CPP Disability Pension Awarded for Severe and Prolonged Disabilities

OUTCOME: Allowed

Citation: SI  v  [NAME_1] , 2026  SST  278 Social Security Tribunal of Canada General Division – Income Security Section Decision Appellant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: [NAME_1] reconsideration decision dated January 30, 2025 (issued by Service Canada) Tribunal member: [NAME_2] of hearing: In writing Decision date: March 6, 2026 File number: GP-25-702 On this page Decision Overview What the Appellant must prove Reasons for my decision When payments start Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] The appeal is allowed. [ 2 ] The Appellant, [NAME_20]., is eligible for a [NAME_3] ( [NAME_4] ) disability pension. Payments start as of September 2022. This decision explains why I am allowing the appeal. Overview [ 3 ] The Appellant is 31 years old. She last worked as a food and nutrition manager for a long-term care residence in July 2021. Footnote 1 On July 13, 2021, she went to the emergency room with complaints of ear pain, ear pressure, vertigo, and nausea. She was eventually diagnosed with benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV), which developed into persistent postural-perceptual dizziness (PPPD). She also has temporomandibular joint (TMJ) syndrome, headaches, migraines, and anxiety. [ 4 ] The Appellant applied for a [NAME_4] disability pension on August 11, 2023. The [NAME_1] (Minister) refused her application. The Appellant appealed the Minister’s decision to the Social Security Tribunal’s General Division. [ 5 ] The Minister says the Appellant isn’t disabled. Her medical conditions improved with treatment, and there are still treatments left for her to try. She is young and well-educated, so she should be able to do some type of work. Footnote 2 [ 6 ] The Appellant acknowledges that her medical conditions have slightly improved. But she doesn’t believe that she has improved enough to be able to work. She can’t predict when she’ll have a good day or a bad day. She has seen many specialists and tried many treatments, but progress has been slow. She hopes to return to work, but she doesn’t know when that will be possible. [ 7 ] I agree with the Appellant. What the Appellant must prove [ 8 ] The Appellant must prove she has a disability that was severe and prolonged by December 31, 2024, and continuously since then. This date is based on her contributions to the [NAME_4] . Footnote 3 [ 9 ] The [NAME_3] defines “severe” and “prolonged.” [ 10 ] A disability is severe if it makes you incapable regularly of pursuing any substantially gainful occupation. Footnote 4 [ 11 ] This means I must look at all of the Appellant’s medical conditions together to see what effect they have on her ability to work. I must also look at her background (including her age, education, language abilities, and experience). This is so I can get a realistic or “real world” picture of whether her disability is severe. If she 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. [ 12 ] 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 [ 13 ] This means the Appellant’s disability can’t have an expected recovery date. The disability must be expected to keep her out of the workforce for a long time. [ 14 ] The Appellant must prove she has a severe and prolonged disability. She must prove this on a balance of probabilities. This means she must show it is more likely than not that she is disabled. Reasons for my decision [ 15 ] I find that the Appellant had a severe and prolonged disability as of July 2021 and continuously since then. 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? [ 16 ] The Appellant’s disability was severe as of July 2021. I reached this finding by considering several factors. I explain these factors below. The Appellant’s functional limitations affected her ability to work [ 17 ] The Appellant has PPPD, TMJ syndrome, headaches, migraines, and anxiety. But I can’t focus on her diagnoses. Footnote 6 Instead, I must focus on whether she has functional limitations that got in the way of her earning a living by December 31, 2024. Footnote 7 When I do this, I must look at all of her medical conditions (not just the main one) and think about how they affected her ability to work. Footnote 8 [ 18 ] I find that the Appellant had functional limitations as of July 2021. What the Appellant says about her functional limitations [ 19 ] The Appellant says her medical conditions have resulted in functional limitations that have affected her ability to work since July 2021. [ 20 ] In addition to her application from August 2023, Footnote 9 she provided letters in June 2024, Footnote 10 April 2025, Footnote 11 and February 2026 describing how her medical conditions affect her. Footnote 12 Her application and her June 2024 letter are the most relevant for assessing her functional limitations around July 2021. Footnote 13 In those documents, she says: she experiences dizziness for two to five minutes whenever she changes positions; this affects all aspects of her daily life she has to lean on someone or something when she walks because of vertigo she can’t drive or be a passenger in a vehicle because of dizziness busy environments make her dizziness worse she has to take a 3- to 5-minute break after doing 5 to 10 minutes of housework because she feels dizzy and nauseous; however, she can do the dishes for up to 20 minutes at a time she has to take a 2-hour break after looking at a computer or phone screen for 10 minutes; scrolling makes her dizziness worse; she uses a red-light filter or wears tinted glasses to lessen the impact of bright screens she can read for up to 10 minutes at a time; she puts a piece of paper under each line to help her focus as she reads she doesn’t cope well with change or stress she has trouble thinking of the right words to say in conversations her symptoms affect her sleep, so she is tired during the day [ 21 ] The Appellant added that she has good and bad days, but they are unpredictable. 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. Footnote 14 [ 23 ] The medical evidence supports what the Appellant says. [ 24 ] The medical evidence shows that the Appellant went to the emergency room on July 13, 2021, with complaints of ear pain, ear pressure, vertigo, and nausea. She saw her family doctors, [NAME_5] and [NAME_6] (who took over [NAME_5]’s practice), and was excused from work. Footnote 15 She saw an audiologist, [NAME_7], and an ear-nose-throat specialist in search of a diagnosis and treatment for these symptoms as well as an increase in her pre-existing headaches, migraines, and TMJ pain. In January 2022, [NAME_8] (an ear-nose-throat specialist) suggested a diagnosis of BPPV. In May 2022, [NAME_9] (the second neurologist to see the Appellant) diagnosed her with PPPD. Footnote 16 [ 25 ] At the Appellant’s visits to her family doctors and specialists, she consistently reported the same symptoms and limitations that she described in her application and letters. In clinical notes and on insurance forms, her healthcare providers repeatedly endorsed limitations with changing positions, doing basic daily activities, doing housework, walking, driving, using a computer or a smartphone, and reading. The medical evidence supports that she doesn’t sleep well, resulting in fatigue. She complained of brain fog and reported falling on several occasions due to poor balance. To prevent falls, [NAME_5] encouraged her to limit her movement. Footnote 17 [ 26 ] [NAME_10] could not necessarily observe all of the Appellant’s reported limitations. [NAME_9] explained: “The challenge with the diagnosis of PPPD is that there are really no objective signs or symptoms.” Footnote 18 Nonetheless, I see no indication that [NAME_9] or any of the Appellant’s other healthcare providers doubted what she told them. Furthermore, the medical evidence does describe some objective observations that are consistent with her reported limitations. For example, she was observed to be very unsteady and to wear red-tinted glasses. Footnote 19 [NAME_9] considered her to be “very debilitated” and unable to work. Footnote 20 [ 27 ] The medical evidence supports that the Appellant’s limitations prevented her from doing her job as a food and nutrition manager as of July 2021. Her job required doing payroll, buying food and supplies, counting inventory, hiring and training staff, and visiting residents. Footnote 21 It is difficult to imagine her doing any of those things given that movement, computer use, and reading made her dizziness worse. [ 28 ] Next, I will look at whether the Appellant followed medical advice. The Appellant followed medical advice [ 29 ] To receive a disability pension, you must follow medical advice. Footnote 22 [ 30 ] The Appellant followed medical advice. The Minister doesn’t dispute this. The Appellant regularly saw her family doctor. She saw specialists. She tried medications, including amitriptyline, diclofenac, sertraline, topiramate, Toradol, and Tylenol. She tried acupuncture, chiropractic treatment, hydrotherapy, massage therapy, vestibular physiotherapy, and cognitive behavioural therapy. She uses a mouth guard and a vagus nerve stimulator. [ 31 ] I now have to decide whether the Appellant can regularly do other types of work. To be severe, her functional limitations must prevent her from earning a living at any type of work, not just her usual job. Footnote 23 The Appellant can’t work in the real world [ 32 ] When I am deciding whether the Appellant can work, I can’t just look at her medical conditions and how they affect what she can do. I must also consider factors such as her: age level of education language abilities work and life experience [ 33 ] These factors help me decide whether the Appellant can work in the real world—in other words, whether it is realistic to say she can work. Footnote 24 [ 34 ] I find that the Appellant can’t work in the real world. She was unable to work as of July 2021. [ 35 ] I agree with the Minister that the Appellant’s personal characteristics favour employability. She was only 26 years old in July 2021. She has a college diploma, a university degree, and culinary training. She is fluent in English. She has experience as a retail sales associate and as a manager in the nutrition field. Footnote 25 [ 36 ] Unfortunately, the Appellant’s functional limitations outweigh her personal characteristics. There is no job, either physical or sedentary, that she can do in the real world. She can’t sustain any physical activity (like household chores) for more than 10 to 20 minutes at a time. She can’t use a computer or a smartphone for more than a few minutes. Reading is a struggle. She is tired and experiences brain fog. She has good days and bad days, but she can’t predict them. So, she would not be a reliable employee. [ 37 ] I find that the Appellant’s disability was severe as of July 2021. Was the Appellant’s disability prolonged? [ 38 ] The Appellant’s disability was prolonged as of July 2021. That is when she stopped working because of symptoms of BPPV and PPPD, although these conditions weren’t diagnosed until later. The Appellant’s disability is still severe [ 39 ] The Minister says the Appellant’s medical conditions have improved with treatment. In particular, she has had fewer migraines since April 2025. The Minister also highlights a June 2025 report from [NAME_11] (a neurologist). [NAME_11]’s objective testing of things like her strength, sensation to touch, and reflexes was mostly normal. Footnote 26 [ 40 ] I disagree with the Minister. I find that the Appellant’s disability has continued to be severe from July 2021 until now. Footnote 27 In other words, it is long continued. [ 41 ] The Appellant might not have as many migraines as before, but they continue to be a problem. Footnote 28 In fact, that is why she saw [NAME_11]. Her migraines are unpredictable and severe enough that, when they happen, she spends the day in a dark, quiet room. Footnote 29 [ 42 ] It is important to remember [NAME_9]’s statement that most symptoms of PPPD can’t be observed. [NAME_11]’s objective findings, he seems to have accepted that the Appellant was still struggling with dizziness because he wrote that better migraine treatment might help with her dizziness, too. [ 43 ] Apart from [NAME_11]’s report, there is considerable medical evidence of ongoing functional limitations. [ 44 ] For example, the same month that the Appellant saw [NAME_11], she visited [NAME_6] who wrote that the busy floor pattern and bright lights in her office were impacting the Appellant during their appointment. Footnote 30 [ 45 ] In January 2026, a dynamic gait index score indicated that the Appellant was at risk for falls. Footnote 31 [ 46 ] Also in January 2026, the Appellant’s vestibular physiotherapist wrote that the Appellant’s symptoms were “still interfering with daily life to a significant degree.” Footnote 32 [ 47 ] In a detailed letter from February 2026, [NAME_12] (a social worker who provided counselling) elaborated: “Activities requiring sustained attention, decision-making, processing, or physical engagement lead to rapid cognitive and physical strain, followed by pronounced fatigue and exhaustion.” The Appellant’s symptoms include sensitivity to movement, noise, light, and screen use. She has difficulty focusing and thinking. She uses voice-to-text technology. She depends on alarms to remind her of things. If she pushes through her symptoms, she will feel worse for days. She has good and bad days, which are unpredictable. Footnote 33 [ 48 ] In her most recent letters, the Appellant acknowledges some improvement in her health, but she remains unable to work. On good days, she feels more rested and can better tolerate busy environments. She does have fewer migraines. She can read for 20 minutes instead of 10. She can tolerate being a car passenger as long as she looks down instead of out the window. At the same time, she feels more anxious. Footnote 34 She is afraid to leave the house. Footnote 35 [ 49 ] The Appellant summarizes her progress as “two steps forward, one step back.” Footnote 36 This is consistent with [NAME_6]’s opinion that the Appellant is making slow progress. Footnote 37 None of [NAME_10] has advised her to try going back to work yet. The Appellant’s disability will more than likely continue indefinitely [ 50 ] The Appellant’s disability will likely continue to be severe indefinitely. [ 51 ] In April 2024, [NAME_6] expected the Appellant to improve: “Slow recovery is consistent and expected for [this] condition.” She expected the Appellant to return to modified work in one to two years. Footnote 38 In June 2024, [NAME_6] anticipated the Appellant returning to her usual job in 6 to 12 months. Footnote 39 [ 52 ] Almost two years have passed since [NAME_6] gave that opinion, and little has changed in terms of the Appellant’s functional limitations or ability to work. As of February 2026, [NAME_12] believed that working would hinder the Appellant’s progress. Footnote 40 [NAME_9] cautioned that PPPD is “a relatively new diagnosis so many of the treatment paradigms and patient outcomes are relatively recent and long-term prognosis is still unclear.” Footnote 41 In short, her disability has no foreseeable end date. [ 53 ] The Minister argues that the Appellant’s medical conditions aren’t prolonged because the Appellant is waiting to see another neurologist, [NAME_13], who might have more treatment ideas. [ 54 ] The Minister’s argument relies on speculation. The Appellant was referred to [NAME_13] in June 2025 and hasn’t seen him yet. Footnote 42 No one knows when she will see him, whether he will have anything further to recommend, or whether those recommendations will help. The Appellant has seen two [NAME_7] already and has tried many treatments. [ 55 ] For these reasons, I find that the Appellant’s disability was prolonged as of July 2021. When payments start [ 56 ] The Appellant had a severe and prolonged disability in July 2021. [ 57 ] But the [NAME_3] says you can’t be considered disabled more than 15 months before the Minister receives your disability pension application. Footnote 43 After that, there is a four-month waiting period before payments start. Footnote 44 [ 58 ] The Minister received the Appellant’s application in August 2023. That means she is considered to have become disabled in May 2022. [ 59 ] Payments of her pension start as of September 2022. Conclusion [ 60 ] I find that the Appellant is eligible for a [NAME_4] disability pension because her disability was severe and prolonged. [ 61 ] This means the appeal is allowed. Footnotes Footnote 1 The Appellant’s application says she stopped working on July 8, 2019. That was clearly a mistake since she started getting employment insurance sickness benefits on July 25, 2021. See GD2-69 to 71 and GD4-2. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 The Minister’s submissions are at GD3 and GD8. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 Service Canada uses your years of [NAME_4] contributions to calculate your 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_3] . The Appellant’s [NAME_4] contributions are at GD2-84. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 Section 42(2)(a) of the [NAME_3] gives this definition of severe disability. Section 68.1 of the [NAME_3] says a job is “substantially gainful” if it pays a salary or wages equal to or greater than the maximum annual amount you could get from a disability pension. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 Section 42(2)(a) of the [NAME_3] gives this definition of prolonged disability. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 [NAME_14]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2013  FCA  81. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 [NAME_15]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2008  FCA  33. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 [NAME_14]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2011  FCA  47. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 See GD2-57 to 71. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 See GD2-24 and 25. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 See GD1-12 to 15. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 See GD4-1 to 7, which was written in response to my questions to the Appellant. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 The Appellant wrote the June 2024 letter when she asked the Minister to reconsider her application. She wrote about her symptoms and limitations from July 13, 2021, on. Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 [NAME_15]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2008  FCA  377; and Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME_16] , 2020  FC  206. Return to footnote 14 referrer Footnote 15 See the emergency room notes at GD2-213. [NAME_5] and [NAME_6]’s notes at GD2-124, 203 to 209, 211, 212, 227, and 236. [NAME_6] and [NAME_5] also wrote letters and completed insurance forms (GD2-26, 27, 135, 199, 200, 201, 214, 231, and 232). Return to footnote 15 referrer Footnote 16 See the reports from the audiologist (GD2-215), [NAME_7] [NAME_17] (GD2-176, 177, and 185) and [NAME_9] (GD2-28 to 38), and [NAME_8] (GD2-179 and 180). The Appellant saw an oral surgeon, too (GD2-189 and 190). Return to footnote 16 referrer Footnote 17 See GD2-201. Return to footnote 17 referrer Footnote 18 See GD2-33. Return to footnote 18 referrer Footnote 19 See GD2-28 to 38, 124, 206, 212, and GD5-2. Return to footnote 19 referrer Footnote 20 See GD2-34. Return to footnote 20 referrer Footnote 21 See GD2-69 to 70. Return to footnote 21 referrer Footnote 22 [NAME_18]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2018  FCA  48. Return to footnote 22 referrer Footnote 23 [NAME_15]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2008  FCA  33. Return to footnote 23 referrer Footnote 24 [NAME_18]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2001  FCA  248. Return to footnote 24 referrer Footnote 25 See GD2-69 to 71. Return to footnote 25 referrer Footnote 26 See GD5-4 and 5. Return to footnote 26 referrer Footnote 27 In the decision Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME_19] , 2020  FC  1093, the Federal Court said you must show a severe and prolonged disability by the end of your MQP and continuously after that. See also [NAME_19]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2011  FCA  318. Return to footnote 27 referrer Footnote 28 See, for example, GD4-25 to 31, 36 to 41, 46 to 50, and 55 to 59. Return to footnote 28 referrer Footnote 29 See GD1-12 to 15. Return to footnote 29 referrer Footnote 30 See GD5-2 and 3. Return to footnote 30 referrer Footnote 31 See GD4-25 to 31. Return to footnote 31 referrer Footnote 32 See GD4-25 to 31. Return to footnote 32 referrer Footnote 33 See GD4-8 to 12. Return to footnote 33 referrer Footnote 34 See GD1-12 to 15 and GD4-1 to 7. Return to footnote 34 referrer Footnote 35 See the vestibular physiotherapy note at GD4-146 to 152. Return to footnote 35 referrer Footnote 36 See GD4-7. Return to footnote 36 referrer Footnote 37 See GD2-135. Return to footnote 37 referrer Footnote 38 See GD2-163 to 172. Return to footnote 38 referrer Footnote 39 See GD2-26 and 27. Return to footnote 39 referrer Footnote 40 See GD4-8 to 12. Return to footnote 40 referrer Footnote 41 See GD2-32. Return to footnote 41 referrer Footnote 42 See GD4-4 and 154. Return to footnote 42 referrer Footnote 43 Section 42(2)(b) of the [NAME_3] sets out this rule. Return to footnote 43 referrer Footnote 44 Section 69 of the [NAME_3] sets out this rule. This means payments can’t start more than 11 months before the application date. Return to footnote 44 referrer