CPP Disability Pension Application Denied Due to Insufficient Medical Evidence

Citation: AC  v  [NAME] , 2026  [NAME]  77 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Decision Appellant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] [NAME] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated October 22, 2024 (GP-23-1697) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: In writing Decision date: February 2, 2026 File number: AD-25-66 On this page Decision Overview Issue Analysis Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] I am dismissing this appeal. The Appellant is not entitled to a [NAME] ( [NAME] ) disability pension. Overview [ 2 ] The Appellant is a 56-year-old former construction worker with a history of depression and cardio-obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). He has not worked regularly since 2014 and appears to have held intermittent jobs since then. [ 3 ] In July 2022, the Appellant applied for a [NAME] disability pension. He claimed that he hadn’t been able to work since March 2017. Footnote 1 [ 4 ] Service Canada, the Minister’s public facing agency, refused the application after determining that the Appellant didn’t have a severe and prolonged disability during his [NAME] disability coverage period, which ended on December 31, 2017. Among other things, it found that some of the Appellant’s medical conditions didn’t become serious until after that date. [ 5 ] The Appellant appealed the Minister’s refusal to the Social Security Tribunal. The Tribunal’s General Division held a hearing by writing and dismissed the appeal. It found that, while the Appellant might be currently disabled, there wasn’t enough medical evidence to show that he was regularly incapable of substantially gainful employment during his coverage period. It also found that the Appellant’s recent activities and earnings indicated an ongoing capacity to work. [ 6 ] The Appellant then applied for permission to appeal to the Appeal Division. Last year, one of my colleagues allowed his appeal to go ahead. At the Appellant’s request, I did not hold an oral hearing and instead considered the merits of his disability claim by reviewing the documents already on the record. Issue [ 7 ] For the Appellant to succeed, he had to prove that, more likely than not, he had a severe and prolonged disability during his [NAME] disability coverage period, formally known as the minimum qualifying period ( MQP ): A disability is severe if it makes a claimant incapable regularly of pursuing any substantially gainful occupation. Footnote 2 A claimant isn’t entitled to a disability pension if they are regularly able to do some kind of work that allows them to earn a living. 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 The disability must be expected to keep the claimant out of the workforce for a long time. [ 8 ] The parties agreed that the Appellant’s MQP ended on December 31, 2017. Footnote 4 As a result, I had to decide whether the Appellant had a severe and prolonged disability as of that date and whether he has had one ever since. Analysis [ 9 ] I have applied the law to the available evidence and concluded that the Appellant is not entitled to the [NAME] disability pension. The Appellant suffers from several medical conditions, but there isn’t enough evidence to show that they prevented him from working before December 31, 2017. The Appellant didn’t have a severe disability during his MQP [ 10 ] [NAME] bear the burden of proving that they had a severe and prolonged disability during their MQP . Footnote 5 I have reviewed the record, and I have concluded that the Appellant did not meet that burden according to the test set out in the [NAME] . [ 11 ] In his application for benefits, the Appellant said that his he could no longer work because of depression and COPD. Footnote 6 He rated his capacity to perform a range of physical tasks as “good” to “excellent,” although he did say he was only “fair” at the following: Going up and down 12 to 15 steps Kneeling or squatting and standing up again Picking up two bags of groceries and walking a block Pounding a nail with a hammer The Appellant said that he couldn’t do much because he became easily winded, but he notably didn’t rate his ability to perform any physical task as “poor.” [ 12 ] The Appellant also rated his ability to carry out various emotional and behavioural activities as “fair” to “excellent,” with only one exception—persisting at difficult tasks, which he rated as “poor.” He added that his depression was getting worse and he was always down and tired. [ 13 ] I understand that the Appellant believes he was disabled during his MQP . However, I can’t base my decision on just the Appellant’s subjective view of his condition at that time. The evidence as a whole suggests that, while the Appellant may have a severe and prolonged disability now, he wasn’t regularly incapable of substantially gainful employment as of December 31, 2017. The medical evidence doesn’t point to debilitating mental health problems during the MQP [ 14 ] A [NAME] disability claimant must provide objective medical evidence supporting a claimed mental or physical disability, including reports about its nature, extent, and prognosis. Footnote 7 [ 15 ] The Appellant has submitted many medical documents, but only a few of them relate to the MQP . They indicate that, although the Appellant experienced some depressive symptoms before December 31, 2017, they were not serious enough to prevent him from working and retraining. [ 16 ] In September 2017, [NAME], family physician, reported that the Appellant had been feeling down, with no energy or ambition, for two years. Footnote 8 He was “not well groomed” and had had “a lot of stress in his life lately.” He had seen many therapists in the past and had been on Paxil for many years. His mood was chronically depressed, and he experienced fatigue and anhedonia (inability to enjoy life). He had [NAME], but it was going downhill because he had no motivation to work. [ 17 ] In March 2018, the Appellant told [NAME] that he was feeling worse. Footnote 9 He had no energy, low mood, irregular sleep, and hadn’t been working. His problems were made worse by divorce and bankruptcy. He declined a referral for mental health counselling and “wasn’t interested” in seeing either [NAME] or [NAME], two psychiatrists with whom he’d previously had bad experiences. [ 18 ] There is no other mental health evidence in and around the end of the Appellant’s MQP . There’s no question that the Appellant was in some distress at the time, but it’s difficult to know whether it was (i) situational (that is, largely the product of external, possibly temporary stressors); (ii) serious enough to interfere with his ability to work; or (iii) amenable to some kind of treatment beyond the antidepressants he was already taking. [ 19 ] [NAME] diagnosed the Appellant with major depression, and the Appellant later agreed to be put on two psychiatric waiting lists, first at the [COMPANY], then at [COMPANY]. For the next four years, the Appellant periodically saw [NAME], mostly for symptoms related to his COPD, as well as more transient problems such as wrist pain and reduced urinary flow. Footnote 10 However, the family physician’s notes contained relatively few mentions of depression or low mood. [ 20 ] In May 2022, the Appellant finally got to see a psychiatrist. Footnote 11 [NAME] wrote that the Appellant had a long history of depression, with more profound mood symptoms over the past couple of years. He said that the Appellant had taken many medications over the years; he also saw a psychiatrist in 2010 but abruptly ended treatment against medical advice. Four years after that, he spent time in the hospital but had not had anything resembling a treatment plan since then. [ 21 ] [NAME] diagnosed the Appellant with major depressive disorder, “recurrent versus persistent.” He said the Appellant had “a bit of an impairment” with concentration and impulse control but that his attention was intact. [NAME] was optimistic about treatment and thought the Appellant’s symptoms could be improved with changes to his medication. He planned on replacing the Appellant’s paroxetine with duloxetine. [ 22 ] [NAME] planned follow-ups with the Appellant, but they never happened. However, he did complete a questionnaire completed in support of the Appellant’s [NAME] disability application. Footnote 12 He wrote that the Appellant’s depression was likely making his COPD and chronic pain worse. But he also said that, as his depression improved, he might eventually be able to work, depending on the severity of his other conditions, in which he had no expertise. [ 23 ] There is nothing else from [NAME] or any other mental health treatment provider on file. The Appellant’s COPD didn’t become a significant problem until after the MQP [ 24 ] The Appellant has been diagnosed with COPD. This condition causes fatigue and shortness of breath with moderate physical activity. [ 25 ] However, the file contains no evidence of COPD or COPD-related symptoms prior to December 31, 2017. As noted, the only evidence prepared before that date is a clinical note by [NAME] from September 2017, and it says nothing about fatigue or shortness of breath, nor do any of the family physician’s notes for the next two years. Footnote 13 [ 26 ] The first mention of any cardiopulmonary problems occurs in January 2020—two years after the MQP . Footnote 14 At that time, [NAME] wrote that the Appellant had been experiencing increasing shortness of breath on exertion for over a month. This suggests that shortness of breath was of less of a problem, if at all, before December 2019. [ 27 ] The Appellant’s respiratory symptoms improved with Atrovent and antibiotics, and testing later confirmed that the Appellant had moderate COPD. Footnote 15 [NAME] advised him to stop smoking and prescribed him with Spiriva and Ventolin, two bronchodilation medications. The Appellant’s condition, looked at as a whole, doesn’t prevent him from working in the real world [ 28 ] I find that, despite the Appellant’s psychological and physical conditions, he still has some ability to work. I am reinforced in this belief when I look at his overall employability. [ 29 ] The leading case on the interpretation of “severe” is [NAME] , which requires the Tribunal, when assessing disability, to consider a disability claimant as a “whole person” in a real-world context. Footnote 16 Employability is not to be assessed in the abstract, but rather in light of all circumstances. Those circumstances fall into two categories: The claimant’s medical condition — this is a broad inquiry, requiring that the claimant’s condition be assessed in its totality; Footnote 17 and The claimant’s background — matters such as age, education level, language proficiency and past work and life experience are relevant. [ 30 ] In this case, the Appellant suffers from depression and COPD, but the medical evidence, considered as a whole, leads me to doubt he was regularly incapable of pursuing suitable employment as of December 31, 2017. The Appellant’s condition, looked at in its totality, did not appear to rule out all forms of work. [ 31 ] In September 2022, [NAME] completed a questionnaire in support of the Appellant’s [NAME] disability application. Footnote 18 She wrote that the Appellant had a 30-year history of persistent major depressive disorder that made it difficult for him to interact with other people. But she also said that the Appellant had been able to manage and function with medications until three years earlier. [NAME]’s notes documented the Appellant’s reluctance to stay on his medications or try new ones, suggesting there was scope to get his symptoms back under control. [ 32 ] The evidence thus suggests that the Appellant’s psychological condition didn’t begin to deteriorate until sometime in 2019. But there are indications that his depression was less than severe during his MQP too. [NAME]’s notes from late 2017 and early 2018 suggest that the Appellant’s depression was situational, related to domestic and financial problems. When the Appellant eventually saw a psychiatrist, [NAME] diagnosed him with major depression, but he also saw the possibility of improvement with treatment and did not rule out a return to work. [ 33 ] As for the Appellant's COPD, I saw little evidence that it contributed to any impairment during the MQP . The Appellant may not have been in peak physical form before 2018, but there was no medical evidence that cardiopulmonary symptoms prevented him from working at the time. I place significant weight on the fact that [NAME] explicitly stated that the onset of the Appellant's COPD symptoms didn’t occur until January 2020. [ 34 ] In all, the medical evidence doesn’t point to a severe disability before December 2017. I am reinforced in that view when I consider the Appellant’s background and personal characteristics. The Appellant is a native English speaker and, at the end of his MQP , was 48 years old—not young but not old either. He only has a high school  education, but he has a lengthy work history as a tradesman, marking him as a potentially reliable employee. [ 35 ] Given his background, I am satisfied that the Appellant was still employable as of the end of his MQP , even with his medical condition at the time. In the end, I simply didn’t see enough evidence to show that he was regularly incapable of substantially gainful employment as of December 31, 2017. I don’t have to consider whether the Appellant had a prolonged disability [ 36 ] A disability must be severe and prolonged. Footnote 19 Since the Appellant has not proved that his disability was severe during his MQP , I don’t, in strict terms, have to consider whether it was also prolonged. [ 37 ] That said, I suspect that, even if the Appellant did have a severe disability at one time, it was never prolonged. That’s because there’s evidence he was able to resume regular employment after his MQP . [ 38 ] At Service Canada’s request, [NAME] returned an employer questionnaire confirming that, between August 26, 2019 and October 18, 2019, it had employed the Appellant as a full-time foreman at salary of $1,076 per week. Footnote 20 [ 39 ] Seven weeks is not a long time to be working anywhere, and I am reluctant to draw firm conclusions from this short-lived job alone. However, I note that the employer parted ways with the Appellant, not because his health prevented him from doing the job, but because of a “shortage of work.” [ 40 ] Later, the Appellant disclosed that he had also worked as a floor and cabinet installer. In a questionnaire that the Appellant completed and submitted to the General Division, he said he had been installing flooring and cabinetry for more than a year. Footnote 21 He later added that he works three to four hours most days, about 60 hours a month; he can’t do a lot of heavy lifting, so his spouse helps him with the cabinets; he marks and cuts out lumber for floor joists, rafters, and wall plates; he charges $30 per hour for labour and $500 per foot for the cabinets; and he has received about $5,300 for the job so far from a single client. Footnote 22 [ 41 ] There are a few things to note here. First, the Appellant suggests that physical limitations are what make it difficult for him to do the job but, as I noted above, there was no medical evidence indicating that he had COPD-related symptoms before December 31, 2017. [ 42 ] Second, the Appellant’s number don’t quite add up. He claims to have worked no more than 60 hours per month at a rate of $30 per hour, which amounts to $21,600 over a year. Yet he also claims to have earned only $5,300 from the job to date. I have no way of independently confirming his income in 2023-24, so I don’t know whether the Appellant made more or less than the threshold for substantial gainful enshrined in the [NAME] . Footnote 23 [ 43 ] Finally, an orthopedic surgeon examined the Appellant in July 2023, noting that he had jammed his right wrist in a work-related injury three years earlier. Footnote 24 He added that the Appellant was a carpenter who “swings his hammer on a daily basis.” However, the Appellant also indicated that he was still able to work: “He does not report pain outside of work or at night that he cannot manage.” [ 44 ] The evidence around the Appellant’s two post- MQP jobs may be incomplete and at times ambiguous, but it’s enough to make me doubt that the Appellant’s impairments have been prolonged. Conclusion [ 45 ] The Appellant had medical problems during his MQP , but they didn’t amount to a severe disability. The Appellant was mildly depressed due to situational factors before December 31, 2017, but there was no medical evidence of any COPD symptoms at the time. It also appears that the Appellant has been working since his MQP , making it likely that, whatever disability he may have had, it was not long continued or of indefinite duration. [ 46 ] The appeal is dismissed. Footnotes Footnote 1 See Appellant’s application for the [NAME] disability pension dated July 4, 2022, GD2-38. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 [NAME], section 42(2)(a)(i). Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 [NAME] , section 42(2)(a)(ii). Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 Under section 44(2) of the [NAME] disability coverage is established by making threshold contributions to the [NAME] . The Appellant’s [NAME] contributions are listed on his record of earnings at GD2-67. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 [NAME] , section 44(1). Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 See the Appellant’s application for benefits, GD2-41. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 In [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2008  FCA  377, the Federal Court of Appeal said there must be some objective medical evidence of a disability. See also Canada (Attorney General)  v  Dean , 2020  FC  206. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 See clinical note dated September 14, 2017 by [NAME], family physician, GD2-157. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 [NAME]’s clinical note dated March 1, 2018, GD2-158. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 [NAME]’s clinical notes from March 2018 to May 2022, GD2-83. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 See reports dated May 5, 2022 (GD2-96) and May 30, 2022 (GD2-103) by Dr. J.J. [NAME], psychiatrist. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 [NAME]’ [NAME] medical report completed on May 31, 2022, GD2-223. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 [NAME]’s clinical note dated September 14, 2017, GD2-157. Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 [NAME]’s clinical note dated January 10, 2020, GD2-159. Return to footnote 14 referrer Footnote 15 [NAME]’s clinical note dated August 21, 2020, GD2-164. Return to footnote 15 referrer Footnote 16 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) 2001  FCA  248. Return to footnote 16 referrer Footnote 17 [NAME]  v  Attorney General of Canada , 2011  FCA  47. Return to footnote 17 referrer Footnote 18 [NAME]’s [NAME] medical report dated September 18, 2022, GD2-196. Return to footnote 18 referrer Footnote 19 [NAME] , section 42(2)(a). Return to footnote 19 referrer Footnote 20 See employer questionnaire dated November 21, 2022 and completed by [NAME]., GD2-19. Return to footnote 20 referrer Footnote 21 See the Appellant’s written responses dated August 26, 2024 (GD6) to questions posed to him by the General Division in a letter dated July 24, 2024 (GD5). Return to footnote 21 referrer Footnote 22 See the Appellant’s letter dated September 25, 2024, GD9. Return to footnote 22 referrer Footnote 23 Section 68.1 of the Pension Plan Regulations associates “substantially gainful” with a specific dollar value. Any amount earned over that dollar value — the maximum annual amount that a person can receive as a disability pension — is deemed to be “substantially gainful.” Return to footnote 23 referrer Footnote 24 See report dated July 4, 2023 by [NAME], orthopedic surgeon, GD2-107. Return to footnote 24 referrer