CPP Disability Pension Appeal Dismissed Due to Lack of Severe Disability

Citation: PG  v  [NAME] , 2026  SST  171 Social Security Tribunal of Canada General Division – Income Security Section Decision Appellant: [redacted] Representative: [NAME] (appearance by [NAME]) Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: [NAME] reconsideration decision dated April 24, 2025 (issued by Service Canada) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: Teleconference Hearing date: May 12, 2026 Hearing participants: Appellant Appellant’s representative Decision date: May 19, 2026 File number: GP-25-969 On this page Decision Overview What the Appellant must prove Reasons for my decision Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] The appeal is dismissed. [ 2 ] The Appellant, P. G., isn’t eligible for a [NAME] ( [NAME] ) disability pension. This decision explains why I am dismissing the appeal. Overview [ 3 ] The Appellant is 64 years old. He worked as a supervisor in a [NAME] that made newsprint. He had a heart attack in November 2021 and a second heart attack in July 2022. He hasn’t worked since just before his first heart attack, when he went on sick leave complaining of fatigue. [ 4 ] The Appellant applied for a [NAME] disability pension on July 31, 2023. The [NAME] (Minister) refused his application. The Appellant appealed the Minister’s decision to the Social Security Tribunal’s General Division. [ 5 ] The Appellant says he cannot work in any job. [ 6 ] The Minister says the medical evidence shows that he is capable of working. 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, 2025. In other words, no later than December 31, 2025. This date is based on his [NAME] contributions. Footnote 1 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 have to look at all of 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 has to prove he has a severe and prolonged disability. He has to prove this on a balance of probabilities. This means he has to 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 disability by December 31, 2025. Was the Appellant’s disability severe? [ 15 ] The Appellant’s disability wasn’t severe. I reached this finding by considering several factors which I explain below. The Appellant’s functional limitations affected his ability to work [ 16 ] The Appellant has coronary artery disease. He’s had two heart attacks. [ 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 has functional limitations that affected his ability to work. 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. [ 20 ] In the Appellant’s application he rated as “fair” the following physical abilities: Footnote 8 go up and down 12 to 15 steps get down into a kneeling or squatting position and back up again bend down to pick up coins from the floor change a light bulb in the ceiling above your head sit for at least 20 minutes in a straight back chair pick up two bags of groceries and walk a block (about 100 metres) [ 21 ] The Appellant also rated as “fair” his abilities: Footnote 9 to handle being in public places to concentrate or focus his attention for at least 30 minutes to do housekeeping and home maintenance without frequent breaks, such as cleaning, laundry, meal preparation, shopping, or yard work [ 22 ] At the hearing the Appellant described his job at the [NAME]. Although it was a supervisory position, he spent most of his time on the floor. He did very little computer work or paperwork because he had a secretary who handled that type of work. He had to walk about eight to twelve kilometres a day with temperatures as high 40 degrees Celsius and 100% humidity to ensure repair work was assigned and done safely. [ 23 ] The Appellant said his functional limitations included: fatigue low energy decreased strength reduced lifting capacity joint, muscle and general body pain [ 24 ] The Appellant said he couldn’t stand for long. He also said he couldn’t sit for long because his hip and legs “lock up.” He said there are activities he used to do but couldn’t anymore. These included: riding his motorcycle riding his snow mobile fishing camping [ 25 ] The Appellant said that even though his property isn’t large, if he cuts the grass one day, the next day is a “down day,” meaning he couldn’t do anything physical. More generally, he said, if he cooks or cleans, he has to take breaks every 20 to 30 minutes. What the medical evidence says about the Appellant’s functional limitations [ 26 ] The Appellant must provide some medical evidence to support that his functional limitations affected his ability to work no later than December 31, 2025. Footnote 10 [ 27 ] The medical evidence supports some of what the Appellant says. [ 28 ] In February 2023, [NAME], a cardiologist, said that although the Appellant had no chest pain and his cardiological test results were good, he recommended he “stay on long-term disability for now.” Footnote 11 [ 29 ] A nurse practitioner, [NAME], completed a medical report for the Appellant in November 2023. Footnote 12 She said that due to coronary artery disease the Appellant had a heart attack in November 2021 and again in July 2022. She said that the Appellant’s impairments and functional limitations were: decreased endurance he required a longer recuperation time increased weakness difficulty maintaining a standing position for a long time difficulty walking long distances and moving around an inability to lift anything too heavy an inability to do heavy housework [ 30 ] [NAME] said she recommended the Appellant stop working as of December 20, 2021. From a medical standpoint she didn’t expect him to return to any type of work in the future. Footnote 13 [ 31 ] In April 2025, the Appellant was reassessed by [NAME]. Footnote 14 This time the cardiologist said: At this point in time [the Appellant] remains stable from a cardiac perspective. I see no issues with him doing another vocation that is sedentary such as a desk job. He could also do light duty work as long as he was not in high temperature environment as some of his medications would make him prone to hypotension and [light-headedness].” [ 32 ] In November 2025, [NAME] said the Appellant’s functional limitation were: Footnote 15 decreased endurance increased weakness a longer recuperation time difficulty maintaining a standing position for over 30 minutes an inability to change position without dizziness an inability to walk long distances [ 33 ] The medical evidence supports that the Appellant’s functional limitations prevented him from going back to his former job, with its high temperatures, high humidity and lots of walking. [ 34 ] Next, I will look at whether the Appellant followed medical advice. The Appellant followed medical advice [ 35 ] To receive a disability pension, an appellant must follow medical advice. Footnote 16 [ 36 ] The Appellant followed medical advice. The Minister doesn’t argue otherwise and I find that he did. [ 37 ] 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 him from earning a living at any type of work, not just his usual job. Footnote 17 The Appellant can work in the real world [ 38 ] When I am deciding whether the Appellant can work, I can’t just look at his functional limitations and how they affect what he can do. I must also consider factors such as his: age level of education language abilities past work and life experience [ 39 ] These factors help me decide whether the Appellant can work in the real world—in other words, whether it is realistic to say that he can work. Footnote 18 [ 40 ] I find that the Appellant can work in the real world. He was still able to work as of December 31, 2025. [ 41 ] I acknowledge the Appellant’s age presents a challenge. He is only one year from the standard age of retirement. I wouldn’t expect him to retrain at his age. [ 42 ] On the other hand, the Appellant speaks English fluently and has a high school education and years of experience as a supervisor. Although his job was physically demanding, he has experience supervising and assigning work to others. So, he would not necessarily have to retrain to do another job. [ 43 ] I asked the Appellant if he could be a cashier. He said he couldn’t because he couldn’t stand that long. [ 44 ] I asked the Appellant if he could do something related to driving. He said he hadn’t really thought about it and reminded me that if he sits for long his hip and leg “lock up.” Although there is no medical evidence of this limitation, I believe what the Appellant told me. However, he also conceded that if he took regular breaks to walk around he might be able to do a driving job. [ 45 ] Given his lack of computer skills, a strictly office job simply isn’t realistic. But there are jobs that aren’t nearly as physically demanding as the job he was doing which don’t require computer skills. The Appellant didn’t try to find and keep a suitable job [ 46 ] If the Appellant can work in the real world, he must show that he tried to find and keep a suitable job. He must also show his efforts weren’t successful because of his medical conditions. Footnote 19 Finding and keeping a suitable job includes retraining or looking for a job he can do with his functional limitations. Footnote 20 [ 47 ] The Appellant didn’t try to work. He said although he looked at some jobs online, he didn’t apply for any. [ 48 ] Therefore, I can’t find he had a severe disability by December 31, 2025. Conclusion [ 49 ] 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. [ 50 ] 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 GD2-150. 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 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 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 (Attorney General) , 2011  FCA  47. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 See GD2-107. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 See GD2-108 to GD2-110. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2008  FCA  377; and Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2020  FC  206. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 See GD2-257 and GD2-258. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 See GD2-221 to GD2-229. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 See GD2-228. Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 See GD2-193 to GD2-196. Return to footnote 14 referrer Footnote 15 See GD4-19. Return to footnote 15 referrer Footnote 16 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2018  FCA  48. Return to footnote 16 referrer Footnote 17 [NAME]  v  Canada (Social Development) , 2008  FCA  33. Return to footnote 17 referrer Footnote 18 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2001  FCA  248. Return to footnote 18 referrer Footnote 19 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2003  FCA  117. Return to footnote 19 referrer Footnote 20 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2008  FCA  150. Return to footnote 20 referrer