CPP Disability Pension Appeal Dismissed Due to Lack of Severe Disability Evidence

Citation: [NAME]  v  [NAME] , 2026  [NAME]  326 Social Security Tribunal of Canada General Division – Income Security Section Decision Appellant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: [NAME] reconsideration decision dated November 12, 2025 (issued by Service Canada) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: Teleconference Hearing date: April 30, 2026 Hearing participant: Appellant Decision date: May 5, 2026 File number: GP-25-1722 On this page Decision Overview What the Appellant must prove Reasons for my decision Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] The appeal is dismissed. [ 2 ] The Appellant, J. I., isn’t eligible for a [NAME] ( [NAME] ) disability pension. This decision explains why I am dismissing the appeal. Overview [ 3 ] The Appellant is 36 years old. She worked as a client advisor at a [COMPANY] until August 2023, when she went off on short-term disability. She hasn’t worked since. [ 4 ] The Appellant applied for a [NAME] disability pension on November 15, 2024. 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 that her health challenges began around 2017. She says that she had back and shoulder pain, migraines, tennis elbow, headaches, and irritable bowel syndrome. She also says that she has anxiety, frequent panic attacks, and depression. She had limitations to standing, lifting, and repetitive arm movements. Footnote 1 [ 6 ] The Minister says that the evidence doesn’t support a finding of disability under the [NAME] . The Minister says that the Appellant’s limitations didn’t likely start until well after 2017. She earned enough to support a living in 2022 and 2023 by working full-time. Footnote 2 What the Appellant must prove [ 7 ] For the Appellant to succeed, she must prove she has a disability that was severe and prolonged by December 31, 2017. This date is called the minimum qualifying period and is based on her [NAME] contributions. Footnote 3 She must also prove that she continues to be disabled. Footnote 4 [ 8 ] The Appellant had [NAME] contributions in 2018 that were below the minimum amount the [NAME] accepts. These contributions let the Appellant qualify for a pension if she became disabled between January 2018 and August 2018, and she continues to be disabled. Footnote 5 [ 9 ] The [NAME] defines “severe” and “prolonged.” A disability is severe if it makes an appellant incapable regularly of pursuing any substantially gainful occupation. Footnote 6 A disability is prolonged if it is likely to be long continued and of indefinite duration, or is likely to result in death. Footnote 7 [ 10 ] The Appellant must prove she has a severe and prolonged disability on a balance of probabilities. She has to show it is more likely than not that she is disabled. Reasons for my decision [ 11 ] I find that the Appellant hasn’t proven she had a severe and prolonged disability by December 31, 2017, or within the prorate period of January to August 31, 2018. Because I found that she didn’t have a severe disability, I didn’t consider whether it was prolonged. Was the Appellant’s disability severe? [ 12 ] The Appellant’s disability wasn’t severe. I reached this finding by considering several factors. I explain these factors below. It isn’t clear that the Appellant had functional limitations by August 2018 [ 13 ] The appeal medical evidence doesn’t confirm that the Appellant had a diagnosis or symptoms by the end of 2017 or between January to August 2018. [ 14 ] I must focus on whether she has functional limitations that got in the way of her earning a living. Footnote 8 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 9 What the Appellant says about her functional limitations [ 15 ] The Appellant provided two different versions about when her limitations started.  First, she says that her medical conditions have resulted in functional limitations that have affected her ability to work since around 2017. She says that by August 2018: Her shoulders, back, and neck hurt. She had to stop working as a [NAME] because of this. She had concentration problems when cutting hair and sometimes made mistakes. She had social anxiety and mental health issues. She had stomach issues – irritable bowel syndrome and acid reflux. She needed to go to the bathroom often. Footnote 10 [ 16 ] At the hearing, the Appellant couldn’t recall which year she stopped working from her home salon. [ 17 ] The Appellant retrained and completed a program in [NAME] after she stopped working as a [NAME]. She started a job at a [COMPANY] in February 2022. She says that her back and shoulder pain, along with her headaches, tennis elbow, and mental health conditions prevented her from working. She went on short-term disability in August 2023. Her disability benefits ended in October 2025 due to insufficient medical evidence. She says she didn’t have enough time to gather medical documents. But then she got more medical evidence about her condition and had a lawyer’s help. Footnote 11 The Appellant also claimed that she didn’t have any functional limitations [ 18 ] The Appellant also told the Minister that she didn’t have any functional limitations by August 2018. This is relevant, particularly as there is no medical evidence in the file supporting a case for disability by this time. [ 19 ] This contradicts the Appellant’s claim that she had a severe disability by at least August 2018. In 2025, she completed a medical questionnaire for the Minister. The Minister asked if she had any medical conditions that prevented her from working at any type of job from December 2017 to August 2018. She wrote “not that I can remember.” The Minister also asked about medical conditions that affected her ability to work in 2021, 2022, or 2023. She wrote “no.” Footnote 12 [ 20 ] The Minister asked the Appellant to provide the names of physicians and nurse practitioners during the relevant time. The Minister says that no response was received with this information. Footnote 13 This was another opportunity for her to gather medical evidence. The Appellant didn’t provide medical evidence during the relevant time [ 21 ] The Minister says that the Appellant didn’t provide medical information before 2023. The Minister says that she now has mental health and gastrointestinal symptoms. But the entirety of the medical information supports that her impairments began after the relevant time. Footnote 14 I agree with the Minister. [ 22 ] I asked the Appellant about the lack of medical records. I addressed the issue that no medical records were written by August 2018 and that the later medical evidence didn’t speak to this time. [ 23 ] The Appellant told me that she forgot to seek medical records after trying to get her records at one clinic. [ 24 ] I asked the Appellant why she didn’t ask for a filing extension, as she now claims limitations with her concentration and memory. She said she didn’t know why she didn’t ask for an extension. [ 25 ] Finally, I asked the Appellant what medical treatment she could recall up to August 2018 for her claimed disabling conditions. She told me that she saw school counselors in her hairstyling and [NAME] programs. She would get support from a friend who studied psychology. The Appellant asked me to rely on letters of support [ 26 ] At the hearing, the Appellant relied on written letters of support. The letters were written by a hairstyling client and [COMPANY] coworker. Footnote 15 [ 27 ] I did not find the statements of support persuasive, particularly in the absence of any objective medical evidence. I assigned little weight to them. The letters didn’t help to assess the impact of her limitations on her capacity to work during the relevant time. [ 28 ] The hairstyling client’s letter reflects the Appellant’s self-report. It is retrospective and not clearly tied to the relevant timeframe. The author noted that the Appellant had back and shoulder pain with headaches. Pain is a subjective experience and isn’t something that a third party can observe. This letter supported residual work capacity, as she recalled that the Appellant enrolled in a [COMPANY] in 2018. Footnote 16 [ 29 ] The [COMPANY] coworker’s letter had little relevance to the issue under appeal. It was written about the Appellant’s work capacity around February 2022 to August 2023. Footnote 17 The author’s assertions likely go beyond her direct knowledge, such as the reason the Appellant called in sick (due to pain flare ups) and the specific reasons for her bathroom breaks. The letter lacked specificity. For example, the letter didn’t explain how the Appellant’s back pain impacted her ability to work her regular job duties, nor did it note any accommodations, or job modifications she had. Footnote 18 The Appellant had a fair appeal process [ 30 ] The Appellant was given enough information to be able to participate meaningfully in the appeal. She had a fair opportunity to collect medical information and present her case. She was informed of her filing period and what this meant. She had access to a Tribunal navigator for questions about the process. She knew how to file documents because she did so. Footnote 19 [ 31 ] The Appellant knew or should have known the case against her. The Minister’s reconsideration letter was clear about when the end of her minimum qualifying period was and the implications of this. The important terms “severe” and “prolonged” were also defined. Footnote 20 [ 32 ] Lastly, the Appellant received notice of the hearing date and time. She had the opportunity to orally present her case and respond to the Minister’s arguments. What the medical evidence says about the Appellant’s functional limitations [ 33 ] The Appellant must provide some medical evidence to support that her functional limitations affected her ability to work no later than December 31, 2017, or within her prorate period of January 1 to August 31, 2018. Footnote 21 [ 34 ] The file doesn’t have medical evidence authored by August 2018. There was no objective evidence to support an application for a disability pension that addressed the Appellant’s health by the relevant time. [ 35 ] I considered what the later medical evidence says. The later medical evidence didn’t point to a diagnosis or symptom onset that affected her ability to work by August 2018. I accept that she developed symptoms and conditions after August 2018. But that isn’t relevant to this appeal. [ 36 ] The Attending physician’s statement from August 23, 2023, listed the Appellant’s primary diagnosis as H. Pylori. Footnote 22 The Minister points out that this coincided with the first date of her work absence as she commenced her short-term disability leave. Footnote 23 This evidence suggests that a later medical condition may have played a role in her later work absence. [ 37 ] I will briefly explain examples of how the later medical evidence doesn’t support the Appellant’s claim of a severe disability. There is later mention of symptoms, but these don’t clearly connect to the relevant time. For instance, in 2025, a doctor’s record noted that she reported a history of back pain, which worsened over the past couple of years. Again in 2025, she reported dizziness for a couple months and a history of migraines. She had abdominal pain with no duration provided. Footnote 24 [ 38 ] The Appellant’s disability wasn’t severe by August 31, 2018. [ 39 ] I usually need to consider an appellant’s personal characteristics to assess their ability to work. In this case, I don’t need to do that because the Appellant’s functional limitations didn’t affect her ability to work by December 31, 2017, or within the prorate period of January to August 31, 2018. Footnote 25 Conclusion [ 40 ] 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. [ 41 ] This means the appeal is dismissed. Footnotes Footnote 1 See GD2-14 and GD7. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See GD8. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 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 GD2-89. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 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 4 referrer Footnote 5 This is based on sections 19 and 44(2.1) of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 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 6 referrer Footnote 7 Section 42(2)(a) of the [NAME] gives this definition of prolonged disability. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 [NAME]  v  Canada (Social Development) , 2008  FCA  33. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2011  FCA  47. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 See GD7-2. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 See GD7-2. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 See GD2-35. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 See GD2-34 and GD8. Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 See GD8-5. Return to footnote 14 referrer Footnote 15 See GD4. Return to footnote 15 referrer Footnote 16 See GD4-3. Return to footnote 16 referrer Footnote 17 These are the dates where the Appellant actively worked at the [COMPANY] before going on short-term disability. Return to footnote 17 referrer Footnote 18 See GD4-2. Return to footnote 18 referrer Footnote 19 See GD3 and GD4. Return to footnote 19 referrer Footnote 20 See GD2-7 to 10. Return to footnote 20 referrer Footnote 21 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2008  FCA  377; and Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2020  FC  206. Return to footnote 21 referrer Footnote 22 See GD2-218. H. pylori is a type of bacteria that impacts the digestive tract. Return to footnote 22 referrer Footnote 23 See GD8-4. Return to footnote 23 referrer Footnote 24 See GD2-199, 204, and 207. Return to footnote 24 referrer Footnote 25 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2001  FCA  248 and  [NAME]  v  Minister of Social Development , 2005  FCA  187. Return to footnote 25 referrer