Disability Pension Reduced Due to Overpayment

Citation: SH  v  [NAME] , 2026  SST  270 Social Security Tribunal of Canada General Division – Income Security Section Decision Appellant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: [NAME] reconsideration decision dated July 9, 2025 (issued by Service Canada) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: Videoconference Hearing date: March 31, 2026 Hearing participant: Appellant Decision date: April 1, 2026 File number: GP-25-1246 On this page Decision Overview What I have to decide Reasons for my decision Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] The appeal is allowed in part. [ 2 ] The Appellant, S. H., stopped being disabled as of January 2021. She was only eligible for a [NAME] ( [NAME] ) disability pension when she was disabled. The disability pension payments that she got when she wasn’t disabled are considered an overpayment (debt) that is owed to the [NAME] (Minister). [ 3 ] This decision explains why I am allowing the appeal in part. Overview [ 4 ] The Appellant started to receive [NAME] disability pension in February 2018. [ 5 ] On August 22, 2022, the Minister decided that the Appellant stopped being disabled as of the end of June 2020. The Minister also said that the Appellant was overpaid a total of $30,304.74 from July 2020 to May 2022. [ 6 ] On November 25, 2022, the Appellant asked the Minister to reconsider its decision. Footnote 1 On July 9, 2025, the Minister maintained its decision. Footnote 2 [ 7 ] The Appellant appealed the Minister’s decision to the Social Security Tribunal’s General Division. [ 8 ] The Minister says that the Appellant demonstrated the ability to work as of the end of June 2020, after a successful three-month work trial. [ 9 ] The Appellant agrees that she in capable of working and making a sustainable living but says that for the purposes of the [NAME] disability pension she stopped being disabled in January 2021. [ 10 ] I find that the Appellant stopped being disabled in January 2021. This is later than the Minister says the Appellant stopped being disabled. What I have to decide [ 11 ] I have to decide whether the Appellant stopped being disabled. If she stopped being disabled, then I also have to decide when. [ 12 ] According to the law, an appellant stops being disabled when one of two things happens: Their disability stops being severe. Their disability stops being prolonged. [ 13 ] The [NAME] defines “severe” and “prolonged”. [ 14 ] A disability is severe if it makes an appellant incapable regularly of pursuing any substantially gainful occupation . Footnote 3 [ 15 ] A disability is prolonged if it is likely to be long continued and of indefinite duration, or is likely to result in death. Footnote 4 [ 16 ] When the Minister stops paying a person a disability pension, the Minister has to prove that the person stopped being disabled. The Minister has to prove this on a balance of probabilities. This means the Minister has to show that it is more likely than not the Appellant stopped being disabled. Footnote 5 I find that the Minister also has to prove when an appellant stopped being disabled. [ 17 ] To decide whether and when the Appellant stopped being disabled, I have to look at the Minister’s evidence supporting its decision that the Appellant can work. If the Appellant 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. [ 18 ] If I decide that the Appellant stopped being disabled, then she isn’t eligible for a disability pension anymore. The Minister may also require her to pay back any payments she got when she wasn’t disabled. Reasons for my decision [ 19 ] I find that the Appellant stopped being disabled as of January 2021. This is when her disability stopped being severe. This is later than the Minister says, which is the end of June 2020. Was the Appellant’s disability severe? [ 20 ] The Appellant’s disability stopped being severe as of January 2021. I reached this finding by considering several factors. I explain these factors below. The Appellant’s functional limitations affected her ability to work [ 21 ] The Appellant has: chronic pain syndrome related to Ehlers Danlos Type III hypermobility syndrome major depressive disorder generalized anxiety disorder social anxiety attention deficit hyperactivity disorder with learning disability [ 22 ] But I can’t focus on the Appellant’s diagnoses. Footnote 6 Instead, I have to focus on whether she has functional limitations that got in the way of her earning a living. Footnote 7 When I do this, I have to look at all of her medical conditions (not just the main one) and think about how they affected her ability to work. Footnote 8 [ 23 ] I find that the Appellant still had functional limitations that affected her ability to work as of the hearing date. What the Minister says about the Appellant’s functional limitations [ 24 ] The Minister doesn’t disagree that the Appellant has functional limitations. But, the Minister says that the Appellant demonstrated the ability to predictably work and make a sustainable living as of the end of June 2020. My findings about the Appellant’s functional limitations [ 25 ] The evidence supports that the Appellant’s functional limitations have changed since October 2017. She has found ways to work and make a substantially gainful living despite her limitations. [ 26 ] I find that the Appellant continues to have these functional limitations: Footnote 9 chronic pain all over neck pain lower back and hip pain neuralgia (intense, sharp, or burning nerve pain) spreading to arms, shoulders and hands poor concentration My findings about the Appellant’s ability to work [ 27 ] I find that the Appellant could work in the real world as of January 2021. That is when her disability stopped being severe. I will explain why. The Appellant is credible [ 28 ] The Appellant testified at the hearing. I find that she was credible. She was forthright and clear. She told a story that was consistent and made sense. She also made admissions against her interest, such as agreeing that she stopped being disabled. When the Appellant stopped being disabled [ 29 ] I find that the Appellant stopped being disabled in January 2021. I will explain why I say that. [ 30 ] The Appellant incorporated a business in January 2020. She wanted to provide online continuing education to nurses in holistic nursing and see if she could earn a living through a business. [ 31 ] Other than incorporating the business, the Appellant didn’t work in the business until around June or July 2020 when she connected with two other nurses to begin developing a course. They met once a week for a couple of hours to design a curriculum. She and the other two nurses then generated interest in the course through word of mouth. They had no website. In 2020, the business put on its first and only class in September. The Appellant’s partners presented the course. [ 32 ] In 2020 the business generated $56,417 in gross revenue, with a net loss of $1,065. Footnote 10 [ 33 ] In January 2021, the Appellant and her partners decided that the business model was viable. She began working more on things like retaining an IT expert and creating a website and developing the business model and content for future courses. [ 34 ] The business took off. The Appellant began working more regularly. Starting in January 2021, instead of meeting with her partners once a week for a couple hours, she worked two to three hours per day, three to four days per week. [ 35 ] The Appellant began to earn money from the business: Footnote 11 in 2021 she earned $15,874 in 2022 she earned $39,316 in 2023 she earned $66,599 in 2024 she earned $68,500 in 2025 she earned $71,300 [ 36 ] Despite her personal income being below what is considered substantially gainful in 2021, I find that the Appellant stopped being disabled as of January 2021 for a few reasons. First, the Appellant told me that this is when she decided that the trial run was successful and she could work on her business. Second, as I explained above, this is when she started working more and regularly. Third, at the hearing the Appellant agreed that this is when she stopped being disabled for the purposes of the [NAME] . I don’t need to consider the Appellant’s personal characteristics [ 37 ] When I am deciding whether the Appellant can work, I generally have to consider factors like her: age level of education language abilities work and life experience [ 38 ] These factors help me decide whether the Appellant can work in the real world—in other words, whether it is realistic to say that she can work. Footnote 12 [ 39 ] I don’t have to consider the Appellant’s personal factors in this case because the Appellant has already shown that she can work in the real world. Conclusion [ 40 ] The Minister has proven that the Appellant stopped being disabled as of January 2021 and is no longer entitled to a disability pension. [ 41 ] This means the appeal is allowed in part. Footnotes Footnote 1 See GD10-2 to GD10-5. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See GD10-6 and GD10-7. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 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 3 referrer Footnote 4 Section 42(2)(a) of the [NAME] gives this definition of prolonged disability. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2014  FCA  187. 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 (Social Development) , 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 See GD2-117 to GD2-123 Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 See GD2-112 to GD2-116. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 See GD12-3. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2001  FCA  248. Return to footnote 12 referrer