CPP Disability Pension Eligibility Determined by Social Security Tribunal of Canada

Citation: SF  v  [NAME] , 2026  SST  290 Social Security Tribunal of Canada General Division – Income Security Section Decision Appellant: [redacted] Representative: [NAME] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: [NAME] reconsideration decision dated June 18, 2025 (issued by Service Canada) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: Teleconference Hearing date: April 7, 2026 Hearing participants: Appellant Appellant’s representative Decision date: April 13, 2026 File number: GP-25-1035 On this page Decision Overview What the Appellant must prove Reasons for my decision When payments start Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] The appeal is allowed. [ 2 ] The Appellant, S. F., is eligible for a [NAME] ( [NAME] ) disability pension. Payments start as of April 2024. This decision explains why I am allowing the appeal. Overview [ 3 ] The Appellant is 60 years old. He worked as a firefighter. He was diagnosed with [NAME] disease and anxiety. He claims to have become disabled in August 2021 and hasn’t worked since this date. [ 4 ] The Appellant applied for a [NAME] on March 7, 2025. The [NAME] (Minister) refused his application. The Appellant appealed the Minister’s decision to the Social Security Tribunal’s General Division. [ 5 ] The Appellant says that he is disabled from all forms of work from [NAME]. He is right-hand dominant. His right-hand tremors impact his ability to do sedentary work. He says it isn’t realistic for him to work at any other job because of his frequent right sided limitations. [ 6 ] The Minister says that the evidence doesn’t support a finding of disability under the [NAME] . The Minister says that with appropriate treatment, the Appellant doesn’t have significant impairments and can likely do some type of work. Footnote 1 What the Appellant must prove [ 7 ] For the Appellant to succeed, he must prove he has a disability that was severe and prolonged by December 31, 2025. This date is based on his [NAME] contributions. Footnote 2 He must also prove that he continues to be disabled. Footnote 3 [ 8 ] The [NAME] defines “severe” and “prolonged.” [ 9 ] A disability is severe if it makes an appellant incapable regularly of pursuing any substantially gainful occupation. Footnote 4 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 [ 10 ] This means the Appellant’s disability can’t have an expected recovery date. The disability must be expected to keep the Appellant out of the workforce for a long time. [ 11 ] The Appellant has to prove he has a severe and prolonged disability on a balance of probabilities. This means he has to show it is more likely than not that he is disabled. Reasons for my decision [ 12 ] I find that the Appellant had a severe and prolonged disability as of August 2021. He continues to be disabled. 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? [ 13 ] The Appellant’s disability was severe. I reached this finding by considering several factors. I explain these factors below. The Appellant’s functional limitations affected his ability to work [ 14 ] The Appellant has generalized anxiety disorder and [NAME] disease. [ 15 ] However, I can’t focus on the Appellant’s diagnoses. Footnote 6 Instead, I must focus on whether he has functional limitations that got in the way of him earning a living. Footnote 7 When I do this, I have to look at all of the Appellant’s medical conditions (not just the main one) and think about how they affected his ability to work. Footnote 8 [ 16 ] I find that the Appellant has functional limitations that affected his ability to work. What the Appellant says about his functional limitations [ 17 ] The Appellant says that his medical conditions have resulted in functional limitations that affect his ability to work. He says that by December 2025: his right-hand tremors caused his hand and arm to swing and shake he could use his right hand for up to three hours when his medication was at full effect he had anxiety, which he thinks increased the tremors he needed to time his household chores for when his medication was most effective to get them done he has sleep disruptions and right sided shoulder tension What the medical evidence says about the Appellant’s functional limitations [ 18 ] The Appellant must provide some medical evidence to support that his functional limitations affected his ability to work no later than December 31, 2025. Footnote 9 [ 19 ] The medical evidence supports that the Appellant was diagnosed with [NAME] disease in August 2021. He has right hand tremors, at rest and with movement. This condition caused limitations to fine motor skill activity including grabbing, typing, writing, and personal care. His symptoms started around 2018. It affected his ability to reliably work by August 2021. Footnote 10 [ 20 ] The medical evidence supports that the Appellant has a diagnosis of generalized anxiety disorder . He saw a psychiatrist in December 2024. At that time the psychiatrist’s impression was that he had anxiety. He reported a lot of anxiety about being in public with his tremors. He felt anxiety in parking lots, being in elevators, timing and planning for appointments, and at the appointments themselves. He feared needing to be somewhere when his [NAME] medication was wearing off and he was seen with a tremor. Footnote 11 [ 21 ] The medical evidence supports that the Appellant’s right-hand tremor prevented him from doing prolonged or reliable right-handed tasks and two-handed physical jobs. [ 22 ] Next, I will look at whether the Appellant followed medical advice. The Appellant followed medical advice [ 23 ] To receive a disability pension, an appellant must follow medical advice. Footnote 12 [ 24 ] The Appellant followed medical advice. The Minister didn’t raise medication compliance arguments. In my review of the file, I saw no concerns of the Appellant refusing medical advice. [ 25 ] The Appellant takes clonazepam for his anxiety. He also takes sertraline for his mood. Footnote 13 He takes Levodopa/carbidopa for his tremors. The Minister’s argument on the [NAME] evaluations [ 26 ] The Minister argues that the medical evidence shows that with treatment, the Appellant’s symptoms improved from 2022 to 2024. The Minister asked me to give weight to the neurological objective medical evaluations. Footnote 14 [ 27 ] The Appellant’s representative didn’t address this argument from the Minister’s submissions at the hearing or earlier in written submissions. I gave the representative the opportunity to address the Minister’s arguments at the hearing. The representative relied on the Appellant’s earlier statements on his functional limitations. [ 28 ] Because this was a critical area to address, I asked the Appellant if he wished to respond to the Minister’s argument about his [NAME] symptom improvements noted in the reports in 2022 and 2024. [ 29 ] The Appellant said that his tremors have worsened over time. He had to increase both his medication dosage and frequency. He acknowledges that the medication is effective for up to three hours at a time in managing his tremors. He takes his anxiety medication before medical appointments. [ 30 ] I considered what the Appellant said and the Minister’s argument. I preferred the Appellant’s broader testimony and medical evidence over a one-time evaluation to paint a more accurate presentation of his functional limitations. [ 31 ] First, the Appellant’s anxiety and [NAME] symptoms aren’t continually present all the time. This accounts for some variability in presentation. [ 32 ] I considered the contemporaneous medical evidence of his limitations from [NAME] in context. He doesn’t need to prove severely disabling limitations at each evaluation and medical appointment to meet the criteria for a [NAME]. [ 33 ] The Appellant listed additional symptoms and limitations at other medical appointments in 2024. For example, in 2024 he reported dystonia/dyskinesia, where his arm would be semi-flexed when the medication was wearing off. He didn’t report sleep issues at that appointment. But he did in later medical evidence, such as in November and December 2024. His tremors impacted his sleep. Footnote 15 [ 34 ] I agree with the Minister that the Appellant’s February 2024 assessment showed an improvement in symptoms. The assessment was done while he was using his tremor medication. He told me that he also usually takes clonazepam to manage his anxiety in advance of doctor’s appointments. This suggests that the assessment was done under optimal conditions of medication timing to minimize all limitations. It doesn’t reflect his day-to-day limitations. [ 35 ] I now have to decide whether the Appellant can regularly do other types of work. To be severe, the Appellant’s functional limitations must prevent him from earning a living at any type of work, not just his usual job. Footnote 16 The Appellant can’t work in the real world [ 36 ] When I am deciding whether the Appellant can work, I can’t just look at his medical conditions and how they affect what he can do. I must also consider factors such as his: age level of education language abilities past work and life experience Footnote 17 [ 37 ] I find that the Appellant can’t work in the real world. He hasn’t been able to work since August 2021. [ 38 ] The Appellant’s background and personal characteristics are positive overall. His age is the largest barrier. He has less than a decade left before the usual age of retirement in Canada. Retraining is unlikely. He has high school education and he speaks English. He was a lifelong firefighter and has administrative skills and leadership experience from his last few years at that job. [ 39 ] Next, I factored in the Appellant’s limitations. He cannot perform sedentary jobs reliably with his right-hand tremors because he is right hand dominant. Footnote 18 He cannot write or type for more than a couple hours at a time, even when timing his medication so that it has its full effect. [ 40 ] The Appellant doesn’t have residual work capacity. Realistically there isn’t a job that he can perform with his limitations. He couldn’t do the sedentary duties because he couldn’t reliably use his right hand and arm. It doesn’t make sense to expect him to be able to do another job. [ 41 ] I find that the Appellant’s disability was severe as of August 2021. Was the Appellant’s disability prolonged? [ 42 ] The Appellant’s disability was prolonged. [ 43 ] The Appellant developed [NAME] symptoms by 2018. His limitations prevented him from doing any work in August 2021. His condition has been continuous since then. Footnote 19 It has now been almost five years since he last worked. [ 44 ] The Appellant’s conditions will more than likely continue indefinitely. His condition will not improve with time. There is no upcoming treatment that is likely to impact his disability status. [NAME] don’t anticipate a return to work. [ 45 ] I find that the Appellant’s disability was prolonged as of August 2021. When payments start [ 46 ] The Appellant had a severe and prolonged disability in August 2021. [ 47 ] However, the [NAME] says a person can’t be considered disabled more than 15 months before the Minister receives their disability pension application. Footnote 20 After that, there is a four-month waiting period before payments start. Footnote 21 [ 48 ] The Minister received the Appellant’s application in March 2025. That means he is considered to have become disabled in December 2023. [ 49 ] His pension payments start as of April 2024. Conclusion [ 50 ] I find that the Appellant is eligible for a [NAME] because his disability was severe and prolonged. [ 51 ] This means the appeal is allowed. Footnotes Footnote 1 See GD3. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 Service Canada uses an appellant’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 Appellant’s [NAME] contributions are on GD2-59 to 60. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 In Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2020  FC  1093, the Federal Court said that the appellant has to show a severe and prolonged disability by the end of their minimum qualifying period and continuously after that. See also [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2011  FCA  318. 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 a person could receive as 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 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2013  FCA  81. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 [NAME]  v  Canada ([NAME]) , 2008  FCA  33. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2011  FCA  47. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2008  FCA  377; and Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2020  FC  206. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 See GD2-88, 171 to 172, and 176 to 177. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 See GD2-115 to 116, and 118 to 120. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2018  FCA  48. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 See GD2-119. Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 See GD3-5. Return to footnote 14 referrer Footnote 15 See GD2-87 to 88, 105, 118 to 120, and 171 to 172. Return to footnote 15 referrer Footnote 16 [NAME]  v  Canada ([NAME]) , 2008  FCA  33. Return to footnote 16 referrer Footnote 17 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2001  FCA  248. Return to footnote 17 referrer Footnote 18 See GD2-180. Return to footnote 18 referrer Footnote 19 In the decision Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2020  FC  1093, the Federal Court said that an appellant has to show a severe and prolonged disability no later than the end of their minimum qualifying period and continuously after that. See also [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2011  FCA  318. Return to footnote 19 referrer Footnote 20 Section 42(2)(b) of the [NAME] sets out this rule. Return to footnote 20 referrer Footnote 21 Section 69 of the [NAME] sets out this rule. This means that payments can’t start more than 11 months before the application date. Return to footnote 21 referrer