Request for Leave to Appeal CPP Disability Denied

Citation: AS  v  [NAME] , 2026  SST  153 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Leave to Appeal Decision Applicant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated January 12, 2026 (GP-25-1688) Tribunal member: [NAME] Decision date: March 4, 2026 File number: AD-26-113 On this page Decision Overview Issues The Claimant hasn’t met the legal test to get permission to appeal Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] Leave (permission) to appeal is refused. This means the appeal won’t go forward. Overview [ 2 ] A. S. is the Claimant. She has applied for permission to appeal a General Division decision. [ 3 ] The General Division decided the Claimant didn’t qualify for a [NAME] ( [NAME] ) disability pension or a post-retirement disability benefit. It found she had received her retirement pension for over 15 months so she could not cancel it to get a disability pension. Footnote 1 And she didn’t make enough years of recent contributions to get a post-retirement disability benefit. Footnote 2 [ 4 ] The Claimant says the General Division made a legal error, and she disagrees with the [NAME] . The law and appeal process don’t take humanity into account. [ 5 ] Unfortunately for the Claimant, I can’t give her permission to appeal the General Division decision. Issues [ 6 ] Is there an arguable case the General Division made a legal error by misinterpreting the sections of the [NAME] about cancelling a retirement pension or the sections about qualifying for the post-retirement disability benefit? The Claimant hasn’t met the legal test to get permission to appeal The permission to appeal test [ 7 ] I will give the Claimant permission to appeal if she raises an arguable case the General Division made one of these errors didn’t respect natural justice made a jurisdictional error made a legal error, a factual error, or a mixed error of fact and law in making its decision Footnote 3 [ 8 ] An arguable case is one with a reasonable chance of success. Footnote 4 [ 9 ] The Claimant didn’t set out new evidence. Footnote 5 So I don’t need to consider this reason for giving permission to appeal. No arguable case the General Division made a legal error [ 10 ] On her application form, the Claimant indicates the General Division interpreted or applied the law incorrectly. Footnote 6 In other words, she’s arguing the General Division made a legal error in making its decision. [ 11 ] The Claimant explains she seems to be fighting a legal process that doesn’t take humanity into account. Footnote 7 She says the laws the government has put into place are arbitrary and work against her at every turn. Footnote 8 She says taking humanity out of the law creates a system of rigid mechanical rule-following that leads to injustice, inhumane outcome, and the loss of mercy and equity. [ 12 ] The Claimant’s argument understands her situation perfectly. The General Division applied the law—it had no choice. It had no legal power to take humanity into account. [ 13 ] The Claimant’s argument shows she disagrees with the law as it applies to her. Yet disagreeing with the law or the outcome in her General Division appeal isn’t a ground of appeal the law lets me consider. It doesn’t show an arguable case the General Division made a legal error. [ 14 ] I reviewed the documents in the General Division file and read the General Division decision. I didn’t find an arguable case the General Division made a legal or a factual error in making its decision. [ 15 ] This means I can’t give the Claimant permission to appeal. [ 16 ] Unfortunately, the Tribunal has no power to change the law, even when it’s the humane, compassionate thing to do. Conclusion [ 17 ] Permission to appeal denied. Footnotes Footnote 1 See sections 42(2)(b) and 66.1(1.1) of the [NAME] ( [NAME] ). Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See sections 44(1)(h) and 44(4) of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See sections 58.1(a) and (b) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act ( DESD  Act). Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2024  FC  1793 at paragraph 32; [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2026  FC  36 at paragraph 64. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 See section 58.1(c) of the DESD  Act. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 See AD1-7. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 See AD1-1. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 See AD1-3. Return to footnote 8 referrer