Social Security Tribunal Rejects Appeal for CPP Disability Pension

Citation: [NAME]  v  [NAME] , 2026  SST  345 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal Decision Applicant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated January 15, 2026 (GP-25-1136) Tribunal member: [NAME] Decision date: June 22, 2026 File number: AD-26-344 On this page Decision Overview Issues The Claimant’s application wasn’t late The Claimant hasn’t met the legal test to get permission to appeal Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] I’m not giving B. G. leave (permission) to appeal. This means his appeal won’t go forward. Overview [ 2 ] B. G. is the Claimant in this case. He has applied to appeal a General Division decision. Footnote 1 I’ll call this his application. It seemed he filed his application late. But when I look closely at the Tribunal’s file and the Tribunal rules, I decided his application was on time. [ 3 ] To get a [NAME] ( [NAME] ) disability pension, the Claimant had to prove his disability was both severe and prolonged by the end of his coverage period—December 31, 2020. Footnote 2 A disability is severe when it prevents a person from earning a living in the real world doing any job. Footnote 3 [ 4 ] The General Division decided the Claimant didn’t prove his disability was severe by the end of his coverage period. The General Division found the Claimant’s functional limitations resulted from a February 2024 stroke. It found he was able to work into 2023, after his coverage period ended. So, the General Division dismissed his appeal. [ 5 ] I’m not giving the Claimant permission to appeal because he hasn’t shown the General Division made an error and the evidence he sent isn’t relevant or arguable relevant to whether he met the [NAME] disability test by December 31, 2020. Issues [ 6 ] I will decide three issues. Was the Claimant’s application late, and if it was, should I extend the time for him to file it? Is there an arguable case the General Division made an error in making its decision? Does the Claimant’s application set out evidence that wasn’t before the General Division? The Claimant’s application wasn’t late [ 7 ] The Claimant says he doesn’t remember when he got the General Division decision. Footnote 4 The Tribunal’s records show it mailed him the decision on January 15, 2026. [ 8 ] The Tribunal’s rules say I can presume he received the decision 10 days later, by January 26, 2026. Footnote 5 The Tribunal’s records show he called the Tribunal on February 2, 2026, to disagree with the decision. This tells me it’s more likely than not he received the decision on or before January 26. He probably read it, then called the Tribunal a few days later to disagree. [ 9 ] He had 90 days to file his application to the Appeal Division, by April 27, 2026. The Tribunal received his application on April 24, 2026. The date stamp on the bottom of each page of document AD1 shows this. And I have no reason to doubt it. [ 10 ] So, the Claimant filed his application on time. The Claimant hasn’t met the legal test to get permission to appeal [ 11 ] I can understand the Claimant’s frustration and confusion with why the Minister and General Division denied him a disability pension. The law about the [NAME] disability pension is complex and can be difficult to understand. To get a [NAME] disability pension, he had to prove he became disabled—and could not work and earn a living— by December 31, 2020, at the latest . That’s the date his coverage to claim a disability pension ended. [ 12 ] That’s the law. It means not everyone who contributes to the [NAME] and becomes disabled later will qualify for a disability pension. The General Division based its decision on this law and the facts in his case. And for the reasons that follow, I can’t give the Claimant permission to appeal that decision. The permission to appeal test [ 13 ] There is no automatic right to appeal a General Division decision. The Claimant has to get permission for his appeal to go forward. [ 14 ] I will give him permission if he raises an arguable case the General Division made one of these errors. Footnote 6 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 [ 15 ] I will also give the Claimant permission if his application sets out evidence the General Division didn’t have. Footnote 7 I will call this new evidence and the new evidence test. To meet this test, the new evidence has to be relevant or arguably relevant to an issue in his appeal. Footnote 8 The Claimant hasn’t shown an arguable case the General Division made an error [ 16 ] The Claimant’s reasons for appeal don’t show an arguable case the General Division made an error. The Claimant sent a letter and later an application form. [ 17 ] In the letter, his spouse explains the Claimant had a stroke in February two years ago (2024). She tells the story of his stroke, hospitalization, medical treatments, and functional limitations since that time. She says she doesn’t know what more they can prove because he has become disabled in many ways. He has always contributed to the [NAME] and filed his taxes. [ 18 ] On his application form, he checked the box that says there’s an arguable case the General Division made a mistake deciding his appeal. Then he lists the medical evidence he is sending and what it shows. And he resends his spouse’s letter, with a new list of his symptoms and functional limitations. He doesn’t make an argument, explain an error, or refer to the General Division decision. [ 19 ] Nothing the Claimant wrote on his application or from his spouse’s letter shows an arguable case the General Division made an error. [ 20 ] And I looked but didn’t find an arguable case the General Division made an error. Because the Claimant is representing himself, I reviewed the law, the documents in the General Division file, and the General Division decision. [ 21 ] The General Division correctly set out the issues in the appeal and the law it had to use to decide those issues. That law sets a person’s coverage period based on the years they made valid [NAME] contributions. And it sets out the severe and prolonged test a person has to meet to get a disability pension. The General Division used that law to decide the Claimant’s appeal. [ 22 ] There’s no arguable case the General Division based its decision on a factual error. Based on his contributions, the Claimant’s coverage ended December 31, 2020. This meant he had to have medical evidence that showed he was disabled and unable to earn a living from work before or on this date. [ 23 ] The General Division found there was no medical evidence he had functional limitations by December 31, 2020. His family doctor said he didn’t have a disability in 2020 that prevented him from working—his disability began in 2024. Footnote 9 And the Claimant said he stopped working in August or October 2023 because of his health. Footnote 10 This was close to three years after his coverage ended. So, there isn’t an arguable case the General Division reached its decision by ignoring or misunderstanding relevant evidence. The Claimant’s new evidence isn’t relevant or arguably relevant [ 24 ] The Claimant sent new medical evidence with his application. Letter from Dr. [NAME], created on February 3, 2026. Letter from Dr. [NAME], dated February 11, 2026. [ 25 ] These letters are about the Claimant’s medical condition in 2025 and 2026. They don’t say anything relevant or arguably relevant about whether he had a severe and prolonged disability by December 31, 2020. So, I can’t give him permission to appeal based on this evidence. Conclusion [ 26 ] The Claimant hasn’t shown an arguable case the General Division made an error. And the evidence he sent with his application doesn’t meet the new evidence test. [ 27 ] This means I can’t give him permission to appeal. And his appeal won’t go forward. Footnotes Footnote 1 See AD1 and AD1B. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See section 42(2)(a) and section 44(2) of the [NAME]. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2020  FC  2006 at paragraph 33; [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2022  FCA  4 at paragraph 22. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See AD1B-4. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 See section 22(1) of the Social Security Tribunal Rules of Procedure . Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 See sections 58.1(a) and (b) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act ( DESD  Act). The courts have said an “arguable case” of an error 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 6 referrer Footnote 7 See section 58.1(c) of the DESD  Act. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2026  FC  36 at paragraphs 67 to 69. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 See paragraph 24 of the General Division decision, including footnotes. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 See GD2-96 and GD2-105. Return to footnote 10 referrer