Late Appeal Application Accepted, Leave to Appeal Denied in CPP Disability Case

Citation: MM  v  [NAME] , 2026  SST  155 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal Decision Applicant: [redacted] Representative: [NAME]. Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated October 6, 2025 (GP-25-1225) Tribunal member: [NAME] Decision date: March 4, 2026 File number: AD-26-60 On this page Decision Overview Issues The Claimant’s application was late, but I’m extending the time I can’t give the Claimant permission to appeal Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] I’m giving [NAME]. an extension of time to file his application to appeal the General Division decision. [ 2 ] But I’m refusing leave (permission) to appeal the General Division decision. This means his appeal won’t go forward. Overview [ 3 ] [NAME]. is the Claimant. He has applied for permission to appeal a General Division decision. Footnote 1 He applied late—after the 90-day deadline. But I have extended the time for him to file his application to appeal (application). [ 4 ] The General Division decided his Canada Pension Plan ( CPP ) disability pension appeal could not go ahead. It found a year had passed since he received the Minister’s reconsideration decision. Then it followed the law that says a person can’t appeal when one year has passed. Footnote 2 [ 5 ] The Claimant says the General Division member was biased. He explains he filed his General Division appeal late because of health conditions. And he’s challenging the Minister’s decision denying him a disability pension. Footnote 3 He sent medical evidence with his application. [ 6 ] Unfortunately for the Claimant, I can’t give him permission to appeal. He hasn’t shown an arguable case the General Division was biased. And the medical evidence doesn’t meet the test for new evidence. Issues [ 7 ] I will decide four issues. Was the Claimant late filing his application? If so, has he given a reasonable explanation that lets me extend the time to file his application? Has he shown an arguable case the General Division member was biased? Can I give him permission to appeal based on the medical evidence he sent with his application? The Claimant’s application was late, but I’m extending the time [ 8 ]   I wrote the Claimant asking when and by what method (email, regular mail) he received the General Division decision. He didn’t answer those questions. Footnote 4 He explained why he was late filing his application: “The delay in filing was not intentional and arose due to severe and ongoing medical disability affecting cognitive functioning, executive functioning, and timely administrative response.” Footnote 5 [ 9 ] The Tribunal’s file shows it emailed the Claimant the General Division decision on October 6, 2025. The Tribunal Rules say I can assume he received it the next business day—October 7, 2025. Footnote 6 The file also shows the Claimant’s representative called the Tribunal that day to challenge the decision. [ 10 ] The Claimant had 90 days to apply to appeal the General Division decision. Footnote 7 He had to file his application with the Appeal Division on or before January 5, 2026. [ 11 ] The Claimant’s application was late. The Appeal Division received his application on January 28, 2026. The Tribunal stamp on the bottom of each page of the application tells me this. [ 12 ] But because he filed his application before one year passed, I have the power to extend the time. Footnote 8 I’m extending the time for him to apply, to January 28, 2026. Because he gave a reasonable explanation for why he was late. Footnote 9 One of the medical reports in the General Division file supports his explanation. Footnote 10 [ 13 ] This means I can consider whether to give him permission to appeal the General Division decision. I can’t give the Claimant permission to appeal The permission to appeal test [ 14 ] I should give the Claimant permission to appeal if he raises an arguable case the General Division made one of these errors didn’t respect natural justice Footnote 11 used its decision-making authority incorrectly Footnote 12 made a legal error, a factual error, or a mixed error of fact and law in making its decision Footnote 13 [ 15 ] I can also give the Claimant permission if his application sets out evidence the General Division didn’t have. Footnote 14 I’ll call this new evidence, and the new evidence test. The Claimant hasn’t shown an arguable case the General Division was biased [ 16 ] The Claimant argues the decision is based in a biased perspective. Footnote 15 He said it should be unbiased and the member should be on the side of the injured and diseased. And should have decided his appeal under the law about CPP disability. [ 17 ] Having a decision-maker who is impartial—in other words, not biased—is a principle of natural justice. [ 18 ] The Claimant’s arguments don’t show an arguable case the General Division member was biased. [ 19 ] An allegation of bias—in other words, the member prejudged the outcome or was biased against a party—is serious. Footnote 16 A tribunal member is presumed to be impartial. An allegation of bias is difficult to prove and needs to be supported with material evidence. Footnote 17 It can’t rest on mere suspicion, pure conjecture, insinuations, or impressions. Footnote 18 [ 20 ] The Claimant’s argument is an opinion based in suspicion, conjecture, and his belief he’s entitled to a CPP disability pension. He doesn’t offer anything more—no evidence the member was biased. His reasons for appeal ask the General Division to be biased—in his favour. The fact he doesn’t agree with the General Division decision because it didn’t grant him a CPP disability pension doesn’t show an arguable case of bias. [ 21 ] I reviewed the General Division file. Nothing suggested the General Division was biased against the Claimant. The medical evidence isn’t arguably relevant, so it doesn’t satisfy the new evidence test [ 22 ] The Federal Court says it’s reasonable to make relevance part of the test to get permission to appeal under section 58.1(c) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act . Footnote [ADDRESS] accepts that new evidence has to be relevant or arguably relevant. [ 23 ] The Claimant’s appeal involved two issues: Did the Claimant appeal the Minister’s reconsideration decision more than one year after that decision was communicated to him? Footnote 20 Does the Tribunal have the power to extend the deadline for him to appeal? Footnote 21 [ 24 ] The Claimant sent medical evidence with his application. Footnote 22 Some documents weren’t before the General Division. But that new evidence isn’t relevant to either issue, above. The Claimant sent it to explain why he was late filing his appeal with the General Division. And to support his argument that he should get a CPP disability pension. Footnote 23 [ 25 ] The Claimant didn’t challenge the General Division’s finding he appealed the Minister’s decision more than one year after it was communicated to him (paragraph 14). I reviewed the General Division record and the decision. I didn’t find an arguable case the General Division reached this finding by ignoring or misunderstanding relevant evidence. [ 26 ] So, there’s no arguable case the General Division made a reviewable error when it decided it could not extend the time for the Claimant to appeal (paragraphs 5, 7, 16, 17). This meant his explanation he was delayed because of medical reasons—and the new medical evidence he sent—wasn’t relevant or arguably relevant to an issue the General Division decided. Or to an issue in this application. Conclusion [ 27 ] Leave to appeal denied. The Claimant’s appeal won’t go forward. Footnotes Footnote 1 The Claimant’s application is three documents: AD1, AD1A, and AD1B. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See section 52(2) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act ( [NAME]  Act). Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See AD1-7 and AD1-10. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See AD1A. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 See AD1A-7. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 See section 22(3) of the Social Security Tribunal Rules of Procedure (Tribunal Rules). Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 See section 57(1)(b) of the [NAME]  Act. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 See section 57(2) of the [NAME]  Act. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 See sections 27(1) and 27(2) of the Tribunal Rules. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 See GD2-58. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 See section 58.1(a) of the [NAME]  Act Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 See section 58.1(a) of the [NAME]  Act. The law calls this a jurisdictional error. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 See section 58.1(b) of the [NAME]  Act. Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 See section 58.1(c) of the [NAME]  Act. Return to footnote 14 referrer Footnote 15 See AD1-1. Return to footnote 15 referrer Footnote 16 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2001  FCA  223 at paragraph 8. Return to footnote 16 referrer Footnote 17 See Kuk  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2024  FCA  74; [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2025  FC  1958 at paragraph 34. Return to footnote 17 referrer Footnote 18 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2025  FCA  41 at paragraph 11; [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2025  FC  1958 at paragraph 34. Return to footnote 18 referrer Footnote 19 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2026  FC  36 at paragraphs 67 to 69. Return to footnote 19 referrer Footnote 20 See section 52(1)(b) of the [NAME]  Act. Return to footnote 20 referrer Footnote 21 See section 52(2) of the [NAME]  Act. Return to footnote 21 referrer Footnote 22 See AD1-18 to AD1-37; AD1B-3 to AD1B-42. Return to footnote 22 referrer Footnote 23 See AD1B-2, AD1B-3. Return to footnote 23 referrer