CPP Disability Pension Eligibility Criteria Explained

Citation: [NAME]  v  [NAME] , 2026  SST  83 Social Security Tribunal of Canada General Division – Income Security Section Decision Appellant: [redacted] Representative: [NAME] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: [NAME] reconsideration decision dated December 17, 2024 (issued by Service Canada) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: Videoconference Hearing date: February 9, 2026 Hearing participants: Appellant Appellant’s representative Decision date: February 11, 2026 File number: GP-25-377 On this page Decision Overview What the Appellant must prove Matters I have to consider first Reasons for my decision When payments start Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] The appeal is allowed. [ 2 ] The Appellant, B. J., is eligible for a [NAME] ( [NAME] ) disability pension. Payments start as of September 2022. This decision explains why I am allowing the appeal. Overview [ 3 ] The Appellant is 50 years old. From November 2010 to May 2022, she worked as a team leader on an [NAME]. She was responsible for building and repairing vehicles and supervising other employees. Footnote 1 She stopped working due to poor mental health. She hasn’t worked since May 2022. [ 4 ] The Appellant applied for a [NAME] disability pension on August 21, 2023. The [NAME] (Minister) refused her application. The Appellant appealed the Minister’s decision to the Social Security Tribunal’s General Division. [ 5 ] The Minister says the Appellant’s medical conditions have been managed with medication and therapy for a long time. Her medications haven’t changed recently, which suggests that they are effective. There are no severe “mental status examination” (MSE) findings in the evidence. There are no reports from the Appellant’s therapist, and no reports from her psychiatrist, [NAME], between April 2024 and June 2025. Footnote 2 [ 6 ] The Appellant says her treatment has not been effective, and there is sufficient medical evidence to support a severe and prolonged disability. [ 7 ] I agree with the Appellant. What the Appellant must prove [ 8 ] The Appellant must prove she has a disability that was severe and prolonged by December 31, 2025, and continuously since then. This date is based on her contributions to the [NAME] . Footnote 3 [ 9 ] The [NAME] defines “severe” and “prolonged.” [ 10 ] A disability is severe if it makes you incapable regularly of pursuing any substantially gainful occupation. Footnote 4 [ 11 ] This means I must look at all of the Appellant’s medical conditions together to see what effect they have on her ability to work. I must also look at her background (including her age, education, language abilities, and experience). This is so I can get a realistic or “real world” picture of whether her disability is severe. If she is capable regularly of doing some kind of work that she could earn a living from, then she isn’t entitled to a disability pension. [ 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 5 [ 13 ] This means the Appellant’s disability can’t have an expected recovery date. The disability must be expected to keep her out of the workforce for a long time. [ 14 ] The Appellant must prove she has a severe and prolonged disability. She must prove this on a balance of probabilities. This means she must show it is more likely than not that she is disabled. Matters I have to consider first I didn’t accept late documents [ 15 ] The Appellant’s representative filed submissions and medical evidence during the reply period. The submissions (GD5-1 to 10) were not late because they were a reply to the Minister’s submissions and they were filed during the reply period. The medical evidence (GD5-11 to 16) was late, and I didn’t accept it. I explained why in a letter dated February 4, 2026. [ 16 ] The day after the hearing, the Minister filed submissions (GD6) responding to the Appellant’s reply submissions. These submissions were late and I didn’t accept them. Footnote 6 Although they were relevant, they didn’t add anything substantive to the Minister’s previous submissions. Reasons for my decision [ 17 ] I find that the Appellant had a severe and prolonged disability as of May 2022 and continuously since then. I reached this decision by considering the following issues: Was the Appellant’s disability severe? Was the Appellant’s disability prolonged? Was the Appellant’s disability severe? [ 18 ] The Appellant’s disability was severe by May 2022. I reached this finding by considering several factors. I explain these factors below. The Appellant’s functional limitations affected her ability to work [ 19 ] The Appellant has been diagnosed with: anxiety and panic disorder depression attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) autistic traits [ 20 ] But I can’t focus on the Appellant’s diagnoses. Footnote 7 Instead, I must focus on whether she has functional limitations that got in the way of her earning a living by December 31, 2025. Footnote 8 When I do this, I must look at all of her medical conditions (not just the main one) and think about how they affected her ability to work. Footnote 9 [ 21 ] I find that the Appellant had functional limitations by May 2022, when she stopped working. What the Appellant says about her functional limitations [ 22 ] The Appellant says her medical conditions have resulted in functional limitations that affected her ability to work by May 2022: Footnote 10 She has trouble starting and completing tasks because she is unmotivated , she becomes overwhelmed by all of the steps involved, and she procrastinates. She doesn’t know how to approach a task. She “freezes” whenever she has to make decisions , even trivial ones. She described going grocery shopping and leaving the store after two hours without buying anything because she could not decide what she needed. She can do housework, but it takes her a long time. She considers her day a success if she can get out of bed, make her bed, shower, get dressed, and eat breakfast before noon. She avoids social interactions and prefers not to answer the phone. She finds it difficult to control her emotions and to ask other people for help. She doesn’t cope well with changes in her routine. Her memory is poor, especially concerning dates and times. She sets alarms on her phones to remind her of things (like appointments and when she has to put laundry in the dryer) but she still forgets. Her spouse tries to keep her on track by texting her reminders throughout the day. What the medical evidence says about the Appellant’s functional limitations [ 23 ] The Appellant must provide some medical evidence to support that her functional limitations affect her ability to work. Footnote 11 [ 24 ] The medical evidence supports what the Appellant says. The earliest medical evidence supports what the Appellant says [ 25 ] The earliest medical evidence is an independent medical examination report by [NAME], a psychiatrist, from July 2023. Footnote 12 This report is dated more than a year after May 2022, when the Appellant stopped working. However, it agrees with what the Appellant says about her symptoms and how they led her to stop working. [ 26 ] [NAME] diagnosed the Appellant with depression (with significant anxious features), panic disorder, and possibly seasonal affective disorder. [NAME] documented symptoms of low mood, low energy, low motivation, and social avoidance. [NAME] concluded that the Appellant was disabled from any job for which she was suited by way of education and experience. [ 27 ] I find that the timing of this report isn’t due to a lack of symptoms before July 2023. Rather, as the Appellant explained at the hearing, there were no psychiatrists available to treat her. When she did see [NAME], it was only for a one-time assessment to support her claim for short-term disability benefits. [NAME] could not take her on as a client. It was another six months before she got an appointment with [NAME], who became her treating psychiatrist. In the meantime, she talked to a therapist through her employer’s employee assistance program. [NAME]’ medical evidence supports what the Appellant says [ 28 ] Although there are no notes from the Appellant’s therapist, there are notes from [NAME]. Those notes are extremely detailed. I am not as concerned as the Minister is by the gap in [NAME]’ notes from April 2024 to June 2025. It is clear from [NAME]’ June 2025 letter that not much changed during that period. I have no reason to doubt what [NAME] wrote. Footnote 13 [ 29 ] Neither am I as concerned by the absence of severe MSE findings. MSE findings don’t provide a complete picture of a person’s functional limitations. [NAME] took detailed notes about the Appellant’s reported limitations. I see no indication that [NAME] ever doubted what the Appellant told her. So, it is appropriate for me to consider the entirety of [NAME]’ reports. [ 30 ] [NAME]’ reports generally support what the Appellant said in her application and testimony. [NAME] wrote that the Appellant “gets consumed by details, becomes impatient, and eventually snappy.” Footnote 14 She has trouble starting and completing tasks, making decisions, multitasking, and working under time pressure. She is easily overwhelmed, including by noisy environments. She doesn’t handle ambiguity or conflict well. She requires structure. She avoids most social interactions. [ 31 ] Some of [NAME]’ comments suggest that the Appellant’s limitations aren’t that severe. In January 2024, [NAME] said the Appellant was “functioning adequately in all areas except for her occupation.” Footnote 15 She had not had any panic attacks since she stopped working. [ 32 ] Even if the Appellant could function “adequately” outside of work, what matters for disability purposes is whether she could function at work. The fact that she hadn’t had any panic attacks since she stopped working suggests that working makes her symptoms worse. Indeed, the limitations endorsed by [NAME] would make working a challenge. [ 33 ] That said, [NAME]’ reports don’t support that the Appellant is necessarily unable to focus on tasks—rather, the Appellant appears to become hyperfocused , making her less able to respond to changing priorities. Footnote 16 [ 34 ] This aligns with what the Appellant said at the hearing. She said she missed an appointment with [NAME] because she was shovelling snow. When she started shovelling, she knew that she had an appointment soon. But during the course of shovelling, she forgot, and she missed the reminders on her phone. In that sense, the Appellant does have trouble paying attention to what is important. [ 35 ] Finally, in February 2024, [NAME] said the Appellant had no issues with a lack of motivation—but in March 2024, motivation was an issue. This agrees with the Appellant’s assertion that she has good days and bad days. According to her testimony, a defining characteristic of her good days is that she has more motivation. Even then, she only has enough motivation to do some basic tasks around the house. [ 36 ] The medical evidence supports that the Appellant’s functional limitations prevented her from doing her usual job by May 2022. She testified that she obsessed over details at work, to the point where she had to come in almost an hour early every day and work through her breaks to get her work done. She also obsessed over whether she did the work correctly. She was overwhelmed and emotional. [ 37 ] Next, I will look at whether the Appellant followed medical advice. The Appellant followed medical advice [ 38 ] To receive a disability pension, you must follow medical advice. Footnote 17 [ 39 ] The Appellant followed medical advice. She pushed her family doctor to refer her to a psychiatrist. She spoke to a therapist until she could connect with a psychiatrist. Currently, she takes medication and sees a psychiatrist regularly. Footnote 18 [ 40 ] I now have to decide whether the Appellant can regularly do other types of work. To be severe, her functional limitations must prevent her from earning a living at any type of work, not just her usual job. Footnote 19 The Appellant can’t work in the real world [ 41 ] When I am deciding whether the Appellant can work, I can’t just look at her medical conditions and how they affect what she can do. I must also consider factors such as her: age level of education language abilities work and life experience [ 42 ] These factors help me decide whether the Appellant can work in the real world—in other words, whether it is realistic to say she can work. Footnote 20 [ 43 ] I find that the Appellant can’t work in the real world. She was unable to work as of May 2022. [ 44 ] The Appellant’s personal characteristics are positive. She is 15 years short of the standard retirement age of 65. She has a college diploma and is fluent in English. Her diverse work history includes stints in the fast-food service industry, sorting mail, welding, and over a decade as a team leader in the [NAME]. Footnote 21 [ 45 ] But the Appellant’s functional limitations outweigh these positive factors. All jobs require employees to start and finish tasks under some form of time pressure. The Appellant can’t do that. She becomes overwhelmed by details, leading her to avoid or abandon tasks. She struggles with social interactions, noisy environments, ambiguity, and change, which further restricts what she can do. She lacks emotional control, so she isn’t suited to working with other people. She has some good days, but they are few and unpredictable—she would not be a reliable employee. There is no job she can do. [ 46 ] I find that the Appellant’s disability was severe as of May 2022, when she stopped working. Was the Appellant’s disability prolonged? [ 47 ] The Appellant’s disability was prolonged as of May 2022. The Appellant’s disability is long continued [ 48 ] The Appellant’s disability has lasted a long time. Her medical conditions stopped her from working in May 2022 and haven’t significantly improved since then. Footnote 22 This is apparent from both [NAME]’ June 2025 letter and the Appellant’s own testimony. [ 49 ] The Minister says the Appellant’s medical conditions have been managed with medication and therapy, and her medications haven’t changed for some time. So, she isn’t disabled. [ 50 ] I disagree. The medical evidence shows that the Appellant has derived minimal benefit from treatment. She has tried Ativan, Celexa, Concerta, Effexor, Prozac, and possibly Wellbutrin, as well as cannabis. Her response to medications has been limited. Footnote 23 [NAME] continues to adjust her medications. Footnote 24 [NAME]’ latest letter, from June 2025, makes it clear that, “[d]espite treatment adherence and strong motivation, [the Appellant] remains significantly impaired.” Footnote 25 The Appellant’s disability is of indefinite duration [ 51 ] The Appellant’s disability is also of indefinite duration. [NAME] gave her a guarded prognosis. Footnote 26 She advised the Appellant against returning to work “until she has completed long-term trauma therapy and achieved substantial symptom reduction, which [is] anticipated to take several years.” Footnote 27 “Several years” is a vague timeline. This makes the Appellant’s disability indefinite. When payments start [ 52 ] The Appellant’s disability became severe and prolonged in May 2022. [ 53 ] There is a four‑month waiting period before payments start. Footnote 28 This means payments start as of September 2022. Conclusion [ 54 ] I find that the Appellant is eligible for a [NAME] disability pension because her disability was severe and prolonged. [ 55 ] This means the appeal is allowed. Footnotes Footnote 1 See GD2-47 and 48. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 The Minister’s submissions are at GD4. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 Service Canada uses your years of [NAME] contributions to calculate your 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 Appellant’s [NAME] contributions are at GD4-14. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 Section 42(2)(a) of the [NAME] gives this definition of severe disability. Section 68.1 of the [NAME] says a job is “substantially gainful” if it pays a salary or wages equal to or greater than the maximum annual amount that you could get from a disability pension. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 Section 42(2)(a) of the [NAME] gives this definition of prolonged disability. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 Section 42(2) of the Social Security Tribunal Rules of Procedure sets out what factors I have to consider when deciding whether to accept late documents. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2013  FCA  81. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2008  FCA  33. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2011  FCA  47. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 See GD2-36 to 48 and the hearing recording. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2008  FCA  377; and Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2020  FC  206. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 See GD2-128 to 134. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 [NAME]’ notes at GD2-90 to 94, 100 to 113, and GD3-2 to 4. Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 See GD2-101. Return to footnote 14 referrer Footnote 15 See GD2-102. Return to footnote 15 referrer Footnote 16 See GD2-101. Return to footnote 16 referrer Footnote 17 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2018  FCA  48. Return to footnote 17 referrer Footnote 18 See the hearing recording. Return to footnote 18 referrer Footnote 19 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2008  FCA  33. Return to footnote 19 referrer Footnote 20 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2001  FCA  248. Return to footnote 20 referrer Footnote 21 See GD2-47, 48, and the hearing recording. Return to footnote 21 referrer Footnote 22 In the decision Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2020  FC  1093, the Federal Court said you must show a severe and prolonged disability by the end of your MQP and continuously after that. See also [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2011  FCA  318. Return to footnote 22 referrer Footnote 23 See, for example, GD2-84 and 119 to 127. Return to footnote 23 referrer Footnote 24 See the hearing recording. Return to footnote 24 referrer Footnote 25 See GD2-100 to 105, 128 to 134, and GD3-2 to 4. Return to footnote 25 referrer Footnote 26 See GD2-90 to 94. Return to footnote 26 referrer Footnote 27 See GD3-2 to 4. Return to footnote 27 referrer Footnote 28 Section 69 of the [NAME] sets out this rule. Return to footnote 28 referrer