Social Security Tribunal Rejects Claimant’s Appeal for Continued CPP Disability Pension

OUTCOME: Dismissed

Citation: CS  v  [RESPONDENT] and [NAME] , 2026  SST  228 Social Security Tribunal of Canada General Division – Income Security Section Decision Appellant: [redacted] Representative: [COUNSEL] Respondent: [redacted] [RESPONDENT] and [NAME] reconsideration decision dated May 28, 2025 (issued by Service Canada) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: Videoconference Hearing date: May 12, 2026 Hearing participants: Appellant Appellant’s representative Decision date: June 3, 2026 File number: GP-25-1343 On this page Decision Overview What I have to decide Matters I have to consider first Reasons for my decision The Appellant’s other arguments Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] The appeal is dismissed. [ 2 ] The Appellant, [NAME]., stopped being disabled as of November 2024. She was only eligible for a [NAME] ( [NAME] ) disability pension when she was disabled. [ 3 ] This decision explains why I am dismissing the appeal. Overview [ 4 ] The Appellant started getting a disability pension in November 2018 based on several mental health conditions and [NAME] syndrome. This is a connective tissue disorder that causes hypermobility and dislocations of the joints. [ 5 ] On November 14, 2024, the [RESPONDENT] and [NAME] (Minister) decided that the Appellant had stopped being disabled as of November 2024. The Minister stopped paying her a disability pension. [ 6 ] The Appellant appealed the Minister’s decision to the Social Security Tribunal’s General Division. [ 7 ] The Appellant says that her medical conditions haven’t improved or resolved since the Minister last decided that she continued to be disabled. She says that her medical conditions continue to be severe and prolonged. She says the Minister hasn’t proven she is no longer entitled to a [NAME] disability pension. [ 8 ] The Minister says that as of November 2024 the Appellant demonstrated the ability to regularly work at a job that earned substantially gainful income. It says the combination of the Appellant’s work and educational activities and her earnings show that her disability is no longer severe. What I have to decide [ 9 ] I must decide whether the Appellant stopped being disabled. If she stopped being disabled, then I also have to decide when. [ 10 ] According to the law, an appellant stops being disabled when one of two things happens: Their disability stops being severe. Their disability stops being prolonged. [ 11 ] The [NAME] defines “severe” and “prolonged”. [ 12 ] A disability is severe if it makes an appellant incapable regularly of pursuing any substantially gainful occupation . Footnote 1 [ 13 ] A disability is prolonged if it is likely to be long continued and of indefinite duration, or is likely to result in death. Footnote 2 [ 14 ] When the Minister stops paying a person a disability pension, the Minister must prove that the person stopped being disabled. The Minister has to prove this on a balance of probabilities. This means the Minister must show that it is more likely than not the Appellant stopped being disabled. Footnote 3 [ 15 ] I can only consider whether the Appellant stopped being disabled after May 29, 2024. This is because the Minister reviewed the Appellant’s case and decided that she was still disabled as of that date. Footnote 4 [ 16 ] To decide whether the Appellant stopped being disabled, I must look at the Minister’s evidence supporting its decision that the Appellant can work. If the Appellant is capable regularly of doing some kind of work that she could earn a living from, then she isn’t entitled to a disability pension. [ 17 ] If I decide that the Appellant stopped being disabled, then she isn’t eligible for a disability pension anymore. Matters I have to consider first I accepted late documents [ 18 ] The Appellant submitted additional evidence during her reply period in response to the Minister’s submissions. The Tribunal accepted the documents as part of the Appellant’s reply because it was new and relevant. [ 19 ] Since the reply submissions of the Appellant contained new and relevant evidence, the Minister was permitted to make submissions on the new evidence. This ensured a fair process. Reasons for my decision [ 20 ] I find that the Appellant stopped being disabled as of November 2024. This is when her disability stopped being severe and her activities showed she was capable of regularly working and earning a substantially gainful income. Was the Appellant’s disability severe? [ 21 ] The Appellant’s disability stopped being severe as of November 2024. I reached this finding by considering several factors. I explain these factors below. The Appellant’s functional limitations affected her ability to work [ 22 ] The Appellant has: pre-menstrual dysphoric disorder post-traumatic stress disorder anxiety and panic disorder depressive disorder personality disorder Loeys-Dietz syndrome [ 23 ] The Appellant also has been diagnosed with substance abuse disorders. However, they have been in remission for several years. [ 24 ] I can’t only focus on the Appellant’s diagnoses when I make my decision. Footnote 5 Instead, I have to focus on whether she has functional limitations that got in the way of her earning a living. Footnote 6 When I do this, I have to look at all of her medical conditions (not just the main one) and think about how they affected her ability to work. Footnote 7 [ 25 ] I find that the Appellant still had functional limitations that affected her ability to work as of the hearing date. What the Minister says about the Appellant’s functional limitations [ 26 ] The Minister agrees that the Appellant has functional limitations from her medical conditions. [ 27 ] The Minister says that while the Appellant continues to have functional limitations from her medical conditions, her level of activity shows that she could regularly work and earn a level of income that was substantially gainful by November 2024. My findings about the Appellant’s functional limitations [ 28 ] The evidence supports that while the Appellant’s conditions and functional limitations remained generally the same, her regular work activity reached the point where she was able to earn a substantially gainful income while still attending school part-time as well, by November 2024. [ 29 ] I find that the Appellant continues to have these functional limitations: She must change positions regularly between standing, sitting, and walking. She can get fatigued with physical exertion. She must avoid bending, twisting, and heavy lifting. She must avoid strong smells such as cigarette smoke and bleach. She should avoid crisis and conflict situations. My findings about the Appellant’s ability to work [ 30 ] I find that the Appellant could work in the real world as of November 2024. That was when her disability stopped being severe. [ 31 ] By November 2024, the Appellant had recovered from knee surgeries, related to her [APPELLANT] syndrome. She was able to return to regular part-time work and school after the surgeries. Her combined work and school activity averaged 22- 24 hours per week. Footnote 8 [ 32 ] Aside from time off for surgery in 2023 and 2024, the Appellant’s activity levels remained regular and consistent. While she worked more hours some weeks and less hours on other weeks to accommodate her condition, she did regularly work and engage in educational activity for a prolonged period. The period before May 29, 2024 [ 33 ] The Minister last decided that the Appellant continued to be disabled on May 29, 2024. Footnote 9 [ 34 ] The evidence shows that in 2023 the Appellant had maintained a regular schedule of part-time work and school attendance. Her work and school activity was generally 22-24 hours per week. [ 35 ] The Appellant showed a capacity for earning close to a substantially gainful income in 2023. By December 17, 2023, she had earned $16,069.00 from working. Footnote 10 This is below the annual threshold for 2023 of $18,508.00. Footnote 11 [ 36 ] The Appellant earned this level of income in 2023 despite taking two months off work from January to March 2023 for knee surgery. Footnote 12 This shows that in 2023 the Appellant was maintaining a regular work schedule. [ 37 ] In 2023, the Appellant was a casual part-time worker. In January 2024, she accepted a permanent part-time position with her employer. Footnote 13 [ 38 ] The Appellant needed an additional knee surgery in 2024. She took two months off for surgery and recovery starting at the end of May 2024. Footnote 14 [ 39 ] At the time the Minister decided the Appellant was still disabled in May 2024, the Appellant hadn’t earned a substantially gainful level of income for 2024. She had just transitioned into a permanent part-time role a few months earlier. She was going to take a couple months off for surgery. The Minister decided she was still disabled at that time. Given this context, the Minister’s decision wasn’t unreasonable at that time. The period after May 2024 [ 40 ] In early August 2024, the Appellant returned to work after her second knee surgery. She had updated accommodations in place with her employer to address physical and mental health restrictions. Footnote 15 [ 41 ] By November 3, 2024, the Appellant had earned $17,310.00 in income for the year. Footnote 16 I find that this is evidence of the ability to earn a level of income that is substantially gainful. The threshold for substantially gainful income in 2024 was $18,883.00. [ 42 ] While I don’t have the Appellant’s final two months of paystubs before me, she likely surpassed the threshold based upon her regular earning capacity. Footnote 17 She testified that she was working an average of 16 to 20 hours per week until the end of December 2024. [ 43 ] The Appellant was able to earn a substantially gainful level of income in 2024 despite missing two months from work for her surgery. She confirmed she didn’t receive sick pay or short-term disability benefits during this time. Therefore, the amounts on her paystubs reflect earned income. [ 44 ] By November 2024, the Appellant demonstrated that she had recovered from her two knee surgeries sufficiently to return to work regularly. Her job as a social worker had physical and emotional demands and she was able to manage them with her medical conditions. She had accommodations in place with her employer for her functional limitations. [ 45 ] By November 2024, the Appellant had also demonstrated that she could earn substantially gainful income with her medical conditions, even with time off for medical reasons. She demonstrated these abilities in the context of work that wasn’t sedentary and challenged her physically and mentally. [ 46 ] Dr. [APPELLANT], physiatrist, assessed the Appellant in October 2024. Footnote 18 He said the Appellant was able to permanently work part-time with restrictions for prolonged sitting, standing and walking. She had ongoing restrictions that precluded strenuous activity. I find that Dr. [NAME] opinion in the relevant time period, supports a finding that the Appellant was capable of regularly working part-time moving forward. [ 47 ] During her time receiving the [NAME] disability pension, the Appellant completed a college diploma and a university degree. She also had a level of education by the end of November 2024 that would allow her to look for more sedentary work, or a work from home job that could further accommodate her functional limitations, or allow her to work more hours if needed. By this time the Appellant’s personal background characteristics had also changed her ability to work in the real world due to re-training. [ 48 ] The Appellant’s activities by November 2024 showed that she was able to regularly work at a permanent part-time position and earn substantially gainful income with her functional limitations. The medical evidence from that time also says she could permanently work part-time. She also upgraded her educational background by that time from regular long-term school attendance. Therefore, she was no longer severely disabled by that date. The Appellant’s didn’t have a benevolent employer [ 49 ] If the Appellant had a benevolent employer, then it could mean that she wasn’t capable of pursuing substantially gainful work, despite the level of income she earned. Footnote 19 The Appellant hasn’t claimed that she had a benevolent employer, but I am going to consider whether she did anyway. [ 50 ] The evidence doesn’t show that the Appellant’s employer was benevolent. [ 51 ] When deciding whether an employer is benevolent, I need to consider: Footnote 20 whether the work the Appellant performed was productive whether the accommodations provided go beyond what is required in the competitive job market whether the employer experience hardship [ 52 ] The Appellant first returned to work with her employer in 2021. She was accommodated upon her return to work. The evidence shows her employer was supportive and willing to extend long-term accommodations, and to revisit and update them as needed. Footnote 21 [ 53 ] The Appellant performed productive tasks at her job. She was a social support worker in the community. She assisted residents with groceries, and laundry and other personal support tasks. She took food deliveries, and helped with meals. [ 54 ] The Appellant’s accommodations didn’t go beyond what is required in a competitive job market. The Appellant had restrictions not to perform tasks that required bending, twisting or lifting. She was given assistive devices to help with her physical tasks and received help for heavier tasks from a [NAME]. She was assigned to a low needs program which was less likely to have crisis situations. [ 55 ] The accommodations were low or no cost solutions. They didn’t require extensive financial obligations, or significant intervention by other people in the workplace. [ 56 ] There is no evidence the employer experienced hardship in providing the accommodations. I have found that they involved little to no cost to implement. They were also maintained for four years, and regularly updated. This shows that they were not difficult to maintain. [ 57 ] The Appellant performed productive work. Her employer was able and willing to provide her with long-term accommodations and to re-visit them as needed. The accommodations had little to no cost and didn’t result in hardship. [ 58 ] Therefore, I find the Appellant didn’t have a benevolent employer. The Appellant’s other arguments [ 59 ] The Appellant argued that the Minister must show a “material change” occurred to terminate the [NAME] disability pension. She didn’t provide any legal source for this argument. [ 60 ] There is no requirement in the [NAME] that says the Minister must prove a “material change” occurred to terminate a pension. However, I find that there was a change in circumstances by November 2024 that supports the Minister’s decision to terminate the benefits. [ 61 ] The Appellant’s recovery from her second surgery in August 2024, her return to work regularly as a permanent part-time worker, and her ability to earn an income that approached the substantially gainful threshold in an eight-month period demonstrated a change in circumstances since the Minister’s decision in May 2024. Footnote 22 [ 62 ] The Appellant also argued that she wasn’t able to work regularly because her schedule fluctuated and could be unpredictable. I don’t agree with this argument. While the Appellant could work more hours one week, and decrease them the next as needed, she regularly went to work. [ 63 ] The Appellant worked so regularly that she earned over $16,000.00 in 2023 and likely well over $18,000.00 in 2024. This shows a long-term level of work capacity that is consistent and regular. It was also done in the context of her attending school part-time and spending six hours per week on her education at the same time. [ 64 ] Once I find that an appellant has stopped being disabled, I can’t decide whether they have become disabled again. If the Appellant believes that she became disabled again since November 2024, she can reapply for a disability pension. The Minister (that is, Service Canada) will decide the application. Conclusion [ 65 ] The Minister has proven that the Appellant stopped being disabled as of November 2024 and is no longer entitled to a disability pension. [ 66 ] This means the appeal is dismissed. Footnotes Footnote 1 Section 42(2)(a) of the [NAME] gives this definition of severe disability . Section 68.1 of the [NAME] says a job is “substantially gainful” if it pays a salary or wages equal to or greater than the maximum annual amount a person could receive as a disability pension. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 Section 42(2)(a) of the [NAME] gives this definition of prolonged disability. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2014  FCA  187. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2009  FCA  158; and SM  v  Minister ([RESPONDENT] and [NAME]) , 2022  SST  182. The record of the Minister’s decision is at GD2-30. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2013  FCA  81. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 [NAME]  v  Canada ([NAME]) , 2008  FCA  33. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2011  FCA  47. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 The Appellant confirmed this at the hearing. She says she did 6 hours of schoolwork and at least 16 hours of part-time work per week on average. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 See GD2-30. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 See GD2-41. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 See section 68.1 of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 See GD2-33. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 The Appellant confirmed the change of work status at the hearing. Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 See GD6-16. Return to footnote 14 referrer Footnote 15 See GD6-47. Return to footnote 15 referrer Footnote 16 [NAME]. Return to footnote 16 referrer Footnote 17 See fall 2024 paystubs at GD6-19 to [NAME]. Return to footnote 17 referrer Footnote 18 See GD1-83. Return to footnote 18 referrer Footnote 19 A benevolent employer is one that accommodates an employee beyond what is required in the competitive job market. [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2014  FCA  187. Return to footnote 19 referrer Footnote 20 [NAME]  v  Minister ([RESPONDENT] and [NAME]) , 2022  SST  1237. Return to footnote 20 referrer Footnote 21 See GD2-33, GD6-47, and GD6-48. Return to footnote 21 referrer Footnote 22 The Appellant earned $17,310.00 by November 3, 2024, based on her paystub at [NAME]. There was still eight weeks of work left in the year at that point. She had also taken two months off for surgery in June and July 2024. This means she earned this level of income based off 8 months of work. Return to footnote 22 referrer