CPP Disability Pension Approved for Severe and Prolonged Disability

Citation: [NAME]  v  [NAME] , 2026  [NAME]  104 Social Security Tribunal of Canada General Division – Income Security Section Decision Appellant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: [NAME] reconsideration decision dated May 1, 2025 (issued by Service Canada) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: In-Person and Teleconference Hearing dates: December 5, 2025, and January 27, 2026 Hearing participant: Appellant Decision date: February 13, 2026 File number: GP-25-830 On this page Decision Overview What the Appellant must prove Matters I have to consider first Reasons for my decision When payments start Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] The appeal is allowed. [ 2 ] The Appellant, K. N., is eligible for a [NAME] ( [NAME] ) disability pension. Payments start as of August 2023. This decision explains why I am allowing the appeal. Overview [ 3 ] The Appellant is 53 years old. He last worked on a [NAME], providing septic services. He was required to empty septic tanks at homes and then dispose of the waste. He stopped working in 2019 because of recurring abdominal hernias. [ 4 ] The Appellant applied for a [NAME] disability pension on July 2, 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 he hasn’t been able to work at any job that was suitable for him since 2019, because of his functional limitations. He says his limitations result in a disability that is severe and prolonged. [ 6 ] The Minister says the Appellant’s disability wasn’t severe before December 31, 2021. It says the medical evidence doesn’t show he was disabled by that date. What the Appellant must prove [ 7 ] For the Appellant to succeed, he must prove he has a disability that was severe and prolonged by December 31, 2021. This date is based on his [NAME] contributions. Footnote 1 This is the Appellant’s minimum qualifying period ( MQP ). He must also prove that he continues to be disabled. Footnote 2 [ 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 3 [ 10 ] This means I must look at all the Appellant’s medical conditions together to see what effect they have on his ability to work. I also must 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 4 [ 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 must prove he has a severe and prolonged disability. He has to prove this on a balance of probabilities. This means he must show it is more likely than not that he is disabled. Matters I have to consider first I accepted late documents [ 14 ] I gave the Appellant permission to file medical documents after the hearing. Footnote 5 During the hearing it became clear that the Appellant didn’t understand the concept of his MQP , and didn’t know the Tribunal file was missing some of his medical documents. Footnote 6 The Appellant gave evidence that he had several surgeries before his MQP , and records related to those surgeries are relevant to his appeal. [ 15 ] I provided the Minister with the opportunity to respond to the Appellant’s post-hearing medical evidence, to ensure that the hearing was fair. Footnote 7 I continued the hearing [ 16 ] Given the new evidence filed by the Appellant after the hearing, I had additional questions. I continued the hearing to get further testimony from the Appellant. Footnote 8 Reasons for my decision [ 17 ] I find that the Appellant had a severe and prolonged disability as of January 2019. He continues to be disabled. I reached this decision by considering the following issues: Was the Appellant’s disability severe? Was the Appellant’s disability prolonged? Was the Appellant’s disability severe? [ 18 ] The Appellant’s disability was severe. I reached this finding by considering several factors. I explain these factors below. The Appellant’s functional limitations affected his ability to work [ 19 ] The Appellant has recurring abdominal hernias. [ 20 ] However, I can’t focus on the Appellant’s diagnoses. Footnote 9 Instead, I must focus on whether he has functional limitations that got in the way of him earning a living. Footnote 10 [ 21 ] I find that the Appellant has functional limitations that affected his ability to work. What the Appellant says about his functional limitations [ 22 ] The Appellant says that his medical conditions have resulted in functional limitations that affect his ability to work. He says: He always feels nerve pain, and gets recurring abdominal pain with sudden movements. As a result, he is always careful about his movements and tries to avoid strain. He can’t engage in prolonged sitting, standing, and walking. He has trouble standing up straight because of his numerous abdominal surgeries, and the mesh implants in his abdomen. He can’t perform heavy lifting, pushing or pulling. These activities cause recurrence of his hernias. He has trouble opening doors and using stairs. He is limited for reaching for things because it causes strain. He needs help with chores, and sometimes with personal care. What the medical evidence says about the Appellant’s functional limitations [ 23 ] The Appellant must provide some medical evidence to support that his functional limitations affected his ability to work no later than December 31, 2021. Footnote 11 [ 24 ] The law says that I can’t consider medical conditions that arose or worsened after the Appellant’s MQP in December 2021. Footnote 12 [ 25 ] The Appellant developed significant heart conditions, and has required extensive surgery for his heart and colon since 2024. I can’t consider these conditions in this appeal because they arose after his MQP . [ 26 ] The medical evidence does support what the Appellant says about his condition before his MQP . [ 27 ] In January 2016, the Appellant had surgery to address a right femoral hernia. After he recovered from surgery, he returned to work. Footnote 13 [ 28 ] By November 2018, the Appellant had developed another right inguinal hernia that required another surgery. Footnote 14 [ 29 ] In January 2019, the Appellant required further surgery that included a spermatocelectomy, hydrocelectomy, and cord block of his left testicle. This was related to further hernia growth into the left testicle. Footnote 15 [ 30 ] The Appellant also had recurrence of an abdominal hernia in May 2024, from his umbilicus down to his pubic symphysis. Footnote 16 This was after his MQP , but is further evidence of the ongoing nature of recurring hernias he develops when he experiences physical strain. [ 31 ] The Minister argued that the medical evidence before the Appellant’s MQP didn’t specifically identify functional limitations affecting his ability to work. However, the law doesn’t require that the medical evidence list the Appellant’s limitations. It requires that he provide medical evidence that would support his argument that he had functional limitations that affected his ability to work. [ 32 ] [NAME] passed away in 2019. [NAME] also passed away. The [NAME] who were treating him at the time of his surgeries in 2016, 2018, and 2019, aren’t available to provide additional detailed evidence. [ 33 ] But the Appellant does have evidence that he required three surgeries for recurring hernias before his MQP . That medical evidence confirms his testimony about his ability to work, and how those conditions and surgeries affected him. [ 34 ] The medical evidence supports that the Appellant has recurring abdominal hernias. These conditions affect his ability to perform any heavy lifting, pushing, pulling, and reaching. He has limitations for prolonged sitting, standing, and walking, standing up straight, and using stairs. [ 35 ] Next, I will look at whether the Appellant followed medical advice. The Appellant followed medical advice [ 36 ] To receive a disability pension, an appellant must follow medical advice. Footnote 17 [ 37 ] The Appellant followed medical advice. [ 38 ] The Appellant has now had four surgeries to remove abdominal hernias. He has followed all the medical recommendations he received. [ 39 ] I now must decide whether the Appellant can regularly do other types of work. To be severe, the Appellant’s functional limitations must prevent him from earning a living at any type of work, not just his usual job. Footnote 18 The Appellant can’t work in the real world [ 40 ] When I am deciding whether the Appellant can work, I can’t just look at his medical conditions and how they affect what he can do. I must also consider factors such as his: age level of education language abilities past work and life experience [ 41 ] These factors help me decide whether the Appellant can work in the real world—in other words, whether it is realistic to say that he can work. Footnote 19 [ 42 ] I find that the Appellant can’t work in the real world. He hasn’t been able to work since January 2019. [ 43 ] The Appellant speaks English. His ability to communicate isn’t a barrier for being able to work in the real world. He was 49 years old in December 2021. His age also would not have prevented him from being able to find or keep work. [ 44 ] The Appellant attended school until grade nine. He left school because of family dysfunction and trauma, related to the [COMPANY] that several of his family members were required to attend. [ 45 ] The Appellant got a high school equivalency certificate about 10 years ago. He didn’t have to take any classes or upgrading to get the certificate. He said there was a preparation session on the reserve and he took a test. While the Appellant has this certificate, I don’t find that it shows he has the educational background to qualify him for sedentary office work, or to retrain for such work. His educational equivalency is really grade nine [ 47 ] It was clear to me at the hearing that the Appellant has no skills for the use of technology. He doesn’t have or know how to operate a smart phone. He could not send documents to the Tribunal without assistance from others. He wasn’t able to access the evidence in his appeal file alone. [ 48 ] I find that the Appellant would have significant barriers for being able to navigate the technology required to even apply for additional educational and training programs, given his current level of education and technical skills. He would also have barriers for successful completion of a program, given his actual level of education and the length of time that has passed since he has attended any type of school. [ 49 ] The Appellant has worked at manual labour jobs for most of his life. He worked in [NAME], and as a [NAME] for several years. His last work was removing and disposing of the contents of residential septic tanks. This was a very heavy manual job. [ 50 ] The Appellant’s education, complete lack of technical skills, and history of heavy manual work are barriers for him to be able to work or retrain for work in the real world that would accommodate his ongoing functional limitations related to his recurring hernia conditions. [ 51 ] I find that there is no job the Appellant would be able to do in the real world with his physical limitations and personal characteristics. [ 52 ] I find that the Appellant’s disability was severe as of January 2019. That was the month he had his third abdominal surgery for hernia removal. He never returned to work after this surgery. Was the Appellant’s disability prolonged? [ 53 ] The Appellant’s disability was prolonged. [ 54 ] The Appellant’s conditions began in 2016. These conditions have continued since then. Footnote 20 [ 55 ] The Appellant has now had four surgeries for hernia removal between 2016 and 2024. It’s clear that the hernia conditions recur when he experiences any significant physical strain. [ 56 ] The Appellant has experienced prolonged ongoing physical limitations since his surgeries in 2018 and 2019. He did return to work after his surgery in 2016. However, this led to a worsening of his condition and recurrence of two more hernias. The Appellant hasn’t been able to return to work since 2019 because of his physical limitations. [ 57 ] The Appellant’s functional limitations will more than likely continue indefinitely. The Appellant’s medical evidence clearly shows that if he experiences any physical strain, he will develop another hernia and will require further surgery. [ 58 ] I find that the Appellant’s disability was prolonged as of January 2019. When payments start [ 59 ] The Appellant had a severe and prolonged disability in January 2019. [ 60 ] However, the [NAME] says a person can’t be considered disabled more than 15 months before the Minister receives their disability pension application. Footnote 21 After that, there is a four-month waiting period before payments start. Footnote 22 [ 61 ] The Minister received the Appellant’s application in July 2024. That means he is considered to have become disabled in April 2023. [ 62 ] His pension payments start as of August 2023. Conclusion [ 63 ] I find that the Appellant is eligible for a [NAME] disability pension because his disability was severe and prolonged. [ 64 ] This means the appeal is allowed. Footnotes Footnote 1 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 GD2-83. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 In Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2020  FC  1093, the Federal Court said that the appellant must 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 2 referrer Footnote 3 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 3 referrer Footnote 4 Section 42(2)(a) of the [NAME] gives this definition of prolonged disability. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 See GD8 and GD10. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 Rule 6 of the Social Security Tribunal Rules of Procedure allows me to consider a party’s particular circumstances and apply the Rules, so the appeal process is fair. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 See GD9 and GD12. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 Rule 17(2)(b) of the Social Security Tribunal Rules of Procedure allows me to decide what procedures are appropriate in the circumstances as part of my responsibility to actively adjudicate the appeal. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2013  FCA  81. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 [NAME]  v  Canada (Social Development) , 2008  FCA  33. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2008  FCA  377; and Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2020  FC  206. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2008  FCA  377; and Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2020  FC  206. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 See GD10-2. Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 See GD8-3. Return to footnote 14 referrer Footnote 15 See GD8-4. Return to footnote 15 referrer Footnote 16 See GD2-193. Return to footnote 16 referrer Footnote 17 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2018  FCA  48. Return to footnote 17 referrer Footnote 18 [NAME]  v  Canada (Social Development) , 2008  FCA  33. Return to footnote 18 referrer Footnote 19 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2001  FCA  248. Return to footnote 19 referrer Footnote 20 In the decision Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2020  FC  1093, the Federal Court said that an appellant must show a severe and prolonged disability no later than the end of their minimum qualifying period and continuously after that. See also [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2011  FCA  318. Return to footnote 20 referrer Footnote 21 Section 42(2)(b) of the [NAME] sets out this rule. Return to footnote 21 referrer Footnote 22 Section 69 of the [NAME] sets out this rule. This means that payments can’t start more than 11 months before the application date. Return to footnote 22 referrer