CPP Disability Pension Application Denied Due to Insufficient Proof

Citation: CK  v  [NAME] , 2026  SST  193 Social Security Tribunal of Canada General Division – Income Security Section Decision Appellant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: [NAME] reconsideration decision dated April 17, 2025 (issued by Service Canada) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: Teleconference Hearing date: February 25, 2026 Hearing participant: Appellant Decision date: March 17, 2026 File number: GP-25-1120 On this page Decision Overview What the Appellant must prove Reasons for my decision Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] The appeal is dismissed. [ 2 ] The Appellant, C. K., isn’t eligible for a [NAME] ( [NAME] ) disability pension. This decision explains why I am dismissing the appeal. Overview [ 3 ] The Appellant is 52 years old. She had to stop working as an educational assistant in March 2023 because of an injury to her knee. But she has struggled with gastrointestinal issues, anemia, and depression/anxiety for many years. All of these conditions now keep her from returning to work. [ 4 ] The Appellant applied for a [NAME] disability pension on February 9, 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 she has a severe and prolonged disability. All of the medical conditions that now make her disabled have impacted her ability to work since long before her injury in March 2023. These conditions have gotten progressively worse over time. She has tried to find work that can accommodate her limitations, but no one will hire her. [ 6 ] The Minister says the evidence shows that the Appellant wasn’t disabled under the [NAME] by December 31, 2013, and continuously since, the date she must have become disabled by to qualify for benefits. The medical evidence doesn’t support that she couldn’t perform any type of work. In fact, the Appellant worked a full-time job as recently as 2023. And her family doctor said in February 2024 that she could still perform desk duties. 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, 2013. In other words, no later than December 31, 2013. This date (called the MQP date) is based on her [NAME] contributions. Footnote 1 She must also prove that she continues to be disabled. Footnote 2 [ 8 ] The [NAME] defines “severe” and “prolonged.” [ 9 ] A disability is severe if it makes an appellant incapable regularly of pursuing any substantially gainful occupation. Footnote 3 [ 10 ] This means I have to look at all of the Appellant’s medical conditions together to see what effect they have on her ability to work. I also have to look at her background (including her age, level of education, and past work and life experience). This is so I can get a realistic or “real world” picture of whether her disability is severe. If the Appellant is capable regularly of doing some kind of work that she could earn a living from, then she isn’t entitled to a disability pension. [ 11 ] A disability is prolonged if it is likely to be long continued and of indefinite duration, or is likely to result in death. Footnote 4 [ 12 ] This means the Appellant’s disability can’t have an expected recovery date. The disability must be expected to keep the Appellant out of the workforce for a long time. [ 13 ] The Appellant has to prove she has a severe and prolonged disability. She has to prove this on a balance of probabilities. This means she has to show it is more likely than not that she is disabled. Reasons for my decision [ 14 ] I find that the Appellant hasn’t proven she has had a severe and prolonged disability by December 31, 2013, and continuously since then.  I reached this decision by considering the following issues: Was the Appellant’s disability severe? Was the Appellant’s disability prolonged? Was the Appellant’s disability severe? [ 15 ] The Appellant’s disability wasn’t continuously severe. I reached this finding by considering several factors. I explain these factors below. The Appellant’s functional limitations affected her ability to work [ 16 ] The Appellant has: Give the diagnosis/diagnoses. Consider using a list (see the Style Guide). If you don’t need a list (there are only one or two diagnoses), give the diagnosis/diagnoses in paragraph form. [ 17 ] However, I can’t focus on the Appellant’s diagnoses. Footnote 5 Instead, I must focus on whether she has functional limitations that got in the way of her earning a living. Footnote 6 When I do this, I have to look at all of the Appellant’s medical conditions (not just the main one) and think about how they affected her ability to work. Footnote 7 [ 18 ] I find that the Appellant has functional limitations that affected her ability to work. What the Appellant says about her functional limitations [ 19 ] The Appellant says that her medical conditions resulted in functional limitations that affected her ability to work by December 31, 2013, and continuously since. She says that she has been dealing with stomach problems and depression since before the end of 2013. Her health has steadily declined since then. She had to stop working as an educational assistant in March 2023 when she injured her knee at work. All of her physical and mental health conditions now make it unrealistic for her to do any job. [ 20 ] The Appellant has struggled with her health for many years. It all seemed to start with her first pregnancy in 1996. She was hospitalized several times, and in the years following, she developed stomach pain and sickness. She had to quit her job in 1997 because of it. She had two surgeries in 1998 (hiatus hernia and gall bladder). She started to get frequent diarrhea and nausea after that. She got even sicker during her second pregnancy in 2001/2002 and was on bed rest. She then struggled with post-partem depression and continued to deal with nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. She had taken medication for her mental health since her hospitalization in 1996. [ 21 ] The Appellant went back to work in 2006 as a part-time care aide. She then worked part-time at the [NAME] in 2009. In 2010, she also took a full-time job at a printing shop. However, in 2011, she had to reduce her hours so she could care for her father who had his foot amputated. The Appellant’s grandmother passed away around the same time, which was hard. Then her father suddenly passed away in September 2013, and she was left to care for her brother who had mental health and drug addiction issues. She felt burnt out as a care giver. All of this pushed her over the edge, and she was diagnosed with PTSD and severe depression. [ 22 ] It took a long time for the Appellant to recover from her deeper depression after her father passed away in 2013. It didn’t really get better until 2016. She continued to have stomach issues. She started getting iron injections in 2016, which helped with energy levels. But despite her health problems, she still managed to care for her two children and work part-time for her family business. [ 23 ] The Appellant and her husband have owned a [COMPANY] that her husband operated for many years. She did (and continues to do) the administrative work, including all the accounting. She also helped with other aspects of the business, like dealing with customers, picking up supplies, and assisting with quotes. She has worked on average 20 to 25 hours a week from 2014 onward. She worked from home and had a very flexible schedule so she could work around her health problems. She didn’t get paid a salary, but she did receive a dividend from the business, which on average was between $50,000 to $60,000 a year. [ 24 ] In 2020, the Appellant decided to look for work outside the home. She got a job as an educational assistant to children with intensive needs. However, the pandemic in March 2020 meant that she really didn’t work again until September 2021. She worked part-time in 2021. In 2022, she worked pretty much full-time hours (8:45 am to 3:15 pm) as the office coordinator. She managed her stomach problems by not eating during the day. [ 25 ] In 2023, she was back working with the kids. Unfortunately, she had to stop working in March 2023, after a child jumped on her leg and injured her knee. Kneeling, crouching, and bending became especially painful. She tried returning to work in October 2023, but working with the kids required too much crouching and bending. She had surgery on her knee in November 2023, but it didn’t help. She asked to return to work with accommodations for her physical limitations, but her employer wouldn’t let her return to an office/secretarial job. [ 26 ] The Appellant’s health continues to decline. Her stomach issues started to get worse around the end of 2022. She has to go to the bathroom 12 to 18 times a day. She also no longer gets iron injections/intravenous infusions as they stopped working in 2024 or 2025. They didn’t help with her stomach issues but did help with energy levels. She has seen many doctors and undergone many tests, and no one seems to know the cause of her health issues or the right treatment for them. All of this has made her frustrated and more depressed. What the medical evidence says about the Appellant’s functional limitations [ 27 ] The Appellant must provide some medical evidence to support that her functional limitations affected her ability to work no later than December 31, 2013. [ 28 ] The medical evidence supports what the Appellant says. [ 29 ] The Appellant’s family doctor provided the following diagnoses with related symptoms and limitations in February 2024 (medical report) and July 2024 (letter): Footnote 8 suspected celiac disease (gastrointestinal) primary debilitating condition symptom onset date January 2016 symptoms – fecal incontinence, frequent bowel movements, nausea/vomiting, abdominal pain/bloating, anemia with secondary fatigue limitations – poor energy, shortness of breath, exercise tolerance/stamina, need frequent access to a bathroom anemia symptoms – significant fatigue, becomes short of breath easily, impaired concentration requires intravenous iron infusions osteoarthritis (left knee) traumatic injury to left knee in March 2023 symptoms – continuous knee pain limitations – unable to run, squat, crouch, stand for prolonged periods, stairs challenging anxiety/depression symptom onset September 2013 symptoms/limitations – flashbacks, panic attacks, brain fog, general sadness, poor motivation, fatigue, memory issues, insomnia medications – Paxil since 1996; clonazepam since September 2013 for panic attacks; trazodone since December 2023 for sleep [ 30 ] [NAME] said in February 2024 that the Appellant was suitable to continue work with modified duties that didn’t involve running, squatting, crouching, or standing for long periods, or in other words, administrative duties only. Footnote 9 Since her employer wasn’t accommodating her request for modified duties, the Appellant was unable to work for the foreseeable future. In July 2024, [NAME] said that the Appellant’s medical conditions have resulted in her being incapable of work at that time. Footnote 10 [ 31 ] There is other medical evidence that the Appellant’s conditions began before December 31, 2013 (the MQP date). There are some chart notes from visits to her doctor in 2012 and 2013 that show complaints of diarrhea, vomiting, and fatigue with iron deficiency. Footnote 11 The chart notes also show numerous visits related to depression, anxiety, and insomnia starting in May 2013 until the end of 2014. Footnote 12 There is then a note in January 2015 that the Appellant’s mood was stable. Footnote 13 After that, the focus of her doctor visits shifted to concerns related to anemia/iron deficiency/fatigue and gastrointestinal issues. Footnote 14 The Appellant continued to take medication for her mental health and from time to time talk to her doctor about her anxiety and depression. Footnote 15 [ 32 ] There is further evidence about the nature of her knee injury in 2023. A note from [NAME] from January 2024 explained that the Appellant didn’t have any problems with her knee until the injury in March 2023. Footnote 16 [NAME], the Appellant’s surgeon, said in December 2023 that the Appellant was dealing with some knee symptoms related to early osteoarthritis (discomfort; difficulty with stairs, squatting, and kneeling). Footnote 17 [ 33 ] The medical evidence supports that the Appellant’s medical conditions created functional limitations that affected her ability to work since before December 31, 2013. [ 34 ] I now have to decide whether the Appellant could regularly work any job since December 31, 2013. To be severe, the Appellant’s functional limitations must prevent her from earning a living at any type of work, not just her usual job or job of choice. Footnote 18 The Appellant had the capacity for substantially gainful work after December 31, 2013 ( MQP date) [ 35 ] When I am deciding whether the Appellant can work, I can’t just look at her medical conditions and how they affect what she can do. I must also consider factors such as her: age level of education language abilities past work and life experience [ 36 ] These factors help me decide whether the Appellant can work in the real world—in other words, whether it is realistic to say that she can work. Footnote 19 [ 37 ] If the Appellant can work in the real world, she must show that she tried to find and keep a suitable job. She must also show her efforts weren’t successful because of her medical conditions. Footnote 20 Finding and keeping a suitable job includes retraining or looking for a job she can do with her functional limitations. Footnote 21 [ 38 ] I find that the Appellant was able to work in the real world after her MQP date. The Appellant’s age (40 years old at the MQP date), fluency in English, education (one year of university), and work experience (many years of administrative work for her family business) are factors that favoured her employability. There is also strong evidence that she had the capacity for substantially gainful employment when she worked from September 2021 to March 2023. There is also evidence that she managed to work part-time for her family business over many years since December 31, 2013. [ 39 ] The Appellant was severely depressed around the time of her father’s passing in September 2013 and was unable to work for a long time after that. However, the medical evidence supports that her mental health stabilized in 2015 and didn’t continuously disable her from working until now, either by itself or in combination with other medical conditions that created functional limitations that impacted her ability to work. The evidence supports that she still had work capacity as late as 2022/2023, when she managed near full-time work at the [COMPANY] and her administrative duties for the family business at the same time. The Appellant’s job from September 2021 to March 2023 showed work capacity [ 40 ] The Appellant can’t prove that her medical conditions have been continuously severe since December 31, 2013, when the evidence shows that she worked regularly and earned a substantially gainful living from her job at the [COMPANY] between September 2021 and March 2023. Footnote 22 She did this while managing her health conditions. She had to stop working in March 2023, but that was because of a new injury to her knee. Up to that point, she showed that her conditions weren’t preventing her from being regularly capable of a substantially gainful occupation. [ 41 ] I accept that the Appellant’s medical conditions made it harder for her to work at the [COMPANY]. She says she managed it by not eating during the day so she wouldn’t have as many issues with going to the washroom. She said at the hearing that she would have continued doing that job had she not been injured in March 2023. So, from at least September 2021 until then (over a year and a half), she showed that she could manage her conditions while working a substantially gainful job. However difficult that was, she showed she could do it. [ 42 ] Her work during that period could not be considered a failed work attempt. Footnote 23 Until she was unexpectedly injured, she had successfully returned to working outside the home. Also, her doctor said in the medical report dated February 7, 2024, that even with her knee injury, she maintained the capacity for less physical, administrative work. Footnote 24 The Appellant’s work for the family business supported work capacity [ 43 ] The Appellant’s mainly administrative work for the business she owns with her husband supports that she had the capacity for substantially gainful work after December 31, 2013. The Appellant says that she was able to do this work because of its significant flexibility. She had no set hours and did the job from home when she felt well enough. No other job had this kind of flexibility. Therefore, it wasn’t evidence of work capacity. [ 44 ] In my view, the Appellant’s self-employed administrative work is a real occupation that showed a capacity for substantially gainful work. I appreciate that she could set her own hours, which you can’t do in many jobs. But there is no evidence that she did a bad job or that her performance was considerably poorer than what would be expected. Footnote 25 And she did this job regularly over many years, working an average of about 20 to 25 hours a week. She didn’t get a traditional salary, and the dividend she received wasn’t strictly her pay for the work she did. But she did valuable work that someone would have to be paid for if she didn’t do it. She was also contributing to the operation of a business she partly owned and profited from in a substantially gainful way. Conclusion [ 45 ] I find that the Appellant isn’t eligible for a [NAME] disability pension because she hasn’t proven that her disability was severe by December 31, 2013, and continuously since. Because I have found that her disability wasn’t severe, I didn’t have to consider whether it was prolonged. [ 46 ] This means the appeal is dismissed. Footnotes Footnote 1 Service Canada uses an appellant’s years of [NAME] contributions to calculate their coverage period, or “minimum qualifying period” ( MQP ). The end of the coverage period is called the MQP date. See section 44(2) of the [NAME] . The Appellant’s [NAME] contributions are at GD2-55. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 In Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2020  FC  1093, the Federal Court said that the appellant has to show a severe and prolonged disability by the end of their minimum qualifying period and continuously after that. See also [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2011  FCA  318. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 Section 42(2)(a) of the [NAME] gives this definition of severe disability. Section 68.1 of the [NAME] says a job is “substantially gainful” if it pays a salary or wages equal to or greater than the maximum annual amount a person could receive as a disability pension. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 Section 42(2)(a) of the [NAME] gives this definition of prolonged disability. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2013  FCA  81. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 [NAME]  v  Canada (Social Development) , 2008  FCA  33. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2011  FCA  47. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 See medical report, dated February 7, 2024, at GD2-84 to 93; and [NAME]’s letter, dated July 25, 2024, at GD1-5. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 See medical report, dated February 7, 2024, at GD2-92. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 [NAME]’s letter, dated July 25, 2024, at GD1-5. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 See GD4-10 to 21. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 See GD2-155 to 157; GD4-15 to 21; and GD4-151 to 164. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 See GD4-153. Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 See GD2-97 to 108; GD2-149 to 155; and GD4-35 to 153. There is a note for time off work in February and March 2021 because of struggles with anemia. She received iron infusions and on March 23, 2021, the chart note said that it looked like the iron injections were working: see GD2-100 and 101. A note from October 13, 2021, said she was feeling well: see GD2-99. Return to footnote 14 referrer Footnote 15 For example, there is a chart note from March 14, 2023 (about one week before her injury), about struggles with anxiety and depression related to being emotionally overwhelmed by her brother’s situation: see GD2-150 and 151. Return to footnote 15 referrer Footnote 16 [NAME]’s chart note, dated January 17, 2024, at GD2-111. Return to footnote 16 referrer Footnote 17 [NAME]’s letter, dated December 7, 2023, at GD2-134 and 135. Return to footnote 17 referrer Footnote 18 [NAME]  v  Canada (Social Development) , 2008  FCA  33. Return to footnote 18 referrer Footnote 19 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2001  FCA  248. Return to footnote 19 referrer Footnote 20 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2003  FCA  117. Return to footnote 20 referrer Footnote 21 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2008  FCA  150. Return to footnote 21 referrer Footnote 22 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. In 2021, that amount was $16,963.92. In 2022, it was $17,453.40. In 2023, it was $18,508.36. Return to footnote 22 referrer Footnote 23 Work that an appellant does after their MQP date expires can sometimes show they had work capacity; other times it doesn’t because it is evidence of a “failed work attempt”: see DS  v  [NAME] , 2022  SST  292. The length of a return to work is relevant to whether it is a failed or successful work attempt. The Federal Court of Appeal says that there is “no doubt” that a return to work that lasted only a few days would be a failed attempt, but that “two years of earnings consistent with what had been earned before cannot be a failed attempt”: see DS  v  [NAME] , 2022  SST  292 at para.

40. Return to footnote 23 referrer Footnote 24 See medical report, dated February 7, 2024, at GD2-92. Return to footnote 24 referrer Footnote 25 The principle of a “benevolent employer” applies when someone is paid for work even though they are performing at a considerably lower level than what is usually expected, which means their job isn’t a real occupation: see [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General ), 2014  FCA  187. Note that the principle probably doesn’t apply to self-employed people because there is no third-party employer acting benevolently: see [NAME]  v  CO , 2025  SST  132. Return to footnote 25 referrer