CPP Disability Pension Claim Rejected for Lack of Continuous Medical Evidence

Citation: Minister of Employment and Social Development  v  [NAME] , 2026  [NAME]  8 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Decision Appellant: [redacted] Representative: [NAME] Respondent: [redacted] Representative: [NAME] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated November 15, 2024 (GP-24-628) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: Teleconference Hearing date: August 7, 2025 Hearing participants: Appellant’s representative Respondent’s representative Decision date: January 12, 2026 File number: AD-25-100 On this page Decision Overview Preliminary matters Issues Analysis Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] The appeal of the Minister of Employment and Social Development (Minister) is allowed. [ 2 ] I find that the Respondent, A. A., isn’t eligible for a [NAME] ( [NAME] ) disability pension because his disability wasn’t continuously severe and prolonged until the hearing held on August 7, 2025. Overview [ 3 ] The Respondent was 49 years old as of December 31, 2015. He worked for many years as a loader, and also briefly as a food packager. He claims he has been unable to work since October 2012 due to pain following injuries to his back and neck, as well as mental illness. [ 4 ] The Respondent applied for a [NAME] disability pension on April 11, 2023. Footnote 1 The Minister refused his application initially and on reconsideration. Footnote 2 [ 5 ] The Respondent appealed that decision to the General Division (GD) of the Social Security Tribunal (Tribunal). Footnote 3 The GD held a hearing on October 29, 2024, and allowed his appeal. Footnote 4 The Minister asked for permission to appeal that decision to the Tribunal’s Appeal Division (AD). Footnote 5 Permission to appeal was granted on February 13, 2025. [ 6 ] The Minister concedes that the Respondent had a severe disability as of his minimum qualifying period ( MQP ) of December 31, 2015. Footnote 6 However, the Minister argues that there isn’t enough medical evidence to support a continuous disability up to the hearing on the present matter. Alternatively, the Minister argues that the Respondent hasn’t demonstrated that he has taken reasonable steps to manage his medical conditions, that he hasn’t fulfilled his duty to mitigate his conditions. [ 7 ] The Respondent relies on the medical information already on file, as well as his written answers filed under [NAME], to support that his disability is severe and prolonged up to the hearing into this matter. Preliminary matters [ 8 ] A first hearing was to be held on June 10, 2025. At that time, there was a request by the representative for the Respondent for me to add a document known as [NAME] to the record. [NAME] was the Respondent’s typed-up answers to questions put by the GD member before his decision. The GD member had not allowed these answers into the record because the Respondent filed them after the deadline that had been imposed by the GD. [ 9 ] The representative for the Minister did not object to [NAME] being added. I added the document to the record, believing that it would be relevant evidence. Footnote 7 [ 10 ] Also, after further discussion, the representative for the Respondent undertook to file the Respondent’s handwritten answers to the GD’s questions within a week, which she did on June 10, 2025. Footnote 8 I also allowed these to be filed because I believed they would be relevant. Footnote 9 However, considering the representative for the Minister had not been privy to [NAME], I adjourned the matter to a later date so that the Minister could take notice of same and of the handwritten answers filed by the representative for the Respondent. Footnote 10 [ 11 ] Finally, the Respondent was not present on June 10. His representative indicated that he wasn’t able to be present. She said he can’t connect to a conference call from Iraq, and doesn’t have the means to participate. His representative consented to me issuing my decision based on the record, including the now-admitted [NAME], and the evidence filed by the Minister at the hearing. It wasn’t known if the Respondent would be present at the next hearing. [ 12 ] At the hearing held on August 7, 2025, the Respondent wasn’t able to join. The representative for the Respondent again consented to me issuing my decision based on the written record, as well as the evidence to be filed by the Minister at the hearing. Issues [ 13 ] To be eligible for a [NAME] disability pension, a person usually has to prove they had a severe and prolonged disability by the end of their minimum qualifying period ( MQP ). The Respondent’s MQP is December 31, 2015. Footnote 11 [ 14 ] A person is considered to have a severe disability if they are incapable regularly of pursuing any substantially gainful occupation. Footnote 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 13 [ 15 ] Hearings are often held before the end of the MQP or shortly thereafter. However, in this particular case, the hearing is being held almost ten years after the Respondent’s MQP . This is likely why the Minister raised the issue of a continuous disability up to the hearing. [ 16 ] The issues in this appeal are the following: Must the Respondent be found disabled as of his MQP but also continuously until the hearing on this matter? If so, was the Respondent indeed disabled as of his MQP and also continuously thereafter, until the hearing? Analysis [ 17 ] I have applied the law to the available evidence and concluded that the Respondent did not have a severe and prolonged disability that was continuous until the hearing held on August 7, 2025. I found the Respondent was unable to prove this due to a lack of medical evidence. The Respondent must be found disabled as of his MQP and also continuously until the hearing held August 7, 2025 [ 18 ] As I said above, the Minister argued that the Respondent had to be continuously disabled up to the hearing into this matter. The Minister raised this argument in its written submissions to the Appeal Division, filed on April 28, 2025. Footnote 14 The Minister had also raised it in its request for leave to appeal, filed on February 11, 2025. Footnote 15 The Minister had also raised this argument in its written submissions to the General Division, filed on September 16, 2024. Footnote 16 [ 19 ] This argument was not really addressed at the hearing by the representative for the Respondent. She concentrated on arguing the Respondent was still disabled as of the hearing into this matter. Nevertheless, the Minister’s argument did not come as a surprise, and I must address it. [ 20 ] There had seemed to be some doubt or debate as to whether a claimant seeking a [NAME] disability pension could be eligible for same if that claimant was simply disabled as of their MQP , but no longer disabled as of a hearing at a later date into the matter. Footnote 17 This is known as a “closed period” disability. [ 21 ] With respect for the opposing view, my reading of recent Federal Court of Appeal ( FCA ) decisions is that this is not the case. I do not believe that a closed period disability is possible. [ 22 ] Indeed, in its recent decision called [NAME] , the FCA indicated that “three criteria must be satisfied to qualify for a [NAME] disability pension (…). An applicant must meet the contributory requirements, be found disabled within the meaning of the [NAME] Act, and continue to be disabled.” Footnote 18 [ 23 ] One could have argued that the FCA is simply speaking of the “severe” aspect of the disability test in the second criteria above, while speaking of the “prolonged” aspect in the third criteria. I do not believe this to be the case. In [NAME] , the FCA further indicated that disability, or the second criteria above, includes both “severe” and “prolonged”: “To be disabled, [the claimant] must prove through medical evidence and with due regard to the ”real world context” that she was more likely than not to have a disability that was severe and prolonged on or before the end of her MQP …”. Footnote 19 [ 24 ] In [NAME], the FCA stated what it had already said in another recent but earlier decision called [NAME], that those same three conditions must be met. Footnote 20 The FCA also said in [NAME] that a claimant must “continue to be disabled”. And here again, I believe the FCA distinguished between being “found disabled” – which it further detailed as having both a severe and prolonged disability – and continuing “to be disabled”. Footnote 21 [ 25 ] I am aware that FCA decisions [NAME] did not turn on the matter of continuous disability. However, these are the most recent decisions on the subject, and FCA decisions to the contrary seem to be prior to [NAME]. Footnote 22 I also believe that [NAME] are in keeping with a number of recent Federal Court decisions. Footnote 23 For these reasons, I believe I am bound by [NAME] . [ 26 ] Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal decisions are binding on me, while decisions by our Appeal Division are not. However, I believe that the few decisions by our Appeal Division on this subject are largely in keeping with [NAME]. Footnote 24 Also, I find a very recent decision by our Appeal Division quite persuasive, to quote: Footnote 25 I am required to follow decisions of the Federal Court of Appeal. [NAME] make it clear that a claimant must continue to be disabled following the end of their minimum qualifying period, and to establish that they have a severe and prolonged disability at the time of their hearing, to qualify for a [NAME] disability benefit. In other words, a disability pension is not available for a closed period. [ 27 ] I agree. I believe a disability must be continuous up to the hearing for a claimant to be eligible for a [NAME] disability pension. Therefore, in this case, the Respondent must be found disabled as of his MQP of December 31, 2015, and also continuously up to the hearing held on August 7, 2025. I can’t find the Respondent continuously disabled until the hearing held August 7, 2025, because of a lack of medical evidence [ 28 ] As I said above, the Minister has specifically conceded the matter of a severe disability on the record: Footnote 26 The Minister concedes that the Respondent had a severe disability at the time of his MQP of December 31, 2015. The medical evidence in the record is sufficient to establish severe limitations at the time. At the time, these included pain, depression, impaired judgment/concentration, and anxiety. [ 29 ] The Minister pointed to a neurologist report dated February 28, 2012; a psychiatry consult from [NAME] dated May 29, 2015; and an ODSP questionnaire from [NAME] from May 2015. Footnote 27 [ 30 ] I also find this evidence persuasive and I agree on a severe disability as of the MQP . However, the Minister also points to a lack of medical evidence after the MQP of December 31, 2015, that could prove the Respondent was continuously disabled until the hearing of August 7, 2025. I also agree, for the reasons below. Respondent’s evidence on file [ 31 ] The Respondent has the burden to prove he is disabled. As he was not present at the hearing, he did not testify. However, he filed a questionnaire dated April 3, 2023. Footnote 28 He said he still had chronic pain in his neck and back, as well as depression and anxiety. He said he can’t concentrate, finds it hard to sleep all night due to the pain, and needs assistance for his personal needs. The Respondent also filed answers to questions the General Division put to him in November 2024. Footnote 29 He confirmed some of the foregoing and said he last worked in October 2012. What medical evidence do I have on file after December 2015 [ 32 ] However, the Respondent’s version isn’t enough in and of itself. It is well established that a claimant must provide medical evidence to support a claim for [NAME] disability benefits. Footnote 30 Simply put, the medical evidence on file post- MQP is scarce and not compelling enough for me to make for a finding of continuous disability from the MQP until the hearing of August 7, 2025. [ 33 ] There is a letter from [NAME], the Respondent’s psychiatrist, dated September 29, 2017. Footnote 31 He validates diagnoses of pain disorder associated with both psychological factors and a general medical condition, with the psychological factors being major depressive disorder with psychotic features. The letter also indicates that the Respondent is on different medications for mental health: Cymbalta, Wellbutrin, Temazepam, and Seroquel. Footnote 32 [ 34 ] However, this letter references a consultation dated May 21, 2015, for which a letter dated May 29, 2015, was filed. Footnote 33 It is unclear whether this 2017 letter follows a more recent consultation, but it does mention a “recent conversation with [the Respondent]. Footnote 34 It is also unclear whether these diagnoses are updated to 2017. The Minister says that “a large part of the report is a recounting of the things that the Respondent told the psychiatrist in 2015, not objective clinical findings.“ Footnote 35 For the above reasons, I tend to agree with the Minister’s position that the letter should not be given much weight. [ 35 ] There is also letter on file from neurologist [NAME] dated June 26, 2017. He indicates having last seen the Respondent in January 2015 and concludes that the Respondent “was not employable when I last saw him in 2015.” Footnote 36 I give little weight to this letter because it also does not provide an update to 2017. [ 36 ] There are also notes on file from the Respondent’s family doctor, [NAME]. The note dated October 6, 2017, seems to copy and paste the diagnoses by [NAME] and seem to substantiate these diagnoses as of 2017. Footnote 37 [ 37 ] In total, there are five notes from [NAME] from October 2017 to August 2018. Footnote 38 The Respondent’s mental health issues are mentioned in two of them, the first in October 2017 and the last in August 2018. Neck and shoulder pain is mentioned in August 2018. Also, there are ongoing prescription renewals; however, the above medications for mental health don’t seem to be among them. [ 38 ] A letter from [NAME] dated October 5, 2017, indicates that the Respondent “is unable to work due to severe pain, depression, and sad mood.” It says that the Respondent was “prescribed physiotherapy and medication” because of his back pain, but there is no reference to medications for mental health. [NAME] concludes that the Respondent “is unable to work due to severe pain, depression, and sad mood.” Footnote 39 [ 39 ] Finally, there is a note on file after consultations with family physician [NAME] in October 2022. Footnote 40 [NAME] also filed a full medical report dated October 20, 2022. The report substantiates diagnoses of “back and neck pain since his MVA in 2008, low mood, poor sleep”, and depression. Footnote 41 [ 40 ] However, I find the report lacking and problematic for three reasons: [NAME] indicates having met the Respondent “for the first time 10 days ago”; Footnote 42 He lists the Respondent’s medications but here again, mental health medications do not seem to be present; Footnote 43 As to his prognosis, [NAME] indicates “uncertain but he could improve with physiotherapy & psychotherapy.” Footnote 44 [ 41 ] I find that this report is equivocal at best. Considering the three reasons above, I cannot make a finding of disability for the Respondent as of October 2022 based on this report. There is little to no medical evidence after the MQP of December 2015 [ 42 ] So, in summary: There is no medical evidence from January 2016 to the end of September 2017; There is scant medical evidence between September 29, 2017, and August 7, 2018; There is no medical evidence from September 2018 to October 2022; There is problematic medical evidence in October 2022; There is no medical evidence from November 2022 to August 7, 2025; [ 43 ] I wouldn’t necessarily have expected or required that the Respondent have had quarterly visits with a medical professional for the entire almost-ten years between the MQP and the hearing in August 2025. Footnote 45 However, looking at the above, out of approximately 115 months between the MQP and the hearing, there is medical evidence for approximately 11 months of that time – for 10 months from 2017-2018 and for one month in 2022. [ 44 ] The quantity of medical evidence is clearly lacking. The quality is problematic as well. The last credible evidence that the Respondent’s medical conditions made him unable to work was in October 2017, with [NAME]’s letter from October 5. This is eight years ago and not recent enough. In disability cases, we sometimes rely on medical reports that are not quite contemporary with the MQP . However, I simply cannot accept the eight-year gap in this case. And the most recent medical evidence, in 2022, is equivocal at best, considering the three reasons I alluded to above. [ 45 ] There is also no medical evidence that the Respondent’s medical conditions had so crystallized that they were permanent and did not require further care or investigation, which could have explained a lack of evidence. The only such evidence could possibly have been a letter by neurologist [NAME] in February 2012 where he says, “It appears now after all these years that his injury is permanent.” Footnote 46 However, I won’t give this conclusion much weight as the Respondent had substantially gainful earnings in 2014 Footnote 47 , before his MQP of December 2015. [ 46 ] It is also problematic for the Respondent’s case that I have no medical evidence of him taking medications for mental health since his MQP . The only evidence on file is his written answer to question on this subject. Footnote 48 However, considering the 2022 report by [NAME] does not mention these medications, and considering they are also not mentioned in the 2017-2018 medical evidence, it is difficult for me to accept the Respondent at his written word. [ 47 ] Also, I note that the Minister made arguments in line with my above conclusions in its application for leave to appeal in February 2025 and in its written submissions in April 2025. Footnote 49 The Respondent could have seized this opportunity to file additional medical evidence. He did not. [ 48 ] The Respondent’s representative seemed to indicate that the Respondent’s presence in Iraq, with a possible language barrier related to medical evidence, or financial constraints, would have made the filing of further medical evidence difficult or impossible. The Minister argued at the hearing that without actual testimonial evidence to this effect, I could not draw any such conclusions. I agree. [ 49 ] The only evidence I have related to this is a response by the Respondent to the following question: “There are no notes from your family doctor from 2016, 2019, 2020, 2021, or 2024. Why not?”. The Respondent replies as follows: Footnote 50 I don’t know why, I just know that I saw him regularly up to the date that I left Canada to return to Iraq on August 23, 2018, as I could not live alone and had no family here to help me with my needs. The doctor was not asked to provide any reports, so that is why there was nothing sent from him. [ 50 ] I don’t find that this evidence is compelling or sufficient. It doesn’t address the Respondent’s representative’s claims. I have little to no explanation in evidence for the lack of medical evidence from the MQP until the hearing. [ 51 ] Finally, I usually must analyze a claimant’s disability in a real-world context. Footnote 51 This means that, when deciding whether a person’s disability is severe, I must consider their overall medical condition as well as factors like age, level of education, language proficiency, and past work and life experience. Footnote 52 [ 52 ] However, considering the lack of medical evidence here—and that a claimant must bring medical evidence in support of a disability claim—find that such an analysis is unnecessary. Also, because I have found that the Respondent’s disability wasn’t continuous until the hearing, I don’t need to consider whether it was prolonged at the MQP . Footnote 53 Conclusion [ 53 ] I find that the Respondent isn’t eligible for a [NAME] ( [NAME] ) disability pension because his disability wasn’t continuously severe and prolonged until the hearing held on August 7, 2025. [ 54 ] This means that the Minister’s appeal is allowed. Footnotes Footnote 1 This is found in the file on page GD2-153. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See the initial decision dated December 19, 2023, at GD2-20; and the reconsideration decision dated March 16, 2024, at GD2-6. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See GD1-1. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See the General Division decision dated November 14, 2024, made by [NAME]. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 See the Request for Leave to Appeal at AD1-1. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 See paragraph 13 below. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 Per paragraph 42(2)(a) of the Social Security Tribunal Rules of Procedure, SOR/2022-256. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 See AD06. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 Also per paragraph 42(2)(a) of the [NAME] of Procedure Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 See paragraph 43(3) of the [NAME] of Procedure. And, as all documents filed by a party, these were shared with the other party (the Minister) by the Tribunal shortly after filing. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 Service Canada uses a claimant’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 Respondent’s [NAME] contributions are on page GD2-49. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 See section 42(2)(a)(i) of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 See section 42(2)(a)(ii) of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 See pages AD3-4, AD3-7 and AD3-8. Return to footnote 14 referrer Footnote 15 See pages AD1-16 to AD1-18. Return to footnote 15 referrer Footnote 16 See pages GD7-3, GD7-4, GD7-5, GD7-11, and GD7-13 to GD7-16. Return to footnote 16 referrer Footnote 17 Of note, the Federal Court of Appeal, in [NAME]   v.   Attorney General of Canada , 2011  FCA  318, seemed to require being disabled continuously after the MQP at paragraph 8. On the other hand, in D’[NAME]   v.   Canada (Attorney General), 2014  FCA  95, a case often cited as offering a recap of the [NAME] disability test, there is no mention of a requirement for claimants to prove they are disabled after the MQP . Return to footnote 17 referrer Footnote 18 [NAME]   v.   Attorney General of Canada, 2024  FCA  4, paragraph 36. Return to footnote 18 referrer Footnote 19 [NAME] , paragraph 37. Return to footnote 19 referrer Footnote 20 [NAME]   v.   Attorney General of Canada, 2022  FCA  104, at paragraph 9, where the Court stated, in almost identical fashion as in [NAME] : « To quality for a [NAME] disability pension, the applicant must satisfy three criteria: (1) meet the contributory requirements; (2) be found disabled within the meaning set out in the [NAME] ; and (3) continue to be disabled…”. Return to footnote 20 referrer Footnote 21 [NAME] , paragraphs 9 and 10. Return to footnote 21 referrer Footnote 22 [NAME]   v.   Canada (Attorney General) , 2003  FCA  343, and [NAME]   v.   Canada (Human Resources and Social Development), 2008  FCA  366, both prior to [NAME] . Return to footnote 22 referrer Footnote 23 See Canada (Attorney General)   v.   [NAME] , 2020  FC  1093, paragraphs 19 and 38; [NAME]   v.   Canada (Attorney General), 2017  FC  391, paragraphs 23 and 24; Canada (Attorney General)   v.   [NAME] , 2015  FC  1348, paragraph 31. Return to footnote 23 referrer Footnote 24 See 2024  [NAME]  1309 and 2021  [NAME]  621, which were both rendered by AD member [NAME]. There is a possible dissenting and earlier view on this subject by AD member [NAME] at 2020  [NAME]  307. Return to footnote 24 referrer Footnote 25 Also a decision by AD member [NAME]. It has yet to be published, but her decision is dated December 2, 2025, in file number AD-24-656, with the quote being from paragraph 172 of the decision. I find Member Lew’s decision persuasive as it is thorough, lengthy, and well thought out. I also note that Member Lew’s three decisions on this matter are also in keeping with the body of decisions by the General Division of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 25 referrer Footnote 26 See AD3-7. Return to footnote 26 referrer Footnote 27 See pages GD2-135, GD6-14, and GD6-24. Return to footnote 27 referrer Footnote 28 See GD2-98. Return to footnote 28 referrer Footnote 29 See AD6-13, as well as the handwritten version at AD6-11. Return to footnote 29 referrer Footnote 30 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2008  FCA  377; and Canada (Attorney General)  v  Dean , 2020  FC  206. Return to footnote 30 referrer Footnote 31 See GD2-7, GD2-106, GD2-122, and GD6-17. Return to footnote 31 referrer Footnote 32 See GD2-78. Return to footnote 32 referrer Footnote 33 See GD6-14. Return to footnote 33 referrer Footnote 34 See GD2-76. Return to footnote 34 referrer Footnote 35 See AD3-9. Return to footnote 35 referrer Footnote 36 See GD2-129. Return to footnote 36 referrer Footnote 37 See GD2-79. Return to footnote 37 referrer Footnote 38 See GD2-79 to 84. Return to footnote 38 referrer Footnote 39 See GD2-125. Return to footnote 39 referrer Footnote 40 See GD2-85 and 86. Return to footnote 40 referrer Footnote 41 See GD2-92. Return to footnote 41 referrer Footnote 42 See GD2-92. Return to footnote 42 referrer Footnote 43 See GD2-94. Return to footnote 43 referrer Footnote 44 See GD2-95. Return to footnote 44 referrer Footnote 45 The Minister’s professional witness said this at the hearing. Return to footnote 45 referrer Footnote 46 See GD2-135. Return to footnote 46 referrer Footnote 47 See page AD1-24. Return to footnote 47 referrer Footnote 48 [NAME]-3. Return to footnote 48 referrer Footnote 49 See paragraph 18 above. The Minister also made this argument in its written submissions before the General Division in September 2024. Return to footnote 49 referrer Footnote 50 See AD6-14. Return to footnote 50 referrer Footnote 51 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2001  FCA  248. Return to footnote 51 referrer Footnote 52 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2011  FCA  47 at para 8. Return to footnote 52 referrer Footnote 53 Of note, the Minister, in paragraph 7 of page AD3-7 of its submissions dated April 28, 2025, doesn’t seem to distinguish between “prolonged” and “continuous”. I believe these are similar yet separate ideas, and I don’t believe it is necessary to make a finding on “prolonged” as of the MQP . Return to footnote 53 referrer