Social Security Tribunal Rejects Claimant’s Appeal for Earlier CPP Survivor Pension Payments

OUTCOME: Dismissed

Citation: [NAME] v [RESPONDENT] and [NAME] , 2026  [NAME]  289 Social Security Tribunal of Canada General Division – Income Security Section Decision Appellant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] [RESPONDENT] and [NAME] reconsideration decision dated June 16, 2025 (issued by Service Canada) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: Teleconference Hearing date: March 19, 2026 Hearing participants: Appellant Respondent’s Representatives Decision date: April 10, 2026 File number: GP-25-1407 On this page Decision Overview What the Appellant must prove Reasons for my decision Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] The appeal is dismissed. [ 2 ] The Appellant, M. W., isn’t eligible for [NAME] ( [NAME] ) [NAME] payments before October 2023. [ 3 ] This decision explains why I am dismissing the appeal. Overview [ 4 ] The Appellant was married to [APPELLANT]. H., the deceased contributor. He died on August 21, 2021. [ 5 ] The Appellant submitted an application for a [NAME] to the [RESPONDENT] and [NAME] (Minister) on September 11, 2024. The Minister approved the [NAME]. The effective date for the payment of the pension was October 2023. Footnote 1 [ 6 ] The Appellant appealed the Minister’s reconsideration decision to the Social Security Tribunal’s General Division (Tribunal) because she wants her payments to begin earlier. [ 7 ] The Appellant says she was unable to apply for the [NAME] at an earlier date because she was incapacitated. She said her mental health condition prevented her from being able to apply earlier then she did. [ 8 ] The Minister says the Appellant doesn’t meet the legal requirements to be considered incapacitated. It says the law doesn’t allow the Appellant’s payments to start earlier than October 2023. What the Appellant must prove [ 9 ] [NAME] payments can’t start earlier than 11 months before a person applies for them. Footnote 2 There is one exception to this rule in the law. It’s called the incapacity rule. [ 10 ] If a person meets the requirements of the incapacity rule, their application will be treated as if it was made earlier than it was. In that case, the payments would begin earlier. [ 11 ] For the Appellant to succeed, she must prove that the incapacity rule applies to her. This means she must prove that she was incapable of forming or expressing an intention to apply for the [NAME] before September 2024. She must also prove that her incapacity was continuous. Footnote 3 [ 12 ] The Appellant must prove this on a balance of probabilities. This means she must show that it is more likely than not to be true. Reasons for my decision [ 13 ] I find that the incapacity rule doesn’t apply to the Appellant. While she had a medical condition that was affecting her ability to work at times, she wasn’t incapacitated within the meaning of the [NAME] at any point in time. The test for incapacity is strict [ 14 ] It isn’t easy to prove incapacity. It isn’t the same thing as being disabled, or having mental health conditions. A person with a medical condition or disability may still be able to form or express the intention to apply for a pension or benefits. [ 15 ] Under the test for incapacity, it doesn’t matter if the Appellant didn’t think about applying for the [NAME], or could not make, prepare, process or complete the application by herself. What matters is if she was able to form or express an intention to apply. Footnote 4 [ 16 ] A person’s capacity to form or express an intention to apply for a [NAME] is generally the same as the capacity to form or express an intention to make other decisions in their daily life. Footnote 5 [ 17 ] In deciding whether the Appellant met the test for incapacity, I had to consider: the Appellant’s evidence about her conditions and limitations any medical, psychological, or other evidence in support of the Appellant’s claim for incapacity evidence of the Appellant’s activities during the period she says she was incapacitated what these activities show about the Appellant’s capacity to form or express an intention to apply for a [NAME] during that period. [ 18 ] There is no medical evidence that suggests the Appellant was continuously incapable of forming or expressing an intention to apply for a [NAME] between August 2021 (when [NAME]. [APPELLANT]. died) and September 2024 (when she applied). The Appellant’s activities also show that she didn’t meet the strict test for incapacity. [ 19 ] I acknowledge that the Appellant clearly experienced profound grief following the death of her husband. I am sympathetic to how her loss deeply impacted her. It affected her ability to perform the usual tasks in her daily life at times. However, she was still able to form and express intentions and make decisions. The Appellant’s evidence about incapacity [ 20 ] The Appellant says that she returned to work within two weeks of her husband’s death in 2021 because she feared losing her job. She had to stop working in July 2022 because of her medical conditions. When she was working, she sometimes missed days, or asked to go home early because of her conditions. [ 21 ] The Appellant says she wasn’t able to keep up with her personal hygiene due to her medical conditions. She could not handle the affairs of her husband’s estate and there are still some items remaining to be done. [ 22 ] The Appellant says she developed a dependency on alcohol following her husband’s death as well, which affected her function. She required prescription medication to try to manage her conditions. [ 23 ] The Appellant says the evidence shows that she required medication and needed psychological counselling and psychiatric treatment during the period she is claiming she was incapacitated. What the medical evidence says about incapacity [ 24 ] The Appellant provided evidence showing that she experienced mental health conditions following the death of her husband. She was diagnosed with anxiety, depression, and complex bereavement disorder. Footnote 6 [ 25 ] The Appellant filed records from her former employer. They show that she had emotional outbursts at work. She stopped working in July 2022 because of her medical condition. Footnote 7 [ 26 ] The Appellant also filed several medical records. They show that [NAME] kept her off work until February 2023, because of her medical condition. Footnote 8 She got psychological counselling and was seeing a psychiatrist from September 2022 up to the time she applied for a [NAME]. Footnote 9 [ 27 ] The Appellant also filed prescription records. They show that she required medication for her medical condition from August 2021 to the time of the hearing. Footnote 10 [ 28 ] None of the medical records available suggest that the Appellant was incapacitated within the meaning of the [NAME] at any time. They show that the Appellant had mental health conditions and required medication and treatment. They show that she had to stop working because of her conditions between July 2022 and February 2023. The Appellant’s activities don’t show that she was incapacitated [ 29 ] The Appellant worked for approximately 10 months following the death of her husband, between September 2021 and July 2022. She worked as a manager of a government fraud investigation team. She was able to form the intention to return to work and show up for work on a regular basis. She told me she was “fairly able” to complete her work tasks during this period. [ 30 ] The Appellant’s ability to decide to go back to work and to regularly make the intention to show up to work and perform her tasks, even though she missed some days, suggests that she wasn’t incapacitated. [ 31 ] Following the death of her husband, the Appellant was served with legal papers from one of his family members in relation to his estate. The Appellant says she was able to hire a lawyer to deal with this legal issue. [ 32 ] The ability to hire and instruct a lawyer shows that the Appellant could form and express intentions. This evidence also shows that there were times when she was able to form intentions and make decisions directly related to her husband’s estate during the period she says she was incapacitated. [ 33 ] The Appellant always managed her own medical care. She was able to seek treatment and follow medical recommendations. She managed her own prescriptions. She attended appointments in person and online, by herself. This evidence suggests the Appellant wasn’t incapacitated. She was able to form intentions to seek and follow medical guidance, and participate in her care and her return-to-work planning. [ 34 ] The Appellant continued to drive during the period she said she was incapacitated. She confirmed that she also remained responsible for her own banking and financial affairs. These activities suggest that she wasn’t incapacitated. The ability to form an intention to perform daily tasks and operate a vehicle safely is no different than the ability to form an intention to apply for a [NAME]. [ 35 ] The Appellant has never had another person appointed as a power of attorney or as a substitute decision-maker on her behalf. This also suggests that she wasn’t incapacitated. [ 36 ] Overall, the Appellant’s activities don’t suggest that she was incapacitated at any point in time between August 2021 and September 2024. She was able to work, drive, manage her finances, and medical care during this time. The Appellant was also able to form intentions and make decisions in relation to her husband’s estate during this period. [ 37 ] I find that the medical evidence and the Appellant’s activities don’t support a finding of incapacity. They show that the Appellant was regularly able to form and express intentions during the period of August 2021 to September 2024. Conclusion [ 38 ] I find that the Appellant isn’t eligible to have her [NAME] [NAME] payments begin before October 2023, because she wasn’t incapacitated. [ 39 ] This means the appeal is dismissed. Footnotes Footnote 1 See GD2-11. Return to footnote 1 Footnote 2 See section 72 of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 2 Footnote 3 See sections 60(8), (9), and (10) of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 3 Footnote 4 See Canada (Attorney General) v [NAME] , 2008  FCA  78; Canada (Attorney General) v [NAME] , 2016  FC  112; and [NAME] v Canada (Attorney General) , 2021  FCA  211. Return to footnote 4 Footnote 5 [NAME] v Canada ([NAME]) , 2008 FCS 86; and Canada (Attorney General) v [NAME] , 2008  FCA  144. Return to footnote 5 Footnote 6 See GD8-23. Return to footnote 6 Footnote 7 See GD5-5, GD7R-6, and GD8-21. Return to footnote 7 Footnote 8 See GD8-22 to GD8-25 and GD5-2 to GD5-4. Return to footnote 8 Footnote 9 See GD7R-9 to GD7R-11. Return to footnote 9 Footnote 10 See GD7R-12 to GD7R-15. Return to footnote 10