date than the first two months of 1988. Footnote 37 [ 65 ] The Claimant’s receipt of regular EI benefits after her November 2023 layoff suggests that she may not have been severely disabled even then. Similarly, she also would have declared herself capable of and available for work following her 2021 and 2022 layoffs from [NAME]. While I do not need to rely or make findings on these points, they do not assist her either. [ 66 ] I do not find the Claimant’s evidence about the end of her [NAME] job reliable either. In June 2024, she declared that she was unable to work as of June 2023. Footnote 38 At the hearing, she said that was when [NAME] told her to stop working. However, she worked for [NAME] from August 14, 2023, to November 24, 2023. Footnote 39 She either worked full-time in defiance of [NAME]’s instructions or gave an incorrect date for when he advised her not to return to work. [ 67 ] In the circumstances, I find it likely that the Claimant gave an incorrect date. [NAME] likely advised the Claimant to stop working at some point after November 24, 2023. I also find it unlikely that [NAME] would have “backdated” his instructions to be effective as of an earlier date. He treated her frequently and should have told her earlier if he didn’t think she could work. For example, in September 2024, he said he treated her nine times over the past twelve months. Footnote 40 That is almost one visit per month. [ 68 ] Finally, I acknowledge that the Claimant may have had some symptoms even in 1988. But having symptoms or a diagnosis is not the test for a severe disability. My focus must be on work capacity. The Claimant may not be able to work now. But even in June 2024, she stressed that she could no longer work like she used to work. Footnote 41 As noted above, she also often said she got worse over time. That is not consistent with a severe disability starting in the first two months of 1988, when she was only 18. Did the Claimant also have a prolonged disability? [ 69 ] The Claimant did not have a severe disability starting in the first two months of 1988. For this reason, I do not need to decide whether her disability was prolonged. Conclusion [ 70 ] The appeal is dismissed. The Claimant did not show that she had a severe and prolonged disability that started in the first two months of 1988. Footnotes Footnote 1 See GD2-33 and GD2-36. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See AD1-3. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See GD2-33 and AD1-2. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See GD2-53 and GD2-56. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 See GD4-2 and the Claimant’s testimony at the Appeal Division hearing. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 This date is based on the Claimant’s [NAME] contributions. Her [NAME] contributions are at GD2-53 and GD2-56. Service Canada uses a person’s years of [NAME] contributions to calculate their coverage period ( MQP ). See section 44(2) of the [NAME] . That section has changed several times over the years. For MQP s before 1998, a previous version of that section applies. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 See Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2015  FC  1348, at paragraph 31. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 See section 42(2)(a) of the [NAME]. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2011  FCA  47, at paragraph 8. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 See section 42(2)(a) of the [NAME]. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 See GD2-33. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 See GD2-36. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 See GD15-1 to GD15-2. Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2008  FCA  377, and Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2020  FC  206. Return to footnote 14 referrer Footnote 15 See GD4-7 and GD4-9. Return to footnote 15 referrer Footnote 16 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2018  FC  308, at paragraph 11. Return to footnote 16 referrer Footnote 17 See GD2-66 and GD2-68 to GD2-70. Return to footnote 17 referrer Footnote 18 See AD4-2 to GD4-3. Return to footnote 18 referrer Footnote 19 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2002  FCA  248. Return to footnote 19 referrer Footnote 20 See GD4-2. Return to footnote 20 referrer Footnote 21 See GD4-2. Return to footnote 21 referrer Footnote 22 [NAME]  v  Canada (Minister of Human Resources and Social Development) , 2008  FCA  366, at paragraphs 8-10. Return to footnote 22 referrer Footnote 23 See, for example, GD1-3, GD2-12, GD2-33, GD2-36, and GD15-1. The Claimant also said this at the Appeal Division hearing. Return to footnote 23 referrer Footnote 24 The Claimant also confirmed receiving regular EI benefits within the last two years when she applied for the [NAME] disability pension in 2024. See GD2-42. Return to footnote 24 referrer Footnote 25 See section 18(1) of the Employment Insurance Act . Return to footnote 25 referrer Footnote 26 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2003  FCA  117, at paragraph 3. Return to footnote 26 referrer Footnote 27 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2010  FC  48, at paragraph 10. Return to footnote 27 referrer Footnote 28 See GD10-1 and GD10-2. Return to footnote 28 referrer Footnote 29 See GD10-2 to GD10-4. Return to footnote 29 referrer Footnote 30 See GD10-1 and GD10-4. Return to footnote 30 referrer Footnote 31 See GD7-1 to GD7-4. Return to footnote 31 referrer Footnote 32 See Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2010  FCA  46, at paragraphs 3 to 4. Return to footnote 32 referrer Footnote 33 See GD4-3. Return to footnote 33 referrer Footnote 34 See GD2-66 and GD2-68 to GD2-70. Return to footnote 34 referrer Footnote 35 See GD4-2. Return to footnote 35 referrer Footnote 36 See GD2-71 and GD4-2. Return to footnote 36 referrer Footnote 37 See GD2-71. Return to footnote 37 referrer Footnote 38 See GD2-33. Return to footnote 38 referrer Footnote 39 See GD10-1 and GD10-2. Return to footnote 39 referrer Footnote 40 See GD2-66. Return to footnote 40 referrer Footnote 41 See GD2-50. Return to footnote 41 referrer