Social Security Tribunal Allows CPP Disability Pension Appeal

OUTCOME: Allowed

Citation: DL  v  [RESPONDENT] and [NAME] , 2026  [NAME]  341 Social Security Tribunal of Canada General Division – Income Security Section Decision Appellant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] [RESPONDENT] and [NAME] decision dated January 21, 2026 (issued by Service Canada) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: In writing Decision date: June 19, 2026 File number: GP-26-1063 On this page Decision Overview What I have to decide Reasons for my decision Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] The appeal is allowed. [ 2 ] The [RESPONDENT] and [NAME] (Minister) must reconsider its decision to deny the Appellant, [APPELLANT]., a [NAME] ( [NAME] ) disability pension. [ 3 ] This decision explains why I am allowing the appeal. Overview [ 4 ] The Appellant applied for a [NAME] disability pension on March 5, 2024. Footnote 1 The Minister refused her application on July 3, 2024. Footnote 2 The Appellant asked the Minister to reconsider its decision on July 23, 2025 (more than a year later). Footnote 3 The Minister refused to reconsider because the Appellant asked more than 90 days after she was notified of the decision in writing. Footnote 4 [ 5 ] The Appellant appealed to the Social Security Tribunal’s General Division. [ 6 ] This appeal isn’t about whether the Appellant is eligible for a disability pension. It is about whether her request for reconsideration was late and, if it was, whether the Minister must reconsider its decision anyway. What I have to decide [ 7 ] First, I must decide whether the Appellant’s request for reconsideration was late. If it wasn’t late, then I must allow the appeal. [ 8 ] If the Appellant’s request was late, then I must decide whether the Minister acted judicially (in other words, followed the rules properly) when it refused to reconsider its decision. If the Minister acted judicially, then I must dismiss the appeal. [ 9 ] If the Minister did not act judicially, then I must decide whether the Minister has to reconsider its decision. Reasons for my decision [ 10 ] The Appellant’s request for reconsideration was late. The Minister didn’t act judicially when it decided not to give her more time. The Minister must reconsider its decision. The Appellant’s request for reconsideration was late [ 11 ] If a person disagrees with the Minister’s decision to deny them a disability pension, they can ask the Minister to reconsider. They must do this within 90 days after they were notified of the decision in writing. If a person waits more than 90 days after they were notified before asking for reconsideration, their request is late. Footnote 5 [ 12 ] The Appellant’s request for reconsideration was late. [ 13 ] The Minister’s decision letter is dated July 3, 2024. Footnote 6 I find that it was likely mailed to the Appellant that same day. [ 14 ] The Tribunal asked the Appellant when she received the letter, but she didn’t respond. Footnote 7 So, I will rely on [NAME]’s typical service standards to determine when she likely received the letter. The letter was sent from within Ontario to an Ontario address. It typically takes [NAME] three business days to deliver mail within a single province. Footnote 8 That would mean it was delivered on July 6. But that was a Saturday. [NAME] doesn’t deliver regular mail on weekends, I find that the letter was probably delivered and received by the Appellant on Monday, July 8, 2024. [ 15 ] The Appellant had 90 days from that date to ask for reconsideration. Ninety days after July 8 was October 6, 2024. But that was a Sunday. So, her deadline was actually October 7, 2024. Footnote 9 [ 16 ] The Appellant didn’t ask for reconsideration until July 23, 2025. Her request was late. The Minister didn’t act judicially What the Minister must consider when a request for reconsideration is late [ 17 ] The Minister can accept a late reconsideration request if the Minister is satisfied that: Footnote 10 there is a reasonable explanation for why the request was late the person showed a continuing intention to ask for reconsideration [ 18 ] If the person asked for reconsideration more than 365 days after they were notified of the decision in writing, the Minister must also be satisfied that: Footnote 11 the reconsideration request has a reasonable chance of success allowing the request would not prejudice (unfairly disadvantage) the Minister [ 19 ] In this case, the Minister must be satisfied of all four factors because the Appellant’s reconsideration request was made 381 days after she was notified of the Minister’s decision in writing. The Minister must act judicially when it considers these factors [ 20 ] The Minister must act judicially when it considers these factors. This means the Minister must not: Footnote 12 act in bad faith act for an improper purpose or motive (the wrong reason) consider an irrelevant factor ignore a relevant factor discriminate against the Appellant The Minister didn’t act judicially [ 21 ] The Minister didn’t act judicially when it decided not to reconsider its decision. [ 22 ] On the reconsideration form, Footnote 13 the Appellant told the Minister that her request was late because she sent it by regular mail in September 2024, and she was waiting for the Minister to update her on the status of her request. Eventually, when she didn’t receive an update, she phoned Service Canada (which handles disability pension applications on the Minister’s behalf) to ask about her reconsideration request. Service Canada’s phone records show that this phone call took place on July 11, 2025. Footnote 14 Service Canada said they hadn’t received a request. So, she dropped off another reconsideration request at a Service Canada Centre in person on July 23, 2025. [ 23 ] The Minister didn’t accept the Appellant’s explanation as reasonable because it wasn’t an extenuating circumstance. It wasn’t a circumstance that was unusual, unexpected, or beyond her control, which prevented her from submitting a timely request. Footnote 15 [ 24 ] The law doesn’t say the Appellant’s explanation must involve an extenuating circumstance that was unusual, unexpected, or beyond her control. The law only says it must be reasonable . Footnote 16 The Minister’s test was too strict and wasn’t based on the law. So, it was an irrelevant factor. What happens when the Minister doesn’t act judicially? [ 25 ] Because the Minister didn’t act judicially in considering whether the Appellant had a reasonable explanation, I don’t have to decide whether it acted judicially in considering the other three factors. I must now decide whether the Minister has to reconsider its decision. The Minister must reconsider its decision [ 26 ] When I decide whether the Minister has to reconsider its decision, I must consider the same factors that the Minister had to consider. In other words, the Appellant must show on a balance of probabilities that: she has a reasonable explanation for being late she had a continuing intention to ask for reconsideration her reconsideration request has a reasonable chance of success giving her more time would not prejudice the Minister [ 27 ] The Minister agrees that giving the Appellant more time would not prejudice the Minister. Footnote 17 So, I will focus on the other three factors. The Appellant has a reasonable explanation for being late [ 28 ] The Appellant has a reasonable explanation for being late. The explanation that she gave the Minister on the reconsideration form makes sense. It matches what she told Service Canada during her phone call. It is therefore very likely that she did send a reconsideration request by mail in September 2024. [ 29 ] The Appellant waited a long time after that (between 9 and 10 months) before she followed up with the Minister. One could argue that she should not have waited so long. However, after the Minister received her reconsideration request, it took nearly six months for it to decide not to reconsider its decision. In other words, even though the Minister didn’t end up considering the Appellant’s medical evidence a second time to see if she was disabled, the Minister still took six months to respond to her request. So, perhaps the Appellant wasn’t being unrealistic when she expected that it might take nine months or so to hear from the Minister. [ 30 ] Furthermore, the Appellant said she is distracted by pain. Footnote 18 This could explain why she didn’t follow up sooner. She indicated in her disability pension application that she has chronic pain. She also indicated that she has trouble remembering to do important things, focusing, and keeping track of what she is doing. Footnote 19 Her family doctor’s medical report supports that she has these limitations. Footnote 20 [ 31 ] The Minister points out that the Appellant didn’t mention her health as a reason for being late when she asked for reconsideration. She only mentioned the impact of her health when she appealed to the Tribunal. While the Minister is correct, the Appellant’s two reasons for being late (that she was waiting to hear from the Minister and that she is distracted by pain) are not contradictory. They can both be true. I believe that is the case here. The Appellant had a continuing intention to ask for reconsideration [ 32 ] The Appellant had a continuing intention to ask for reconsideration. [ 33 ] The Minister argues that the Appellant didn’t have a continuing intention to ask for reconsideration because she didn’t contact the Minister during the 90-day reconsideration period. [ 34 ] In this case, I accept that the Appellant did send a reconsideration request by mail in September 2024. A reconsideration request isn’t considered to have been made until the Minister receives it, but that doesn’t change the fact that she tried to contact the Minister during the 90-day reconsideration period. This shows that she had a continuing intention to ask for reconsideration—indeed, she thought that she had done so. For some reason, her request didn’t arrive at Service Canada or, if it did, it was misplaced. [ 35 ] Furthermore, the law doesn’t say that the only way to show a continuing intention is by contacting the Minister during the 90-day period. Footnote 21 The Appellant eventually followed up with the Minister on July 11, 2025, which also supports a continuing intention. Having a continuing intention to do something doesn’t mean you are always thinking about it. Even if her reconsideration request wasn’t always on her mind between September 2024 and July 2025, the fact that she followed up shows she never abandoned her intention to pursue reconsideration. [ 36 ] Finally, after the Appellant found out on July 11, 2025, that the Minister had not received her request, she didn’t delay—she made another request less than two weeks later. This doesn’t necessarily prove that she always meant to ask for reconsideration, but it supports that conclusion on a balance of probabilities. The Appellant’s request has a reasonable chance of success [ 37 ] The Appellant’s request for reconsideration has a reasonable chance of success. To get a disability pension, she must prove that she became disabled during her coverage period. Her coverage period ended on December 31, 2024. Footnote 22 She has filed medical evidence from her coverage period. [ 38 ] The Minister argues that the Appellant’s request doesn’t have a reasonable chance of success because she hasn’t filed any new medical evidence from her coverage period since the Minister initially made its decision. [ 39 ] I disagree with the Minister. The law does not require an applicant to file new medical evidence with their reconsideration request. By taking another look at the evidence that she previously filed, it is possible for the Minister to decide that she meets the requirements for a disability pension. [ 40 ] This means the Appellant has met all four requirements for the Minister to reconsider its decision. Conclusion [ 41 ] The Minister must reconsider its decision. [ 42 ] This means the appeal is allowed. Footnotes Footnote 1 See GD2-25 to 37. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See GD2-14. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See GD2-7 to 9. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See GD2-6. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 See section 81(1) of the [NAME] and section 74.2 of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 See GD2-14. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 See the Tribunal’s letter at GD4. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 [NAME] publishes its mail delivery standards online at https://www.canadapost-postescanada.ca/cpc/en/support/kb/sending/sending-faq/how-long-does-it-take-for-a-parcel-or-letter-to-arrive.page. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 See sections 26 and 35(1) (the definition of “holiday”) of the Interpretation Act . Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 See section 81(1) of the [NAME] and section 74.1(3) of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 See section 74.1(4) of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 See Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , 2008  FCA  388; and Canada (Attorney General)  v  [NAME] , [1996] 1  FC  644. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 See GD2-7 to 9. Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 See GD2-13. Return to footnote 14 referrer Footnote 15 See GD2-56. Return to footnote 15 referrer Footnote 16 The Tribunal’s Appeal Division came to the same conclusion in PP  v  Minister ([RESPONDENT] and [NAME]) , 2021  [NAME]  166. Return to footnote 16 referrer Footnote 17 The Minister’s arguments can be found at GD2-56 to 58, GD5, and GD6. Return to footnote 17 referrer Footnote 18 See GD1-9. Return to footnote 18 referrer Footnote 19 See GD2-25 to 37. Return to footnote 19 referrer Footnote 20 See GD2-69 to 77. Return to footnote 20 referrer Footnote 21 [NAME]  v  Minister ([RESPONDENT] and [NAME]) , 2025  [NAME]  835 at paragraph 26. Return to footnote 21 referrer Footnote 22 See section 44(2) of the [NAME] ;and GD2-46 and 49. Return to footnote 22 referrer