CPP Disability Pension Claim Denied for Lack of Objective Medical Evidence

Citation: JL  v  [NAME] , 2026  [NAME]  62 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Decision Appellant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] [NAME] and [NAME] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated May 15, 2025 (GP-24-945) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: Teleconference Hearing date: January 13, 2026 Hearing participants: Appellant Respondent’s representatives Decision date: January 29, 2026 File number: AD-25-481 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 43-year-old former forklift driver and maintenance worker who suffers from various medical conditions, principally chronic ankle pain. He hasn’t worked since November 2024. [ 3 ] The Appellant applied for a [NAME] disability pension in December 2023. Footnote 1 He claimed that he could no longer work because of arthritic pain that made walking difficult. He said that he had had eight surgeries on his left ankle, with another pending on his right. [ 4 ] The [NAME] refused the application after determining that the Appellant did not have a severe and prolonged disability. Footnote 2 [ 5 ] The Appellant appealed the Minister’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. In November, one of my colleagues on the Appeal Division granted the Appellant 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, 2026. 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 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 rated his physical abilities as mostly “poor.” Footnote 7 For instance, he reported difficulty in remaining on his feet for at least 20 minutes walking a block on flat ground going up and down 12 to 15 steps getting down into a kneeling or squatting position and back up again [ 12 ] However, he also rated his ability to sit in a chair and stare at a computer screen  for at least 20 minutes as “good.” [ 13 ] The Appellant testified that his problems started when he broke his left ankle as a child. He said that he had several surgeries as a teenager to remove bone fragments, repair cartilage, and stabilize the fracture. [ 14 ] He has always done physical jobs. For seven years, he worked as a landscaper for [NAME]. During the off season, he took various jobs as a forklift driver, warehouse worker, and produce manager. Around 2022, his left ankle pain flared up and became progressively worse. He was referred to an orthopedic surgeon, [NAME], who recommended surgery. [ 15 ] The surgery helped up to a point and, while he didn’t return to his old landscaping job, he shifted to [NAME]’s warehouse, which he thought would be easier on his leg. Among his duties was driving a forklift, but it was also a physically demanding job, requiring him to manually lift heavy loads. [ 16 ] He went in for more surgeries in 2023 and, after taking time to recover, took a job in a bakery. It was a hard work, which required him to be on his feet at all times. His pain increased, and he went for more surgery. [ 17 ] For a time, he worked in a hydroponics warehouse, but he was fired after four or five months because he couldn’t keep up with the workload. [ 18 ] In the meantime, his right ankle started to suffer after years of compensating for this left. [NAME] cleaned it out in November 2024, and at first the results were good, but, after a few months, the pain started again. He hasn’t seen [NAME] since May 2025, although he recently had an MRI. [ 19 ] Last year, he tried work one last time, taking a part-time job at a local [COMPANY]. His duties there included maintaining the pool and the air conditioning system, but he only lasted a few months before having to quit. One problem was the number of stairs in the building (there was no elevator to the basement), which he could not negotiate without a cane. [ 20 ] The Appellant testified that he has been depressed and anxious since his ankles started bothering him. He used to be very active — rollerblading, playing hockey and baseball — and he’s frustrated that he can’t play with his son, who is now 13. He’s not taking anything for his mood right now — meds just make him more depressed. [NAME] tried him on four or five different antidepressants, but they didn’t work. [NAME] also suggested counselling, but it didn’t really go anywhere. [ 21 ] The Appellant’s mother also testified in her son’s behalf. She said there’s nothing worse than seeing your child suffer. He sometimes uses a cane, he can’t play with his son. They live in the same house, which sits on an acre. He does minimal home maintenance — sometimes he lifts a few pots, sometimes he operates a ride mower. [ 22 ] I understand that the Appellant and his mother believe he is disabled under the [NAME] . But I must base my decision on more than just their subjective view of his capacity. Footnote 8 In this case, the evidence, looked at as a whole, does not suggest a severe impairment that prevents the Appellant 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 ankle condition has been stabilized by surgery [ 23 ] The Appellant has been diagnosed with osteoarthritis, but I can’t 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  A person can have a significant medical condition yet not be completely debilitated by it. [ 24 ] The Appellant’s ankles have deteriorated in recent years, and there’s no question that they interfere with his ability to perform all kinds of work. But the available medical evidence also suggests that they have been, at least to an extent, stabilized through surgery and with the use of pain medication. [ 25 ] In December 2022, the Appellant saw [NAME], an orthopedic surgeon, for pain and instability in both ankles, worse in the left. Footnote 11 [NAME] noted that he had previously seen the Appellant for a left ankle stabilization surgery and that x-rays showed osteoarthritis and a partial fusion of the subtalar joint of his left ankle, with normal results on the right. [NAME] suggested that the Appellant’s left ankle might be stabilized a [NAME] repair. [ 26 ] In April 2023, [NAME] performed an arthroscopic debridement and trigonum removal on the Appellant’s left ankle. Footnote 12 On follow-up, [NAME] reported that the Appellant’s ankle was “feeling good.” However, the Appellant continued to report symptoms, prompting [NAME] to recommend subtalar fusion surgery for a more permanent solution. Footnote 13 [ 27 ] [NAME] performed that procedure In November 2023. Footnote 14 In February 2024, [NAME] reported that the Appellant had recovered from the surgery and that his left ankle was feeling good. Footnote 15 However, the Appellant had concerns with right ankle instability, pain, and episodes of giving out. X-rays revealed normal alignment of the right ankle with no evidence of osteoarthritis, and [NAME] described the subtalar joint as “pristine.” Still, he noted some evidence of instability and recommended a [NAME] ligament repair complete with internal brace. [ 28 ] The Appellant underwent right ankle surgery in June 2024. Footnote 16 On follow-up, [NAME] reported that the Appellant had been “good” until the onset of “insidious ghost pain” two months earlier. Footnote 17 [ 29 ] This appears to be the last entry from [NAME]. Since then, the Appellant’s ankle pain has been managed by medication prescribed by his family physician. The Appellant has been taking Percocet four times daily since January 2024, as well as Tramadol, another narcotic painkiller as needed. Footnote 18 The Appellant’s carpal tunnel syndrome is mild and treatable [ 30 ] The Appellant has been diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS), but there’s no evidence it produced anything more than mild symptoms during his coverage period. [ 31 ] In January 2024, [NAME], a neurologist, saw the Appellant for “many years” of numbness in both hands. Footnote 19 Electromyography showed mild dysfunction in the median nerves of the bilateral wrists, and [NAME] diagnosed the Appellant with mild bilateral CTS. He noted that the Appellant was interested in surgery, since wrist braces had previously produced no benefit. [ 32 ] There is no other medical evidence on file about the Appellant’s CTS. It is unlikely that a case of “mild” CTS would significantly contribute to a severe impairment and, even if it did, there appear to be treatment options available to the Appellant that he hasn’t yet tried. The Appellant’s anxiety is largely situational [ 33 ] The Appellant claims that he is partly debilitated by anxiety and depression but, again, the supporting medical evidence is weak. [ 34 ] In July 2022, [NAME], family physician, reported that the Appellant was upset about legal issues and experiencing anxiety and panic attacks. Footnote 20 He prescribed a trial of [NAME] and later wrote that the Appellant’s mood was better and his anxiety improved. Footnote 21 [ 35 ] Later, in March 2024, [NAME] wrote that the Appellant was very angry and anxious about financial and interpersonal issues. Footnote 22 He added that the Appellant described his mood swinging between highs and lows, but he also noted that he had not taken bipolar medications for a long time because they made his symptoms worse. The family physician renewed the Appellant’s [NAME] and started him on a trial of Seroquel. [ 36 ] There is no further information about the Appellant’s mental health on file. In all, the medical evidence suggests that psychoactive medication has had a positive effect on the Appellant’s mood. His condition took a turn for the worse in early 2024, but [NAME]’s notes suggest that the downturn was mostly related to situational factors — that is, crises caused by resolvable external factors. The Appellant’s condition, looked at as a whole, doesn’t prevent him from working in the real world [ 37 ] I find that, 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. [ 38 ] 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 23 Employability is not to be assessed in the abstract, but rather in light of all circumstances. Those circumstances fall into two categories: The claimant’s medical condition — this is a broad inquiry, requiring that the claimant’s condition be assessed in its totality; Footnote 24 and The claimant’s background — matters such as age, education level, language proficiency and past work and life experience are relevant. [ 39 ] In this case, the Appellant suffers from ankle osteoarthritis and various physical and psychological symptoms arising from that condition. However, examination of the available medical evidence as a whole leads me to doubt that the Appellant is completely incapable of pursuing suitable employment. Looked at in their totality, the Appellant’s problems don’t appear to rule out all forms of work. [ 40 ] Immediately after performing subtalar fusion surgery on the left side in November 2023, [NAME] completed a medical questionnaire in support of the Appellant’s [NAME] disability questionnaire. Footnote 25 He said that the Appellant would be non-weightbearing and casted for three months, with limited prolonged standing and walking. He recommended that the Appellant stop working but expected him to return to modified duties within six to 12 months. In February 2024, [NAME] reported that the Appellant’s left ankle was feeling “good.” [ 41 ] As for the Appellant’s right ankle, [NAME] described it as “pristine” in February 2024, yet only four months later he performed pre-emptive [NAME] surgery. At first, the surgery appeared to be successful, but by May 2025, [NAME] was noting “insidious ghost pain.” This, according to [NAME], the Minister’s professional witness, is term of art that refers to pain that develops gradually and subtly without an identifiable cause. [ 42 ] It’s also the most recent medical evidence on file about the state of the Appellant’s ankles. [NAME]’s office notes document monthly visits throughout, mainly to renew pain medication prescriptions, but they say very little about the Appellant’s ankles, other than a In March 2025, here is a complaint of right-sided pain where screws had been inserted. Footnote 26 But that is not enough for me to find that ankle pain, along with CTS and situational anxiety and depression, renders the Appellant completely unemployable. [ 43 ] I am reinforced in that view when I consider the Appellant’s background and personal characteristics. The Appellant has a lengthy work history, marking him as a potentially reliable employee. He is a native English speaker and, although he is no longer young, he is not old yet either. He has a limited education but, at 43, he still has considerable scope to upgrade his skills and return to the workforce. [ 44 ] Given his background, the Appellant is equipped to attempt to return to the labour market should he wish to do so. Even with his medical conditions, he has the residual capacity to at least attempt a light job or retrain for one. As we will see, that capacity imposes upon him an obligation. The Appellant has not attempted suitable alternative employment [ 45 ] A Federal Court of Appeal decision called [NAME] says that disability claimants must do what they can to find alternative employment that is better suited to their impairments: Consequently, an applicant who seeks to bring himself within the definition of severe disability must not only show that he (or she) has a serious health problem but where, as here, there is evidence of work capacity, must also show that efforts at obtaining and maintaining employment have been unsuccessful by reason of that health condition. Footnote 27 [ 46 ] This passage suggests that, if a claimant retains at least some work capacity, the General Division must conduct an analysis to determine (i) whether they attempted to find another job, and (ii) if so, whether their impairments prevented them from getting and keeping that job. [ 47 ] On top of that, disability claimants must make meaningful attempts to return to work. Footnote 28 They cannot limit their job search to the type of work that they were doing before they became impaired. That is because they must show that they are regularly incapable of pursuing any substantially gainful occupation. Footnote 29 Claimants who fail to pursue alternative forms of employment may be ineligible for benefits. [ 48 ] In this case, the Appellant had at least some work capacity — enough to trigger the obligation to pursue employment that might have been better suited to his limitations. I am not convinced that the Appellant fulfilled that obligation. [ 49 ] At the hearing, the Appellant insisted that he was no longer capable of working and emphasized that he had only held physical jobs that required him to be on his feet all time. He noted that he had spent much of his working life as a landscaper and, in the off season, had worked in warehouses and bakeries. [ 50 ] After his ankles started to deteriorate, the Appellant kept working. That’s admirable, but the Appellant doesn’t appear to have put much effort into seeking out jobs that might have been easier on his feet. After recovering from his left ankle arthroscopic surgery in April 2023, the Appellant returned to [NAME]’s warehouse, a job that appears to have been almost as physically demanding as landscaping. [ 51 ] After his right ankle surgery in June 2024, the Appellant was hired to maintain equipment in a hotel — again, a job that appears to have been particularly ill-suited to someone with delicate ankles. Even now, the Appellant continues to look for work, but it’s not clear he’s focussing on jobs in which he would have a reasonable chance to succeed. [ 52 ] At the hearing, the Appellant testified that he had recently applied at a [NAME] and a Canadian Tire auto parts department but hadn’t heard back from either place. I asked him whether he believed he could do the latter job if he was ever offered it. He replied, “I’d like to think I’d be able to do it.” [ 53 ] I also asked the Appellant whether he could see himself working in an office. He replied that he couldn’t. He said that he isn’t cut out for that kind of work and, in any case, if he sat too long, his ankle would lock up. Although he once operated a forklift, that kind of job would no longer suit him because it’s not just sitting on a machine. [ 54 ] The problem for the Appellant is that he has never attempted to look for a job that might have been better suited to his various medical conditions. Nor has he ever considered upgrading his education or retraining. He therefore can’t show that his disability caused him to fail at a potentially suitable job. As such, he has not fulfilled his obligation under [NAME] and, for that reason, his claim must fail. I don’t have to consider whether the Appellant has a prolonged disability [ 55 ] A disability must be severe and prolonged. Footnote 30 Since the Appellant has not proved that his disability is severe, there is no need for me to assess whether it is also prolonged. Conclusion [ 56 ] The Appellant suffers from various medical conditions, but I am not convinced they produced symptoms that amount to a severe disability. His ankle condition has, at least in part, been addressed by surgery and whatever pain he still has is intermittent and manageable with painkillers. Above all, the Appellant has not attempted alternative employment, despite his residual capacity. I see no reason why the Appellant could not have at least attempted a job that might be less physically demanding than the ones he held previously. [ 57 ] The appeal is dismissed. Footnotes Footnote 1 See the Appellant’s application for [NAME] disability benefits dated December 22, 2023, GD2-42. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See the Minister’s initial refusal letter dated January 19, 2024 (GD2-33) and reconsideration decision letter dated April 8, 2024 (GD2-8). Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See section 42(2)(a)(i) of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See section 42(2)(a)(ii) of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 Under section 44(2) 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 updated record of earnings at GD6-4. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 See section 44(1) of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 See the Appellant’s [NAME] disability application dated August 19, 2022, GD2-38. 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) of the [NAME]. In [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 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)  v  [NAME], 2020  FC  206. 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 (Attorney General) , 2008  FCA  33. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 See report dated December 22, 2022 by [NAME], orthopedic surgeon, GD2-139. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 [NAME]’s operative report dated April 28, 2023, GD2-152. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 [NAME]’s reports dated July 18, 2023 (GD2-161) and July 27, 2023 (GD2-162). Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 [NAME]’s operative report dated November 22, 2023, GD2-194. Return to footnote 14 referrer Footnote 15 [NAME]’s report dated February 27, 2024, GD2-173. Return to footnote 15 referrer Footnote 16 [NAME]’s report dated June 24, 2024, AD6-24. Return to footnote 16 referrer Footnote 17 [NAME]’s clinical note dated May 6, 2025, AD6-40. Return to footnote 17 referrer Footnote 18 See clinical note dated January 10, 2024 by [NAME], family physician (GD2-91 ) and patient profile, [NAME] (AD9-45). Return to footnote 18 referrer Footnote 19 See report dated January 22, 2024, [NAME], neurologist, GD2-170. Return to footnote 19 referrer Footnote 20 See office note dated July 3, 2022 by [NAME], family physician, GD2-101. Return to footnote 20 referrer Footnote 21 [NAME]’s office note dated August 15, 2022, GD2-94. Return to footnote 21 referrer Footnote 22 [NAME]’s office note dated March 5, 2024, GD2-107. Return to footnote 22 referrer Footnote 23 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) 2001  FCA  248. Return to footnote 23 referrer Footnote 24 [NAME]  v  Attorney General of Canada , 2011  FCA  47. Return to footnote 24 referrer Footnote 25 [NAME]’s [NAME] medical report dated January 3, 2024, GD2-183. Return to footnote 25 referrer Footnote 26 [NAME]’s monthly office notes for 2025, AD9-16 to AD9-27, particularly the entry for March 25, 2025, AD9-24. Return to footnote 26 referrer Footnote 27 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2003  FCA  117. Return to footnote 27 referrer Footnote 28 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2015  FC  1300, in which the Federal Court stated that the onus is on claimants to show that they made “sincere” efforts to meet the employment efforts test. Return to footnote 28 referrer Footnote 29 See Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2008  FCA  164. Return to footnote 29 referrer Footnote 30 [NAME] , section 42(2)(a). Return to footnote 30 referrer