CPP Disability Pension Appeal Successful: Severe and Prolonged Disability Recognized

Citation: [NAME]  v  MF , 2026  [NAME]  259 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Decision Appellant: [redacted] [NAME] Respondent: [redacted] Representative: [NAME] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated October 8, 2024 (GP-23-1188) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: Videoconference Hearing dates: August 4 and October 9, 2025 Hearing participants: Respondent Respondent’s representative Respondent’s representative Decision date: March 21, 2026 File number: AD-25-9 On this page Decision Overview Issue Analysis When do payments start Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] The Minister’s appeal is dismissed. [ 2 ] I find that the Respondent, M. F., is eligible for a [NAME] disability pension because his disability was severe and prolonged. Payments start in December 2022. Overview [ 3 ] The Respondent was 46 years old as of the hearing in the present matter. Footnote 1 The Respondent has worked for [NAME] as a financial analyst, a credit analyst, and an accounts receivable supervisor. Footnote 2 He has a bachelor’s degree in engineering, as well as a master’s degree in globalization, international trade and emerging markets. Footnote 3 [ 4 ] The Respondent sustained significant injuries as a result of a motor vehicle accident that happened on May 7, 2018. He says he could no longer work due to his medical conditions as of August 2022. Footnote 4 [ 5 ] The Respondent first applied for a [NAME] disability pension on October 21, 2022. Footnote 5 The Minister refused his application initially and upon reconsideration. Footnote 6 [ 6 ] The Respondent appealed that decision to the General Division of the Social Security Tribunal (Tribunal). Footnote 7 The General Division held a hearing on December 10, 2024, and allowed his appeal. Footnote 8 The Minister asked for permission to appeal that decision to the Tribunal’s Appeal Division. Footnote 9 Permission to appeal was granted on March 28, 2025. Issue [ 7 ] To be eligible for a [NAME] disability pension, a person has to prove they had a severe and prolonged disability by the end of their minimum qualifying period ( MQP ). The Respondent’s MQP was December 31, 2022. Footnote 10 [ 8 ] The issue in this appeal is the following: Did the Respondent have a severe and prolonged disability by December 31, 2022? And if so, when do his disability pension payments start in accordance with the [NAME] ? Analysis [ 9 ] I have considered the law and the evidence and concluded that the Respondent had a severe and prolonged disability before his MQP of December 31, 2022. I find that the Respondent’s medical conditions made him incapable regularly of pursuing any substantially gainful occupation before his MQP . The Respondent was disabled before his MQP of December 31, 2022 [ 10 ] A person is considered to have a severe disability if they are incapable regularly of pursuing any substantially gainful occupation. Footnote 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 12 [ 11 ] The severity test must be analyzed in a real-world context. Footnote 13 This means that, when deciding whether a person’s disability is severe, I must consider their overall medical condition as well as factors like age, level of education, language proficiency, and past work and life experience. Footnote 14 [ 12 ] I also note the following important information from the Federal Court of Appeal: The severity of the disability isn’t based on a claimant’s incapacity to perform their regular job, but rather any substantially gainful occupation. Footnote 15 The severity of the disability under the [NAME] is determined by the capacity to work, not by the diagnosis or description of the illness. Footnote 16 In cases where there is evidence of work capacity, a claimant must show that they have made efforts to obtain and maintain a job but have been unsuccessful because of their health condition. Footnote 17 [ 13 ] Finally, the Respondent has the burden of proving he is disabled. He has to prove this on a balance of probabilities. This means that he has to show that it is more likely than not that he is disabled. I will first look at whether the Respondent’s medical conditions caused functional limitations for his work capacity and, if so, how. Oral evidence presented by the Respondent at the hearing [ 14 ] The Respondent presented himself as a successful man before the May 2018 accident. He has bachelor’s and master’s degrees. He worked for [NAME] in Europe and South America before moving to Canada with his wife to be closer to her family. [ 15 ] The Respondent much enjoyed his work as a credit/financial analyst and was thinking of pursuing a designation as a Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA). He also said he was a very active person, physically and socially. He reported no cognitive issues before the accident, and said he handled stress in his professional life “perfectly, I had no issues.” [ 16 ] Also of note, the Respondent testified that he learned English early on in life, in high school in Peru. He said that after leaving Spain, his professional life was spent mostly working in an English environment. The Respondent said that his English improved a lot during this time. He testified that he never struggled with English before the accident. [ 17 ] The Respondent then described the accident in May 2018, as his car was rear-ended with his wife and son in the car. He said that the days and weeks after the accident were numb and foggy. He was very weak and could barely talk. The Respondent said he slept “for at least a week or two”. He took about a month off work and then started a gradual return to work. [ 18 ] The Respondent testified that his symptoms have been the same since the beginning: headaches, mental fog, short-term memory, difficulty following conversations - “very hard to follow when I talked to persons at the same time.” These situations seemed to present themselves often in the course of his work. He said he experienced headaches, head pressure, fogginess, mental fog, on a daily basis. Trying to focus on anything, even outside of work, would make these symptoms much worse. [ 19 ] Months went by after his return to work and things only worsened. With his employer aware of the situation, the Respondent was transferred from his financial analyst position to an accounts receivable supervisory position in the hope that his return to work could be successful. It was hoped that as a supervisor, the Respondent could delegate things to the 10 employees working for him. Unfortunately, things did not improve. The Respondent testified that the quality of his work suffered, and his symptoms – numbness, head pressure, mental fog – only got worse. He was eventually let go due to his inability to perform at his job. [ 20 ] The Respondent testified that his symptoms – memory, head pressure, mental fog – remain to this day. Following conversations is still very difficult. He said it is getting harder for him to “find the words and enjoy the moment”. He finds that what helps is taking naps to reset and start over. The Respondent said he has to do things at his own pace to avoid escalating his symptoms. [ 21 ] The Respondent says it is impossible for him to learn new things. Even just watching the news, he has to rewind things 3-4 times if he wants to understand. Reading a newspaper or being in front of a computer triggers his symptoms: “I get sick, I get headaches.” Even standing can trigger his mental fog and dizziness. Any task that requires focus and attention makes his symptoms worse. Multitasking is impossible. And he remains forgetful, for example, leaving the stove on and having issues while trying to get places while driving. [ 22 ] Speaking to his language skills, the Respondent said he now realizes that it is harder for him to follow a conversation in English than in Spanish: “It’s harder now to find the words when I’m talking to someone.” [ 23 ] The Respondent testified to the different treatments he has sought since the accident: physiotherapy, massage, acupuncture, chiropractor. He has seen two neurologists. The Respondent has undergone an evaluation by a [NAME] and a functional capacity evaluation. He said that there are no treatments that have led to any long-lasting improvements in his condition. And, to the question, “has anybody told you that you’re going to get better”, he replied “no”. [ 24 ] The Respondent ended his testimony by saying he has been frustrated and disappointed coping with his challenges after having worked so hard in his career. But he has learned to accept his “new person”, his “new limitations”. [ 25 ] The Respondent’s wife also testified at the hearing. They have been married for 15 years. She spent a lot of her testimony comparing how the Respondent was before and after the accident. [ 26 ] Before the accident, her husband was a very capable man, in terms of physical activity, socially, and with some housework. He was very dedicated to his work, often staying late or bringing work home with him. [ 27 ] Since the accident, her husband has had cognitive issues, forgetting things, when he never used to have those issues. She spoke of his difficulties in following conversations. She said he mentions his physical complaints – dizziness, headaches, needing to lie down – more so than his emotional state. She said that her husband naps regularly, and that he wasn’t much of a napper before the accident. She feels frustrated, sad, and disappointed. [ 28 ] I found that the Respondent and his wife testified credibly, in a simple and direct manner. I do not believe either was exaggerating for effect. I believe they were being truthful. From their testimony, it seems difficult to imagine the possibility of the Respondent returning to the job market. [ 29 ] I will now look at the evidence presented by the Minister at the hearing. Oral evidence presented by the Minister at the hearing [ 30 ] The Minister had a professional witness, Dr. [NAME], testify at the hearing. [ 31 ] [NAME] reviewed the medical evidence on file. She indicated that the Respondent had been diagnosed with a mild concussion by neurologist [NAME] in 2019. Footnote 18 She then reviewed the report of [NAME], from March 2021. Footnote 19 [NAME] determined that there was low probability to expect further significant improvement with the Respondent. [ 32 ] [NAME] wondered why the Respondent’s mental health conditions had not been treated. She said that those are conditions that are known to respond to treatment. She said it was not clear to her why [NAME] didn’t expect improvement despite these treatable mental health conditions, and that no treatment plan was proposed. [ 33 ] [NAME] then focused on a later report by [NAME], indicating that the Respondent was not meeting a post-concussion diagnosis anymore. Footnote 20 He thought that the Respondent’s symptoms were somatic and likely linked to somatic disorder and PTSD. The Respondent had also expressed a depressed mood. [NAME] also referred to litigation as a possible cause of stress. [ 34 ] [NAME] further indicated that because the Respondent’s symptoms were no longer due to a traumatic brain injury, but rather due to PTSD, somatoform disorder, and depression, [NAME] suggested that nurse practitioner (NP) [NAME] organize referrals to psychiatry and psychology. [NAME] then indicated that NP [NAME]’s own medical report on file, from November 2022, no longer had a diagnosis of brain injury. Footnote 21 [ 35 ] [NAME] therefore indicated that the Minister had questions about the fact the Respondent did not see a psychiatrist. She said that as mental health conditions are treatable conditions, the Respondent was referred appropriately to treatment in psychology and psychiatry. She had questions around the Respondent’s failure to mitigate, since he is only taking Advil as needed. [ 36 ] [NAME] closed by saying that what the Minister received “doesn’t suggest any functional limitations.” To the question, “[NAME] noted that TBI was not the principal cause for the Respondent’s symptoms, would you say then that the mental health conditions are the principal or active conditions at the point of the MQP ?”, [NAME] answered “yes, definitely. As of 2022, both the neurologist and the NP notes outline several mental health conditions, so those would be the predominant conditions at MQP .” [ 37 ] I must now look at the medical evidence on file, as well as the oral testimony of [NAME] at the hearing. The medical evidence, including the oral testimony by [NAME] at the hearing, supports the existence of serious functional limitations before the Respondent’s MQP of December 31, 2022 [ 38 ] As I mentioned above, I found the Respondent’s testimony compelling. However, medical evidence is always necessary to support a claimant’s claim for disability benefits. Footnote 22 [ 39 ] I carefully assessed the medical evidence, and I believe it supports the existence of serious functional limitations before the Respondent’s MQP of December 31, 2022. The report of [NAME] [ 40 ] There is a neuropsychological assessment on file by [NAME], dated March 12, 2021. Footnote 23 She met with the Respondent on many occasions between December 2020 and March 2021. Footnote 24 [NAME] says she reviewed the file and most notably the notes by [NAME] and neurologist [NAME]. She notes that the Respondent was diagnosed with a concussion. Footnote 25 [ 41 ] [NAME]’s report is very detailed about the May 2018 motor vehicle accident, the Respondent before and after the accident, the Respondent’s personal history, his past and current physical and mental health, his past and present cognitive health, and medication and treatment to date. Footnote 26 [ 42 ] [NAME] then documents the results of a number of tests that the Respondent underwent at her request, some of which reveal abnormalities. She summarizes the findings of the tests as follows: “The results of the neuropsychological evaluation of [the Respondent] indicates several neurocognitive deficits and difficulties, which include deficits and low performances in verbal reasoning (2nd percentile), attention and concentration (20th percentile), verbal memory and learning (13th percentile).” Footnote 27 [ 43 ] Her diagnostic is “Mild Neurocognitive Disorder due to a traumatic brain injury”. Footnote 28 She relates the Respondent’s reported symptoms specifically to the traumatic brain injury: “[The Respondent] reports many of the common symptoms associated with TBI such as several cognitive difficulties, headaches, pain, fatigue, problems with balance, and sleep disturbance (poor quality of sleep).” Footnote 29 [NAME] also adds the following diagnostics: Somatic Symptom Disorder with predominant pain, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, Major Depressive Disorder with Anxiety. [ 44 ] [NAME]’s prognosis is poor: “…in my clinical opinion; there is a “significant likelihood” that [the Respondent] will be left with permanent symptoms and functional limitations.” Footnote 30 Furthermore, she comments specifically on the Respondent’s future ability to work, under the headline “The impact the accident injuries will have on his ability to work”: “ Consequently, in my clinical opinion, presently, he would not be able to function in any paid occupation or in any voluntary work, even if he wants to contribute to his community.” Footnote 31 [NAME]’s testimony in chief at the hearing [ 45 ] [NAME] gave oral testimony at the hearing. She said she spent approximately 17 hours with the Respondent in preparation of her report, in many different sessions because he had a tendency to become easily tired, confused, and complaining about fatigue, blurred vision, and headaches. [ 46 ] It was clear from [NAME]’s testimony that she believes that the Respondent’s health issues and functional limitations are the result of a traumatic brain injury. As a result, she indicates that the Respondent is a “very smart guy but cannot use his brain, cannot use his intellectual capacity.” [ 47 ] [NAME] testified that she was struck by the Respondent’s language issues. She seemed alarmed that the Respondent would unknowingly veer into Spanish when speaking English. It seemed clear from the other oral testimony that I’d heard that this was something new since the motor vehicle accident. [ 48 ] [NAME] was also clear that the Respondent’s functional limitations would be an issue with many kinds of jobs. She was specifically asked about the following: analytical demands, clerical and administrative demands, tracking, scheduling, dealing with customers, dealing with a set schedule, switching attention between tasks, performing as a cashier, handling complaints from guests, managing bookings as a hotel desk clerk, jobs requiring him to drive around, as a delivery driver. [ 49 ] [NAME] could not say that the Respondent could work in any of those capacities: “He will not be able to function normally and correctly cognitively, no matter what the job is. His condition would interfere with any cognitively related job or task, doesn’t matter what it is.” [ 50 ] [NAME] seemed to apply this reasoning even to jobs which may be much simpler than what the Respondent might have been accustomed to in his career: “He is already struggling with simple repetitive tasks he is used to doing at home. Imagine he is in a job and he has to work. (…) Imagine he is working as a simple employee and forgetting something important.” [NAME] addressed the Minister’s concerns in her cross-examination [ 51 ] [NAME] was cross-examined by the Minister’s representative, specifically on two issues: the Respondent’s mental health issues and whether these might have bled into his TBI-related issues, and how to distinguish them both; and the matter of possible treatment for the Respondent’s mental health issues. [ 52 ] I believe [NAME] addressed the Minister’s concerns directly. [NAME] said on a few occasions in her testimony that depression and PTSD can cause cognitive problems, but not at the level experienced by the Respondent. And, when asked if the Respondent’s cognitive deficits were not better explained by another mental disorder, [NAME] said the following: These cognitive problems are not better explained by depression or PTSD because after the accident he started to have cognitive problems. He was not depressed yet. (…) People with depression may have cognitive problems but their score is never in the impaired section, but low score. This is the result of the TBI, of course. [ 53 ] The above statement is the main reason why I choose to place much greater weight on [NAME]’s opinion than the opinion of [NAME] from January 2022, mentioned by [NAME] in her testimony. [NAME] believed that the Respondent’s “constellation of current symptoms are not fitting the diagnosis postconcussion syndrome anymore (…). He most likely has somatization disorder and PTSD. Patient has also expressed his depressed mood.” Footnote 32 [ 54 ] [NAME]’s report and testimony are very clear that she believes the Respondent’s functional limitations are the direct result of the TBI, which was the direct result of the May 2018 motor vehicle accident. I believe what she says – that the Respondent wasn’t depressed right after the accident, that he’s depressed now because of his cognitive issues and how they have changed his life – is not only plausible, but the most logical explanation. [ 55 ] I also choose to favour [NAME]’s opinion over [NAME]’s opinion because her report was far more detailed and thorough, and the result of much more time spent with the Respondent. Footnote 33 Also, I have no reason to believe that [NAME] was advocating for the Respondent. [ 56 ] Another reason for me to favour [NAME]’s opinion is that in cross-examination, I found her answers to be fairly measured, before being direct and unambiguous. I mean that she first allowed for the possibility of the Respondent’s mental health issues being an explanation for his functional limitations. She admitted that was possible. Then she was clear that that wasn’t the case, in her opinion. [ 57 ] [NAME] also addressed in her cross-examination the Minister’s other argument, that the Respondent failed to seek treatment or failed to mitigate. When asked how we could know if the Respondent’s symptoms are strictly from TBI when he hasn’t attempted treatment for PTSD or depression, [NAME] said: “It is because he has cognitive problems that he has depression, not the opposite.” She said that such treatment would not “heal him from his cognitive disorders which are the root of the problem. The root of the problem cannot be solved by medication, unfortunately, because his cognition is impacted.” [ 58 ] [NAME] also said a few times during her cross-examination that treatment usually sought for mental health issues – medication and psychotherapy – would do absolutely nothing for the Respondent’s cognitive problems. To the question, “Is it not possible that it could have helped, he hasn’t pursued psychotherapy or pharmacotherapy, is it possible it could have helped?”, [NAME] replied, “It could have helped with his mood. Not his cognitive problems, but with his mood.” [ 59 ] [NAME]’s opinion is that the Respondent’s functional limitations – headaches, head pressure, mental fog, not being able to focus, memory issues, not being able to follow conversations, needing frequent breaks and naps – stem from his TBI and not from mental health issues. As I said above, I give great weight to her opinion. [ 60 ] One last reason that I give great weight to [NAME]’s opinion is because it is in keeping with the other lengthy report on file, the Functional Capacity Evaluation (FCE) from October 5, 2021. Footnote 34 This is another report that makes little mention of possible mental health issues and their relation with the Respondent’s functional limitations, but rather links these with his TBI. [NAME]’s report looks like the outlier when compared with these two reports. [ 61 ] At 40 pages, the FCE is also a very thorough report. Following extensive testing, the FCE found the following cognitive limitations for the Respondent: [redacted] [ 62 ] The report concludes as follows as to the Respondent’s work capacity: Footnote 36 …[the Respondent] exceeds the strength demands of his pre-injury job and meets most of the critical positional and agility demands but does not have the ability to sustain those demands on a regular basis due to significant cognitive symptoms and chronic facial numbness & tingling, pressure in his head, headaches, dizziness, nausea, and easy fatiguability. [ 63 ] [NAME] also says the following in regards to the Respondent’s work performance: “…it is likely that his current “average” performance is significantly lower than his pre-MVA performance.” Footnote 37 [ 64 ] [NAME]’s report and the FCE point to the Respondent’s traumatic brain injury as the most likely explanation for his functional limitations, and considering they both substantiate these limitations, I believe the Minister’s argument about mitigation or not following recommended treatment must fail. [ 65 ] Again, to paraphrase [NAME], the mental health issues are not the cause, but rather the result of the Respondent’s cognitive problems. And I don’t believe the evidence shows that the Respondent having followed treatment – namely, medication and psychotherapy - would have helped the Respondent any with his cognitive problems and functional limitations, as these are related to his TBI and not his mental health issues. [NAME] was clear about this in her testimony. [ 66 ] I must now look at the Respondent’s his capacity to work in the real world. The Respondent wasn’t able to work in the real world before his MQP [ 67 ] When I am deciding whether the Respondent can work, I can’t just look at his medical conditions. I must also consider factors such as his age, level of education, language abilities, and past work and life experience. [ 68 ] The Federal Court of Appeal has indicated that, in disability cases, I must conduct an analysis as to whether a person can work “in the real world” Footnote 38 I have to consider how their background and personal characteristics might affect their employability. These are known as the [NAME] factors. [ 69 ] The Respondent has two university degrees, including a master’s degree. He seemed to be on a very promising career path and had held demanding jobs. As to his language skills, his mother tongue is Spanish and he is seemingly fluent in English, though the evidence indicates it is difficult for him to follow conversations, especially in English. He was 43 years old, a fairly young age, before his MQP of December 2022. [ 70 ] These factors could point to an employable person. However, I don’t believe they matter much in the Respondent’s case for the following reasons: The Respondent cannot do anything that requires focus and attention without triggering his symptoms of head pressure and mental fog. He cannot multitask. He has great difficulty following conversations. The Respondent said he cannot learn anything new, which was substantiated by [NAME]’s report; The Respondent is having to take naps and breaks daily to get through days that are not that demanding, which was substantiated by the reports of both [NAME] and [NAME]. [ 71 ] I believe that this would make the Respondent quite unappealing to [NAME] “in the real world.” Indeed, [NAME] said so in her testimony: “I am not sure he is going to function. He also has headaches that are there, he is all the time tired. Even if he does a small chore around the house, he has to take a nap, stay in a dark room. Who is going to employ this guy? He needs breaks all the time.” [ 72 ] Furthermore, the Respondent’s inability to learn anything new makes it impossible to think he could retrain. [ 73 ] I don’t believe that the evidence reflects that the Respondent could still work in any capacity. Any focus and attention triggers headaches and mental fog for the Respondent, which would obviously impact job performance. Is there really a job out there that requires no focus and attention whatsoever? Not in the real world, I’m afraid. [ 74 ] I find that the Respondent could not work in the real world by August 2022. Footnote 39 Because I find that the Respondent’s work capacity was effectively extinguished, I won’t address the Minister’s argument that the Respondent hasn’t tried work suitable to his limitations. Footnote 40 The argument that one needs to find alternate work suitable to one’s limitations only applies if there is any residual work capacity left. There isn’t. The Respondent’s disability was prolonged by August 2022 [ 75 ] The Respondent’s disability was prolonged. [ 76 ] The Respondent’s conditions that limited his ability to work began after the MVA in May 2018 and caused him not to be able to work by August 2022, all well before his MQP of December 31, 2022. Footnote 41 The main reports on file, those of [NAME] and [NAME], are from March and October of 2021. They are both quite guarded as to the long-term prognosis for the Respondent. [ 77 ] [NAME] said the following about the future outlook for the Respondent: [redacted] Since the greatest amount of recovery after a traumatic brain injury occurs during the first year following the onset of trauma (…) and, since more than two years and 9 months have elapsed since his MVA and he is still suffering from significant cognitive problems, which create several limitations for him, there is a low probability to expect further significant cognitive improvement in [the Respondent’s] condition. [ 78 ] [NAME] said the following about the possibility of any improvement for the Respondent over the long term: Footnote 43 Based on [the Respondent’s] work history (including review of performance reviews provided by his [NAME]) and his reported pre-injury function, it is likely that his current “average” performance is significantly lower than his pre-MVA performance. As the majority of recovery occurs within the first two years following traumatic brain injury, it is likely that [the Respondent] will see limited improvement in his cognitive abilities at this time. [ 79 ] The Respondent’s cognitive issues and functional limitations have persisted to this day. In fact, from a more recent conversation with the Respondent, [NAME] thought that things had even worsened. Footnote 44 [ 80 ] I see no light at the end of the tunnel. I find that the Respondent’s disability was prolonged as of August 2022. When do payments start [ 81 ] I find that the Respondent had a severe and prolonged disability by August 2022. There is a four-month waiting period before payments start. So, the Respondent’s payments start as of December 2022. Footnote 45 Conclusion [ 82 ] I find that the Respondent is eligible for a [NAME] disability pension because his disability was severe and prolonged. [ 83 ] This means that the Minister’s appeal is dismissed. Footnotes Footnote 1 He was 43 years as of his Minimum Qualifying Period ( MQP ) of December 31, 2022. This is an important date in this case. See paragraph 7 and footnote 10 for explanation of the Respondent’s MQP . Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See GD2-26 and AD10-8. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See GD2-27 and AD10-8. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See GD2-28. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 See GD2-26. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 See the initial decision dated January 4, 2023, at GD2-17; and the reconsideration decision dated May 1, 2023, at GD2-6. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 On July 4, 2023; see GD1-1. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 See the General Division decision dated October 7, 2024, made by Member [NAME]. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 On January 6, 2025; see AD1-1. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 Service Canada uses an Respondent’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 Respondent’s [NAME] contributions are on page GD4-5. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 See section 42(2)(a)(i) of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 See section 42(2)(a)(ii) of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2001  FCA  248. Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2011  FCA  47 at para 8. Return to footnote 14 referrer Footnote 15 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2001  FCA  248; and  [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2009  FCA  178. Return to footnote 15 referrer Footnote 16 [NAME]  v  Canada (Social Development) , 2008  FCA  33. Return to footnote 16 referrer Footnote 17 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2003  FCA  117 at para 3. Return to footnote 17 referrer Footnote 18 See GD2-675. Return to footnote 18 referrer Footnote 19 This report is found many times in the file, on pages GD1-25, GD2-43, GD2-398, GD2-614, and GD3-2. Return to footnote 19 referrer Footnote 20 See GD2-154. Return to footnote 20 referrer Footnote 21 See GD2-651. Return to footnote 21 referrer Footnote 22 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2008  FCA  377; and Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2020  FC  206. Return to footnote 22 referrer Footnote 23 See footnote 19 above. Return to footnote 23 referrer Footnote 24 See GD2-43. Return to footnote 24 referrer Footnote 25 [NAME] does indicated a “mild concussion”, see GD2-677. Return to footnote 25 referrer Footnote 26 See GD2-46 to GD2-54. Return to footnote 26 referrer Footnote 27 See GD2-60. Bold is by [NAME] herself. Return to footnote 27 referrer Footnote 28 See GD2-61. Return to footnote 28 referrer Footnote 29 See GD2-61. Return to footnote 29 referrer Footnote 30 See GD2-63. Return to footnote 30 referrer Footnote 31 See GD2-63. Again, the bold is from [NAME] herself. Return to footnote 31 referrer Footnote 32 See GD2-156. I don’t believe I can call nurse practitioner [NAME]’s report from December 2022 at pages GD2-651 another “opinion” or true diagnosis. I believe she was repeating the diagnoses as she had seen them on file. Return to footnote 32 referrer Footnote 33 17 hours, as she testified. Return to footnote 33 referrer Footnote 34 By [NAME], physiotherapist, dated October 5, 2021. It is found many times in the file, on pages GD1-46, GD2-64, GD2-459, and GD3-23. Return to footnote 34 referrer Footnote 35 See GD2-90. Return to footnote 35 referrer Footnote 36 See GD2-69. Return to footnote 36 referrer Footnote 37 See GD2-71. Return to footnote 37 referrer Footnote 38 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2001  FCA  248. Return to footnote 38 referrer Footnote 39 I base this date on the Respondent’s specific statement in his application for [NAME] disability found at page GD2-28. To the question “When did you feel you could no longer work because of your medical condition(s)?”, the Respondent indicated August 15, 2022. I believe that an earlier date of onset of his disability could well have been justified by the evidence. However, I find that the legal principle of non ultra petita , Latin for “not beyond the request”, compels me not to make any finding of disability earlier than August 2022. Return to footnote 39 referrer Footnote 40 See AD8-12. Return to footnote 40 referrer Footnote 41 See footnote 39 above. Return to footnote 41 referrer Footnote 42 See GD2-62. Return to footnote 42 referrer Footnote 43 See GD2-102. Return to footnote 43 referrer Footnote 44 She testified to this. Also see AD24-3. Return to footnote 44 referrer Footnote 45 Considering that the Minister received the Respondent’s application in October 2022, this retroactivity is allowable by law. The [NAME] says that a person can’t be considered disabled more than 15 months before the Minister receives their disability pension application, but the onset of the Respondent’s disability is within that 15-month window. Return to footnote 45 referrer