CPP Disability Pension Application Denied for Lack of Evidence

Citation: SV  v  [NAME] , 2026  [NAME]  198 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Decision Appellant: [redacted] Representative: [NAME] Respondent: [redacted] [NAME] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated August 19, 2024 (GP-23-1093) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: Videoconference Hearing date: September 10, 2025 Hearing participants: Appellant Appellant’s representative Respondent’s representative Decision date: March 15, 2026 File number: AD-24-772 On this page Decision Overview Preliminary matters Issue Analysis Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] The appeal is dismissed. The Appellant is not entitled to a [NAME] ( [NAME] ) disability pension. Overview [ 2 ] The Appellant was 60 years old as of the hearing in the present matter. Footnote 1 The Appellant has a lot of experience working in the [NAME], as a mechanic and as a miner. He was also a supervisor, a plow and dump truck operator, and a mechanic working for himself. He has a high school diploma. Footnote 2 [ 3 ] The Appellant had knee problems prior to a motorcycle accident on June 22, 2019. The accident seemed to worsen these issues. He underwent a left knee replacement in October 2020. The Appellant said he could no longer work due to his medical conditions as of June 2019. Footnote 3 [ 4 ] The Appellant first applied for a [NAME] disability pension on May 4, 2022. Footnote 4 The Minister refused his application initially and on reconsideration. Footnote 5 [ 5 ] The Appellant appealed that decision to the General Division of the Social Security Tribunal (Tribunal). Footnote 6 The General Division held a hearing on August 15, 2024, and dismissed his appeal. Footnote 7 The Appellant asked for permission to appeal that decision to the Tribunal’s Appeal Division. Footnote 8 Permission to appeal was granted on November 19, 2024. Preliminary matters [ 6 ] Prior to the hearing, I held three case conferences in this matter. During the first case conference, the Appellant’s representative raised an objection to the Minister having a professional witness testify at the upcoming hearing. Footnote 9 After hearing the parties, I decided to allow the testimony of the Minister’s professional witness. I indicated that the testimony’s relevance outweighed the concerns expressed by the Appellant’s representative, and that it was also my role to assess the probative value (or lack thereof) of such testimony. [ 7 ] In the last two case conferences, I dealt with a request by the Appellant’s representative to accept the recording of testimony given during the hearing at the General Division as evidence before me. Footnote 10 After discussion with the parties during those two case conferences, it was decided that I would accept those recordings as evidence before me. It was also understood that the witnesses who testified before the General Division would be available at the hearing for cross-examination by the Minister’s representative. Footnote 11 [ 8 ] I want to say that I much appreciated that the representatives of both parties were very cooperative and reasonable during the above process. [ 9 ] Finally, I took notice of photographs filed as evidence by the Appellant, which had not been allowed into to the record by the General Division. Footnote 12 Issue [ 10 ] 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 Appellant’s MQP was December 31, 2022. Footnote 13 [ 11 ] The issue in this appeal is the following: Did the Appellant 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 [ 12 ] I have considered the law and the evidence and concluded that the Appellant did not have a severe and prolonged disability before his MQP of December 31, 2022. I find that the Appellant’s medical conditions did not make him incapable regularly of pursuing any substantially gainful occupation before his MQP . The Appellant was not disabled before his MQP of December 31, 2022 [ 13 ] A person is considered to have a severe disability if they are incapable regularly of pursuing any substantially gainful occupation. Footnote 14 A disability is prolonged if it is likely to be long continued and of indefinite duration or is likely to result in death. Footnote 15 [ 14 ] The severity test must be analyzed in a real-world context. Footnote 16 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 17 [ 15 ] 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 18 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 19 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 20 [ 16 ] Finally, the Appellant 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 the evidence presented by the Appellant. Evidence presented by the Appellant [ 17 ] The Appellant and his two sisters testified at the General Division hearing. I listened to the recordings of their testimony instead of having them testify before me. The Appellant was available for cross-examination by the Minister’s representative. Footnote 21 [ 18 ] The Appellant testified about his work experience. He worked for 30 years in the [NAME], “half of that time as a mechanic and the other half as a miner, which is very hard work.” He worked in that industry until 2017. He then worked as a plow and dump truck operator for snow removal for his sister’s husband. Finally, before the accident, he had started his own company doing mechanical work, working out of his own garage, as he was “tired of the [NAME].” [ 19 ] The Appellant testified about the motorcycle accident that worsened the issues he already had with his left knee. He underwent a knee replacement. He has had extensive physiotherapy. He said there is no treatment that has been recommended that he hasn’t pursued. He takes Tylenol daily. [ 20 ] The Appellant also said he has gained weight. This weight gain combined with his left knee issues to cause issues with his right knee and ankles. He testified about extensive swelling in his left knee: “it was fine at first after the operation, just swelling up all the time now.” [ 21 ] On many occasions during his testimony, the Appellant alluded to his high pain tolerance and that he would just “suck it up”. He also testified to some residual issues following surgery for carpal tunnel syndrome on both wrists, though these happen “not very often, like once a month, and only one hand, my right.” [ 22 ] The Appellant said that there are many activities that he can no longer do: downhill skiing, water skiing, wakeboarding, roller blading. He is still able to pursue motorcycling, and finds that his sport-style motorcycle is more comfortable for his knee and easy to get on and off of. [ 23 ] The Appellant testified to having helped his brother-in-law with restoring a vintage vehicle, about 14-15 hours, for about a week, “couple of hours here, couple of hours there.” He also did a little bit of work with his brother-in-law’s neighbour, mostly guidance with mechanical work on a car. [ 24 ] When asked if he could commit to doing “admin work”, the Appellant said, “Chances are it wouldn’t be very long. I can’t sit down, I got to get up and walk around.” He said he definitely could not do anything full-time: “Definitely not. I wouldn’t hire me. Definitely not. If I worked two hours, I would be off for the whole day, may not show up for work at all.” The Appellant said he couldn’t commit to a regular work schedule because of his limitations. [ 25 ] When asked if he had considered returning to work, the Appellant said he had a buddy that was opening up a maintenance job part-time, but the “[COMPANY] ended up cancelling the job, they never hired anybody, they cancelled it.” That job involved “maintenance, cut grass, snow removal in winter, little maintenance jobs here and there and it was part-time.” He estimated it would have been 15-20 hours per week. He couldn’t remember exactly when he applied for the job, but said it was prior to 2022. [ 26 ] It was clear from the Appellant’s testimony that he has not applied for any other jobs or other types of jobs since the accident. [ 27 ] Two of the Appellant’s sisters also gave testimony before the General Division. Footnote 22 They were both unanimous in saying the Appellant is a “very hard worker”, and “has an awesome work ethic”. They spoke of their brother as a physical labourer who would generally push himself into working for as long as he could. [ 28 ] However, they also said that since the accident, the Appellant is more limited than he used to be. He has been in a lot of pain since the accident. They testified that their brother was a helpful person, that he had helped them both with jobs around their houses. However, they also testified their brother would now start jobs and not be able to finish them. [ 29 ] When asked if she would consider hiring her brother as an employee, one of his sisters indicated that, “well, no, he couldn’t do the job…”. Footnote 23 His other sister wondered how much her brother knew about Microsoft Word and Excel, and whether he’d be able to “do it physically”. Footnote 24 [ 30 ] I found that the Appellant and his sisters testified in an earnest and forthright manner. I believe they were being truthful. I do not believe they were exaggerating for effect. All of them believe that the Appellant is incapable of working. However, their testimony was only part of the evidence that I had to consider. [ 31 ] I will now look at the evidence presented by the Minister at the hearing. Evidence presented by the Minister at the hearing [ 32 ] The Minister had a professional witness, [NAME], testify at the hearing. She has a background in family medicine and works for the [NAME]. [ 33 ] [NAME] reviewed the medical evidence related to the Appellant’s left knee, bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, right knee, and ankles (right more than the left). She said that the Appellant had functional limitations from those conditions, but “the evidence shows that with treatment, he recovered sufficiently to return to some form of work. The evidence supports he could do lighter, more sedentary-type work.” [ 34 ] [NAME] commented specifically on the July 2022 reports that had been commissioned by the Appellant’s insurance company, saying that these supported the Appellant returning to the workforce.  She also commented specifically on a May 2023 letter by the Appellant’s family [NAME], which said the Appellant was unable to work. Footnote 25 [NAME] contrasted this letter with the July 2022 reports. [ 35 ] In cross-examination, [NAME] acknowledged that the July 2022 reports were a “snapshot of a day in time for [the Appellant]”. She also testified as follows: “So yes, the objective evaluation is a snapshot in time, and it shows that he would not be able to do heavy, physical work like he used to. In terms of medium, light, more sedentary work, there was no indication that he could not do that. And in fact, it’s only if you try that you can say if you are not…if you are not able to do that on a more continuous basis, but you need to try.” [ 36 ] Finally, in cross-examination, [NAME] said that it was up to the trier of fact to make a decision on whether the Appellant was incapable regularly of pursuing any substantially gainful occupation. [ 37 ] I found [NAME]’s testimony helpful. She mostly focused on pointing out how much of the medical evidence did not necessarily help the Appellant’s case, as it seemed to provide evidence of the Appellant still having some work capacity. [ 38 ] When I turned my analysis to the medical evidence below, I came to that same conclusion. The medical evidence supports the Appellant having residual work capacity before his MQP of December 31, 2022 [ 39 ] As I said above, I found that the oral evidence put forth by the Appellant, both by him and his sisters, was frank and forthright. However, I cannot rely on this evidence alone. [ 40 ] Medical evidence is always necessary to support a claim for disability benefits. Footnote 26 I carefully assessed all of the medical evidence but focused on the following, which I found most important and telling. [ 41 ] There are on file a number of reports dated July 15, 2022, as follows: Labour Market Survey Report by [NAME], vocational consultant; Footnote 27 Orthopedic Assessment Report by [NAME], orthopedic surgeon; Footnote 28 Functional Abilities Evaluation Report by [NAME], physiotherapist; Footnote 29 Vocational Assessment Report by [NAME], vocational consultant; Footnote 30 These four reports were preceded by an Executive Summary by [NAME], chiropractor. Footnote 31 [ 42 ] The Appellant’s representative asked me to take these reports with a grain of salt because they were commissioned by [NAME], which has an “interest in denying benefits, saves them money.” On the other hand, the Minister’s representative said that “these reports are of very good quality and there are ethical obligations for the assessing professionals to assess in an objective manner, to the best of their ability.” [ 43 ] After having read these reports and considered the representatives’ arguments, I place great weight on these reports, for the following four reasons: These reports, dated July 22, 2022, are the medical reports on file that are most contemporary with the Appellant’s MQP of December 31, 2022. And at only five months before the MQP , they are quite contemporary indeed. At almost 100 pages in total, these reports can only be qualified as thorough. Also, all three of the professionals indicated having extensively reviewed the medical evidence on file prior to coming to their conclusions in their reports. Footnote 32 These reports are largely and essentially uncontradicted by other medical evidence on file that is contemporary to the Appellant’s MQP . Footnote 33 There is nothing in the reports or otherwise in evidence that casts any doubt on the objectivity of the professionals who authored the reports. Just like I can’t assume that a professional commissioned by a claimant will favour that claimant, I can’t assume that professionals commissioned by an [NAME] will render reports in favour of that [NAME]. The professionals all acknowledged their duty to “provide opinion evidence that is fair, objective, and non-partisan”. Footnote 34 [ 44 ] As [NAME] pointed out, these reports are problematic for the Appellant’s case. In both reports by [NAME], vocational consultant, she indicated that there are suitable employment options available to the Appellant: [redacted] [ 45 ] The report of the physiotherapist summarized the Appellant’s functional abilities. Footnote 36 [NAME] noted that Appellant’s left knee pain prohibited the full eight hours of functional testing: “At the beginning of the evaluation, [the Appellant] denied having pain to report or rate. Upon completing of functional testing, [the Appellant] had his left knee pain intensity at 7/10.” Footnote 37 [NAME] concludes as follows: Footnote 38 His left knee injury does not affect his ability to move his neck, reach or perform tasks requiring manual dexterity. Although the duration of this assessment did not allow for eight hours or more of functional testing, assessment findings suggest he does not have accident related impairments affecting his ability to perform neck movements, manual dexterity or reaching between waist and shoulder height. [ 46 ] Of note, [NAME]’s report does not identify “constant sitting” as an issue for the Appellant. Footnote 39 [ 47 ] As I said above, these reports would be incomplete without an actual doctor’s report. There is also on file an Orthopedic Assessment Report by [NAME]. [NAME] examined the Appellant. He considered what the Appellant reported about his health issues. Footnote 40 [NAME] also took into account what the Appellant reported as the impact of these issues. Footnote 41 [ 48 ] [NAME] also considered the previous medical evidence on file. He seemed to believe that the Appellant is generally recovering well from his left knee replacement surgery. Footnote 42 [ 49 ] [NAME] also seemed to think a return to work by the Appellant was entirely possible, and he saw fairly few limitations to this: “…[The Appellant] has done very well following his surgery, and there are no impairments which preclude him from re-entering the work force in some capacity. He should limit using ladders, climbing, or lifting heavy weights.” Footnote 43 [ 50 ] Finally, [NAME] also considered the reports by [NAME] and supported her conclusions from a medical standpoint: Footnote 44 …[The Appellant] does not suffer from an impairment as a direct result of injuries sustained in the accident that causes a complete inability to engage in employment for which he is reasonably suited by education, training or experience including the occupations listed by [NAME] in the Vocational Assessment Report: Administrative Assistant, Data Entry Clerk, Customer Services Representative, Bus Driver, or Heavy Equipment Operator Apprentice. I consider any of these occupations appropriate for the claimant from a musculoskeletal perspective. [ 51 ] These reports, and the body of medical evidence on file, seem to prove two things: 1) the Appellant has functional limitations, i.e. he could not likely do his old jobs or physical jobs; and 2) he seems to have some residual work capacity. [ 52 ] I agree with the Appellant’s representative that these reports are a snapshot in time. However, I would say that most similar reports are a snapshot in time. There would be very few such reports, if any, that would follow a claimant over a longer period of time. I cannot discount these reports on that basis. As I said above, they constitute some evidence that the Appellant still has some remaining work capacity. [ 53 ] Finally, in terms of relevant and contemporary medical evidence, I believe that these reports are uncontradicted. However, in her oral summations, the Appellant’s representative singled out two reports that say or could say the contrary: a disability certificate signed by physiotherapist [NAME] in September-October 2019, and a letter by [NAME] dated May 24, 2023. Footnote 45 I will specifically address these. [ 54 ] I cannot place much weight on Mr. [NAME]’ disability certificate as it is simply not contemporary enough to the Appellant’s MQP . It is more than three years before his MQP . Also, it is prior to the Appellant’s left knee replacement surgery, which happened in October 2020. [ 55 ] This is not the case for the letter by Dr. [NAME], which was written in May 2023. In her testimony, [NAME] provided four reasons why I should not place much weight on this letter. As to her first reason, contrary to what [NAME] said, I think the letter is sufficiently contemporary to the MQP to be considered. [ 56 ] However, [NAME] further said the following:  the letter does not specify which medical issues prevent the Appellant from working; the letter does not provide insight as to when Dr. [NAME] thought the inability to work started, for how long, and what treatment; and the letter contrasts with the July 2022 medical reports. [ 57 ] I agree. In summary, the letter is much too short and too vague for me to place any weight on it, especially in contrast with how lengthy and thorough the July 2022 reports are. The letter is not helpful. [ 58 ] Finally, as I said above, I took notice of photographs filed by the Appellant, of his knees and ankles. Footnote 46 These are visual representations of significant swelling and likely pain. They are evidence of same. However, a medical condition, in and of itself, does not constitute a severe disability. It is the functional limitations related to a medical condition that are important. [ 59 ] And as I said above, I gathered from the medical evidence that though the Appellant has some functional limitations—and he could not do his old jobs or physical jobs—he also seems to have some residual work capacity. [ 60 ] Unfortunately for the Appellant, case law is fairly clear and established as to what that means. I will now look at whether the Appellant could work in the real world. The Appellant was able to work in the real world before his MQP of December 31, 2022 [ 61 ] When I am deciding whether the Appellant 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. [ 62 ] The Federal Court of Appeal has indicated that, in disability cases, I must analyze whether a person can work “in the real world.” Footnote 47 I have to consider how their background and personal characteristics might affect their employability. These are known as the [NAME] factors. [ 63 ] The Appellant was 58 years old as of his MQP of December 31, 2022. He is not a young man, but that is the only [NAME] factor that seems to be an issue. Education and language abilities are not an issue. The Appellant has taken courses in the past and has testified that he has some computer skills. He also has extensive and somewhat varied work experience, though mostly in physical labour. [ 64 ] When I must consider whether the Appellant can work in the real world, I am not considering whether he can work in his previous physically demanding jobs, or on a full-time basis. I must consider whether he can or cannot work at any substantially gainful occupation. Footnote 48 This could mean jobs that were not his previous work, and this could mean part-time work. [ 65 ] I believe that the Appellant would be able to work in the real world in the occupations that were identified in the July 2022 reports. Footnote 49 This is essentially what these reports say. And since the low threshold of a substantially gainful occupation means it can often include part-time work, this could well mean part-time work for any of those above occupations. I reiterate that the only work-related limitations that were identified by [NAME] were using ladders, climbing, or lifting heavy weights. Footnote 50 I also reiterate that the physiotherapist found no issue with prolonged sitting. Footnote 51 [ 66 ] The Appellant, his sisters, and his representative seemed to think he could have trouble sticking to a schedule. However, considering the Appellant’s experience as a full-time, physical labourer, I don’t believe that they were really considering part-time, sedentary employment for the Appellant when they said this. Footnote 52 And the fact that the Appellant himself almost took a part-time job prior to 2022 further strengthens my conclusion that he could likely work in the real world, if only part-time, but in a substantially gainful occupation. [ 67 ] I don’t believe that the overall evidence, when I take into account the medical evidence, points to the Appellant being incapable regularly of pursuing any substantially gainful occupation. The Appellant didn’t attempt alternative employment [ 68 ] It has been held that in cases where there is evidence of residual 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 53 [ 69 ] Therefore, if a claimant has retained at least some work capacity, I must determine whether they attempted to find another job, and if so, whether their impairments prevented them from getting and keeping that job. Furthermore, claimants must have made meaningful attempts to return to work. Footnote 54 They can’t have limited their job search to their previous type of work. [ 70 ] As I said above, from the evidence, it is clear to me that the Appellant had some residual work capacity. It is also clear from the Appellant’s own evidence that he didn’t look for work. [ 71 ] Other than the possible maintenance job at a [COMPANY] “prior to 2022”, which never happened for reasons unrelated to the Appellant’s health, the Appellant testified that he hasn’t looked for work. I agree with something [NAME] said in her testimony: that “one has to try”. The fact that the Appellant didn’t try goes against a disability finding. [ 72 ] I therefore find that the Appellant did not have severe disability because he was not incapable regularly of pursuing any substantially gainful occupation. [ 73 ] Finally, considering I found that the Appellant’s disability was not severe, there is no need for me to conduct an analysis as to whether his disability was prolonged. Conclusion [ 74 ] I find that the Appellant is not entitled to a [NAME] disability pension. [ 75 ] This means that the appeal is dismissed. Footnotes Footnote 1 He was 58 years old as of his Minimum Qualifying Period ( MQP ) of December 31, 2022. This is an important date in this case. See paragraph 10 and footnote 13 for explanation of the Appellant’s MQP . Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See GD2-57. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See GD2-57. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See GD2-56. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 See the initial decision dated October 25, 2022, at GD2-39; and the reconsideration decision dated May 31, 2023, at GD2-9. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 On June 23, 2023; see GD1-1. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 See the General Division decision dated August 19, 2024, made by Member [NAME], at pages AD1A-2 and following. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 On November 15, 2024; see AD1-1. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 Held on April 10, 2025. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 Held on May 1 and May 21, 2025. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 This was indicated to the parties in the Notice of Hearing dated May 23, 2025; see AD0E-1. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 See AD1A-27 to AD1A-31, also GD10-2 to GD10-7. Also see paragraph 12 of the General Division’s decision. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 Service Canada uses an appellant’s years of [NAME] contributions to calculate their coverage period, or “minimum qualifying period” ( MQP ). The end of the coverage period is called the MQP date. See section 44(2) of the [NAME] . The Appellant’s [NAME] contributions are on page GD2-6. Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 See section 42(2)(a)(i) of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 14 referrer Footnote 15 See section 42(2)(a)(ii) of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 15 referrer Footnote 16 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2001  FCA  248. Return to footnote 16 referrer Footnote 17 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2011  FCA  47 at para 8. Return to footnote 17 referrer Footnote 18 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2001  FCA  248; and  [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2009  FCA  178. Return to footnote 18 referrer Footnote 19 [NAME]  v  Canada ([NAME]) , 2008  FCA  33. Return to footnote 19 referrer Footnote 20 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2003  FCA  117 at para 3. Return to footnote 20 referrer Footnote 21 The Minister’s representative had indicated that he would not have any questions in cross-examination for the Appellant’s sisters, so they did not attend the hearing before me. Return to footnote 21 referrer Footnote 22 T. S. and Ms. C. F. I listened to the recording of their testimony. Return to footnote 22 referrer Footnote 23 This was testimony by T. S. Return to footnote 23 referrer Footnote 24 This was testimony by C. F. Return to footnote 24 referrer Footnote 25 See GD5-6. Return to footnote 25 referrer Footnote 26 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2008  FCA  377; and Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2020  FC  206. Return to footnote 26 referrer Footnote 27 See GD3-908 to 930. Return to footnote 27 referrer Footnote 28 See GD3-931 to 949. Return to footnote 28 referrer Footnote 29 See GD3-950 to 969. Return to footnote 29 referrer Footnote 30 See GD3-970 to 993. Return to footnote 30 referrer Footnote 31 See GD3-903 to 907. Return to footnote 31 referrer Footnote 32 [NAME], as the sole doctor having authored a report, was the most thorough, referencing the medical evidence he reviewed at pages GD3-934 to GD3-941. [NAME], the physiotherapist, referenced evidence reviewed at pages GD3-952 to GD3-955. Finally, [NAME], the vocational consultant, did so at pages GD3-972 to GD3-975. Return to footnote 32 referrer Footnote 33 I will return to this later. Return to footnote 33 referrer Footnote 34 See GD3-910, GD3-933, GD3-952, and GD3-972. Return to footnote 34 referrer Footnote 35 See GD3-992. Return to footnote 35 referrer Footnote 36 See GD3-957 to GD3-960. Return to footnote 36 referrer Footnote 37 See GD3-956, and also GD3-961. Return to footnote 37 referrer Footnote 38 See GD3-961. Return to footnote 38 referrer Footnote 39 See GD3-960. Return to footnote 39 referrer Footnote 40 See GD3-942. This included his left knee and ankles. [NAME] also considered carpal tunnel syndrome on page GD3-944. Return to footnote 40 referrer Footnote 41 See GD3-943 to GD3-945. Return to footnote 41 referrer Footnote 42 See GD3-948 and GD3-949. Return to footnote 42 referrer Footnote 43 See GD3-939. Return to footnote 43 referrer Footnote 44 See GD3-949. Return to footnote 44 referrer Footnote 45 See GD3-538 to GD3-544, as well as GD5-6. Return to footnote 45 referrer Footnote 46 See paragraph 9 above. Return to footnote 46 referrer Footnote 47 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2001  FCA  248. Return to footnote 47 referrer Footnote 48 Section 42(2)(a)(ii) of the [NAME] has the notion of “not being able to work” as “being incapable regularly of pursuing” a substantially gainful occupation. Return to footnote 48 referrer Footnote 49 See paragraphs 44 and 50 above. Return to footnote 49 referrer Footnote 50 See paragraph 49 above. Return to footnote 50 referrer Footnote 51 See paragraph 46 above. Return to footnote 51 referrer Footnote 52 The Appellant’s sisters, and even the Appellant, saw him tired and incapable of completing jobs, but these were physical labour jobs. Return to footnote 52 referrer Footnote 53 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2003  FCA  117, where the Federal Court of Appeal states as follows: “Consequently, an applicant who seeks to bring himself within the definition of severe disability must not only show that he (or she) has a serious health problem but where, as here, there is evidence of work capacity, must also show that efforts at obtaining and maintaining employment have been unsuccessful by reason of that health condition.” Return to footnote 53 referrer Footnote 54 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2015  FC  1300, where the Federal Court states that the onus is on claimants to show that they made “sincere” efforts to meet the employment efforts test. Return to footnote 54 referrer