CPP Disability Pension Claim Denied Due to Insufficient Evidence

Citation: DS  v  [NAME] , 2026  [NAME]  96 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Decision Appellant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] [NAME] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated September 5, 2025 (GP-25-695) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: Teleconference Hearing date: February 3, 2026 Hearing participants: Appellant Respondent’s representative Decision date: February 12, 2026 File number: AD-25-584 On this page Decision Overview Issue Analysis Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] I am dismissing this appeal. The Appellant is not entitled to a [NAME] ( [NAME] ) disability pension. Overview [ 2 ] The Appellant is a 50-year-old former security guard and maintenance worker who has been diagnosed with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), more commonly known as an enlarged prostate. He hasn’t worked since April 2024. [ 3 ] The Appellant applied for a [NAME] disability pension in February 2025. Footnote 1 He claimed that he could no longer work because of BHP-related symptoms such as urinary frequency, fatigue, and anxiety. [ 4 ] Service Canada, the Minister’s public-facing agency, refused the application after determining that the Appellant did not meet the [NAME] ’s eligibility criteria for disability. In particular, it found that the Appellant’s impairments were not severe and prolonged. Footnote 2 [ 5 ] The Appellant appealed Service Canada’s refusal to the Social Security Tribunal. The Tribunal’s General Division held a hearing by teleconference and dismissed the appeal. It found that, although the Appellant had some physical limitations, he still had the capacity to regularly perform substantially gainful employment. It also found that he had not made sufficient effort to find suitable alternative employment within his limitations. [ 6 ] The Appellant then applied for permission to appeal to the Appeal Division. Last September, one of my colleagues on the Appeal Division granted him permission to appeal. Earlier this month, I held a hearing to discuss his disability claim in full. Issue [ 7 ] For the Appellant to succeed, he had to prove that, more likely than not, he became disabled during his coverage period. Under the [NAME] , a disability must be severe and prolonged: A disability is severe if it makes a claimant incapable regularly of pursuing any substantially gainful occupation. Footnote 3 A claimant isn’t entitled to a disability pension if they are regularly able to do some kind of work that allows them to earn a living. 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 The disability must be expected to keep the claimant out of the workforce for a long time. [ 8 ] The parties agreed that the Appellant’s [NAME] disability coverage period will end on December 31, 2027. Footnote 5 Since that date lies in the future, I had to assess the Appellant’s condition as of the hearing date and decide whether he currently has functional limitations that get in the way of his earning a living. Analysis [ 9 ] I have applied the law to the available evidence and concluded that the Appellant does not have a severe and prolonged disability. The Appellant has medical problems, but they don’t prevent him from regularly pursuing substantially gainful employment. The Appellant does not have a severe disability [ 10 ] [NAME] bear the burden of proving that they have a severe and prolonged disability. Footnote 6 I have reviewed the record, and I have concluded that the Appellant didn’t meet that burden according to the test set out in the [NAME] . [ 11 ] In his application for benefits, the Appellant said that he could no longer work because his prostate condition forced him to frequently urinate, keeping him up at night and leaving him fatigued during the day. He also reported pain in his chest and back. Footnote 7 [ 12 ] The Appellant testified that he trained as an early childhood educator (ECE) but didn’t pursue that career because he found it too stressful. He worked as a flooring salesperson for a few years before getting a job as a security guard. He had the same employer 22 years, usually working night shifts at [NAME]. The job involved sitting at a desk, periodically patrolling the premises, and writing up incident reports. [ 13 ] He said that he first began experiencing urinary frequency about a decade ago, but it became dramatically worse in the last two years. He found himself having to get up six or seven times during the night. The problem was made worse by insomnia — he was kept awake by anxiety and chest pain. [ 14 ] He went on stress leave two years ago and was later fired. He continues to experience urinary problems and periodic chest pain. He feels very tired all the time. [ 15 ] The Appellant may genuinely believe that he’s disabled under the [NAME] , but I have to base my decision on more than just his subjective view of his capacity. Footnote 8 The evidence, looked at as a whole, doesn’t suggest a severe impairment that prevents him from performing suitable work. From what I can see, he is subject to some limitations, but he is not incapacitated from all forms of employment. The Appellant’s medical evidence is sparse [ 16 ] The Appellant has been diagnosed with BPH, but I can’t just focus on a diagnosis. Footnote 9 Instead, I have to ask whether the Appellant had functional limitations that prevented him from earning a living during his coverage period. Footnote 10 The problem for the Appellant is that he hasn’t submitted much medical evidence to support his disability claim. [ 17 ] The only doctor’s report on file is a questionnaire that the Appellant’s family physician prepared in conjunction with his application for disability benefits. Footnote 11 [NAME] listed the Appellant’s diagnoses as BPH, nocturia (voiding at night), and fatigue, secondary to anxiety and insomnia. As a result, he said, the Appellant had difficulty maintaining focus on his work tasks. [ 18 ] [NAME] added that the Appellant’s initial treatment with Flomax (a medication meant to make it easier to completely empty one’s bladder) was ineffective. He noted that the Appellant was reluctant to try additional medications. [ 19 ] [NAME] concluded that the Appellant’s condition is disabling and likely to get worse, but I can’t help but note that the Appellant has received only conservative treatment to date. He has tried only one prescription medication, Footnote 12 and he has never been referred to a specialist, such as a urologist. I understand that [NAME] is his primary care physician, but I am reluctant to find the Appellant disabled based on just his opinion. The Appellant has not pursued all reasonable treatment options [ 20 ] Another factor working against the Appellant was his failure to seek treatment for his main condition. This matters because there might be scope for his condition to improve. [ 21 ] A case called  [NAME] says that disability claimants must do what they can to alleviate their impairments by following medical recommendations. Footnote 13 [NAME]  also requires decision-makers to consider whether a claimant’s refusal of recommended treatment is unreasonable and, if so, what impact that refusal is likely to have on the claimant’s disability. Footnote 14 [ 22 ] As noted, [NAME] wrote that the Appellant was reluctant to try more medications. At his hearing, the Appellant testified that [NAME] had also mentioned the possibility of surgery, but he regarded it as a last resort. For now, the Appellant said, he was trying to get better “normally” — through diet and fasting. [ 23 ] The Appellant also testified that anxiety was one of the reasons he had trouble sleeping at night. However, he said that, although [NAME] had offered him pills to “calm him down,” he didn’t want to try them because he was worried about side effects: “I’m not a medication person.” [ 24 ] I don’t find the Appellant’s reluctance to try medication reasonable. The Appellant claims to have been laid low by anxiety and fatigue that have cost him his job. Yet he has ruled out trying additional medications that might have relieved his symptoms. [ 25 ] I find it unlikely that a medical practitioner would have recommended medication unless he believed there was a good chance it would produce a net positive effect. I am satisfied that the Appellant’s failure to follow [NAME]’s treatment recommendations may have cost him an opportunity to get better. The Appellant’s condition doesn’t prevent him from working in the real world [ 26 ] The Appellant suffers from fatigue and stress brought on, in part, by urinary frequency. However, despite the Appellant’s physical and psychological conditions, he still has at least some ability to work. I am reinforced in this belief when I look at his overall employability. [ 27 ] The leading case on the interpretation of “severe” is [NAME] , which requires the Tribunal, when assessing disability, to consider a disability claimant as a “whole person” in a real-world context. Footnote 15   Employability is not to be assessed in the abstract, but rather in light of “all of the circumstances.” [ 28 ] When deciding whether the Appellant can work, I can’t just look at his medical conditions. I must also consider factors such as his age, level of education, language abilities, and past work and life experience. These factors help me decide whether the Appellant could work in the real world. [ 29 ] The Appellant has assets that would help him in a job search. He is fluent in English and, although he is no longer young, he is not old yet either — at 50, he is still in his prime working years. He has a limited education, but he has shown himself capable of learning transferrable skills — he trained as an ECE and went on to work as security guard for many years, marking him as a potentially reliable employee. [ 30 ] Given his background, the Appellant would be well positioned to attempt to return to the labour market should he wish to do so. With additional treatment, there is a good chance the Appellant might be able to regain enough capacity to at least attempt another job. The Appellant’s impairment is not likely prolonged [ 31 ] A disability must be severe and prolonged. Footnote 16 The Appellant has not proved that his disability is severe so, strictly speaking, there is no need for me to assess whether it is also prolonged. [ 32 ] That said, I doubt that the Appellant’s impairments, whether severe or not, are likely to be long continued and of indefinite duration. That’s because of an issue I raised earlier: the Appellant’s failure to pursue treatment. As noted, the Appellant appears to have an aversion to drug therapy, even though his family physician thinks it would be a good idea. As well, there is the possibility of surgery — one that might address the Appellant’s enlarged prostate. [ 33 ] It appears that [NAME] regarded such surgery as a “last resort” but, even so, it remains an option that has not yet been tried. At the hearing, [NAME], a professional witness who gave evidence on behalf of the Minister, confirmed that BPH can be successfully treated by a procedure called a transurethral resection of the prostate. [ 34 ] Given the availability of viable treatment options, I’m not satisfied that the Appellant’s condition is prolonged. Conclusion [ 35 ] The Appellant suffers from an enlarged prostate, but I am not convinced that it produces symptoms that amount to a severe disability. There is only his family physician’s report on file, and it suggests that the Appellant has been reluctant to try medications that might relieve his urinary frequency. Surgery may be an option, but neither the Appellant nor his family physician have looked into it. There is scope for the Appellant’s condition to improve, raising doubt as to whether his impairment is prolonged. [ 36 ] The appeal is dismissed. Footnotes Footnote 1 See the Appellant’s application for [NAME] disability benefits dated February 28, 2025, GD2-28. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See the Minister’s initial refusal letter dated March 13, 2025 (GD2-17) and reconsideration decision letter dated April 14, 2025 (GD2-6). Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See section 42(2)(a)(i) (https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-8/page-9.html#h-168630) of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See section 42(2)(a)(ii) (https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-8/page-9.html#h-168630) of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 Under section 44(2) (https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-8/page-10.html#docCont) of the [NAME] , a “minimum qualifying period” is established by making threshold contributions to the [NAME] . The Appellant’s [NAME] contributions are listed on his record of earnings at GD2-33. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 See section 44(1) (https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-8/page-10.html#h-168677) of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 See the Appellant’s [NAME] disability application dated February 28, 2025, GD2-28. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 A claimant has to provide a report of any physical or mental disability, including its nature, extent and prognosis; the findings upon which the diagnosis and prognosis were made; any limitation resulting from the disability, and any other pertinent information. See section 68(1) (https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/C.R.C.,_c._385/page-7.html#h-553117) of the [NAME] . In [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , (https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2012/2012fca74/2012fca74.html) 2008  FCA  377, the Federal Court of Appeal said that there must be some objective medical evidence of a disability. See also Canada (Attorney General) (https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2020/2020fc206/2020fc206.html)   v  Dean (https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2020/2020fc206/2020fc206.html), 2020 FC 206. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2013  FCA  81 (https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2013/2013fca81/2013fca81.html). Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2008  FCA  33 (https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2008/2008fca33/2008fca33.html). Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 [NAME] medical report dated February 21, 2025, by [NAME], general practitioner, GD2-62. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 At the hearing, the Appellant testified that he was also briefly on Melatonin, a non-prescription hormone supplement that is used to regularize sleep. He said that he didn’t find it helpful. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 [NAME]  v  Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development) , 2002  FCA  211. (https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2002/2002fca211/2002fca211.html) Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2018  FCA  48. (https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2018/2018fca48/2018fca48.html) Return to footnote 14 referrer Footnote 15 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) 2001  FCA  248. (https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2001/2001fca248/2001fca248.html?resultId=50a3a1a9f40d4fa9a71bf4d9554d5762&searchId=2026-01-29T15:37:06:581/18ddb8b8e9954593bb3992eb03809c94) Return to footnote 15 referrer Footnote 16 [NAME] , section 42(2)(a). (https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-8/page-9.html#h-168630) Return to footnote 16 referrer