CPP Disability Pension Denied: Insufficient Proof of Severe and Prolonged Disability

Citation: PL  v  Minister of Employment and Social Development , 2026  SST  248 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Decision Appellant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Representative: [NAME] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated June 10, 2025 (GP-24-1646) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: In Writing Decision date: March 17, 2026 File number: AD-25-539 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. He did not have a severe and prolonged disability by the end of 2015. Overview [ 2 ] In this decision, I will refer to the Appellant, P. L., as the “Claimant.” I will refer to the Respondent, the Minister of Employment and Social Development, as the “Minister.” [ 3 ] The Claimant was 56 years old at the end of 2015. That date is important because his [NAME] disability coverage ended then. He last worked in December 2014, when he was let go from his job as a full-time administrator for a [COMPANY]. He said the dismissal was “coupled with a complex set of medical conditions.” Footnote 1 [ 4 ] However, the Claimant did not apply for a [NAME] disability pension until December 2023. At that time, he said he was unable to work due to Restless Legs Syndrome (RLS). He said RLS led to severe insomnia, anxiety, depression, and chronic stress. He said chronic concentration, memory, and decision-making problems also prevented him from working. Footnote 2 He said he was without a family doctor for many years. He was only diagnosed with RLS in May 2023, although he had sleep disruptions for 40 years. Footnote 3 [ 5 ] The Minister denied the Claimant’s claim initially and on reconsideration. The Claimant then appealed to the General Division of the Social Security Tribunal (Tribunal). After a written hearing, the Tribunal’s General Division dismissed his appeal. He then obtained leave to appeal that decision from one of my Appeal Division colleagues. He once again requested a written hearing. He said a live hearing would affect his ability to present his evidence clearly, as he was concerned about the stress and potential technical problems in a live hearing. Footnote 4 [ 6 ] The Claimant said his combined conditions were life-altering, pervasive and unremitting. They made the basic functions of learning, working, concentrating, planning, retaining information, and maintaining routines impossible long before the end of 2015. He said he did not have the endurance, consistency or reliability to work in the real world. He said the lack of an accurate diagnosis before 2023 cannot prevent his appeal from succeeding. [ 7 ] The Minister argued that the Claimant’s medical conditions were not severe or prolonged by the end of 2015. The Minister further argued that he did not make reasonable efforts to mitigate his conditions. Finally, the Minister submitted that he had residual work capacity and did not pursue alternative work within his limitations. [ 8 ] I must decide whether the Claimant had a severe and prolonged disability by December 31, 2015. [ 9 ] For the reasons set out below, I find that the Claimant did not have a severe and prolonged disability by the end of 2015. Issues [ 10 ] The issues in this appeal are: a) Did the Claimant have a severe disability by the end of 2015? b) If so, did the Claimant also have a prolonged disability? c) If the answer to b) is “yes,” when does the Claimant’s [NAME] disability pension start? Analysis [ 11 ] The Claimant’s MQP , or coverage period, ended on December 31, 2015. Footnote 5 That is the date by which he must establish a disability. [ 12 ] Under the [NAME] , a disability must be both severe and prolonged. [ 13 ] The [NAME] says a disability is severe if it makes a person incapable regularly of pursuing any substantially gainful occupation. Footnote 6 [ 14 ] When assessing severity, I must look at all of the Claimant’s medical conditions together to see what effect they have on his work ability. Footnote 7 If he can regularly do some type of work from which he could earn a living, he is not entitled to a disability pension. [ 15 ] 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 8 Did the Claimant have a severe disability by the end of 2015? [ 16 ] I find that the Claimant did not have a severe disability by the end of 2015. I will first set out his claimed functional limitations. What were the Claimant’s functional limitations by the end of 2015? [ 17 ] The Claimant’s main functional limitations by the end of 2015 fell into three main categories. He claimed multiple cognitive limitations, such as impaired concentration, memory, and decision-making. He also claimed multiple behavioural and emotional limitations that would make it difficult to work with people. Finally, he suggested that he had limited endurance. I will now explain how these limitations were determined. [ 18 ] I see no evidence predating May 2023. That was when the Claimant first saw [NAME] (sleep specialist). He told [NAME] about a 40-year history of insomnia. This was caused by an overwhelming urge to move, stretch, massage his legs, and crack his foot joints. He told [NAME] that the resulting sleep deprivation left him with anxiety, depression, and issues with memory and concentration. Footnote 9 [ 19 ] However, I must focus on the Claimant’s functional limitations, rather than the nature or name of his medical conditions. Footnote 10 In turn, this focus must be on his functional limitations as of December 31, 2015. If he did not have a severe disability at that time, it is irrelevant that he might have had one later. [ 20 ] When the Claimant completed his [NAME] disability pension application in November 2023, he focused on impaired concentration, memory, decision-making, and cognitive abilities. He said these limitations had existed since 1980, and affected both work and academic pursuits. Footnote 11 [ 21 ] Elsewhere on the application, he said almost all of his functional abilities were “fair.” This included the thinking abilities on which he based his claim. However, he rated all his behaviours and emotional abilities at that time as poor. Specifically, those “poor” abilities included: Footnote 12 Working in a team Changing his usual work approach when asked Keeping at difficult tasks until done Adjusting easily to unexpected changes Figuring out what to do when stressed Asking co-workers for help when needed Dealing with people he does not know Controlling his temper with others Doing what people in authority ask him to do Controlling emotions and impulses that others would probably consider inappropriate Managing his anxiety Handling being in public places or situations. [ 22 ] In April 2024, the Claimant revisited this topic. He identified the following functional limitations arising from chronic sleep deprivation: Footnote 13 Inability to focus Difficulty thinking and remembering Irritability Slow reaction times [ 23 ] In August 2025, the Claimant said his central barrier to work was being unable “to sustain predictable, functional energy and concentration levels over any meaningful duration.” He also commented on the limiting impact of medication such as Pramipexole, but he only started that medication in 2023. Footnote 14 [ 24 ] I will now see if the medical evidence could support the claimed limitations by the end of 2024. This is important because [NAME] disability applicants must provide some medical evidence about their underlying conditions. Footnote 15 Does the medical evidence support the claimed limitations? [ 25 ] I find that the medical evidence could support the claimed limitations. I will now explain why. [ 26 ] First, I see only four medical reports in the file. Three of them are from 2023. Footnote 16 The other is from 2025. Footnote 17 As the Claimant must establish a severe disability by the end of 2015, there may be limits on how much weight I can assign those reports. However, at this stage of my analysis, those report dates are relatively less important. Footnote 18 [ 27 ] In May 2023, [NAME] (sleep specialist) said the Claimant already had diagnoses of high blood pressure, anxiety, and depression. [NAME] gave new diagnoses of RLS and sleep-disordered breathing. He also said that RLS led to the anxiety and depression. Footnote 19 In August 2025, [NAME] added that the Claimant’s RLS went undiagnosed for four decades. [ 28 ] In October 2023, [NAME] (family doctor) said the Claimant had RLS since 1983. [NAME] also said the Claimant had major depressive disorder since 1990 and generalized anxiety disorder since 1990. Footnote 20 [ 29 ] [NAME]’s report suggests that the Claimant had anxiety, depression, and RLS by the end of 2015. This is because [NAME] gives onset dates before the end of 2015 for each of these conditions. [NAME] is less clear on the timing of the anxiety and depression, he also points to RLS onset before the end of 2015. [ 30 ] The above medical evidence, from both [NAME], identifies conditions that could support the functional limitations identified by the Claimant. The combination of RLS, anxiety, and depression could lead to the claimed cognitive, emotional, and behavioural limitations. The associated lack of sleep could also lead to the claimed endurance issue. [ 31 ] Next, I will look at the Claimant’s personal characteristics. What were the Claimant’s relevant personal characteristics? [ 32 ] When deciding whether the Claimant had a severe disability, I must consider factors such as his: Footnote 21 Age Language ability Education level Past work and life experience [ 33 ] These factors will help me decide whether the Claimant could work in the real world. I will look at each of them in turn. [ 34 ] The Claimant was 56 years old at the end of 2015. While he still had nine years until the typical retirement age in Canada, he likely would not have been well suited for physical labour. [ 35 ] The Claimant did not have an oral hearing. This meant I could not directly assess his spoken language abilities. However, he went to university in Canada. Footnote 22 He made many written submissions in English that were consistent with a university education. Footnote 23 English was his language preference for a hearing. He did not ask for an interpreter. Footnote 24 His language ability would likely not limit his ability to work at any job in Canada. [ 36 ] The Claimant is well educated. He also displayed a capacity to learn. When he applied for the [NAME] disability pension, he said he completed three years of economics at university. Footnote 25 He later said he spent ten years there, and was just one course shy of graduation. Footnote 26 His written submissions made extensive references to case law. As I see no evidence that he is a legal professional, this suggests a strong ability to learn complex material. This outweighs any concern I may have had about his age in 2015. Footnote 27 [ 37 ] The Claimant’s life experience is diverse. He lived in South Korea until he was nearly 13 years old. Footnote 28 While he spent many years at university, he was also homeless from 2015 to 2017. Footnote 29 [ 38 ] The Claimant last worked as an administrator for a [NAME]. He said this involved answering questions and providing guidance and instruction within tight deadlines. He did that job for nearly two years. Footnote 30 But he held many jobs before that. Some of them included: Footnote 31 Food preparation at a self-service food concession Door-to-door commissioned salesperson Counter-service food server at a sub shop Retail salesperson (ski and sporting goods shops)* Dishwasher Waiter* Attendant/membership administrator at a fitness club* Mail and parcel sorter Marketing executive for [COMPANY]* Software support for health club owners Administrator for [COMPANY]* Barista at coffee shops [ 39 ] The Claimant said that many of these jobs were short-lived. Some were seasonal, but others simply didn’t last. He held the asterisked (marked by “*”) jobs in the above list for at least one year. He may have had additional jobs, as he had significant income in 2000 and 2001 but did not list any jobs covering this period. Footnote 32 [ 40 ] In any event, the Claimant had significant experience in various sales roles, office administration, and food preparation and service. Some of this required specialized knowledge, such as working in a [NAME] or for a [COMPANY]. This shows an ability to learn new employment skills. [ 41 ] Without considering the Claimant’s medical conditions , I find that his personal characteristics would have prepared him for virtually any entry-level position, other than those requiring specific academic qualifications or demanding physical labour. He also would have been suitable for more advanced roles in food service, sales, and various office environments. [ 42 ] I will now apply the Claimant’s personal characteristics to his limitations, so I can decide whether he was severely disabled by the end of 2015. I need to focus on the period leading up to the end of 2015 because that was the end of his MQP . Important contextual considerations [ 43 ] The Claimant’s position is unique. He said he has had RLS for all his adult life, but it was not diagnosed until 2023 when he was nearly 64 years old. He blamed both inadequate medical care and a lack of access to care. As for the lack of medical evidence until 2023, he cited the transient nature of his care. It consisted mostly of one-off visits to walk-in clinics: he said this made it hard to gather supporting information. [ 44 ] I do not believe the Claimant’s appeal must automatically fail because the only medical reports were written nearly a decade after the critical MQP date. [NAME]’s October 2023 medical report and [NAME]’s August 2025 letter, for example, could be interpreted as discussing the Claimant’s limitations before the end of 2015. A binding 2018 decision of the Federal Court says that I cannot reject that evidence out of hand. I need to consider and weigh it for its probative value. Footnote 33 [ 45 ] The medical reliance on the Claimant’s 2023 statements is problematic in the factual context of this appeal. As I will explain below, he has a fairly narrow window during which he could reasonably argue that he became severely disabled. [ 46 ] I will now address the key issue: did the Claimant have a severe disability by the end of 2015? In deciding this, I cannot disregard the fact that he worked full-time until December 1, 2014. As his situation changed so much after that date, I will first consider whether he was already severely disabled by December 1, 2014. Did the Claimant have a severe disability by December 1, 2014? [ 47 ] The Claimant did not have a severe disability by December 1, 2014. I will now explain why. [ 48 ] The Claimant worked gainfully as a full-time administrator from the beginning of 2013 until he was dismissed on December 1, 2014. He earned $40,541.00 in 2013 and $46,347.00 in 2014. Footnote 34 His 2014 earnings were more than triple the statutory definition of “substantially gainful” earnings for that year. Footnote 35 I see no persuasive evidence of employment gaps in that period. Nor do I see any evidence that his employer was benevolent or made significant accommodations for him. In fact, he was the only employee at that particular office. Footnote 36 [ 49 ] None of that evidence points to a severe disability during the Claimant’s employment. The evidence about his dismissal does not point to a severe disability either. He said he was dismissed because his employer was closing the [NAME]. Business at the office had declined and clients had been lost. He said his employer made a business decision to close the office. No allegation of misconduct, or anything similar, was made. Footnote 37 Had he not been dismissed, he likely would have continued to pursue his substantially gainful occupation. [ 50 ] I conclude that the Claimant was capable regularly of pursuing a substantially gainful occupation from the beginning of 2013 up to and including December 1, 2014. This means he did not have a severe disability by December 1, 2014. The question is whether he became severely disabled after then but by December 31, 2015. I will call that the “Key Period.” Did the Claimant become severely disabled during the Key Period? [ 51 ] The Claimant did not become severely disabled during the Key Period. I will now explain why. [ 52 ] The Claimant has a difficult task. The burden of proof is on him. And he must show, on a balance of probabilities, that he became incapable regularly of pursuing a substantially gainful occupation during a relatively short window more than ten years ago. He must also do this with no objective evidence, of any kind, from that period. [ 53 ] I will first look at what his [NAME] say in retrospect. What the Claimant’s [NAME] say about his functional limitations [ 54 ] In May 2023, [NAME] said the Claimant’s RLS symptoms led to sleep deprivation at night. This made him struggle through the day but he, “made it through school and enjoyed a career.” He reported having RLS symptoms for 40 years. Footnote 38 [ 55 ] In August 2025, [NAME] said the Claimant had suffered undiagnosed and untreated RLS for 40 years. His only comment about functioning was that the RLS resulted in sleep disruption and impaired daytime function. Footnote 39 [ 56 ] [NAME]’s evidence has little value in establishing the onset of a severe disability during the relevant period. I accept that the Claimant had RLS at that time. But I see nothing in [NAME]’s evidence that points to a change in functional limitations during the Key Period. [NAME] mentions impaired daytime function, the Claimant clearly could hold a well-paid full-time job right up to December 1, 2014, despite that impairment. [NAME] even refers to “enjoying a career.” Indeed, people can have impairments and still be capable regularly of substantially gainful earnings. [ 57 ] [NAME]’s sole report, from October 2023, is more persuasive on its face. [NAME] said the Claimant’s RLS started in 1983. [NAME] said his major depressive disorder and generalized anxiety disorder both started in 1990. [NAME] did not meet him until 2023, and I do not see any medical reports before 2023. Thus, [NAME] likely based those onset dates on information given by the Claimant. Footnote 40 [ 58 ] [NAME] did not think the Claimant would return to any type of work in the future. [NAME] also gave an extensive list of functional limitations resulting from the Claimant’s various conditions. These limitations included: Footnote 41 Unable to maintain focus/concentration on tasks (especially complex ones) Difficulty multitasking and prioritizing Made careless mistakes, needed additional time on tasks, and needed frequent reminders due to impaired memory Difficulty keeping a schedule, meeting deadlines, and handling time pressures Difficulty maintaining relationships Difficulty reading and responding to social cues [ 59 ] The limitations identified by [NAME] are significant but are mostly cognitive in nature. However, as noted above, the Claimant’s inventory of limitations around this time also included many poor behavioural and emotional abilities. This points to a difference in perception between him and [NAME]. This is especially true regarding the functional impact of his conditions. That could be an issue when trying to determine whether he became severely disabled during the Key Period. [ 60 ] Earlier, I said that the Claimant’s lack of medical evidence until 2023 didn’t automatically defeat his claim. However, the Federal Court also said that such evidence would establish little about a person’s condition before their MQP except in exceptional circumstances. Footnote 42 [ 61 ] In this case, the medical reports from 2023 and 2025 are not based on an ongoing relationship going back to 2015 or earlier. [NAME] saw the Claimant for the first time in May 2023. Footnote 43 [NAME] likely first saw the Claimant in February 2023. Footnote 44 This means both [NAME] and [NAME] rely entirely on what the Claimant said about his condition years and decades before. [ 62 ] This means that those medical reports may be of little assistance in determining whether the Claimant became disabled during the Key Period. To help with that determination, I will now look at the Claimant’s other evidence. While none of it is supported by contemporaneous documents, some is inherently more reliable. The Claimant’s other evidence [ 63 ] The Claimant said that he applied for regular [NAME] ) benefits after his December 2014 termination. He began receiving regular EI benefits in February 2015, and received them for 11 months. That was the standard maximum entitlement period at the time. Footnote 45 This means he would have received regular EI benefits until the end of 2015. The nature of this evidence means that it is relatively more reliable. No exact dates are given, but they make sense in context. [ 64 ] When a person receives regular EI benefits, he generally must be capable of and available for work. Footnote 46 If he isn’t capable and available for medical reasons, the usual recourse is sickness EI benefits. Although this is not definitive proof about the Claimant’s disability status up to the end of 2015, it is something I can consider together with other evidence. Footnote 47 [ 65 ] In response, the Claimant said he did not have an established family doctor, a formal medical diagnosis, or documents to support an EI sickness benefit claim. He said securing a family doctor in British Columbia was extremely difficult. He said the walk-in and drop-in clinics repeatedly misunderstood or minimized his symptoms, or attributed them to lifestyle factors. As a result, he said he could not get the required medical certificate despite actively seeking medical help. Footnote 48 [ 66 ] This uncorroborated evidence about medical care, and most of the Claimant’s other retrospective evidence about the Key Period, is much more vulnerable to questions of reliability. I will first set out the essential aspects of that evidence. [ 67 ] In February 2026, the Claimant also said he participated in various job search and support activities through the [NAME]. He did this full-time over a period of at least a month. He worked with a caseworker and reported on his job search efforts to remain eligible for benefits. Footnote 49 [ 68 ] The Claimant said he was also engaged in full-time self-directed job search activities around this time. However, he said these activities became extremely challenging from mid-2015 onward. Footnote 50 [ 69 ] For the first part of 2015, the Claimant said his sleep disruption was increasingly severe. He would have several consecutive days with little or no restorative sleep. He suffered from worsening concentration, memory impairment, emotional dysregulation, heightened anxiety, and reduced stamina. He said this affected his ability to function reliably, interview well, and tolerate the demands of ongoing job search activities. Footnote 51 [ 70 ] For the second half of 2015, the Claimant reported a further decline in functional capacity. He blamed this on sleep deprivation, untreated neurological symptoms, chronic anxiety, and ongoing housing and food insecurity. He said his limitations were no longer episodic with periods of recovery. They were now continuous and affected his ability to function consistently in daily activities. He said this eliminated any realistic capacity to maintain a job. He said this change was gradual, and not a sudden event. Footnote 52 [ 71 ] This evidence, if accepted at face value, points to a marked decline in 2015. However, the Claimant gave this evidence more than ten years later. How much can I rely on those recollections? I see multiple reasons that, particularly when combined, make it very difficult to rely on that retrospective evidence. Difficulties with relying on retrospective evidence [ 72 ] Firstly, the Claimant said in November 2023 that he became unable to work due to his medical conditions in January 1980. Footnote 53 Obviously, this is long before the Key Period. But this also predated, by three to ten years, all onset dates given by [NAME] in October 2023. This inconsistency is striking because [NAME] based the onset dates on information from the Claimant himself. [ 73 ] Secondly, the January 1980 disability date given by the Claimant also predated 19 different years in which he had qualifying [NAME] contributions. This included five consecutive years from 2006 to 2010, and a further three years from 2012 to 2014. Specifically, he earned $29,120.00, $40,539.00, and $46,345.00 in 2012 to 2014 respectively. He had similar earnings in 2009 and 2010. Footnote 54 Such sustained and significant earnings are inconsistent with a continuously severe disability since 1980. [ 74 ] Thirdly, the Claimant’s evidence on the progression of his condition does not point to an easily defined onset date for severity. [ 75 ] For example, in February 2026, the Claimant said his health and functional capacity “progressively declined” over time. Footnote 55 He also referred to a long-standing, chronic, progressive condition in March 2025 that hadgradually progressed since 2015. Footnote 56 As noted, in February 2026, he said his limitations by mid-2015 were no longer episodic with meaningful recovery between periods. Footnote 57 But in August 2025, he said his health condition was unpredictable, episodic, and fluctuated in severity. Footnote 58 [ 76 ] Fourthly, the Claimant himself admitted the difficulty of dating past events. In February 2026, he said this about recalling employment dates over a 35-year period: Footnote 59 Dates are therefore approximate and cannot be relied upon as precise. The passage of time, combined with repeated displacement, instability and medical distress, limits exact recall. This uncertainty should not be interpreted as inconsistency. Rather it reflects the reality of attempting to reconstruct events that occurred under prolonged hardship and deteriorating health. [ 77 ] I find this statement very pertinent. I agree that the passage of time introduces uncertainty. It does not mean that the Claimant necessarily lacks credibility. But credibility is different from reliability. A person can be credible but, in the circumstances, their evidence may not necessarily be reliable. [ 78 ] Fifthly, the Claimant has repeatedly cited what he calls his “cognitive decline” and “profound cognitive impairments.” For example, he said cognitive fog clouded “every waking moment.” He said even routine daily functioning was profoundly difficult and nearly impossible. He said his life was “hijacked by unrelenting dysfunction.” He said he could not even complete the most basic parts of an elementary cognitive test that individuals at only an early educational level have no difficulty passing. Footnote 60 [ 79 ] An admitted and profound cognitive decline introduces even more uncertainty about a person’s ability to recall distant events and limitations accurately. [ 80 ] Sixthly, the Claimant has repeatedly stated that he has issues with memory: In November 2023, as part of his application for a [NAME] disability pension, he said his chronic sleep deprivation has cascading effects on critical elements such as memory. Footnote 61 Also in November 2023, he said memory problems were part of what prevented him from working. Footnote 62 In April 2024, he said he had trouble remembering due to sleep deprivation. Footnote 63 In November 2024, he said sleep deprivation had caused memory issues. Footnote 64 In December 2024, he said chronic insomnia and anxiety prevented him from retaining information. Footnote 65 In May 2025, he said he had frequent memory lapses, executive dysfunction, and a sense of mental disarray. Footnote 66 In August 2025, he cited cumulative deficits in memory and other areas such as executive functioning. Footnote 67 In November 2025, he said a lack of sleep caused memory lapses and affected memory consolidation. Footnote 68 Also in November 2025, he said his memory limitations were, along with other factors, decisive factors in his impairment, inability to work, and abandonment of his education. Footnote 69 [ 81 ] Repeated memory concerns are especially important if they impact accurate recall of events from the years in question. [ 82 ] A related seventh issue is what [NAME] said in October 2023 about the [NAME]. [NAME] said his memory impairment led to careless mistakes. It also meant he needed frequent reminders and additional time to complex tasks. Footnote 70 [ 83 ] [NAME]’s comment about memory may have focused on short-term rather than long-term memory. However, when taken together with the other concerns, it may introduce further doubt about reliability. I further note the differences identified earlier between the Claimant and [NAME] about functional limitations in 2023. Conclusions about reliability and the onset date of a severe disability [ 84 ] When I consider all the above concerns together, I come to two conclusions. The first conclusion is that I can’t consider the Claimant’s retrospective evidence about the extent of his functional limitations during the Key Period reliable. The second, and related, conclusion is that any medical evidence about his functional limitations is only reliable for the time at which it was created. In other words, evidence from 2023 is only reliable for the functional limitations that existed around 2023. [ 85 ] This leads to my conclusions about the onset date of a severe disability. I have already found that the Claimant was not severely disabled by December 1, 2014. However, on a balance of probabilities, I also find that he did not become incapable regularly of pursuing a substantially gainful occupation during the Key Period. [ 86 ] The Key Period was a distinct period of time more than ten years ago. It was immediately preceded by an extended period during which the Claimant successfully maintained full-time employment. He then applied for, and received, regular EI up to the end of the Key Period. But, more importantly, the evidence is not reliable enough to establish the onset of a severe disability by the end of Key Period. [ 87 ] At the start of the Key Period, the Claimant was capable regularly of earning more than three times the substantially gainful earnings threshold. Taken as a whole, the evidence could point to a gradual reduction in earning capacity during the Key Period. He may no longer have been able to work full-time at his last job or elsewhere. But the evidence makes it unlikely that he was incapable regularly of earning $15,175.08 (or more) by the Key Period’s end. Footnote 71 As set out above, he could do many things in the real world. He was not restricted to the job he had until December 2014. [ 88 ] This means the Claimant has not established the onset of a severe disability by December 31, 2015. In turn, this means his appeal cannot succeed. [ 89 ] Once again, I must stress that the lack of contemporaneous medical evidence did not automatically defeat the Claimant’s appeal. However, as noted, the lack of such evidence can only be offset in exceptional cases. Footnote 72 Given the other evidence and the concerns surrounding it in this appeal, this is not one of those exceptional cases. Did the Claimant also have a prolonged disability? [ 90 ] As I found that the Claimant did not have a severe disability by the end of 2015, I do not need to answer this question. Conclusion [ 91 ] The appeal is dismissed. The Claimant is not entitled to a [NAME] disability pension. His disability was not severe under the [NAME] by December 31, 2015. Footnotes Footnote 1 See GD2-53. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See GD2-45. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See AD1-9. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See AD1-3 to AD1-4. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 This date is based on the Claimant’s [NAME] contributions. His [NAME] contributions are at GD8-11. 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 5 referrer Footnote 6 See section 42(2)(a) of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2011  FCA  47, at paragraph 8. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 See section 42(2)(a) of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 See GD2-101. That document says he did not have memory or concentration concerns, but that appears to be a typographic error. See, for example, GD2-95. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2013  FCA  81, at paragraph 7. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 See GD2-45 and GD2-61. While the Claimant filed the application in December 2023, he completed the form in November 2023. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 See GD2-48 to GD2-51. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 See GD2-21. Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 See AD1-15 and AD1-18. Return to footnote 14 referrer Footnote 15 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2008  FCA  377, and Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2020  FC  206. Return to footnote 15 referrer Footnote 16 See GD2-91, GD2-101, and GD2-105. Return to footnote 16 referrer Footnote 17 See AD1-9. Return to footnote 17 referrer Footnote 18 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2018  FC  308, at paragraph 11. Return to footnote 18 referrer Footnote 19 See GD2-101 and GD2-102. Return to footnote 19 referrer Footnote 20 See GD2-95 to GD2-97. Return to footnote 20 referrer Footnote 21 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2002  FCA  248. Return to footnote 21 referrer Footnote 22 See AD7-3. Return to footnote 22 referrer Footnote 23 See, for example, AD7-2 to AD7-13. Return to footnote 23 referrer Footnote 24 See GD1-5 and AD1-5. Return to footnote 24 referrer Footnote 25 See GD2-54. Return to footnote 25 referrer Footnote 26 See GD7-3, GD25-7, and AD7-3. Return to footnote 26 referrer Footnote 27 See, for example, AD7-4 to AD7-12. Return to footnote 27 referrer Footnote 28 See GD2-43. Return to footnote 28 referrer Footnote 29 See GD2-22, GD4-6, and GD25-7 to GD25-8. Return to footnote 29 referrer Footnote 30 See GD2-53. Return to footnote 30 referrer Footnote 31 See AD10-3 to AD10-8. Return to footnote 31 referrer Footnote 32 See GD2-63 and AD10-3 to AD10-8. Return to footnote 32 referrer Footnote 33 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2018  FC  308, at paragraph 11. Return to footnote 33 referrer Footnote 34 See GD2-53 and GD2-64. Return to footnote 34 referrer Footnote 35 As of June 2014, “substantially gainful” is equal to the maximum amount a person could receive as a [NAME] disability pension. In 2014, that amount was $14,836.20. See s. 68.1(1) of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 35 referrer Footnote 36 See AD10-8. Return to footnote 36 referrer Footnote 37 See AD10-8. Return to footnote 37 referrer Footnote 38 See GD2-101. Return to footnote 38 referrer Footnote 39 See AD1-9. Return to footnote 39 referrer Footnote 40 See GD2-95, GD2-96, and GD2-97. Return to footnote 40 referrer Footnote 41 See GD2-95, GD2-96, and GD2-97. Return to footnote 41 referrer Footnote 42 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2018  FC  308, at paragraph 11. Return to footnote 42 referrer Footnote 43 See GD2-101, GD2-105, and AD1-9. Return to footnote 43 referrer Footnote 44 See GD2-61 and GD2-94. Return to footnote 44 referrer Footnote 45 See AD10-8 to AD10-9. Return to footnote 45 referrer Footnote 46 See section 18(1) of the Employment Insurance Act . Return to footnote 46 referrer Footnote 47 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2017  FC  534, at paragraph 51. Return to footnote 47 referrer Footnote 48 See AD10-9. Return to footnote 48 referrer Footnote 49 See AD10-9 and AD10-10. Return to footnote 49 referrer Footnote 50 See AD10-11. Return to footnote 50 referrer Footnote 51 See AD10-12. Return to footnote 51 referrer Footnote 52 See AD10-12. Return to footnote 52 referrer Footnote 53 See GD2-45 and GD2-61. Return to footnote 53 referrer Footnote 54 See GD8-11. Return to footnote 54 referrer Footnote 55 See AD10-2 and AD10-9. Return to footnote 55 referrer Footnote 56 See GD23-9 and GD23-10. Return to footnote 56 referrer Footnote 57 See AD10-11 and AD10-12. Return to footnote 57 referrer Footnote 58 See AD1-13. Return to footnote 58 referrer Footnote 59 See AD10-2. Return to footnote 59 referrer Footnote 60 See, for example, GD25-3 and GD25-4. Return to footnote 60 referrer Footnote 61 See GD2-61. While the Claimant filed the application in December 2023, he completed the form in November 2023. Return to footnote 61 referrer Footnote 62 See GD2-45. Return to footnote 62 referrer Footnote 63 See GD2-21. Return to footnote 63 referrer Footnote 64 See GD4-6. Return to footnote 64 referrer Footnote 65 See GD7-4. Return to footnote 65 referrer Footnote 66 See GD25-9. Return to footnote 66 referrer Footnote 67 See AD2-3. Return to footnote 67 referrer Footnote 68 See AD7-3, AD7-4, AD7-6, and AD7-7. Return to footnote 68 referrer Footnote 69 See AD7-8. Return to footnote 69 referrer Footnote 70 See GD2-95. Return to footnote 70 referrer Footnote 71 This dollar amount is the maximum annual amount of a [NAME] disability pension in 2015. As noted earlier, that represents the “substantially gainful” threshold for the year in question. Return to footnote 71 referrer Footnote 72 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2018  FC  308, at paragraph 11. I didn’t consider some of the decisions cited by the Claimant because the citations were inaccurate and the decisions didn’t appear to exist. See, for example, the references to NS (AD7-4), [NAME] (AD7-4), [NAME] (GD15-4), [NAME] (GD15-5), and [NAME] (GD18-13). Some other citations were also completely incorrect or referenced non-existent decisions. See, for example, the citations at AD7-12 for the [NAME] and [NAME] decisions. While I am familiar with a different decision called [NAME] that is often cited in [NAME] matters, I could locate no reported decision, at any Canadian court or tribunal, called [NAME] . I offer no opinion on whether any of the above examples were artificial intelligence (AI) hallucinations. However, that is possible given the nature and scope of the errors. Return to footnote 72 referrer