CPP Disability Pension Claim Denied for Lack of Sufficient Evidence

Citation: LF  v  [NAME] , 2026  [NAME]  355 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Decision Appellant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] [NAME] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated August 11, 2025 (GP-24-2051) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: In Writing Decision date: June 25, 2026 File number: AD-25-671 On this page Decision Overview Issues Analysis Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] The appeal is dismissed. The Appellant is not entitled to a [NAME] ( [NAME] ) disability pension. Overview [ 2 ] In this decision, I will refer to the Appellant, L. F., as the “Claimant.” I will refer to the Respondent, the [NAME], as the “Minister.” [ 3 ] The Claimant will be 59 years old in August 2026. She last worked in 2020. She was a substitute teacher. She initially said she stopped working in October 2020 because her husband was transferred to a job in Egypt. Footnote 1 However, she later said that she stopped working in March 2020 due to the pandemic and personal circumstances. Footnote 2 [ 4 ] The Claimant applied for a [NAME] in April 2023. When she applied, she said her main medical conditions that prevented work were depression, irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), social anxiety, obsessive-compulsive disorder, complex post-traumatic stress disorder, and binge eating disorder. She said meniscus tears in both knees also prevented her from working. Footnote 3 [ 5 ] The Claimant said she could no longer work as of July 2001. Footnote 4 That was when she and her husband left British Columbia and moved to Ontario for her husband’s new job. She said she started to have increased mental health symptoms then. Footnote 5 [ 6 ] The Minister denied her application initially and on reconsideration. The Claimant then appealed to the Social Security Tribunal (Tribunal). After a teleconference hearing, the Tribunal’s General Division dismissed her appeal. Footnote 6 The Claimant then requested leave to appeal at the Tribunal’s Appeal Division. One of my Appeal Division colleagues granted her leave to appeal. She requested a hearing in writing. Footnote 7 Following the parties’ submissions, I considered the testimony from the General Division hearing. Footnote 8 [ 7 ] The Claimant said her appeal should be allowed because she had longstanding and chronic gastrointestinal (GI), mental health, and musculoskeletal conditions. She said these needed to be considered together, and not in isolation. She said her 4-month return to work in 2019 and 2020 was an effort to remain engaged in the workforce, but did not establish sustained work capacity. She also said contextual factors, such as living abroad for extended periods, interfered with access to consistent medical care. [ 8 ] The Minister said the appeal should be dismissed because the evidence was insufficient to establish a severe and continuous disability by the end of 2017. The Minister also pointed to residual work capacity, shown by the substitute teaching role that the Claimant had until 2020. The Minister said that job did not end because of her medical conditions. She also received regular Employment Insurance ( [NAME] ) benefits after the job ended. The Minister also said the Claimant had a duty to mitigate her conditions. [ 9 ] I must decide whether the Claimant had a severe and prolonged disability by December 31, 2017. [ 10 ] For the reasons set out below, I find that the Claimant did not have a severe and prolonged disability by December 31, 2017. Issues [ 11 ] The issues in this appeal are: a) Did the Claimant have a severe disability by December 31, 2017? b) If so, did she also have a prolonged disability by then? c) If the answer to b) is “yes,” when does her [NAME] start? Analysis [ 12 ] The Claimant’s minimum qualifying period ( MQP ), or coverage period, ended on December 31, 2017. Footnote 9 That is when she must establish the onset of a disability, as defined by the [NAME] . Her disability must also have been continuous since then. Footnote 10 [ 13 ] Under the [NAME] , a disability must be both severe and prolonged. [ 14 ] The [NAME] says a disability is severe if it makes a person incapable regularly of pursuing any substantially gainful occupation. Footnote 11 [ 15 ] When assessing severity, I must look at all of the Claimant’s medical conditions together to see what effect they have on her work ability. Footnote 12 If she can regularly do some type of work from which she could earn a living, she isn’t entitled to a disability pension. [ 16 ] The [NAME] says a disability is prolonged if it is likely to be long continued and of indefinite duration, or is likely to result in death. Footnote 13 Did the Claimant have a severe disability by December 31, 2017? [ 17 ] The Claimant did not have a severe disability by December 31, 2017. I will now explain why. [ 18 ] Before looking at the Claimant’s functional limitations, I will summarize the medical evidence before the end of 2017. [ 19 ] In 1993, the Claimant sought medical care twice for abdominal bloating and cramps and rectal bleeding. Footnote 14 I see no further medical evidence until 2012. She had an endoscopy then due to irregular bowel habits, recurrent hiccups, and dyspepsia. Footnote 15 [ 20 ] The only other medical evidence before the end of 2017 was from family doctor visits in August 2015 and July 2016. In August 2015, the Claimant mentioned GI symptoms and improved urinary symptoms. She asked for massage therapy and anti-aging cream prescriptions. In July 2016, she asked for the same prescriptions but had no other concerns. Footnote 16 The next medical document is a November 2021 knee MRI. Footnote 17 [ 21 ] I will now review the Claimant’s functional limitations by the end of 2017. The Claimant’s reported functional limitations by the end of 2017 [ 22 ] The Claimant’s main reported functional limitations that could have existed by the end of 2017 were knee-related mobility issues (stairs, walking, bending), difficulty working with others and in crowded places, needing washroom access for incontinence, and reduced capacity for some thinking tasks. I will now explain why. [ 23 ] The Claimant’s first detailed discussion of functional limitations (as opposed to symptoms) is in her [NAME] application. She signed that form in March 2023, more than five years after the end of 2017. On that form, she was asked to rate various functional abilities on a five-point scale ranging from “excellent” to “poor.” She rated the following functional abilities as “poor”: Footnote 18 Get down into a kneeling or squatting position and back up again Bend down to pick up coins from the floor Pick up two bags of groceries and walk a block Work in a team Adjust easily to unexpected changes Figure out what to do when stressed Do housekeeping and home maintenance without frequent breaks Manage a budget and pay bills Use public transportation (due to steps) [ 24 ] On that form, the Claimant provided some further narrative information about her abilities. For her IBS, she said her occasional fecal incontinence had worsened since October 2018. She said this happened once per week, but also suggested it was 2-3 times per week. For her knees, which had been acute since November 2017, she focused on difficulties with walking and stairs. For both those conditions, the impacts were periodic rather than continuous. Footnote 19 In 2025, she said her IBS had worsened since 2013 and became daily in 2019. Footnote 20 [ 25 ] The Claimant said her depression and anxiety made her prefer to stay at home. She got overwhelmed in crowded places. She could be irritable with strangers. These conditions worsened around 2018. Footnote 21 [ 26 ] The Claimant said she could not handle too many task steps. She often lost her place or scrambled words in conversation. She said her thinking abilities had worsened since October 2018. Footnote 22 At the 2025 General Division hearing, she said her conditions also affected her sleep, decision-making, concentration, memory, and processing speed. Footnote 23 [ 27 ] At the General Division hearing in July 2025, the Claimant gave more details about her knee limitations, noting that her knee problems woke her up at night. Footnote 24 [ 28 ] I will now see if the medical evidence could support the claimed limitations by the end of 2017. This is important because [NAME] disability applicants must provide some medical evidence about their underlying conditions. Footnote 25 Does the medical evidence support the claimed limitations? [ 29 ] By the end of 2017, the medical evidence might support the claimed limitations from fecal incontinence, thinking capacity, and the Claimant’s anxiety-related symptoms. However, by the end of 2017, it does not support the claimed limitations for her knee-related mobility concerns. [ 30 ] The medical records leading up to the end of 2017 do not specifically identify incontinence. However, [NAME]’s August 2015 clinical note says that she discussed “GI symptoms” with the Claimant. Footnote 26 At this stage of my analysis, that vague reference is likely sufficient. [ 31 ] The medical records leading up to the end of 2017 do not mention any concerns with anxiety or depression. But, in July 2025, [NAME] (psychiatrist) said the Claimant’s mental health conditions had likely been “ever-present.” He also said they could have affected her cognitively. [NAME] admitted he did not know her before 2025, and could not report directly on her mental status and function before 2025. Footnote 27 Again, that reference is likely sufficient at this stage of my analysis. [ 32 ] However, the medical evidence does not support limitations with knee-related mobility concerns. I see no medical evidence about her knees until her November 2021 knee MRIs. At that time, she had arthritic changes and other concerns in each knee. Footnote 28 But, unlike her mental health concerns, I see no evidence of potential functional limitations before the end of 2017. [ 33 ] Despite the November 2021 MRIs, the first knee specialist report does not appear until April 2023. At that time, [NAME] relayed that the limitations began “a couple years ago” when the Claimant was in an exercise class and jumped on a mini-trampoline. Footnote 29 That does not point to the existence of limitations by the end of 2017. [ 34 ] While I have found that there could be medical support for some of the Claimant’s reported limitations, this does not mean that those limitations actually existed by the end of 2017. Nor does it mean that she lacked work capacity, even if she did have the claimed limitations. Those determinations will require a closer look at all of the evidence. I will begin that process by looking at the Claimant’s personal characteristics. Do the Claimant’s personal characteristics limit her employability? [ 35 ] When deciding whether the Claimant had a severe disability by the end of 2017, I must consider factors such as her: Footnote 30 Age Language ability Education level Past work and life experience [ 36 ] These factors will help me decide whether the Claimant could work in the real world. I will look at each of them in turn. [ 37 ] The Claimant was 50 years old at the end of 2017. She was still 15 years away from the typical retirement age in Canada. Her age would not likely have affected her real-world work prospects. The only exception might be careers for which extensive education or training was required. [ 38 ] The Claimant speaks English fluently. English is one of Canada’s official languages. Her language ability would not have affected her prospects. [ 39 ] The Claimant is well educated. She has a Bachelor of Arts degree in elementary education. This qualifies her to teach in elementary [NAME]. Footnote 31 Her education would place few limits on her employability in the real world. She would only be precluded from jobs requiring specific certification or a graduate degree. [ 40 ] Most of the Claimant’s recent work was teaching. While she had an elementary classroom of her own for a while, she has also done a lot of supply teaching. Before teaching, she had worked as a grocery store cashier, telemarketer, retail sales associate (clothing store), stadium food vendor, and a children’s camp coordinator. Footnote 32 [ 41 ] The Claimant has had exceptional life experiences. She raised, and was the primary caregiver for, five children. As her husband has had several foreign job postings, she has lived in Argentina, Peru, Ethiopia, India, and Egypt. Footnote 33 She has also volunteered for a [NAME] and [NAME]. Footnote 34 [ 42 ] The Claimant’s work history and life experiences do not impose many limits on what she could do in the real world. She would not be suited for jobs requiring heavy physical labour, but her experience doesn’t preclude much else. [ 43 ] When I look at all of the Claimant’s personal characteristics together, she has real-world work potential in a very broad range of careers. Without considering her medical conditions , she would only be precluded from jobs needing extensive training, specific certification (other than teaching), a graduate degree, or heavy physical labour. [ 44 ] I will now apply the Claimant’s personal characteristics to her limitations, so I can decide whether she had any residual work capacity by the end of 2017. I need to focus on that period because her coverage ended then. Did the Claimant have any residual work capacity by the end of 2017? [ 45 ] The Claimant likely had work capacity by the end of 2017. I will now explain why. [ 46 ] The Claimant’s work capacity by the end of 2017 is established in two distinct ways. The first is her actual work in 2019 and 2020. The second is the lack of significant functional limitations by the end of 2017. The Claimant’s actual work [ 47 ] The Claimant did supply teaching work from December 2019 to March 2020. I accept the March 2020 date as correct, although she previously reported working until October 2020. Footnote 35 Her job status as a supply teacher may have been unclear in the early stages of Covid-19 . The pandemic’s full impact was first felt in Canada in March 2020. [ 48 ] Regardless of the exact dates, working as a supply teacher demonstrates work capacity. The Claimant’s personal characteristics clearly show that supply teaching is a role for which she is suited. While she found the middle grades challenging, she also said she found teaching the youngest grades was easy for her. She said she could play with kids and read them stories. Footnote 36 [ 49 ] This work is particularly probative for the Claimant. Firstly, it was after the end of 2017. Secondly, it happened during one of her rare “work windows.” She said she was not allowed to work when residing abroad. Footnote 37 Between August 2005 and her application for the [NAME], she was outside Canada far more than she was in Canada. But she found and performed that supply teaching work in Canada during her longest stretch in Canada since at least August 2005. Footnote 38 The lack of significant functional limitations by the end of 2017 [ 50 ] Even if the Claimant hadn’t had that recent teaching role, her lack of significant functional limitations would also have established work capacity by the end of 2017. [ 51 ] The Claimant has suggested that she had limited access to medical care while living abroad. However, she did pursue it on multiple occasions when she was in Egypt. Footnote 39 Notably, the file contains no medical records at all from her extended stay in Canada from June 2019 to August 2021. Footnote 40 It is unclear why no records were produced, as she suggested that she sought care during this time. Footnote 41 However, the onus of proving a disability is on her. [ 52 ] In any case, when the Claimant did seek medical care up to the end of 2017, she did not mention anything related to cognitive difficulties or mental health concerns. She did mention several other health concerns, resulting in prescriptions for massage and anti-aging creams on two separate occasions. She also discussed her children and her GI concerns. She was even “quite optimistic” about the [NAME], which would likely not be the case if she had extensive functional limitations. Footnote 42 [ 53 ] Even when the Claimant mentioned GI concerns, I see no explicit or implicit mention of incontinence problems. This is not to say that she had no GI or IBS symptoms. But I am not persuaded that the problems were so serious that they, alone or with other conditions, eliminated work capacity by the end of 2017. And her personal characteristics meant that she was suited for a broad range of roles, not just those that required extended in-person interaction with others. The lack of objective evidence by 2017 about cognitive and mental health concerns also supports residual work capacity. [ 54 ] I also note that the Claimant herself identified a worsening of symptoms after the end of 2017. She said her IBS symptoms had worsened since October 2018 and became daily in 2019. Footnote 43 She said her depression was extreme between October 2018 and March 2022. In 2023, she said her social anxiety had worsened in “the past 5 years.” That also points to a worsening in 2018 or later. Footnote 44 Finally, she said her thinking abilities had worsened since October 2018. Footnote 45 [ 55 ] As noted, the Claimant was also the primary caregiver for her five children. They were born between 1995 and 2009. Footnote 46 This critical caregiving role for a large family also suggests that she had some work capacity up to at least the end of 2017. Conclusion [ 56 ] I conclude that the Claimant retained residual work capacity by the end of 2017. This included capacity for teaching and many other roles for which she was suited. [ 57 ] Although I do not need to rely on it, I note that the Claimant also received regular [NAME] benefits from October 2020 to August 2021. To receive regular [NAME] benefits, a person must be “capable of and available for work.” Footnote 47 Her receipt of regular [NAME] benefits long after the end of 2017 is consistent with finding that she had work capacity by that date. [ 58 ] As the Claimant had some residual work capacity by the end of 2017, I must now look at her attempts to work around that time. When a [NAME] disability applicant has some work capacity, she must show that efforts at obtaining and maintaining employment have been unsuccessful because of her health condition. Footnote 48 Were the Claimant’s attempts to obtain and maintain suitable work unsuccessful because of her health condition? [ 59 ] I find that the Claimant’s attempts to obtain and maintain suitable work were not unsuccessful because of her health condition. I will now explain why. [ 60 ] The only attempt to obtain and maintain suitable work is the Claimant’s supply teaching role from December 2019 to March 2020. However, on multiple occasions, she said she stopped working then for reasons other than her health condition. [ 61 ] In 2023, the Claimant said she stopped working because she moved to Egypt for her husband’s work. She later said foreign nationals were not allowed to work there. Footnote 49 [ 62 ] At the General Division hearing in July 2025, she said she stopped working in March 2020 because all the [NAME] shut down for the pandemic. She also said she wanted to be at home for two other reasons. Firstly, she wanted to support [NAME] with his online learning. Secondly, her mother was dying of cancer at the time. She later suggested that another reason was a fear of exposure to Covid-19 . Footnote 50 [ 63 ] Regarding the repeated opening and closing of [NAME] in the following months, the Claimant she didn’t go back to work because there was “no easy way to do this.” She then affirmed that the move to Egypt was why she did not return to work later. Footnote 51 [ 64 ] As noted, the Claimant received regular [NAME] benefits from October 2020 to August 2021. I see no evidence that she received sickness [NAME] benefits around then. [NAME] benefits would have been more consistent with stopping work because of her medical conditions. However, those benefits would have required medical support. I see no objective evidence of medical appointments between July 2016 and November 2021. [ 65 ] At the General Division hearing, the Claimant confirmed that she did not try to work at any other job since 2020. Footnote 52 I do not see any evidence of seeking or doing other work around (or after) the end of 2017. [ 66 ] I conclude that the Claimant’s attempts to obtain and maintain suitable work did not fail because of her health conditions. She only tried one job, and she stopped it for reasons other than her health conditions. As a result, I cannot find that her disability was severe. This means that her appeal cannot succeed. [ 67 ] In making that finding, I am not suggesting that the Claimant had no symptoms before the end of 2017. Nor am I suggesting that she had no medical conditions. But my focus must be on her functional limitations by the end of 2017, and the effect they had on her ability to work. [ 68 ] I will now briefly comment on the Claimant’s particular circumstances. The Claimant’s particular circumstances [ 69 ] The Claimant’s circumstances are unique, mostly because she has spent so much time outside Canada. As noted, she suggested that she had issues with access to ongoing health care. [ 70 ] The health care system in other countries is different from the [NAME]. However, with respect to the Claimant’s disability status, I place little weight on this. She received specialized care in Egypt. She also was in Canada for more than two years starting in June 2019, yet I see no objective evidence of any medical care at all during this time. That was also when she engaged in regular supply teaching, which only ended for non-health reasons. [ 71 ] More generally, an applicant has a duty to mitigate her condition. This means making sufficient efforts to cope with her disability and providing medical evidence of those efforts. The Tribunal cannot rely on self-assessments only. Footnote 53 The Claimant did not provide objective evidence of any medical appointments between July 2016 and November 2021. Did the Claimant also have a prolonged disability by the end of 2017? [ 72 ] As I found that the Claimant did not have a severe disability by the end of 2017, I do not need to answer this question. Conclusion [ 73 ] The appeal is dismissed. The Claimant did not have a severe and prolonged disability by the end of 2017. She is not entitled to a [NAME]. Footnotes Footnote 1 See GD2-53. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See AD20-39, AD21-2, and AD23-2. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See GD2-45. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See GD2-45. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 See AD23-3 and AD28-1. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 See AD1A-1. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 See AD1-11. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 Testimony from the General Division hearing can only be considered when a request is made and approved according to the [NAME] on “Using testimony from General Division hearings in Income Security appeals at the Appeal Division.” The Minister asked me to consider that testimony under that [NAME] (see AD13-1). I asked the Claimant for submissions on that request (see AD14-1). The Claimant responded to that request (see AD15-1). After reviewing the submissions and the [NAME], I advised the parties that I would consider the General Division testimony (see AD16-1 to AD16-2). The Minister provided a transcript of that testimony (see AD20-2 to AD20-45). Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 This date is based on the Claimant’s [NAME] contributions. Her [NAME] contributions are at GD2-63. The years excluded under the [NAME] ’s Child-Rearing Provisions are at GD2-74. Service Canada uses a person’s years of [NAME] contributions to calculate their coverage period ( MQP ). See section 44(2) of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 See Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2015  FC  1348, at paragraph 31. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 See section 42(2)(a) of the [NAME]. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2011  FCA  47, at paragraph 8. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 See section 42(2)(a) of the [NAME]. Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 See AD10-3 to AD10-8. Return to footnote 14 referrer Footnote 15 See AD1-20. Return to footnote 15 referrer Footnote 16 See AD10-17. Return to footnote 16 referrer Footnote 17 See GD2-117. Return to footnote 17 referrer Footnote 18 See GD2-48 to GD2-51. Return to footnote 18 referrer Footnote 19 See GD2-48 and GD2-51. Return to footnote 19 referrer Footnote 20 See AD20-19, AD20-20, and AD20-22 to AD20-23. Return to footnote 20 referrer Footnote 21 See GD2-49. Return to footnote 21 referrer Footnote 22 See GD2-50. Return to footnote 22 referrer Footnote 23 See AD20-25 and AD20-32. Return to footnote 23 referrer Footnote 24 See AD20-13 to AD20-17. Return to footnote 24 referrer Footnote 25 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2008  FCA  377, and Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2020  FC  206. Return to footnote 25 referrer Footnote 26 See AD10-17. Return to footnote 26 referrer Footnote 27 See GD15-3. Return to footnote 27 referrer Footnote 28 See GD2-117 and GD2-118. Return to footnote 28 referrer Footnote 29 See GD2-103. Return to footnote 29 referrer Footnote 30 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2002  FCA  248. Return to footnote 30 referrer Footnote 31 See GD2-54 and AD23-3. Return to footnote 31 referrer Footnote 32 See GD2-53 and AD23-2. Return to footnote 32 referrer Footnote 33 See GD2-41 to GD2-44. Return to footnote 33 referrer Footnote 34 See AD23-1 and AD23-3. Return to footnote 34 referrer Footnote 35 See GD1-9, GD2-53, AD20-39, and AD23-2. Return to footnote 35 referrer Footnote 36 See AD20-29. Return to footnote 36 referrer Footnote 37 See AD20-40. Return to footnote 37 referrer Footnote 38 See GD2-41 to GD2-43. Return to footnote 38 referrer Footnote 39 See GD2-105 to GD2-118, AD20-28, and AD20-37. Return to footnote 39 referrer Footnote 40 See GD2-42 to GD2-43 for the dates. Return to footnote 40 referrer Footnote 41 See, for example, AD20-23 and AD20-27. Return to footnote 41 referrer Footnote 42 See AD10-17. Return to footnote 42 referrer Footnote 43 See GD2-48 and AD20-22 to AD20-23. Return to footnote 43 referrer Footnote 44 See GD2-49. Return to footnote 44 referrer Footnote 45 See GD2-50. Return to footnote 45 referrer Footnote 46 See GD2-41 to GD2-42. Return to footnote 46 referrer Footnote 47 See section 18(1) of the Employment Insurance Act . Return to footnote 47 referrer Footnote 48 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2003  FCA  117, at paragraph 3. Return to footnote 48 referrer Footnote 49 See GD2-53 and AD20-40. Return to footnote 49 referrer Footnote 50 See AD20-39 and AD28-1. Return to footnote 50 referrer Footnote 51 See AD20-39 to AD20-40. Return to footnote 51 referrer Footnote 52 See AD20-40. Return to footnote 52 referrer Footnote 53 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General), 2017  FC  193, at paragraphs 52, 59, and 62. Return to footnote 53 referrer