CPP Disability Pension Application Denied Due to Insufficient Evidence

Citation: KF  v  [NAME] , 2026  SST  312 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Decision Appellant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] [NAME] and [NAME] (counsel) Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated October 9, 2025 (GP-25-380) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: Teleconference Hearing date: January 30, 2026 Hearing participants: Appellant Respondent’s representatives Decision date: April 24, 2026 File number: AD-25-637 On this page Decision Overview Preliminary matters Issue General legal principles Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] I am dismissing the appeal. The Appellant, [NAME]. (Claimant), is not entitled to a [NAME] disability pension. Overview [ 2 ] This appeal is about whether the Claimant had a severe and prolonged disability for the purposes of the [NAME] by the end of his minimum qualifying period on December 31, 2024, Footnote 1 to be eligible for a [NAME] disability pension. [ 3 ] The Claimant testified that he has been unable to work since March 2024 because of his medical condition. He complains mostly about lower back and knee pain. Some medical records suggest that he may also have depression, but he downplays any mental health issues. He testified that he has not been able to consider working since March 2024 because of ongoing pain. [ 4 ] The Respondent, the [NAME] (Minister), argues that the Claimant did not have a severe disability by the end of his minimum qualifying period. The Minister argues that the medical evidence does not prove that the Claimant had any severe functional limitations by the end of his minimum qualifying period. The Minister relies on the evidence of [NAME], a medical practitioner with a specialty in internal medicine. [ 5 ] The Minister argues that the Claimant has residual capacity and that he was therefore required to try to find other work that he could do. The Minister argues that the Claimant has failed to try other jobs. The Minister asks the Appeal Division to dismiss the appeal. Preliminary matters [ 6 ] At the hearing, the Claimant stated that he has more information about his mental health. Even so, he does not think his mental health is a factor in his overall capacity regularly of pursuing any substantially gainful occupation. These records could support his claim. I suggested to the Claimant that he produce these additional medical records after the hearing. He filed a copy of more records after the hearing. Issue [ 7 ] Does the evidence show whether the Claimant had a severe and prolonged disability for the purposes of the [NAME] by December 31, 2024? General legal principles [ 8 ] The Claimant must prove that, more likely than not, they had a severe and prolonged disability. (i) a disability is severe if it makes an appellant incapable regularly of pursuing any substantially gainful occupation, Footnote 2 and (ii)  a disability is prolonged if it is likely to be long continued and of indefinite duration or is likely to result in death; Footnote 3 [ 9 ] When assessing whether a disability is severe, one must consider the “real world” context. Footnote 4 This means considering an appellant’s particular circumstances, such as their age, education level, language proficiency, and past work and life experience. [ 10 ] This “real world” context also means considering whether an appellant has pursued all reasonable treatment recommendations, whether any refusal is unreasonable and what impact that refusal might have on that claimant’s disability status should the refusal be considered unreasonable. Footnote 5 [ 11 ] Medical evidence will still be needed, as will evidence of employment efforts and possibilities. Footnote 6 Background facts and review of medical records [ 12 ] The Claimant was born and raised overseas. He earned a bachelor’s degree in engineering science. He moved to Canada in or about 2000. He worked at various retail outlets, including as a sales and computer technician. He took a couple of courses, including in audio-video equipment installation. He worked in this field for several years and then stopped working in March 2024 because of lower back pain. [ 13 ] The Claimant has had other medical issues as well. He had been involved in a motor vehicle accident in 2000, which led to neck fusion surgery in about 2007. [NAME] explained that likely the Claimant had an instability fracture of the neck that could cause paralysis, so had to have emergency surgery. [ 14 ] The Claimant has had other surgeries, including knee surgery. More recently, in September 2025, he had nose surgery (after failed nose surgery in 2010) and in October 2025, a cholecystectomy for gallstones. This last surgery requires him to rest for two months. The Claimant is scheduled for nose surgery again in March 2026. [ 15 ] The Claimant testified that he has had physiotherapy and possibly massage therapy for his lower back, at both [COMPANY] ([NAME]) and on [ADDRESS]. He had physiotherapy at [NAME] in 2007 (for his knee) and from August 2023 to March or April 2024 for his lower back. He had about 10 to 12 sessions of physiotherapy on [ADDRESS] in September 2024. He did not find the physiotherapy very helpful, so stopped going. [ 16 ] Apart from medications for pain relief, the Claimant does not recall any other medical treatment for his lower back. [ 17 ] The Claimant’s wife, from whom he had been separated, passed away in March 2024. Learning about her death afterwards made the Claimant sad and depressed. Ongoing custody issues over his children contribute to his low mood. [ 18 ] There are relatively few medical records. They mostly consist of the Claimant’s family doctor’s clinical records and diagnostic examinations. Diagnostic and hospital records (AD15) [ 19 ] The Claimant produced diagnostic reports, including CT scans of his cervical, thoracic and lumbar spines. Footnote 7 [ 20 ] Of note, hospital records show that in September 2020, the Claimant strained his lower back from lifting a heavy object, resulting in low back pain to his left knee. And weeks later, in December 2020, he exacerbated his lower back by lifting a large box. Since then, he reported having limited capacity. X-rays taken showed generalized disc degeneration throughout the thoracic and lumbar spine with some associated facet joint osteoarthritis at L4-L5 and L5-S1. Footnote 8 [ 21 ] A March 2021 CT scan of the lumbar spine showed moderate-to-marked facet osteoarthritis throughout the lumbar spine. Footnote 9 November 2021 X-rays of the cervical and thoracic spine showed mild mid- to lower thoracic spondylotic changes with more moderately severe spondylotic change with osteophytes at approximately the T8-9 and T9-10 levels. Footnote 10 The most recent scans, dated January 4, 2023, showed mild generalized lumbar spondylosis in what was an otherwise normal examination. Footnote 11 [ 22 ] There are other diagnostic examinations, including X-rays of the Claimant’s feet taken in July 2020, but the Claimant does not say that these are relevant to his claim. [NAME] (GD2) [ 23 ] [NAME] cover the period from January 2023 to October 2025. There are no specialist consultation reports, other than a 2023 report from an ear, nose, and throat specialist. The Claimant was seen for nasal breathing limitation which he had for at least 35 years. Footnote 12 [ 24 ] [NAME] and reports show the following: January 2023 – the Claimant sprained his lower back from heavy lifting. He was given a prescription for pain relief and advised to stay active and to do stretches. Footnote 13 August 2023 – his mood was low after his wife left. The family doctor diagnosed the Claimant with an adjustment disorder. The plan was to keep busy with work. The family doctor wrote a note advising that the Claimant did not have any psychiatric disorder and had not been violent. She confirmed that he was sad but not depressed at that point, but needed to see his children to avoid falling into depression. Footnote 14 April 2024 – he was sad, learning that his wife had passed away the previous month. April 2024 – report of lower back pain. The plan was to stay active, exercise and take Robaxacet. Footnote 15 May 2024 – CT scan of his sinuses. May 2024 – the doctor noted that the Claimant had not been working because of back pain, although he did not have any pain with walking or sitting. She explained that his pain was mechanical and that he needed to stay active. She recommended that he do physiotherapy, lose weight, and exercise. She also recommended that he stay off work for two more weeks. Footnote 16 May 2024 – in a [NAME], the family doctor diagnosed the Claimant with increased lower back pain. He was unable to stand or sit for very long. She expected that his condition would improve, although she did not provide any timeline. She recommended rest, staying active, therapy, and pain relief medication. She also identified low mood and anxiety, as trying to gain custody of his children was very stressful. Footnote 17 In terms of the Claimant’s employment situation, she expected the Claimant to be able to return to his usual work “very soon 3-6 mo[nths].” Footnote 18 May to July 2024 – issue of gallstones and discussion of surgery. September 2024 – the Claimant complained of lower back pain and being unable to see his children because of an ongoing custody dispute. His mood was low. The family doctor wrote that the Claimant had chronic lower back pain and was struggling to cope. She recommended that he be off work for the next four to six months to allow for recovery and to deal with his stress. She would regularly follow-up to determine his readiness for a return to work. Footnote 19 December 2024 – the Claimant reported that he was not able to walk due to pain and spasms. The plan was that the Claimant would do core exercises. January 2025 - the Claimant had not been working since April 2024 due to lower back pain. He bent forward while walking. The family doctor noted that the Claimant was depressed and anxious, with ongoing custody issues involving his [NAME]. The family doctor wrote, “There is no chance to go back to work.” She noted that a CT scan showed that the Claimant had had a fusion at the C4-C5 level. She wrote that the Claimant had missed an appointment with a neurosurgeon. Footnote 20 Other medical records (AD15) [ 25 ] The Claimant filed additional medical records after the hearing. Most of these records are copies of diagnostic examinations and hospital records, which I have described above. These records also include the family doctor’s recommendation in August 2023, also discussed above. Footnote 21 [ 26 ] The remaining records in AD15 are about the Claimant’s nasal obstruction. Footnote 22 In November 2023, the ear, nose and throat specialist noted that the Claimant had not tried any nonsurgical treatments, which were typically the standard. In July 2024, the specialist noted that the Claimant had tried some nasal sprays for nasal obstruction, but that they had not worked. In September 2025, the Claimant underwent surgery for nasal obstruction. The Claimant’s evidence [ 27 ] The Claimant advised that he has not been able to work since March 2024 due to extreme back pain. He states that he relies on pain relief medication and that he uses a cane. Footnote 23 In terms of his functional limitations, he noted that he has limited tolerance for sitting, standing, walking, doing stairs, kneeling, squatting, bending, leaning over, and driving. Footnote 24 [ 28 ] The Claimant testified that his lower back and neck pain are getting worse day after day and that the pain is now beyond imagination. His back pain is worse than his neck pain. Both are worse than they had been in December 2024. The pain is constant. He testified that he is unable to stand or walk for more than seven minutes before he has to lie down. Pain relief medication helps reduce the pain, but over time, has had to take more medication. [ 29 ] The Claimant also testified that [NAME] told him after his neck fusion surgery in 2007 that he has to limit his lifting to no more than five to seven pounds at most, as the load could be too much for his back, and could lead to paralysis. He believes that [NAME] at the hospital Emergency Department in 2023 may have told him to be careful about lifting. [ 30 ] The Claimant denies that he has depression but confirms that he has stress and anxiety which aggravate his pain. His stress has improved a little bit over time, but the grief over the loss of his wife remains. He continues to work with a lawyer to try to regain custody of his children. [ 31 ] His family doctor recommended that he remain active and that he exercise, but the Claimant says that he is in too much pain and cannot exercise. The Claimant testified that he has been compliant with treatment recommendations otherwise, and has attended all of his medical appointments. He did not attend the consultation with the neurosurgeon because he was unaware of it. He is uncertain why his family doctor set up this consultation. [ 32 ] There are no medical records from the family doctor after January 2025. The Claimant says that he has a poor memory and does not recall if he has seen his family doctor over the past year. [ 33 ] The Claimant testified that he has been unable to consider returning to work in any capacity because of his worsening condition in his lower back and neck. He has not attempted to find any work or do any job training. The Claimant’s sister’s evidence [ 34 ] The Claimant’s sister, [NAME]., is a retired registered nurse. She is of the opinion that her brother is severely functionally limited. [ 35 ] She and another sister help the Claimant with cooking, housework, and with taking him to medical appointments. She helps him two to three times a week and prepares dinners to last him for two days. His sisters started helping him after his car accident in 2000, when he started having back and neck issues. They helped him again after his surgeries, and have been helping him more since his wife passed away, when he has flare-ups of back pain. [ 36 ] The sister testified that she believes that her brother’s back and neck pain and depression got worse after his wife passed away. Otherwise, she has not noticed any change in his condition or functionality since 2024. She notices that he has had trouble sitting and standing since 2024. She testified that he is unable to stand for more than 10 minutes. She confirmed that her brother takes painkillers and that he has attended physiotherapy and possibly massage therapy. The Minister’s evidence: [NAME] [ 37 ] [NAME] acknowledged the Claimant’s complaints. She agreed that after neck fusion surgery, the Claimant would continue to face limitations, as he would have restricted flexion, extension, rotation, and mobilization in his neck. She was of the opinion that he should avoid weight-bearing activities over the shoulder. She acknowledged that the Claimant could experience discomfort. [ 38 ] [NAME] is of the opinion that it is difficult to know the source of the Claimant’s complaints of neck pain and says that this should be further investigated. It could relate to degenerative disc disease or be caused by something else, like an impingement. [ 39 ] [NAME] was unable to fully determine from the evidence why a referral to a neurosurgeon would have been made, but she is of the opinion that it was likely for his lower back, as it is the Claimant’s primary medical concern. However, it is unclear for her why a referral or any recommendation for surgery would be made early on, as in her clinical experience, surgery is the option of last resort. [NAME] also identified risks with surgery and noted that there is no guarantee of success. The pain could return too. [ 40 ] [NAME] testified that typically, patients would be fully investigated and there would be diagnostic examinations such as CT scans and MRIs, and patients would exhaust other treatment options before considering surgery. [NAME] was unable to comment on the results of the diagnostic reports such as the CT scans, as the Claimant had not produced any copies (by the time of the hearing). [ 41 ] In addition to the physiotherapy that the Claimant has had, other treatment options generally would include massage therapy, chiropractic treatment, a [NAME], cortisone and epidural injections, TENS, or lifestyle changes. [NAME] would have expected to see the family doctor and other specialists explore other treatment options with the Claimant first. [ 42 ] Essentially, [NAME] is of the opinion that there is not enough medical evidence to draw a clear picture of the state of the Claimant’s medical condition. She accepts that the Claimant has pain, but without knowing the possible cause of that pain, a definitive diagnosis, treatment recommendations, and prognosis, if any, cannot be made. Analysis The Claimant argues that he has a severe and prolonged disability [ 43 ] The Claimant argues that he has had a severe and prolonged disability since March 2024 because of lower back, knee, and neck pain. He argues that he has not been able to work since then because of limitations caused by his ongoing pain. He has had a lot of surgery and will need more surgery in the future (nose surgery in March 2026). The Claimant says that he has to avoid activities like lifting, as that could lead to paralysis. He says that his condition is getting worse over time. [ 44 ] The Claimant argues that the evidence shows that he has been severely disabled. He notes that his family doctor diagnosed him with chronic lower back pain and also stated in January 2025 that there is no chance for him to return to work. [ 45 ] The Claimant uses pain relief medication. He now relies on a cane and relies on his sisters to help him with his activities of daily living. The Minister argues that the Claimant does not have a severe and prolonged disability [ 46 ] The Minister argues that there has to be adequate medical evidence to substantiate a claimant’s reports that they are incapable regularly of pursuing any substantially gainful occupation. Otherwise, they cannot be found severely disabled under the [NAME] . Footnote 25 The Minister argues that none of the imaging, clinical notes, or emergency room records show any signs of a severe disability. [ 47 ] The Minister accepts that the Claimant’s mood was consistently low after his wife passed away and with the ongoing custody issues. But it notes that there are few medical records that address the Claimant’s mental health issues. While the Minister accepts that the Claimant has mental health issues, it argues that the Claimant’s depression could not have been that severe if his [NAME] did not think it was necessary to prescribe any kind of treatment plan. [ 48 ] As well, the Minister argues that to be eligible for a pension, a claimant has to have followed recommendations for medical treatment. If they don’t follow treatment recommendations, the Minister argues that they must have a reasonable explanation for not following medical advice. The Minister argues that the Claimant did not comply with medical advice and lacked a reasonable justification for failing to follow any advice that he might have received from his [NAME]. [ 49 ] The Minister notes that, at the hearing, the Claimant disagreed that he has depression, which it says suggests shows that the Claimant would have resisted any prescribed treatment anyway. [ 50 ] The Minister argues that the Claimant lacks a reasonable explanation for not following his health caregiver’s recommendations that he continue to have physiotherapy. The Minister argues that believing physiotherapy is ineffective does not reasonably excuse the Claimant from continuing to pursue physiotherapy. The Minister also argues that the Appeal Division must still consider what effect, if any, the medical advice might have had on that claimant’s conditions. Footnote 26 The Claimant complied with treatment recommendations [ 51 ] In May 2024, the family doctor had recommended that the Claimant rest, stay active, and undergo physiotherapy. Footnote 27 The Claimant testified that he had physiotherapy as directed, but he claims that it was not helping, so he stopped going. I asked the Claimant to provide a printout or some evidence showing his dates of attendances at the [NAME], but the Claimant did not produce this evidence. [ 52 ] There is no indication that the Claimant discussed the fact that he had stopped physiotherapy with his family doctor. There is no evidence either to suggest that the Claimant’s family doctor agreed that he should stop having physiotherapy. On the contrary, the doctor’s December 2024 records indicate that she continued to recommend that he undergo physiotherapy. Footnote 28 [ 53 ] Even so, while his family doctor may have continued to recommend that he have physiotherapy, I find that there is insufficient evidence that, had the Claimant continued with this treatment, that it would have been effective and helped relieve his pain and improve his capacity. [ 54 ] I recognize that the Minister argues that the family doctor expected him to improve from physiotherapy because his back pain was mechanical in nature. But at the same time, [NAME] was of the opinion that the records do not provide a clear diagnosis for the Claimant’s back pain. If that is the case, then possibly physiotherapy might not have provided the resolution that the Claimant sought. [ 55 ] I do not know whether injections, attending at a [NAME], counselling, or other measures could have helped relieve or possibly improve the Claimant’s capacity. It does not appear that the Claimant’s family doctor has explored these treatment options with the Claimant. The Claimant did not fail to comply with these treatment options as no one had recommended them to him. [ 56 ] It might have been helpful had the Claimant seen the neurosurgeon. The neurosurgeon might have been able to offer treatment options. But there is no evidence that the appointment with the neurosurgeon had been communicated to the Claimant, so I am unprepared to find that he failed to pursue his doctor’s recommendation that he see a neurosurgeon. There is little objective medical evidence [ 57 ] I accept that the Claimant has neck and back pain and some mental health issues, even if he denies that he has depression. However, the medical evidence is quite sparse and falls short in showing a severe disability. This is not to say that the Claimant is without any medical issues. He clearly has medical issues and limitations. [ 58 ] The Claimant had neck fusion surgery in 2007. He has some limitations involving his neck. He has to avoid certain types of work. However, even though the Claimant has limitations with his neck, he was engaged in substantially gainful work after his neck fusion surgery. On top of that, there are few details regarding the Claimant’s neck. The Claimant has not produced any medical records relating to his neck. [ 59 ] The Claimant has had other surgeries too, including for his knee. However, none of the medical records show the extent of the Claimant’s knee issues. The family doctor noted that the Claimant fell on his knee in or about February 2024 and had a right knee abrasion. Footnote 29 But the family doctor did not offer any opinion about how the Claimant’s knee(s) cause any limitations, what treatments were available, or what the prognosis might be. [ 60 ] As for the Claimant’s back, diagnostic examinations show that he has degenerative changes and moderate to marked facet osteoarthritis, which may explain his symptoms. However, the Claimant says that he was able to work until March 2024—after he had these scans. Even with the degenerative changes and osteoarthritis, and after spraining his lower back from doing heavy lifting in January 2023, that did not stop him from working until March 2024. [ 61 ] In May 2024, the family doctor expected the Claimant to be able to return to his usual work as an audio-visual technician in about three to six months. In September 2024, the family doctor recommended that the Claimant remain off work for a further four to six months, to allow for rest and recovery for his low back. He also had a low mood, relating to custody issues. [ 62 ] By January 2025, the family doctor wrote in her clinical records, “no chance to go back to work.” Footnote 30 This seems to represent a completely different opinion from the one that she had given in May 2024 and in September 2024, Footnote 31 when she suggested that the Claimant would be able to return to work after some time off for recovery. [ 63 ] While the January 2025 records seem to represent a change of opinion, it is unclear whether the family doctor now believes that the Claimant can never return to work in any capacity at any time into the future, or whether she means that the Claimant simply could not return to work at that particular time, in January 2025. [ 64 ] The family doctor may have been overly optimistic or mistaken about her earlier opinions that she expected the Claimant to be able to return to work. But if the family doctor changed her opinion and now believed that the Claimant could never return to work in any capacity, she did not explain how or why she developed this new opinion. She did not identify any new incident or any medical findings upon which she could have based her opinion. [ 65 ] For instance, there are no updated diagnostic examinations of the Claimant’s lower back or neck. The family doctor referred to a CT scan in January 2021, but the family doctor does not appear to have arranged any diagnostic investigations for his lower back since then. [ 66 ] The family doctor had arranged for a consultation with a neurosurgeon, but there is no information as to what led to this. The family doctor did not provide a copy of the referral, so it is not clear if she might have asked the neurosurgeon to pinpoint a diagnosis and prognosis. It is unclear also whether the family doctor asked the neurosurgeon to manage the Claimant’s treatment, or to determine whether there were any treatment options to which the Claimant could possibly respond. [ 67 ] The Claimant missed the appointment with the neurosurgeon, as he says that he did not know about it. So, there is no consultation report from the neurosurgeon at this time. There are no specialist opinions that speak to any treatment options or to the Claimant’s long-term prospects for his lower back. [ 68 ] The Claimant underwent surgery in September 2025 for nasal obstruction and in October 2025, had his gallbladder removed. He needed at least two months for recovery after the surgery for removing his gallbladder. But there are no follow-up consultation reports to show whether the removal of his gallbladder remain an ongoing issue and, if so, what treatments are available, what impact any lingering conditions, if any, there are on his capacity, and what the prognosis might be. The same can be said for the Claimant’s nasal obstruction, though more surgery has been scheduled for March 2026. [ 69 ] As [NAME] testified, typically one expects a patient who complains of a severe disability involving their back, knees, and neck would have more investigations and would be directed to try different treatment options. She outlined some of the treatment recommendations that she would have expected to see. She also testified that, without a clearer medical picture, it is not possible to get a clear diagnosis, treatment plan, or prognosis. [ 70 ] It is well established in law that an applicant must provide some objective medical evidence of their disability. As the Federal Court of Appeal held in [NAME] : [ 50 ] This restatement of the approach to the definition of disability does not mean that everyone with a health problem who has some difficulty finding and keeping a job is entitled to a disability pension. Claimant still must be able to demonstrate that they suffer from a “serious and prolonged disability” that renders them “incapable regularly of pursuing any substantially gainful occupation.” Medical evidence will still be needed as will evidence of employment efforts and possibilities. Footnote 32 (My emphasis) [ 71 ] I accept that the Claimant’s back and neck pain have become and continue to get worse over time and that it is severely limiting for him. I accept that he needs help with activities of daily living, although he received this help long before he says he could no longer work. [ 72 ] However, there are relatively few medical records on file. Without more medical records, it is difficult to properly assess the Claimant’s medical issues and to assess how they collectively impact his capacity to regularly pursue a substantially gainful occupation. This is the shortcoming in his appeal. [ 73 ] Given the lack of medical evidence, it is unnecessary to consider the Claimant’s “real world” circumstances, though I do note that being mid-aged at the minimum qualifying period, the extent of his English proficiency, and his past work and life experience would have been relevant when determining the scope of suitable substantially gainful occupations available to him. [ 74 ] Under the cumulative requirements under the [NAME] , it is unnecessary to consider whether the Claimant had a prolonged disability. If an applicant does not meet the severe criterion of disability under the [NAME], one does not have to make a finding on the prolonged criterion as his application for a disability pension cannot succeed anyway. Footnote 33 [ 75 ] That said, the medical evidence is indeterminate on this point, if not in conflict. In May 2024, the family doctor expected the Claimant to be able to return to his usual work within three to six months. Footnote 34 In January 2025, the family doctor wrote that there was no chance for the Claimant to return to work, but there was no accompanying explanation to explain this opinion. Footnote 35 With an outstanding neurosurgeon’s consultation, no definitive prognosis has been made as of yet. Conclusion [ 76 ] The evidence falls short in establishing that the Claimant had a severe and prolonged disability by the end of his minimum qualifying period. [ 77 ] The appeal is dismissed. Footnotes Footnote 1 The end of the minimum qualifying period is the date by which a claimant has to prove that they have a severe and prolonged disability for the purposes of the [NAME] . The minimum qualifying period is based on a claimant’s contributions to the [NAME]. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 Section 42(2)(a)(i) of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 Section 42(2)(a)(ii) of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2001  FCA  248 at para 38. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 [NAME]  v  Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development) , 2002  FCA  211 Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 [NAME], para 50. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 CT scan of cervical spine dated March 23, 2018, at AD15-11 and AD15-13, X-rays of thoracic spine taken on January 3, 2021, at AD15-6, and CT scan of the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spines taken on January 3, 2021, at AD15-8. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 Hospital records dated September 9, 2020, at AD15-16, and January 3, 2021, at AD15-18. See also X-rays of lumbar spine dated December 23, 2020, at AD15-22. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 CT scan of lumbar spine, dated March 18, 2021, at AD15-9. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 X-rays of cervical and thoracic spine, taken on November 9, 2021, at AD15-23. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 X-rays of lumbar spine, taken on January 4, 2023, at AD15-25. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 Consultation report of otolaryngologist, dated November 27, 2023, at AD15-26. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 Family doctor’s clinical records dated January 4, 2023, at GD2-125. Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 Family doctor’s entry in clinical records dated August 17, 2023, at GD2-127, and medical note dated August 17, 2023, at AD15-32. Return to footnote 14 referrer Footnote 15 Family doctor’s clinical records dated April 24, 2024, at GD2-128. Return to footnote 15 referrer Footnote 16 Family doctor’s clinical records dated May 7, 2024, at GD2-129. Return to footnote 16 referrer Footnote 17 Family doctor’s [NAME] report, dated May 7, 2024, at GD2-114 to GD2-123. Return to footnote 17 referrer Footnote 18 Family doctor’s [NAME] report, dated May 7, 2020, at GD2-122. Return to footnote 18 referrer Footnote 19 Family doctor’s clinical records dated September 10, 2024, at GD2-130 (GD3-9) and letter dated September 10, 2024 (GD2-124). Return to footnote 19 referrer Footnote 20 Family doctor’s clinical records dated January 9, 2025, at GD2-131. Return to footnote 20 referrer Footnote 21 Family doctor’s note dated August 17, 2023, at AD15-32. Return to footnote 21 referrer Footnote 22 ENT consultation report dated November 27, 2023, at AD15-26, ENT Clinic Note, dated July 15, 2024, at AD15-2 and AD15-29, and Operative Note dated September 14, 2025, at AD15-30. Return to footnote 22 referrer Footnote 23 Claimant’s Application for [NAME], at GD2-72. Return to footnote 23 referrer Footnote 24 GD2-75. Return to footnote 24 referrer Footnote 25 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2008  FCA  377 at para 4. Return to footnote 25 referrer Footnote 26 Respondent’s Submissions, citing [NAME]  v  Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development) , 2002  FCA  211, at AD9-8. Return to footnote 26 referrer Footnote 27 Family doctor’s [NAME] report, dated May 7, 2024, at GD2-119. Return to footnote 27 referrer Footnote 28 Family doctor’s clinical records dated December 16, 2024, at GD2-131. Return to footnote 28 referrer Footnote 29 Family doctor’s clinical records dated February 27, 2024, at GD2-127. Return to footnote 29 referrer Footnote 30 Family doctor’s clinical records dated January 9, 2025, at GD2-131. Return to footnote 30 referrer Footnote 31 Family doctor’s note of September 10, 2024, at GD2-124. Return to footnote 31 referrer Footnote 32 [NAME] , at para 50. Return to footnote 32 referrer Footnote 33 [NAME]  v  Canada (Minister of Social Development) , 2008  FCA  33 at para 10. Return to footnote 33 referrer Footnote 34 Family doctor’s [NAME] report, dated May 7, 2024, at GD2-122. Return to footnote 34 referrer Footnote 35 Family doctor’s clinical records dated January 9, 2025, at GD2-131. Return to footnote 35 referrer