Social Security Tribunal Denies Leave to Appeal CPP Disability Pension Denial

Citation: KL v [NAME] , 2026  SST  293 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Leave to Appeal Decision Applicant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated March 2, 2026 (GP-25-2000) Tribunal member: [NAME] Decision date: April 13, 2026 File number: AD-26-183 On this page Decision Overview Issue 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 ] [NAME]. is the Claimant. He has applied for permission to appeal a General Division decision. I will give him permission if there’s an arguable case the General Division made an error. [ 3 ] The General Division decided he didn’t qualify for a Canada Pension Plan ( CPP ) disability pension because he didn’t meet the contributory requirement. In other words, he didn’t work and contribute enough within a certain time period to qualify for a disability pension. [ 4 ] In his application to the Appeal Division (application), the Claimant argues he made three years of contributions and is experiencing financial hardship. [ 5 ] Unfortunately for the Claimant, I can’t give him permission to appeal the General Division decision. Issue [ 6 ] Is there an arguable case the General Division made an error when it found the Claimant hadn’t made enough contributions to qualify for a CPP disability pension? The Claimant hasn’t met the legal test to get permission to appeal The permission to appeal test [ 7 ] The Claimant has to get permission for his appeal to go forward. I will give him permission if he raises an arguable case the General Division made one of these errors. Footnote 1 Didn’t respect natural justice or used an unfair procedure. 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. [ 8 ] I don’t need to consider whether to give the Claimant permission to appeal based on new evidence. Footnote 2 He didn’t set out any new evidence in his application. No arguable case the General Division made an error [ 9 ] The law says 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. [ 10 ] The General Division decided the Claimant didn’t have a coverage period (paragraphs 10, 11). To establish a coverage period, the law says a person has to make sufficient contributions within a period of time. Footnote 3 In the Claimant’s case, he had to contribute enough in four of six years. The General Division found he contributed enough in four years, but only three of these years (2006, 2007, and 2008) fell in a six-year period. [ 11 ] In his application, the Claimant argues: “I at least worked 3 years shy of 4. And I’m having financial hardship due to living poorly.” [ 12 ] I reviewed his application, the documents in the General Division file, the General Division decision, and the CPP . There isn’t an arguable case the General Division ignored or misunderstood the evidence about the Claimant’s contributions to the CPP . And there isn’t an arguable case the General Division made a legal error in making its decision. It cited then used the correct law about CPP contributions and establishing a contributory period (paragraphs 9, 10, 11). [ 13 ] Unfortunately for the Claimant, the General Division had no power to ignore or work around the contributory requirements from the CPP —even if he is in financial need. And I can’t ignore or work around the law. Conclusion [ 14 ] The Claimant hasn’t shown an arguable case the General Division made an error. And I looked but didn’t find an arguable case of a factual error or a legal error. [ 15 ] This means I can’t give him permission to appeal. Footnotes Footnote 1 See sections 58.1(a) and (b) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act ( DESD  Act). An arguable case is one that discloses a reasonable chance of success. [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 1 Footnote 2 See section 58.1(c) of the DESD  Act. Return to footnote 2 Footnote 3 See sections 44(1)(b)(i) and 44(2) of the Canada Pension Plan . Return to footnote 3