CPP Disability Pension Application Rejected Due to Insufficient Evidence

Citation: SC  v  Minister of Employment and Social Development , 2026  SST  334 Social Security Tribunal of Canada General Division – Income Security Section Decision Appellant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: Minister of Employment and Social Development reconsideration decision dated December 16, 2025 (issued by Service Canada) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: Teleconference Hearing date: April 10, 2026 Hearing participant: Appellant Decision date: April 23, 2026 File number: GP-26-75 On this page Decision Overview What the Appellant must prove Matters I have to consider first Reasons for my decision Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] The appeal is dismissed. [ 2 ] The Appellant, S. C., isn’t eligible for a [NAME] ( [NAME] ) disability pension. This decision explains why I am dismissing the appeal. Overview [ 3 ] The Appellant says she got knee surgeries in 2004 and in 2008. She worked as a part-time delivery person, after. She feels like she could no longer work as of January 2024. This is because of limitations from multiple myeloma and bone disease. [ 4 ] The Appellant applied for a [NAME] disability pension in January 2026. The Minister of Employment and Social Development (Minister) refused her application. She appealed the Minister’s decision to the Social Security Tribunal’s General Division. [ 5 ] The Appellant says she had limitations after her knee surgeries, but her health got worse in 2024. She can’t work now because of her conditions. [ 6 ] The Minister says the evidence doesn’t show the Appellant had a disability within the meaning of the [NAME] by December 31, 2006. Footnote 1 Her health got worse after then. She needs to show her disability was severe and prolonged by then. What the Appellant must prove [ 7 ] For the Appellant to succeed, she must prove she has a disability that was severe and prolonged by no later than December 31, 2006. This date is based on her [NAME] contributions. Footnote 2 She must also prove that she continues to be disabled. Footnote 3 [ 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 4 [ 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 5 [ 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. Matters I have to consider first The Appellant didn’t want more time to send documents [ 14 ] The Appellant didn’t want more time to send documents relevant to her minimum qualifying period through this appeal. I explained to her that I could give her time after the hearing to do so. She said she would prefer to appeal and send the new documents then. I explained it isn’t guaranteed that she would get permission to appeal. I told her that along with this decision, I will send information about the appeal process at the Appeal Division of the Tribunal. Reasons for my decision [ 15 ] I find the Appellant hasn’t proven she had a severe and prolonged disability by December 31, 2006. I explain what I considered to make this decision next. Was the Appellant’s disability severe? [ 16 ] The Appellant’s disability wasn’t severe by December 31, 2006. I reached this finding by considering several factors. I explain these factors below. The Appellant’s functional limitations [ 17 ] The Appellant has had knee surgeries in the past. More recently, her doctors diagnosed her with multiple myeloma and back and bone disease. [ 18 ] However, I can’t focus on the Appellant’s diagnoses. Footnote 6 Instead, I must focus on whether she has functional limitations that got in the way of her earning a living. Footnote 7 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 8 What the Appellant says about her functional limitations [ 19 ] The Appellant says that her medical conditions have resulted in functional limitations that affect her ability to work. [ 20 ] The Appellant says she had a knee replacement in 2004. In 2006, she was still able to work part-time, with her limitations. She says she also had a half-knee replacement in 2008. After that, she continued to work as a self-employed newspaper delivery person. But she had to take it easy. She delivered papers seven days a week for an hour a day. She was limited in how fast she could do her tasks and get in and out of her vehicle. [ 21 ] The Appellant says her health got worse in 2023. She had two hip replacements and another full knee replacement. Then her cancer came back. She says she hasn’t been able to work since January 2024. This is because of her cancer and back and bone disease. Because of these conditions, she can’t function. What the medical evidence says about the Appellant’s functional limitations [ 22 ] The Appellant must provide some medical evidence to support that her functional limitations affected her ability to work no later than December 31, 2006. Footnote 9 [ 23 ] Most of the medical evidence shows the Appellant has limitations from multiple myeloma with extensive bony involvement and compression fractures. These limitations include pain, immobility, and fatigue. They stopped her from working in January 2024. Footnote 10 These limitations started after December 31, 2006. I can’t find them severe by then. [ 24 ] The medical evidence shows the Appellant had a total right knee replacement in 2004. Footnote 11 The medical evidence in the file doesn’t speak about what her limitations were or what her capacity to work was after this surgery, or in the years after. But as I mentioned earlier, she says she had limitations with her mobility and could only work part-time. [ 25 ] The medical evidence shows the Appellant more than likely had limitations after her knee surgery in 2004. They more than likely affected her ability to work by December 31, 2006. [ 26 ] I now have to decide whether the Appellant can regularly work. To be severe, her limitations must prevent her from earning a living at any type of work. Footnote 12 The Appellant could work in the real world by December 31, 2006 [ 27 ] When I am deciding whether the Appellant can work, I can’t just look at her medical condition and how it affected what she could do. I must also consider factors such as her: age level of education language abilities past work and life experience [ 28 ] 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 13 [ 29 ] My focus is if the Appellant was capable regularly of working by December 31, 2006. I find she could work in the real world by then. [ 30 ] I find that by December 31, 2006, the Appellant’s personal characteristics show she had transferable skills that would allow her to do suitable work or retrain. She was 43 years old – she still had over 20 years until the standard retirement age of 65. She doesn’t have a language barrier – she can communicate in one of Canada’s official languages. She has a high school education and worked for many years at various low-skilled jobs, like a cashier and newspaper delivery person. The Appellant tried to find and keep a suitable job [ 31 ] 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 condition. Footnote 14 Finding and keeping a suitable job includes retraining or looking for a job, she can do with her functional limitations. Footnote 15 [ 32 ] The Appellant did try to work. But her efforts don’t show that her disability got in the way of her earning a living. [ 33 ] The evidence and the Appellant’s work efforts by December 31, 2006, and since then show she was capable regularly of doing a job suitable to her limitations by then and since. Here is what I considered: [ 34 ] The Appellant, herself, said she could work until January 2024. She only stopped working because of her limitations from multiple myeloma and bone disease. She may have had some limitations following her knee surgery, but she still retained the capacity to work and continued to work part-time with her limitations. There is only a brief mention of her knee surgery in the medical evidence. And, in the year leading up to when she stopped working, she was making $600 or $700 every two weeks, which almost near substantially gainful amount for a disability pension. To me, this further demonstrates some capacity to work for years after her minimum qualifying period. [ 35 ] So, I don’t find that the Appellant had a severe disability by December 31, 2006, and continuously since. Conclusion [ 36 ] I find the Appellant isn’t eligible for a [NAME] disability pension because her disability wasn’t severe. Because I have found that her disability wasn’t severe, I didn’t have to consider whether it was prolonged. [ 37 ] This means the appeal is dismissed. Footnotes Footnote 1 I will explain why this date is important next. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 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 GD2-115. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 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 3 referrer Footnote 4 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 4 referrer Footnote 5 Section 42(2)(a) of the [NAME] gives this definition of prolonged disability. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2013  FCA  81. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 [NAME]  v  Canada (Social Development) , 2008  FCA  33. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2011  FCA  47. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2008  FCA  377; and Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2020  FC  206. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 See GD1-18 to 22, GD2-65, GD2-71, and GD2-74. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 See GD1-33. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 [NAME]  v  Canada (Social Development) , 2008  FCA  33. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2001  FCA  248. Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2003  FCA  117. Return to footnote 14 referrer Footnote 15 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2008  FCA  150. Return to footnote 15 referrer