Estate Denied Permission to Appeal CPP Disability Pension Denial

Citation: [NAME]  v  [NAME] , 2026  SST  183 [NAME] Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Leave to Appeal Decision Applicant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: [NAME] decision dated January 26, 2026 (GP-25-1316) Tribunal member: [NAME] Decision date: March 10, 2026 File number: AD-26-106 On this page Decision Overview Issue The Estate hasn’t met the legal test to get permission to appeal Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] Leave (permission) to appeal is refused. The appeal won’t go forward. Overview [ 2 ] [NAME]. has applied for permission to appeal a [NAME] decision. I’ll refer to F. K. and the Estate. [ 3 ] In June 2024, F. K. applied for a Canada Pension Plan ( CPP ) disability pension. The Minister denied his application—at first then on reconsideration. He died at the end of January 2025. His Estate appealed the Minister’s reconsideration decision to the [NAME]. [ 4 ] The [NAME] dismissed the appeal. It decided F. K. didn’t qualify for a disability pension, because his disability wasn’t severe by the end of his coverage period (December 31, 2022). It also decided he didn’t meet the contributory requirement for a post-retirement disability benefit. [ 5 ] The Estate argues the [NAME] made factual errors. Footnote 1 It says there’s proof F. K.’s disability was severe and prolonged from January 2022. And the functional limitations F. K. indicated on his disability application started in 2022/2023. [ 6 ] Unfortunately for the Estate, I can’t give permission to appeal the [NAME] decision. The Estate hasn’t shown an arguable case the [NAME] made an error. Issue [ 7 ] Is there an arguable case the [NAME] made a factual error in making its decision? The Estate hasn’t met the legal test to get permission to appeal The permission to appeal test [ 8 ] I will give the Estate permission to appeal if it raises an arguable case the [NAME] made one of these errors didn’t respect natural justice decided an issue it had no authority to decide, or didn’t decide an issue it should have decided made a legal error, a factual error, or a mixed error of fact and law in making its decision Footnote 2 [ 9 ] An arguable case is one with a reasonable chance of success. Footnote 3 [ 10 ] The Estate isn’t relying on new evidence to get permission to appeal. Footnote 4 So I won’t consider that ground of appeal. The CPP disability test [ 11 ] To qualify for a CPP disability pension, a person has to show their disability was both severe and prolonged by the end of their coverage period. F. K.’s coverage period ended December 31, 2022. Footnote 5 The CPP defines severe and prolonged. Footnote 6 Court decisions explain what those definitions mean. No arguable case the [NAME] made a factual error when it assessed the evidence [ 12 ] The Estate argues the [NAME] made factual errors. I believe the Estate is referring to [NAME]’s October 2025 letter when it says there’s proof F. K.’s disability was severe and prolonged as of January 2022. The Estate also says the functional limitations F. K. marked on his disability application form started in 2022/2023. This argument challenges the [NAME] finding F. K. likely wrote about his functional limitations at the time he applied for a CPP disability pension—June 2024 (paragraph 17). Finally, the Estate says the [NAME] got F. K.’s age wrong. [ 13 ] The Estate’s arguments don’t show an arguable case the [NAME] based its decision on a factual finding it reached by misunderstanding or ignoring relevant evidence. The [NAME]’s reasons show me it thoroughly considered and thoughtfully assessed the relevant evidence—about F. K.’s medical conditions and functional limitations, including whether he worked while living with cancer and undergoing treatment. [ 14 ] The [NAME]’s mistake about F. K.’s age at his death is really unfortunate. And I imagine upsetting for his wife. This mistake had no effect on the outcome in the appeal. [ 15 ] The [NAME] gave detailed, logically and legally sound reasons for preferring [NAME]’s August 2024 letter to his October 2025 letter (paragraphs 25 to 29). Those reasons show me it didn’t misunderstand either letter or ignore the October 2025 letter. It reasoned its way through this conflicting evidence. [ 16 ] There isn’t an arguable case the [NAME] based its decision on a flawed factual finding when it found F. K. likely wrote about his functional limitations as of June 2024. I say this for two reasons. [ 17 ] First, F. K. used the present tense when he filled in the narrative details in his CPP application. Footnote 7 In contrast, when he completed the self-employment questionnaire he distinguished his past and present functioning. Footnote 8 [ 18 ] Second, and more importantly, the CPP disability test focuses on a person’s ability to work in the real world. The measure of severe isn’t whether a person suffers from severe impairments, but whether their disability prevents them from earning a living. Footnote 9 Severity isn’t based on a person’s inability to do the work they used to do—but rather on their inability to perform substantially gainful work. [ 19 ] Ultimately, the [NAME] decided F. K. didn’t qualify for a disability pension because it found he continued to work up to—then after—December 31, 2022 (paragraphs 31, 33, 35, 36, 38 to 43). It noted F. K. said so on his CPP application. And his doctors’ evidence supported what he said. This meant his disability wasn’t severe. So he didn’t meet the legal test to get a CPP disability pension. [ 20 ] Finally, the Tribunal has to apply the law. We can’t find F. K. was eligible for a disability pension based on his wife’s financial hardship. Or out of compassion for the devastating losses he and his family lived through—and his family continues to bear—since he was diagnosed with cancer. Conclusion [ 21 ] The Estate hasn’t shown an arguable case the [NAME] made an error. So I can’t give it permission to appeal. Footnotes Footnote 1 The Estate completed the [NAME] appeal form to ask for permission to appeal the [NAME] decision. However, it gave all the information the Appeal Division application form asks for. So I didn’t ask the Estate to complete an Appeal Division form. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See section 58.1(a) and (b) of the Department of Employment and [NAME] Development Act ( DESD  Act). Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 [NAME]  v  Canada ([NAME]) , 2024  FC  1793 at paragraph 32; [NAME]  v  Canada ([NAME]) , 2026  FC  36 at paragraph 64. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See section 58.1(c) of the DESD  Act. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 See section 44(2) of the Canada Pension Plan ( CPP ). Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 See section 42(2)(a) of the CPP . Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 See GD2-162 to GD2-165. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 See GD2-103 to GD2-105. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 [NAME]  v  Canada ([NAME]) , 2008  FCA  33 at paragraphs 14, 15. Return to footnote 9 referrer