CPP Disability Pension Application Denied for Lack of Evidence

Citation: MW  v  [NAME] , 2026  [NAME]  24 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Decision Appellant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] [NAME] and [NAME] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated April 1, 2025 (GP-24-1966) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: In Writing Decision date: January 19, 2026 CORRIGENDUM DATE: January 30, 2026 File number: AD-25-417 On this page Decision Overview Issues Analysis Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] The appeal is dismissed. The Appellant is not entitled to a [NAME] ( [NAME] ) disability pension. Overview [ 2 ] I will refer to the Appellant, M. W., as the “Claimant.” I will refer to the Respondent, the [NAME], as the “Minister.” [ 3 ] The Claimant last worked in May 2014, when she was a cashier at a [NAME]. However, she had done many other jobs before then. She applied for a [NAME] disability pension in August 2023. At that time, she said her main medical condition was fibromyalgia (Fibro). This caused widespread pain and other symptoms. She said it was complicated by depression. She felt she had not been able to work because of her medical conditions since 2012. Footnote 1 [ 4 ] The Minister denied the Claimant’s application initially and on reconsideration. She then appealed to the Social Security Tribunal (Tribunal). The Tribunal’s General Division dismissed her appeal. She then requested leave to appeal at the Tribunal’s Appeal Division. One of my Appeal Division colleagues granted her leave to appeal. The Claimant wanted a written hearing. Footnote 2 Nobody asked me to consider the testimony from the General Division hearing. [ 5 ] The Claimant said she was disabled well before her minimum qualifying period ( MQP ) ended on December 31, 2016. The Minister accepted that she now suffers from serious conditions that significantly limit her ability to pursue gainful work. However, the Minister said those limitations did not arise until after December 31, 2016. Footnote 3 [ 6 ] I must decide whether the Claimant had a severe and prolonged disability by December 31, 2016. [ 7 ] For the reasons set out below, I find that the Claimant did not have a severe and prolonged disability by the end of 2016. Issues [ 8 ] The issues in this appeal are: a) Did the Claimant have a severe disability by the end of 2016? b) If so, did the Claimant also have a prolonged disability? c) If the answer to b) is “yes,” when does the Claimant’s [NAME] disability pension start? Analysis [ 9 ] The Claimant’s MQP , or coverage period, ended on December 31, 2016. Footnote 4 That is the date by which she must establish a disability. Her disability must also have been continuous since then. Footnote 5 [ 10 ] Under the [NAME] , a disability must be both severe and prolonged. [ 11 ] The [NAME] says a disability is severe if it makes a person incapable regularly of pursuing any substantially gainful occupation. Footnote 6 [ 12 ] When assessing severity, I must look at all of the Claimant’s medical conditions together to see what effect they have on her work ability. Footnote 7 If she can regularly do some type of work from which she could earn a living, she isn’t entitled to a disability pension. [ 13 ] The [NAME] says a disability is prolonged if it is likely to be long continued and of indefinite duration, or is likely to result in death. Footnote 8 Did the Claimant have a severe disability by the end of 2016? [ 14 ] I find that the Claimant did not have a severe disability by the end of 2018 [2016] . I will first set out her claimed functional limitations. What were the Claimant’s functional limitations by the end of 2016? [ 15 ] I see little or no evidence from the Claimant around the end of 2016. As a result, I will need to rely on her later statements about her functional limitations. [ 16 ] In the Claimant’s August 2023 disability pension application, she said her disabling conditions were Fibro and depression. Besides pain, she reported symptoms related to sleep. Footnote 9 [ 17 ] However, I must focus on the Claimant’s functional limitations, rather than the nature or name of her medical conditions. Footnote 10 [ 18 ] The Claimant reported the following specific functional limitations: Footnote 11 Challenging to bend, rise, or walk long distances. Difficulty with looking upward or extended keyboard usage. Inconsistent ability to do household tasks or grocery shopping. Unable to follow a regular sleep schedule. Difficulty predicting how her day will go. Cannot lift heavy objects or reach as she did before. Emotionality due to depression and anxiety about her Fibro. Dizziness and poor balance. “Spacey feelings” that affect thinking, focusing, and planning. Inconsistent concentration affects reading and computer use. Overwhelming fatigue and exhaustion prevent her from working and social engagements. Extended sitting, standing, or strenuous activity depletes her energy and leaves her in pain. [ 19 ] In her application, the Claimant also said her ability to do the following activities was “poor”: Footnote 12 Do housework and home maintenance without frequent breaks. Manage her anxiety. Go up and down 12-15 steps. Get down into a kneeling or squatting position and back up again. Bend down to pick up coins from the floor. Drive a car (does not do this). Pull or push a heavy door to open it. Pick up two bags of groceries and walk a block (about 100 m). [ 20 ] The Claimant’s claimed functional limitations are widespread. While many of them are physical, she also referred to several cognitive and behavioural limitations. These are complicated further by sleep-related issues. I will now see if the medical evidence could support the claimed limitations by the end of 2016. This is important because [NAME] disability applicants must provide some medical evidence about their underlying conditions. Footnote 13 Does the medical evidence support the claimed limitations? [ 21 ] I see some evidence to support the claimed limitations, although it is not from the key period around the end of 2016. [ 22 ] In February 2013, [NAME] ([NAME]) said the Claimant had a history of depression and seasonal affective disorder. Footnote 14 In June 2014, [NAME] (family doctor) noted that the Claimant stopped worked due to limb pain and fatigue. Footnote 15 Undated clinical notes from [NAME] up to 2013 refer to “good days and bad days”. They also refer to pain, anti-depressant use, lethargy, insomnia, difficulty getting out of bed, fatigue, and a lack of activity enjoyment. Footnote 16 [ 23 ] The Claimant’s lack of a family doctor from September 2016 to December 2021 makes more timely reports impossible to locate. Dr. [NAME] (family doctor) started treating her in December 2021. Footnote 17 In July 2023, Dr. [NAME] said she had Fibro (onset 2018) and depression (onset 2021). Footnote 18 While these onset dates are clearly after the Claimant’s MQP , the existence of similar conditions in 2013 and 2014 mitigates this problem somewhat. [ 24 ] The apparent lack of continuity, or of the same functional limitation level, could be a problem. A further complication is whether the Claimant’s 2023 description fully applies to the period around the end of 2016. I can address these concerns later in my decision, if necessary. For now, I am satisfied that some medical evidence is supportive of her reported limitations. Next, I will look at her personal characteristics. What were the Claimant’s relevant personal characteristics? [ 25 ] When deciding whether the Claimant had a severe disability, I must consider factors such as her: Footnote 19 Age Language ability Education level Past work and life experience [ 26 ] These factors will help me decide whether the Claimant could work in the real world. I will look at each of them in turn. [ 27 ] The Claimant would have been 49 years old at the end of 2016. She would still have had 16 years until the typical retirement age in Canada. Her age would not have been a significant factor in her ability to work in the real world. [ 28 ] The Claimant appears to be a fluent English speaker. While she may have had some difficulty with math Footnote 20 , I do not see evidence of difficulties with English. As English is one of Canada’s official languages, her language ability would not affect her real-world work ability. [ 29 ] The Claimant appears to be one course short of a Grade 12 diploma. She tried to complete Grade 12 at [COMPANY] but struggled with the math component. She said her brother’s 12-year coma and eventual death affected her concentration. But she said she was a diligent student. At age 36, she completed a one-year college program to be a Medical Office Assistant. She also received workplace training for managing and preparing documents. Footnote 21 [ 30 ] The Claimant would be precluded from work requiring an advanced academic background or a specific course of study. However, her completion of a one-year college program points to a good general aptitude for learning and understanding. An exception might be work with a lot of math. She would also be especially suited for clerical work in a medical environment. [ 31 ] The Claimant has had many different jobs. Those jobs include: Footnote 22 Personal care worker Retail cashier, with other retail tasks (stock, cleaning, phone calls) Customer service representative/call centre agent Sales clerk Receptionist Data entry clerk Legal secretary File storage/management [ 32 ] The Claimant was also a live-in caregiver for her elderly mother. Footnote 23 [ 33 ] The Claimant’s work and life experience would prepare her for a broad range of retail, clerical, customer service, data entry, document management, and personal care roles. [ 34 ] Without considering the Claimant’s medical conditions , I find that her personal characteristics would have prepared her for work in any of those areas. However, she would not be suited for work requiring significant math skills. [ 35 ] I will now apply the Claimant’s personal characteristics to her limitations, so I can decide whether she had any residual work capacity by the end of 2016. I need to focus on the period leading up to the end of 2016 because that was the end of her MQP . If she was not severely disabled continuously since then, her appeal cannot succeed. Did the Claimant have any residual work capacity by the end of 2016? [ 36 ] The Claimant had residual work capacity by the end of 2016. I will now explain why. [ 37 ] The Claimant left her retail cashier job on May 31, 2014. This was her last known paid job. Around June 2014, she said she left that job because of limb pain and fatigue. Footnote 24 She later said she left that job because her duties became too heavy for her to continue. But she didn’t think she had been unsuccessful in that job. Footnote 25 [ 38 ] However, the Claimant received little medical attention after June 2014 and before December 2021. Between June 2014 and February 2016, I only see references to routine mammograms, flu shots, and a pap smear. She also had some vitamin and mineral concerns. Footnote 26 But I see no treatment whatsoever between February 9, 2016, and December 17, 2021. Her family doctor retired in September 2016 and wasn’t replaced. Footnote 27 This lack of treatment makes it hard to assess her limitations after February 2016. [ 39 ] At one point, the Claimant said she saw Dr. [NAME] in 2018 in the Emergency department. Footnote 28 But she also said she first met Dr. [NAME] at an urgent care clinic in 2021. Footnote 29 Dr. [NAME] also puts the first treatment in December 2021. Footnote 30 [ 40 ] Most notably, the Claimant said she provided all aspects of personal care to her mother starting in 2015. Her mother had dementia, arthritis, and cancer, and was with her on a “24/7” basis. The Claimant said it was physically, mentally, and emotionally exhausting. It affected her physical health. She had respite for 10 hours per week so she could rest or do errands. Her husband provided help on nights and weekends. This arrangement lasted for at least two years, until her mother moved to a [NAME]. Footnote 31 [ 41 ] The exact dates of this role are unclear. The Claimant gave March 2015 as a start date. However, she gave both 2017 and 2018 as end dates. Footnote 32 She also said her mother died in 2019 and lived in a [NAME] for the last two years of her life. Footnote 33 I find it likely that this caregiving role started in March 2015 and continued until at least the second half of 2017. I say this because she was not clear about whether the role ended in 2017 or 2018. That suggests the role continued beyond the first half of 2017. [ 42 ] Although the Claimant was not paid for this role, I find it similar to being a personal care worker. As noted above, this was a role for which the Claimant was suited. She had worked as a paid personal care worker for six or seven years. Regarding her mother’s care, she said, “I needed and desired to fulfill that role.” Footnote 34 [ 43 ] As this role appeared to last more well over two years, and was a full-time role, I must conclude that the Claimant had some work capacity in the period leading up to (and beyond) December 2016. [ 44 ] When a [NAME] disability applicant has some work capacity, she must show that efforts at obtaining and maintaining employment have been unsuccessful because of her health condition. Footnote 35 I will now look at the Claimant’s efforts in that regard. Were the Claimant’s efforts at obtaining and maintaining work unsuccessful because of her health conditions? [ 45 ] The Claimant’s efforts to obtain and maintain suitable work did not fail around the end of 2016 because of her health condition. I will now explain why. [ 46 ] I see two ways to approach this question. One is much stricter than the other. But it doesn’t matter which approach I take. Neither assists the Claimant. [ 47 ] The first way to approach this question is to find that the Claimant did not pursue or maintain any paid employment after May 31, 2014, despite having at least some capacity to do so. If I choose this approach, the Claimant’s efforts to obtain and maintain suitable work did not fail because of her health conditions. This would mean that she could not have had a severe disability by the end of 2016. [ 48 ] The second way to approach this question takes a much broader view of what constitutes work. It would consider the Claimant’s care for her mother as work. The Claimant wanted to do it. Her family also considered her the best person to take on that role. This was because of her prior experience as a personal care worker. Footnote 36 [ 49 ] The Claimant was engaged in this demanding role for many, many hours each week. Her mother’s health needs were complex. It was demanding enough that the Claimant had to carve out 10 hours per week of respite time so that she could rest and do errands. This role was akin to working full-time, and possibly even more, in a suitable job. As noted above, being a personal care worker was a suitable role for her. [ 50 ] In my view, working full-time is not a required component of this test. But the Claimant did that for a couple of years. [ 51 ] In fact, the Claimant continued with this role until at least the second half of 2017. She eventually moved her mother to a [NAME] where a team could provide the necessary care. She said the move happened because she started to have physical barriers in providing care to her mother. Footnote 37 [ 52 ] The Claimant’s “work attempt” in caring for her mother may have eventually failed because of the Claimant’s own health conditions. I note that she wasn’t receiving any care for those conditions. I make no finding on that point. But, at the critical time around the end of 2016, the Claimant was still able to perform that “work.” Any failure was still up to a year away. This means that her efforts to maintain suitable work did not fail by the end of 2016 because of her health conditions. [ 53 ] Regardless of which approach I take to this question, the Claimant’s attempts to obtain and maintain suitable work did not fail around the material time due to her health conditions. This means she has not established a severe disability by the end of 2016. It follows that her appeal cannot succeed. [ 54 ] While that resolves the appeal, I would like to address one other issue. The Claimant’s ability to work now [ 55 ] The Claimant had no medical evidence at all for more than five years. But she filed considerable medical evidence relating to Fibro and mental health concerns for the past four years. This evidence largely supports a severe and prolonged disability now. Her medication dosage has recently increased. She said her symptoms escalated, as the years passed, to where they are today. Footnote 38 [ 56 ] I stress that my finding on the Claimant’s disability status only applies up to the end of 2016. She may have met the [NAME] definition of disability later. The Minister admitted this. Footnote 39 But, for [NAME] disability purposes, a worsening of her condition after the end of 2016 is not relevant. Footnote 40 [NAME] (psychiatrist) hinted at such a worsening in June 2025. [NAME] said things “took a turn for the worse when she lost her mother in 2019.” Footnote 41 [ 57 ] As noted above, Dr. [NAME] also implied in August 2023 that the Claimant’s condition got worse after the end of 2016. Dr. [NAME] set 2018 and 2021 as the onset dates for her Fibro and depression. The Claimant acknowledged that her depression was “on and off for years.” Footnote 42 This also suggests that the impact on her work capacity changed over time. [ 58 ] The Claimant may have had medical conditions at the end of 2016. She may have had functional limitations too. But, under the [NAME] , I must focus on work capacity. This is where the evidence does not support the Claimant’s case. [ 59 ] On a related note, the Claimant has referred to the impact of a 2010 concussion. Footnote 43 However, I see little objective evidence of any impact from this injury in the period leading up to December 2016. Furthermore, Dr. [NAME]’s 2023 [NAME] medical report did not mention it. Footnote 44 In 2025, [NAME] said her symptoms were, “driven essentially by psychosocial factors.” Footnote 45 [ 60 ] I have considerable sympathy for what the Claimant has endured. Her alcoholic and abusive father vengefully burned down the family home. Two of her brothers died in accidents. Her mother’s decline and eventual death was very hard for her. Many years later, she still showed signs of abnormal bereavement. Footnote 46 But I cannot bend the requirements and award a [NAME] disability pension on that basis. Footnote 47 Did the Claimant also have a prolonged disability? [ 61 ] I found that the Claimant did not have a severe disability by the end of 2016. For this reason, I do not need to decide whether her disability was prolonged. Conclusion [ 62 ] The appeal is dismissed. The Claimant did not show that she had a severe and prolonged disability by the end of 2016. Footnotes Footnote 1 See GD2-58, GD2-61, and GD2-69. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See AD1-5. She later affirmed this desire in a telephone call with the Tribunal on September 19, 2025. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See AD8-9. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 This date is based on the Claimant’s [NAME] contributions. Her [NAME] contributions are at GD2-78. Service Canada uses a person’s years of [NAME] contributions to calculate their coverage period ( MQP ). See section 44(2) of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 See Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2015  FC  1348, at paragraph 31. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 See section 42(2)(a) of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2011  FCA  47, at paragraph 8. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 See section 42(2)(a) of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 See GD2-61. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2013  FCA  81, at paragraph 7. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 See GD2-64 to GD2-67. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 See GD2-64 to GD2-67. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2008  FCA  377, and Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2020  FC  206. Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 See GD2-210. Return to footnote 14 referrer Footnote 15 See GD2-181. This document is undated and unsigned. However, AD9-2, AD10-1, and AD10-2 suggest that Dr. McIntosh wrote it in June 2014. Return to footnote 15 referrer Footnote 16 See GD2-170, GD2-171, GD2-174, GD2-175, and GD2-177. These unsigned notes are likely from June 2013 or earlier: see AD9-2 and AD10-1. Return to footnote 16 referrer Footnote 17 See GD2-232, GD2-238, and GD2-239. Return to footnote 17 referrer Footnote 18 See GD2-233 and GD2-234. Return to footnote 18 referrer Footnote 19 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2002  FCA  248. Return to footnote 19 referrer Footnote 20 See AD10-2. Return to footnote 20 referrer Footnote 21 See GD2-70 and AD10-2. Return to footnote 21 referrer Footnote 22 See GD2-69, GD2-200, AD7-5, AD10-1, AD10-2, and AD12-1. Return to footnote 22 referrer Footnote 23 See GD2-12, GD2-33, AD7-6, and AD10-2. Return to footnote 23 referrer Footnote 24 See GD2-181. While this clinical note is undated, the Claimant’s statement at AD10-2 (question 11) strongly suggests that it dates from immediately after May 31, 2014. Return to footnote 24 referrer Footnote 25 See AD10-1. Return to footnote 25 referrer Footnote 26 See GD2-182, GD2-183, and GD2-220 to GD2-225. Return to footnote 26 referrer Footnote 27 See GD2-238. Return to footnote 27 referrer Footnote 28 See GD2-104. Return to footnote 28 referrer Footnote 29 See GD2-12. See also GD2-65 and GD2-68. Return to footnote 29 referrer Footnote 30 See GD2-232. Return to footnote 30 referrer Footnote 31 See GD2-12, GD2-32, GD2-33, AD7-6, and AD10-2. Return to footnote 31 referrer Footnote 32 See GD2-12, AD2-8, and AD10-2. Return to footnote 32 referrer Footnote 33 See GD2-12, GD2-33, and AD7-6. Return to footnote 33 referrer Footnote 34 See GD2-32, AD2-8, and AD10-2. Return to footnote 34 referrer Footnote 35 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2003  FCA  117, at paragraph 3. Return to footnote 35 referrer Footnote 36 See GD2-12 and AD2-8. Return to footnote 36 referrer Footnote 37 See AD10-2. Return to footnote 37 referrer Footnote 38 See, for example, GD2-236, AD10-2, and AD12-1. Return to footnote 38 referrer Footnote 39 See AD8-9. Return to footnote 39 referrer Footnote 40 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2008  FCA  116, at paragraphs 2-4. Return to footnote 40 referrer Footnote 41 See AD7-6. Return to footnote 41 referrer Footnote 42 See GD2-66, GD2-233, and GD2-234. Return to footnote 42 referrer Footnote 43 See, for example, AD2-8 and AD10-1. Return to footnote 43 referrer Footnote 44 See GD2-229 to GD2-237. Return to footnote 44 referrer Footnote 45 See AD7-4. Return to footnote 45 referrer Footnote 46 See AD7-6. Return to footnote 46 referrer Footnote 47 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2017  FC  262, at paragraph 35. Return to footnote 47 referrer