Social Security Tribunal Denies CPP Disability Appeal Due to Late Filing

OUTCOME: Refused

Citation: PH  v  [RESPONDENT] Development , 2026  SST  317 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Leave to Appeal Decision Applicant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: [NAME] decision dated April 26, 2026 (GP-26-782) Tribunal member: [NAME] date: April 29, 2026 File number: AD-26-350 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. [ 2 ] This Tribunal didn’t decide whether [APPELLANT]. qualifies for a [NAME] ( [NAME] ) disability pension. It had no power to do that because he appealed too late. But he can make a new application with Service Canada. [ 3 ] [APPELLANT]. says his medical conditions are now considered terminal and he is going into a home-based palliative care program. This means he can apply to have his [NAME] disability application fast-tracked. He can get more information and a copy of the Terminal Illness Application kit from this webpage: (http://www.canada.ca/en/[RESPONDENT]-social-development/programs/pension-plan-disability-benefits/reports/toolkit.html#h3.0"). Overview [ 4 ] [APPELLANT]. is the Claimant. He has applied for permission to appeal a [NAME] decision. [ 5 ] The Minister denied the Claimant’s application for a [NAME] disability pension—initially then on reconsideration. So he appealed to this Tribunal’s [NAME]. [ 6 ] The [NAME] refused to hear his appeal. It followed the law that says it can’t hear an appeal a person filed more than one year after the Minister communicated its reconsideration decision to them. [ 7 ] Unfortunately for the [APPELLANT], I can’t give him permission to appeal. His new evidence isn’t relevant—or arguably relevant—to an issue in his [NAME] appeal. And I didn’t find an arguable case the [NAME] made a factual error or a legal error. Issues [ 8 ] I have to decide two issues. Can I give the Claimant permission to appeal based on new evidence he set out in his application? Is there an arguable case the [NAME] made a factual error or a legal error in making its decision? The Claimant hasn’t met the legal test to get permission to appeal The permission to appeal test [ 9 ] There’s no automatic right to appeal a [NAME] decision. The [APPELLANT] has to get permission for his appeal to go forward. I will give him permission if he raises an arguable case the [NAME] made one of these errors. didn’t respect natural justice made an error about its power to decide an issue (called a jurisdictional error) made a legal error, a factual error, or a mixed error of fact and law in making its decision Footnote 1 [ 10 ] I can also give the Claimant permission if he set out evidence the [NAME] didn’t have. Footnote 2 I’ll call this “new evidence.” The new evidence isn’t relevant, so it doesn’t meet the permission to appeal test [ 11 ] In his application, the Claimant says he has evidence the [NAME] didn’t have. Footnote 3 He says he was readmitted to [COMPANY] on March 6, 2026, with a septic infection of the bone in his right foot. Footnote 4 Then he was diagnosed with kidney disease, transferred hospitals, and started dialysis. He also suffered a collapsed lung and silent heart attack. Footnote 5 He is still hospitalized, with no discharge date. [ 12 ] The [NAME] had to decide whether the Claimant appealed the Minister’s reconsideration decision more than one year after he learned about it. If he did, the [NAME] had to follow the law that says a person can’t appeal after a year has passed. Footnote 6 [ 13 ] The [NAME] considered the relevant evidence—the date he got the Minister’s decision and the date he filed his [NAME] appeal. [ 14 ] The [NAME] didn’t have the legal authority to decide whether he qualified for a [NAME] disability pension. [ 15 ] Unfortunately for the Claimant, his new medical evidence isn’t relevant (or arguably relevant) to an issue the [NAME] decided or an issue I can decide. Footnote 7 So, I can’t give him permission to appeal based on his new evidence. No arguable case the [NAME] made a factual error or legal error [ 16 ] In his application, the Claimant didn’t make any arguments about [NAME] errors. Because he is representing himself, I reviewed the documents the [NAME] had, the law, and the [NAME] decision. [ 17 ] I didn’t find an arguable case the [NAME] ignored or misunderstood relevant evidence. The [NAME] found the [APPELLANT] wrote the date he got the Minister’s reconsideration decision—December 23, 2024 (paragraph 9 of the decision). It accepted that date. Then the [NAME] found he appealed on March 23, 2025 (paragraph 11). The documents support the [NAME]’s factual findings. [ 18 ] I didn’t find an arguable case the [NAME] made a legal error. The [NAME] correctly cited then used the law about late appeals (paragraphs 7, 10, 12). Conclusion [ 19 ] I can’t give the Claimant permission to appeal the [NAME] decision. This means his appeal won’t go forward. [ 20 ] Legally, there is nothing stopping the Claimant from reapplying for a [NAME] disability pension. Service Canada has told him to do this. If his medical conditions are now terminal, he can use the (https://www.canada.ca/en/[RESPONDENT]-social-development/programs/pension-plan-disability-benefits/reports/toolkit.html#h3.0") Terminal Illness Application kit to ask Service Canada to fast-track his application. Footnotes Footnote 1 See sections 58.1(a) and (b) of the Department of [RESPONDENT] Development Act ( DESD  Act). An “arguable case” is one that discloses a reasonable chance of success. [NAME]  v  Canada ([NAME] [NAME]) , 2024  FC  1793 at paragraph 32; [NAME]  v  Canada ([NAME] [NAME]) , 2026  FC  36 at paragraph 64. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See section 58.1(c) of the DESD  Act. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See AD1-4. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See AD1-10. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 See AD1-11. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 See section 52(2) of the DESD  Act. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 [NAME]  v  Canada ([NAME] [NAME]) , 2026  FC  36 at paragraphs 67 to 69. Return to footnote 7 referrer