CPP Disability Pension Application Rejected Due to Insufficient Proof

Citation: [NAME] v [NAME] , 2026  [NAME]  127 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Decision Appellant: [redacted] Representative: [NAME] Respondent: [redacted] [NAME] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated September 3, 2025 (GP-24-1300) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: Teleconference Hearing date: February 4, 2026 Hearing participants: Appellant Appellant’s representative Respondent’s witness Respondent’s representative Decision date: February 23, 2026 File number: AD-25-573 On this page Decision Overview Issues Analysis Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] The appeal is dismissed. The Claimant is not entitled to a [NAME] ( [NAME] ) disability pension. Overview [ 2 ] I will refer to the Appellant, [NAME]., as the “Claimant” in this decision. I will refer to the Respondent, the [NAME], as the “Minister.” [ 3 ] The Claimant was 41 years old at the end of 2022. That year is important because that is when her [NAME] disability coverage ended. Her last extended employment, as an early childhood educator (ECE), ended in January 2020. This was shortly after breaking a finger at work. She had other medical complaints, including chronic pain, before her finger injury. She did not return to work after that, except for a fairly brief period at a call centre in 2024. [ 4 ] The Claimant applied for a [NAME] on March 31, 2023. She identified multiple pain-related conditions, as well as fatigue, stiffness, low mood, arrhythmia, and sleep apnea. Footnote 1 The Minister denied her application initially and on reconsideration. [ 5 ] The Claimant appealed the Minister’s decision to the General Division of the Social Security Tribunal (Tribunal). The General Division dismissed her appeal. The Claimant then applied to the Tribunal’s Appeal Division for leave to appeal the General Division decision. One of my Appeal Division colleagues granted her leave to appeal. As a result, I held a de novo hearing. [ 6 ] I must decide whether the Claimant had a severe and prolonged disability by December 31, 2022. [ 7 ] For the reasons set out below, I find that the Claimant did not have a severe and prolonged disability by the end of 2022. Issues [ 8 ] The issues in this appeal are: a) Did the Claimant have a severe disability by the end of 2022? 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] start? Analysis [ 9 ] The Claimant’s MQP , or coverage period, ended on December 31,  2022. Footnote 2 That is the date by which she must establish a disability. Her disability must also have been continuous since then. Footnote 3 [ 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 4 [ 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 5 If she can regularly do some type of work from which she could earn a living, she is not 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 6 Did the Claimant have a severe disability by the end of 2022? [ 14 ] I find that the Claimant did not have a severe disability by the end of 2022. I will now explain why. [ 15 ] I will first set out her claimed functional limitations. What were the Claimant’s functional limitations by the end of 2022? [ 16 ] The Claimant’s main self-reported limitations by the end of 2022 were mostly related to difficult physical moves (such as bending and moving heavy items) and prolonged desk work. However, she retained some physical abilities. She also had few, if any, significant limitations relating to behaviours, emotional abilities, communication, thinking, and daily activities. [ 17 ] The Claimant signed her application for the [NAME] on March 23,  2023. Footnote 7 In the Tribunal file, this is the closest statement she made to the end of 2022. I prefer this evidence to any later evidence about her abilities at the end of 2022. [ 18 ] In that March 2023 application, the Claimant was asked to rate her various functional abilities. She could give one of five ratings: excellent, very good, good, fair, or poor. She could have provided further (optional) written information about those abilities at that time, but she did not. Footnote 8 [ 19 ] As the Claimant sometimes gave more than one rating for the 51 listed abilities, she gave 59 ratings altogether. 43 of those ratings were “good” or better. Her only “poor” abilities were physical. Her 9 “poor” abilities were: Footnote 9 Get down into a kneeling or squatting position and back up again Bend down to pick up coins from the floor Remove an item from your back pocket (but also rated “good”) Change a light bulb in the ceiling above your head Sit for at least 20 minutes in a straight-back chair Pull or push a heavy door to open it Pick up two bags of groceries and walk a block (but also rated “fair”) Pound a nail with a hammer Stare at a computer screen for at least 20 minutes [ 20 ] While the Claimant did identify many significant physical limitations, some of her physical abilities were still good. As noted, she said her ability to remove an item from her back pocket was both “good” and “poor”. But she rated her ability to drive a car, open a can with a manual can opener, and use her index finger to press keys on a computer keyboard as solely “good”. Footnote 10 [ 21 ] All 12 of the Claimant’s behaviours and emotional abilities were “good” or better. 12 out of 13 communication and thinking abilities were “good” or better: the only exception was a “fair” ability to concentrate and focus for at least 30 minutes. Similarly, almost all of her daily abilities were “good” or better. The only exceptions were doing housekeeping/home maintenance without frequent breaks and managing her budget/paying bills. She only rated those abilities as “fair.” Footnote 11 [ 22 ] I will now see if the medical evidence could support the claimed limitations by the end of 2022. This is important because [NAME] disability applicants must provide some medical evidence about their underlying conditions. Footnote 12 Does the medical evidence support the claimed limitations? [ 23 ] I find that the medical evidence could support the claimed limitations. I will now explain why. [ 24 ] The Claimant’s main functional limitations by the end of 2022 focused on difficult physical moves and prolonged desk work. Despite this focus, most of the medical information around the end of 2022 related to mental health. For nearly 11 months after April 28, 2022, the only medical report was a September 2022 assessment by Dr. [NAME]-Siotis (psychiatrist). Footnote 13 [ 25 ] Dr. [NAME]-Siotis gave the following diagnoses: Footnote 14 Somatic symptom disorder, with predominant pain Persistent depressive disorder (possible) mixed personality traits: obsessive, avoidant, dependent Myofascial syndrome Hypothyroidism Untreated sleep apnea [ 26 ] The diagnoses by Dr. [NAME]-Siotis were similar to the diagnoses mentioned by [NAME] (family doctor) in March 2022. He diagnosed a persistent depressive disorder with somatic symptoms and myofascial pain. Footnote 15 [ 27 ] The somatic symptom disorder and myofascial pain could support the claimed movement limitations. Those disorders, together with untreated sleep apnea and depression, could affect the ability to engage in prolonged desk work. [ 28 ] Next, I will look at the Claimant’s personal characteristics. What were the Claimant’s relevant personal characteristics? [ 29 ] When deciding whether the Claimant had a severe disability, I must consider factors such as her: Footnote 16 Age Language ability Education level Past work and life experience [ 30 ] These factors will help me decide whether the Claimant could work in the real world. I will look at each of them in turn. [ 31 ] The Claimant was only 41 years old at the end of 2022. She was still 24 years away from the typical Canadian retirement age. Her age would not have limited her ability to work in the real world. [ 32 ] The Claimant has exceptional language ability. At the Appeal Division hearing, she confirmed that she spoke English, French, Spanish, and Polish fluently. Her language ability would not have limited her ability to work in the real world either. [ 33 ] The Claimant is very well educated. She has a bachelor’s degree in French, with a minor in Spanish. She later took some criminology courses, but ended up a semester short of a degree in that field. She also has an ECE college diploma. Footnote 17 Her education is more than enough for most real-world jobs. The only exceptions would be jobs requiring specific academic qualifications beyond a degree in languages or an ECE diploma. [ 34 ] The Claimant has a very broad work history too. Early jobs included substitute teaching (in French), painting, customer service at a hotel, working at Tim Hortons, and other retail jobs. She worked as an airport security screener, which involved shift work and rotating around various roles. She said it was quite demanding. She often had to stand for extended periods. She also had to be constantly alert. Footnote 18 [ 35 ] The Claimant later worked as an ECE for many years, in several different roles. This is usually a very physical job, with lots of lifting and “hands-on” tasks. However, she later appeared to have been accommodated into less physically demanding roles. She also worked as a bilingual customer service representative (CSR) in 2024. [ 36 ] The Claimant’s work history covers labour-intensive roles, childcare, teaching, customer service, French-language roles, security and inspection, food service, and front-line retail roles. Her work history would preclude only roles with highly specialized academic or training requirements. This aligns with the minimal limitations arising from her education level. [ 37 ] Without considering the Claimant’s medical conditions , I find that her personal characteristics would have prepared her for virtually any work, subject to any highly specialized academic or training requirements. Even then, however, her proven academic ability would likely let her train successfully for many new roles too. [ 38 ] 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 2022. I need to focus on the period leading up to the end of 2022 because that was the end of her MQP . Her appeal cannot succeed if she were not severely disabled continuously since then. Did the Claimant have any residual work capacity by the end of 2022? [ 39 ] The Claimant did have residual work capacity by the end of 2022. I will now explain why. [ 40 ] In September 2022, Dr. [NAME]-Siotis said the Claimant had no significant restrictions or limitations from a psychiatric standpoint. However, as a psychiatrist, Dr. [NAME]-Siotis would not provide any comments about her physical limitations. Footnote 19 I also note that the Claimant focused on physical rather than mental health limitations. Footnote 20 [ 41 ] I see relatively little objective evidence about physical limitations around the end of 2022. The timeliest medical evidence about physical capacity is a March 2023 letter from [NAME] to the Claimant’s [NAME]. Because this letter is both timely and highly relevant, I will reproduce the text in full: Footnote 21 I [reviewed] the report from Dr. [NAME]-Siotis. I find it very helpful to have a diagnosis from a professional. I [talked to the Claimant] about recommendations which include a CPAP machine, Cymbalta and CBT. [She] was very receptive and she is convinced that Cymbalta is contraindicated, she had reactions to previous medications and she believes she has an allergy. The CPAP machine is an option but difficult to implement. The CBT is expensive and she wonders who will pay for it. [The Claimant] tells me that she continues to provide excellent care for her daughter and her elderly father. [The Claimant] has very good social support. The Claimant mentioned that she is willing to consider employment but in a different capacity. There cannot be lifting involved. Her previous employment required lifting of children. I hope this letter helps you to understand [the Claimant’s] limitations. [ 42 ] In April 2023, [NAME] wrote another letter to the [NAME]. In that letter, [NAME] suggested that his March 2023 letter was misinterpreted. He said he, “did not comment…on [the Claimant’s] physical condition.” He said he only addressed the recommendations by Dr. [NAME]-Siotis with respect to medication, a CPAP machine (to treat sleep apnea), and cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT). He said the Claimant continued to have the limitations set out by Dr. [NAME]-Siotis, and denied that his letter supported a significant improvement in functioning. Footnote 22 [ 43 ] Unfortunately, [NAME]’s April 2023 letter is also the last medical evidence in the file. I see no medical evidence between then and the hearing date. [ 44 ] I find it hard to reconcile [NAME]’s March 2023 and April 2023 letters. The March 2023 letter suggests the Claimant was caring for both her daughter and her elderly father. At the hearing, the Claimant said [NAME] got it backwards: her father was caring for her. More importantly, the March 2023 letter also suggests that the Claimant believes she has some work capacity as long as no lifting is involved. This points to some physical capacity, which the April 2023 letter denies stating. [ 45 ] [NAME]’s April 2023 letter then affirms the limitations set out by Dr. [NAME]-Siotis in September 2022. However, as noted above, Dr. [NAME]-Siotis saw no psychiatric limitations or restrictions. And, as Dr. [NAME]-Siotis is a psychiatrist, she would not comment on the physical restrictions. At best, [NAME]’s reference to limitations might refer to what the Claimant self-reported to Dr. [NAME]-Siotis. [ 46 ] But Dr. [NAME]-Siotis said the Claimant over-reported and was over-focused on physical issues. The Claimant’s over-endorsement of physical symptoms was “quite significant.” Footnote 23 At the same time, Dr. [NAME]-Siotis suggested that perfectionist traits complicated physical work for the Claimant. Footnote 24 Dr. [NAME]-Siotis also said the Claimant currently did the grocery shopping and could drive a car equipped with sensors. Footnote 25 [ 47 ] Further, the Claimant told Dr. [NAME]-Siotis that she didn’t spend more than five minutes at a time on a screen because it triggered migraines. Footnote 26 However, the assessment was done virtually (by video). It lasted 1 hour and 55 minutes, but the Claimant did not display any expressions of pain. Nor did she move in a manner indicating that she had pain. This was despite a reported pain level of 8/10. She also showed no cognitive difficulties, and even reminded Dr. [NAME]-Siotis of something that needed to be done. Footnote 27 [ 48 ] Given all this apparently conflicting information, I find it most likely that the Claimant retained some work capacity for sedentary work with relatively minor physical demands. Important factors for this finding were her ability to complete a nearly two-hour virtual assessment without any apparent difficulty and her openness to trying work as long as it did not involve lifting. When this is combined with her documented over-reporting of physical issues, some work capacity likely existed by the end of 2022. [ 49 ] I further note that the Claimant pursued, and obtained, work as a CSR in early 2024. This also supports some work capacity in a sedentary role. She was not dismissed from that job. In fact, she earned more than $13,000.00 from it. Footnote 28 [ 50 ] 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. The Federal Court of Appeal’s decision in a case called [NAME] mandates this. Footnote 29 I will now look at the Claimant’s efforts in that regard. Were the Claimant’s efforts at obtaining and maintaining employment unsuccessful because of her health conditions? [ 51 ] The Claimant’s efforts to obtain and maintain suitable work did not fail around the end of 2022 because of her health conditions. I will now explain why. [ 52 ] The Claimant said she did not try to work in 2022. However, she said she tried to obtain and maintain work shortly after the end of 2022. She said she had two examples of how these attempts failed due to her health conditions. The first example was her unsuccessful attempt to get a flight attendant position. The second example was her attempt to remain employed in a CSR role for a company called X. I will look at each of these attempts in turn. The flight attendant position [ 53 ] At the Appeal Division hearing, the Claimant said she applied for a flight attendant position with Y in 2023 or 2024. However, she said they could not hire her for the position because of a heart problem (cardiac arrhythmia). [ 54 ] I accept that the Claimant was qualified for the flight attendant position. I also accept that her heart condition may have disqualified her. But I also do not find this rejection to be probative. Her functional limitations would have precluded this work anyway. I have already found that she would likely have only been suited for relatively sedentary work. A flight attendant position involves prolonged standing and repeated physical effort. Footnote 30 The X CSR position [ 55 ] This full-time job involved taking calls from plan members about benefits. It was sedentary work. Each week, she worked three days from home and two days at the office. Working from home was appealing to her. Unlike the flight attendant role, this appeared to be within the Claimant’s limitations. She started working in February 2024. [ 56 ] Soon after the Claimant completed a two-week training program, her union was on strike for seven weeks. She returned to work after the strike. She said she worked from April to early June of 2024. However, at that time, she stopped working because she wanted to give emotional support to her daughter. The Claimant said her daughter was not doing well because her 14-year-old friend died. [ 57 ] The Claimant was supposed to return to work on the July 2024 long weekend. However, she was hurt in a car accident on June 29, 2024 (the Accident). She never returned to work after that. She said she is still a X employee but is on leave. She was close to finishing her probationary period when the Accident happened. [ 58 ] The Claimant said the Accident made everything “ten times worse.” It aggravated her disc and migraine conditions. It also left her with new injuries, such as occipital neuralgia. This condition gave her excruciating pain on the left side of her face. She also described a concussion and whiplash. Other new impacts include hip issues, rib issues, pain behind her eyeballs, and a stiff right hand that sometimes seized. Finally, she said she started treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder in 2025. [ 59 ] Given the above, I cannot say that the Claimant’s return to work failed because of health conditions (and the associated limitations) existing by December 31, 2022. [ 60 ] Firstly, the Claimant’s original reason for stopping work in June 2024 was entirely unrelated to her own health. She took time off to support her daughter. This may have been reasonable, but it also arose from her daughter’s condition rather than her own. The Claimant suggested that she was just trying to complete her probationary period before confronting her manager with physical issues (prolonged sitting) she was having with her job. However, she did not have that discussion with her manager. [ 61 ] Secondly, the magnitude of the Accident injuries means that I cannot consider the Claimant’s July 2024 limitations comparable to the ones at the end of 2022. She said the Accident aggravated many existing issues and made things “ten times worse”. New conditions, such as occipital neuralgia, also appeared. [ 62 ] All this would significantly impact the Claimant’s functional limitations after the Accident. But ultimately, I need to decide whether she has had a continuously severe disability since the end of 2022. In other words: when assessing why a work attempt after 2022 failed, I need to look at what would have happened if the Accident had not occurred in June 2024. [ 63 ] Had the Accident not occurred, I cannot say that the Claimant’s X job likely would have failed because of her own health conditions. If she had not returned to work at all, the reason would have been her daughter’s health condition. [ 64 ] But even if the Accident never happened and the Claimant did return to the CSR job, I cannot say she likely would have failed. I see no medical evidence at all after April 2023, let alone medical evidence around early 2024 suggesting that she had to stop working. In the context of this appeal, her unsupported assertion that she planned to talk to her manager is not persuasive. Before helping her daughter, she had worked full-time for roughly two months. She did not stop working for reasons related to herself. [ 65 ] The Accident may well have left the Claimant severely disabled. But it happened 18 months after the end of her qualifying period. If I accept that she could not work again after the Accident, she still must show that this was because of the limitations that existed by the end of 2022 and continued through the Accident date. The onus is on her to prove that, but she has not. Even if no new conditions had arisen from the Accident, my focus must be on her limitations (ability to work) rather than her conditions. Footnote 31 [ 66 ] Because of the above, I conclude that the Claimant’s efforts to obtain and maintain suitable work did not fail around the end of 2022 due to her health conditions. This means she did not have a severe disability by the end of 2022. [ 67 ] I will now briefly address some other issues raised by the parties in this appeal. Other issues arising in this appeal [ 68 ] Some of the Claimant’s submissions referred to evidence given at the General Division hearing. Footnote 32 However, as previously indicated to the parties, I am not considering the recording of the General Division hearing. The Practice Direction requirements for considering that evidence were not met. Footnote 33 If such evidence was not given elsewhere in this proceeding, I cannot rely on it. [ 69 ] The Claimant also made frequent reference to the decisions of the [NAME] ([NAME]). Footnote 34 However, I cannot place any weight on those decisions. The Tribunal and the [NAME] did not consider the same evidence. The Tribunal and the [NAME] also have completely different requirements for benefits. I must apply the relevant law to the evidence before me. Footnote 35 [ 70 ] The Claimant suggested that she was penalized for continuing to try to work. This argument cannot succeed. The Federal Court of Appeal decision in [NAME] is binding on the Tribunal. Where work capacity exists, [NAME] imposes a duty to pursue or try to maintain work. [ 71 ] Finally, the Minister made extensive submissions on the Claimant’s alleged failure to follow treatment recommendations. In response, the Claimant also made extensive submissions. I did not address any of those submissions in this decision, as the Claimant did not establish a severe disability by the end of 2022. Had she done so, I would have assessed her compliance with the recommended treatment in some detail. Did the Claimant also have a prolonged disability? [ 72 ] As I found that the Claimant did not have a severe disability by the end of 2022, I do not need to answer this question. Conclusion [ 73 ] The appeal is dismissed. The Claimant is not entitled to a [NAME]. Her disability was not severe, under the [NAME] , by December 31, 2022. The outcome may have been different if her coverage period did not end until after the June 2024 accident. Footnotes Footnote 1 See GD2-71 and GD2-74. Return to footnote 1 Footnote 2 This date is based on the Claimant’s [NAME] contributions. Her [NAME] contributions are at GD4-20. 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 2 Footnote 3 See Canada (Attorney General) v [NAME] , 2015 FC  1348, at paragraph 31. Return to footnote 3 Footnote 4 See section 42(2)(a) of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 4 Footnote 5 [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2011 FCA  47, at paragraph 8. Return to footnote 5 Footnote 6 See section 42(2)(a) of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 6 Footnote 7 See GD2-87 and GD2-88. Return to footnote 7 Footnote 8 See GD2-77 to GD2-80. Return to footnote 8 Footnote 9 See GD2-77 to GD2-80. Return to footnote 9 Footnote 10 See GD2-77. Return to footnote 10 Footnote 11 See GD2-78 to GD2-80. Return to footnote 11 Footnote 12 [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2008 FCA  377, and Canada (Attorney General) v [NAME] , 2020 FC  206. Return to footnote 12 Footnote 13 See GD2-126. Return to footnote 13 Footnote 14 See GD2-136. Return to footnote 14 Footnote 15 See GD2-264. Return to footnote 15 Footnote 16 [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2002 FCA  248. Return to footnote 16 Footnote 17 See GD2-83, GD2-133, and GD2-203. See also the Claimant’s evidence at the Appeal Division hearing. Return to footnote 17 Footnote 18 See GD2-133. See also the Claimant’s evidence at the Appeal Division hearing. Return to footnote 18 Footnote 19 See GD2-139. Return to footnote 19 Footnote 20 See also GD2-136 and GD2-137. Return to footnote 20 Footnote 21 See GD2-122. Return to footnote 21 Footnote 22 See GD2-122. Return to footnote 22 Footnote 23 See GD2-135 and GD2-137. Return to footnote 23 Footnote 24 See GD2-137 and GD2-138. Return to footnote 24 Footnote 25 See GD2-134 and GD2-135. Return to footnote 25 Footnote 26 See GD2-134. Return to footnote 26 Footnote 27 See GD2-126, GD2-135, and GD2-136. Return to footnote 27 Footnote 28 See GD4-20. Return to footnote 28 Footnote 29 [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2003 FCA  117, at paragraph 3. Return to footnote 29 Footnote 30 The Federal Court of Appeal has endorsed the importance of suitable work. See, for example, [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2008 FCA  150, at paragraph 3. See also [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2014 FCA  193, at paragraph 5. Return to footnote 30 Footnote 31 [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2013 FCA  81, at paragraph 7. Return to footnote 31 Footnote 32 See, for example, AD8-19 to AD8-22. Return to footnote 32 Footnote 33 See AD9-1 to AD9-2. I reminded the parties of this at the start of the hearing. The Member previously assigned to this appeal also advised the parties of the limited circumstances under which the Appeal Division could consider General Division hearing recordings: see AD4-2. The Practice Direction itself appears at https://www.[NAME]-tss.gc.ca/en/decisions-law-rules-and-policies/practice-direction. Return to footnote 33 Footnote 34 See, for example, AD8-11 to AD8-12 and AD8-14 to AD8-15. Return to footnote 34 Footnote 35 See, for example, [NAME] v Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development) , 2004 FCA  377, at paragraphs 3-5. See also [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2010  FC  74. Return to footnote 35