CPP Disability Pension Application Rejected Due to Insufficient Proof of Severe Disability

Citation: BC v [NAME] , 2026  SST  25 Social Security Tribunal of Canada General Division – Income Security Section Decision Appellant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: [NAME] reconsideration decision dated June 20, 2025 (issued by Service Canada) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: Teleconference Hearing date: December 30, 2025 Hearing participants: Appellant Appellant’s spouse (moral support) Decision date: January 19, 2026 File number: GP-25-1454 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, B. C., isn’t eligible for a [NAME] ( [NAME] ) disability pension. This decision explains why I am dismissing the appeal. Overview [ 3 ] The Appellant was 51 years old in 2017. That was when his qualifying period ended. I will discuss this later in the decision. The Appellant and his wife own and live on a [NAME]. In 1978 the Appellant was injured. His left leg had to be amputated above the knee. His symptoms and functional limitations progressed over the years. Footnote 1 After that surgery he required more surgery to his left leg, right knee, and right hip. His doctor recommended he stop farming in May 2023. Footnote 2 He continues to operate [NAME]. [ 4 ] The Appellant applied for a [NAME] disability pension on May 14, 2024. The [NAME] (Minister) refused his application. The Appellant appealed the Minister’s decision to the Social Security Tribunal’s General Division. [ 5 ] The Appellant says his [NAME] continues to operate but does not earn a profit. He can’t do the work he used to do. He rents out land rather than farming it himself. He relies on help from friends and family. He downsized his cattle herd. He sells the calves early rather than raising them until they grow. He said that shows that he is not capable of earning a substantially gainful income. [ 6 ] The Minister says the Appellant has functional limitations and had to adjust his business. But the Minister says after his qualifying period ended in 2017, the Appellant continued to work regularly on [NAME]. That shows he does not have a severe and prolonged disability within the meaning of the [NAME] . What the Appellant must prove [ 7 ] For the Appellant to succeed, he must prove he has a disability that was severe and prolonged by the end of his qualifying period. In other words, no later than December 31, 2017. This date is based on his [NAME] contributions. Footnote 3 He must also prove that he continues to be disabled. Footnote 4 [ 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 5 [ 10 ] This means I have to look at all of the Appellant’s medical conditions together to see what effect they have on his ability to work. I also have to look at his background (including his age, level of education, and past work and life experience). This is so I can get a realistic or “real world” picture of whether his disability is severe. If the Appellant is capable regularly of doing some kind of work that he could earn a living from, then he 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 6 [ 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 he has a severe and prolonged disability. He has to prove this on a balance of probabilities. This means he has to show it is more likely than not that he is disabled. Matters I have to consider first The Appellant’s spouse attended the hearing [ 14 ] The Appellant’s spouse attended the hearing to help him with documents and provide moral support. The Appellant said she was not a witness and would not testify. The spouse did help the Appellant find documents during the hearing but toward the end asked if she could ask questions. Her questions didn’t interfere with the Appellant’s testimony. Given the complicated nature of the issues, I felt this was a reasonable way for her to assist the Appellant. I didn’t accept late documents [ 15 ] The Appellant sent a page from his 2017 income tax return. It showed his net income for that year. I didn’t accept the late document for two main reasons. Accepting the submissions would delay the appeal because I would have to allow the Minister time to review and respond to them. Also, the document didn’t add any new information to the appeal. I will explain my reasons. [ 16 ] The Appellant testified that his net income was always below or close to zero. The document confirms that information but doesn’t add anything new to show why that information is relevant to the issue on appeal. [ 17 ] During the hearing, we discussed that the issue on appeal was whether he was capable regularly of pursuing substantially gainful earnings. Footnote 7 The Appellant said he understood I have to consider his net income and his gross income to decide if his earnings were substantially gainful. I told him he could explain his position and submit evidence he feels supports his position. [ 18 ] In the hearing, he outlined his gross and net earnings for most years back to 2012. I asked him if he wanted time to obtain and submit evidence about his earnings after 2017. He decided he would not send more evidence. He said, “You have all of the evidence I will send.” So, I didn’t delay the hearing to allow the Appellant to submit additional evidence. I concluded the hearing after the Appellant finished giving his testimony. Reasons for my decision [ 19 ] I find that the Appellant hasn’t proven he had a severe and prolonged disability by December 31, 2017. The Appellant has significant health problems but managed to maintain substantially gainful employment since 2017. I reached this conclusion by considering the relevant rules and facts that relate to the Appellant’s work and earnings. I will explain what I considered. Was the Appellant’s disability severe? [ 20 ] The Appellant’s disability wasn’t continuously severe. I reached this finding by considering several factors. I explain these factors below. The Appellant’s functional limitations affected his ability to work [ 21 ] By the end of his qualifying period, the Appellant had a left leg above-knee amputation (1978), amputation revision (2003/2004), and a right knee replacement (2015). In 2023 he required a right hip replacement. He has a shoulder injury and requires cortisone shots every three months. He has osteoarthritis and it is not clear when this condition began. [ 22 ] However, I can’t focus on the Appellant’s diagnoses. Footnote 8 Instead, I must focus on whether he has functional limitations that got in the way of him earning a living. Footnote 9 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 his ability to work. Footnote 10 [ 23 ] I find that the Appellant has functional limitations that affected his ability to work. What the Appellant says about his functional limitations [ 24 ] The Appellant says that his medical conditions have resulted in functional limitations that affect his ability to work. He says they affect his ability to stand, walk, drive, lift, or carry. He says mental health symptoms also affect him. He feels stress from his injuries and from the fact that he can’t work his [NAME] anymore. [ 25 ] The Minister acknowledged the Appellant has functional limitations and had to adjust his work. What the medical evidence says about the Appellant’s functional limitations [ 26 ] The Appellant must provide some medical evidence to support that his functional limitations affected his ability to work no later than December 31, 2017. Footnote 11 [ 27 ] The medical evidence supports what the Appellant says. The surgeries and required therapy are well documented. There is no evidence to contradict the Appellant’s position that he has physical limitations that made him change the work he can do and rely on others to do some of the work for him. [ 28 ] The medical evidence supports that the Appellant’s amputation, knee replacement, hip replacement, and osteoarthritis limit his function and affect his ability to [NAME]. His family doctor recommended he stop farming in 2023. The doctor didn’t say if he would be restricted from other work. The Appellant is capable regularly of substantially gainful employment [ 29 ] There is no dispute that the Appellant had functional limitations from a significant injury by the end of his qualifying period. But he managed to maintain substantially gainful employment as a self-employed farmer. I find he is capable regularly of doing some kind of work to earn a living. [ 30 ] The Appellant is a self-employed cattle farmer. He bought his business in 1995 and has been operating and living on [NAME] since 1996. The Appellant said he owns [NAME] with his wife. She manages [NAME]’s books but is employed elsewhere. [ 31 ] It is important to note that the Appellant has to prove he was incapable of earning substantially gainful income by December 31, 2017, and continuously since. The evidence doesn’t support that conclusion. I will explain my reasons. The Appellant’s income was substantially gainful [ 32 ] Section 68.1 of the [NAME] defines “substantially gainful.” The definition is associated with a dollar amount that changes each year. Income a person earns that is over the maximum amount they could receive as a disability pension is “substantially gainful.” [ 33 ] The following chart shows the amounts the Appellant provided in his testimony. Footnote 12 The Minister didn’t challenge this information. There is no other evidence that contradicts the Appellant’s testimony. I have no reason to question these figures. Year Net income Gross income Maximum disability pension 2018 (8,000) 83,434 16,030 2019 (5,009) 90,615 16,348 2020 (7,988) 83,830 16,652 2021 (5,595) 122,580 16,964 2022 (5,842) 120,269 17,489 2023 (8,400) 195,074 18,300 [ 34 ] The Appellant testified that [NAME] has never shown much of a profit. He said the annual profit beginning in 2012 was no more than $3,000. Most years it was near or below zero. [ 35 ] For [NAME]’s income in 2024 and 2025, the Appellant estimates that the net income will be below that of 2023. [ 36 ] The Appellant also worked on boards and tribunals over the years. Some of that work was after 2017 but not enough to meet the year’s minimum for [NAME] contributions. He said the work he did off [NAME] before 2017 is why he had contributions to the [NAME] . He didn’t make any contributions related to his self-employment. [ 37 ] Considering the numbers the Appellant provided, the net amounts are clearly less than a substantially gainful income and the gross amounts are far above. This is true even if you split the gross income between the Appellant and his spouse as the other owner. [ 38 ] The numbers themselves don’t determine the question of whether the Appellant was capable of substantially gainful employment. But they suggest he retained the capacity to perform substantially gainful work after 2017. I have to decide whether I should give more weight to the Appellant’s net or gross income when I decide if he had substantially gainful earnings. The Appellant’s gross earnings from [NAME] show capacity for work [ 39 ] When a claimant has business income there will always be the question of whether to use net or gross earnings. The Appellant argued that I should rely on his net earnings when I consider if he is capable of substantially gainful work. [ 40 ] A recent decision of the Federal Court of Appeal finds that it is proper to rely on gross business income, not net business income because the profitability of a business is not necessarily evidence of an appellant’s capacity to work. Footnote 13 Gross income has more weight when considering the question of substantially gainful earnings in cases particularly where the business expenses raise questions. I find the Appellant’s gross income is relevant to this question. I also find other facts, such as his ability to continue to operate [NAME] since 2017, show the Appellant remained capable of substantially gainful earnings. Earnings [ 41 ] The Appellant said he doesn’t work [NAME]—he lives on it. [NAME] makes money—not him. He says, after paying [NAME]’s expenses, there is no income to pay himself. [ 42 ] I find the business expenses raise questions. The Appellant described expenses that seem to be clearly related to the business of [NAME]. He listed grain, [NAME] hands, tractor, and combine expenses. Other expenses included some of the Appellant’s personal expenses. He said [NAME] pays for the mortgage on the house. It pays household expenses. It purchased a vehicle in addition to the combine and tractor. [ 43 ] The Appellant said the fact [NAME] pays for the household expenses should not be relevant. He said that is because [NAME] owns the house and has to run it. I find his argument doesn’t support a conclusion that he is incapable of earning a living. [NAME] pays him and he pays his personal expenses, or [NAME] pays the expenses directly, the Appellant is still receiving payment for his work. [ 44 ] The Appellant talked about the circumstances that affect [NAME]’s income. Some circumstances relate to the market and general expenses. But some are related to the fact that he can’t do the work he could do before 2015. [ 45 ] The Appellant said that [NAME] has never been able to make a profit. I asked him about the increase in gross income in recent years. He said that was mostly because the price for grain and beef increased significantly. His work didn’t contribute to those increases in 2021, 2022, and 2023. He said the reason he didn’t show a profit is because the cost related to fuel, food, and grains also increased significantly. [ 46 ] At the beginning of the hearing the Appellant said he paid his nephews for all their labour. He said he had to get them to do the work he couldn’t. I asked him how much he had to pay and he said he really didn’t pay people in money. He said he would give them product such as meat. He didn’t give any estimate for those expenses. [ 47 ] The Appellant also said he can’t grow his own grain and straw anymore because of his conditions. He had to rent out the land in 2022. When he grew his own, he would realize a profit of approximately $20,000 to $25,000. Renting out the land makes only $17, 000. He said he loses about $3,000 to $8,000 per year because he can’t grow and harvest his own grain. The Appellant is capable regularly of working [ 48 ] I find the Appellant remained capable of earning a living after 2017. He has been able to adjust his work to continue to operate [NAME]. Even though he has to limit his work hours and change the way [NAME] operates he is capable of earning a living. [ 49 ] The Appellant said before the knee replacement in 2015 he could work up to 70 to 80 hours a week. After that his ability to work was greatly reduced. He is now only able to work 4 to 5 hours per week. [ 50 ] He described the things he can no longer do. For example, he can’t operate the combine or bring in his crops. He used to take care of the animals, day and night. He monitored [NAME] and took care of repairs and maintenance himself. Since 2015, he has only been able to monitor the cattle with cameras. He has to ride a “side by side” to check on them. He takes lunch to the field hands and does some fence work. He mows the grass. [ 51 ] The Appellant continues to market the cattle and grain. He said that really doesn’t take work. From his explanation I take it that is because the prices and contracts are established and he doesn’t have to promote his [NAME] or find purchasers. [ 52 ] I appreciate the Appellant sees a distinction between operating [NAME] and working. But the fact is he has been able to adjust his work and how [NAME] operates. Its income has increased significantly in recent years. There are probably some expenses related to his disability. Things like purchasing cameras to help him monitor the herd may be an adjustment to accommodate his limitations or simply leveraging technology. Other expenses like increased fuel and feed prices are not related to his condition. [ 53 ] The Appellant couldn’t do the work he used to be able to do. But he remained capable of substantially gainful employment. That means his disability isn’t severe within the meaning of the [NAME] . The Appellant didn’t benefit from benevolent employment [ 54 ] The argument of benevolent employment doesn’t help the Appellant. I am not bound by Tribunal decisions, but they can inform and be instructive. I find the Appeal Division’s research and analysis in a recent decision is very helpful. Footnote 14 The same analysis is relevant to this decision. [ 55 ] If an appellant has a [NAME], he may be able to argue that he is not capable of substantially gainful employment despite his income. A [NAME] will change working conditions and lower their expectations if an employee has limitations. They expect significantly less from the disabled employee than from other employees. They accept that the employee can’t work at a competitive level. Footnote 15 [ 56 ] The Appellant said he is only able to run [NAME] with modifications and help from neighbors and family. That is not benevolent employment. [ 57 ] The Appellant showed that he made changes to how he worked. He didn’t show any evidence that could be considered benevolence. I agree with the Appeal Division that a person can’t employ himself in a benevolent manner. The concept of benevolence is that someone (employer) adjusts or changes the expectations for someone else (worker). The employer makes exceptions and expects less from the worker. The worker continues to be employed but doesn’t have to meet the same standards as other employees. Conclusion [ 58 ] I find that the Appellant isn’t eligible for a [NAME] disability pension because his disability wasn’t severe. Because I have found that his disability wasn’t severe, I didn’t have to consider whether it was prolonged. [ 59 ] This means the appeal is dismissed. Footnotes Footnote 1 See for example the reports at GD1-21 to GD1-23. Return to footnote 1 Footnote 2 See page GD5-19. Return to footnote 2 Footnote 3 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 pages GD2-86 and GD2-87. Return to footnote 3 Footnote 4 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 4 Footnote 5 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 5 Footnote 6 Section 42(2)(a) of the [NAME] gives this definition of prolonged disability. Return to footnote 6 Footnote 7 This discussion took place after 1:11 on the hearing recording. Return to footnote 7 Footnote 8 [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2013  FCA  81. Return to footnote 8 Footnote 9 [NAME] v Canada (Social Development) , 2008  FCA  33. Return to footnote 9 Footnote 10 [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2011  FCA  47. Return to footnote 10 Footnote 11 [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2008  FCA  377; and Canada (Attorney General) v [NAME] , 2020  FC  206. Return to footnote 11 Footnote 12 The income figures are from the Appellant’s testimony. I rounded the number to the nearest dollar. Income below zero is shown in brackets. Return to footnote 12 Footnote 13 [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General), 2025  FCA  189. [ADDRESS] considered the Appeal Division decision in Minister (Employment and Social Development)   v   [NAME] , 2024  SST  51. I am not required to follow Tribunal decisions, but they can be instructive. I am required to follow court decisions. In this case the Federal Court of Appeal reviewed the Appeal Division decision and found the Appeal Division’s analysis and conclusions on this point were reasonable. Return to footnote 13 Footnote 14 See Minister (Employment and Social Development) v CO , 2025  SST  132. Return to footnote 14 Footnote 15 [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2014  FCA  187. In this decision, the Federal Court of Appeal said this is one factor to consider when deciding whether an appellant is incapable regularly of pursuing any substantially gainful occupation. The principles from [NAME] were recently confirmed in Canada (Attorney General) v [NAME] , 2023  FCA  204. Return to footnote 15