Social Security Tribunal Rejects Claimant’s CPP Disability Pension Appeal

OUTCOME: Dismissed

Citation: BB  v  [RESPONDENT] and [NAME] , 2026  [NAME]  218 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Decision Appellant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] [COUNSEL] under appeal: [NAME] decision dated October 2, 2025 (GP-24-1664) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: In Writing Decision date: May 28, 2026 File number: AD-25-631 On this page Decision Overview Preliminary matter Issues Analysis Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] The appeal is dismissed. The Appellant is not entitled to a [NAME] ( [NAME] ) [NAME] [NAME]. Overview [ 2 ] In this decision, I will refer to the Appellant, [APPELLANT]., as the “Claimant.” I will refer to the Respondent, the [RESPONDENT] and [NAME], as the “Minister.” [ 3 ] The Claimant will be 64 years old in October 2026. She last worked in July 2021. She was a [NAME] assistant. She held that job for nearly 12 years. Footnote 1 She had surgery on her right hand in July 2021 and August 2022. Footnote 2 [ 4 ] This is the Claimant’s second application for a [NAME] [NAME] [NAME]. She first applied in August 2021. Footnote 3 However, she chose not to pursue her first application. She stopped because she succeeded in getting regular [RESPONDENT] ( EI ) benefits for a period starting in 2021 and ending in 2022. Footnote 4 [ 5 ] The [APPELLANT] filed her current application in April 2023. When she applied, she said her only medical condition was being unable to use her right (dominant) hand to perform extended everyday duties without pain. She said she could no longer work as of August 2022. That date coincides with her last surgery. Footnote 5 [ 6 ] The Minister denied her application initially and on reconsideration. The [APPELLANT] then appealed to the Social Security Tribunal (Tribunal). After a teleconference hearing, the Tribunal’s [NAME] dismissed her appeal. Footnote 6 The [APPELLANT] then requested leave to appeal at the Tribunal’s Appeal Division. One of my Appeal Division colleagues granted her leave to appeal. She requested a hearing in writing. Footnote 7 I did not consider the testimony from the [NAME] hearing. Footnote 8 [ 7 ] The [APPELLANT] said her appeal should be allowed because the medical evidence supports her claimed limitations. She could not use her right hand without swelling, pain, and burning. She said her recent unpaid activities were not strenuous. She said they were not comparable to the demands of a real job. [ 8 ] The Minister said the appeal should be dismissed because the medical evidence does not support a severe [NAME]. The Minister also pointed to residual capacity for work, even if she could no longer do her former [NAME] job. The Minister said she had not shown that her efforts to find or keep suitable [RESPONDENT] had failed because of her medical condition. [ 9 ] I must decide whether the Claimant had a severe and prolonged [NAME] by December 31, 2024. [ 10 ] For the reasons set out below, I find that the Claimant did not have a severe and prolonged [NAME] by December 31, 2024. Preliminary matter [ 11 ] The Claimant requested an “in writing” hearing. This means that I must base my decision on the written arguments and supporting documents sent in by the parties. However, as noted, I could not consider the testimony from the [NAME] hearing. To have a more complete record of evidence, I prepared some written questions for the Claimant. Those questions were sent to her by e-mail on May 4, 2026, with a response deadline of May 19, 2026. Footnote 9 She never answered those questions. [ 12 ] The Tribunal actively adjudicates appeals. That may include asking questions of the parties. Footnote 10 Parties are responsible for participating in the appeal process. This may include filing documents and presenting evidence. Parties must also follow the Tribunal’s directions. This includes communicating with the Tribunal, responding to its requests, and meeting its deadlines. Footnote 11 [ 13 ] The Tribunal’s rules do not specify the consequences of failing to answer the Tribunal’s questions. However, the Claimant’s failure to respond to those questions is akin to not attending a hearing. [ 14 ] The Tribunal’s rules say that an oral hearing may take place without a party if the Tribunal believes that the party received the notice of hearing. Footnote 12 In this case, I am satisfied that the Claimant received the list of questions. They were sent to the e-mail address she provided. Footnote 13 I see nothing to suggest that they were not received. Thus, by analogy, I may render a decision in this appeal based on the available information. Footnote 14 Issues [ 15 ] The issues in this appeal are: a) Did the Claimant have a severe [NAME] by December 31, 2024? b) If so, did she also have a prolonged [NAME] by then? c) If the answer to b) is “yes,” when does her [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] start? Analysis [ 16 ] The Claimant’s minimum qualifying period ( MQP ), or coverage period, ended on December 31, 2024. Footnote 15 That is when she must establish the onset of a [NAME], as defined by the [NAME] . Her [NAME] must also have been continuous since then. Footnote 16 [ 17 ] Under the [NAME] , a [NAME] must be both severe and prolonged. [ 18 ] The [NAME] says a [NAME] is severe if it makes a person incapable regularly of pursuing any substantially gainful occupation. Footnote 17 [ 19 ] When assessing severity, I must look at all of the Claimant’s medical conditions together to see what effect they have on her work ability. Footnote 18 If she can regularly do some type of work from which she could earn a living, she isn’t entitled to a [NAME] [NAME]. [ 20 ] The [NAME] says a [NAME] is prolonged if it is likely to be long continued and of indefinite duration, or is likely to result in death. Footnote 19 Did the Claimant have a severe [NAME] by December 31, 2024? [ 21 ] The Claimant did not have a severe [NAME] by December 31, 2024. I will now explain why. [ 22 ] Before looking at the Claimant’s functional limitations, I will review some of the most relevant medical evidence. [ 23 ] In November 2022, Dr. [APPELLANT] (plastic surgeon) described limitations with the Claimant’s right fingers. These limitations remained despite two recent surgeries. He said her limited finger function, “would rule out most opportunities for [RESPONDENT].” However, he also said she may benefit from continued occupational therapy. Footnote 20 [ 24 ] In February 2024, Dr. [APPELLANT] (family doctor) said the Claimant’s right hand remained symptomatic, with limitations arising from pain and movement. Dr. [NAME] said she could no longer work, had no changes since her last surgery, and had no occupational therapy in the past year. Footnote 21 [ 25 ] The only subsequent medical evidence consisted of clinical records by [NAME] (physiotherapist). These notes, made between October 2024 and March 2025, focused on symptoms in the right elbow area. The symptoms emerged around July 2024. The last note, from March 14, 2025, said she no longer had any arm symptoms. Footnote 22 [ 26 ] I will now review the Claimant’s functional limitations by the end of 2024. The Claimant’s reported functional limitations by the end of 2024 [ 27 ] The Claimant’s main reported functional limitations by the end of 2024 were tasks involving any significant use of the right hand. She also reported increasing similar challenges with her left hand. She said she could not perform tasks involving the extension of her right arm. Finally, her right-hand challenges affected her ability to understand instructions and concentrate. I will now explain how I identified those limitations. [ 28 ] The Claimant completed a [NAME] [NAME] form in March 2023. The form asked about her ability to do various activities, on a five-point scale ranging from “excellent” to “poor”. Of the 51 abilities, she only ranked one of them (“pound a nail with a hammer”) as “poor.” Footnote 23 [ 29 ] Despite this apparent lack of significant restrictions, the Claimant did describe other functional limitations on the form. These limitations included: Footnote 24 Her right hand could not grip items confidently. She might drop them. Her right hand did not function properly. She had concentration issues, as she overcompensated for the pain and functional problems in her dominant hand. She had trouble understanding verbal instructions of medium complexity, leading to confusion, frustration, anger, and crying. [ 30 ] In September 2023, the Claimant said she could not use her right hand for a prolonged period. After 20 minutes, she had to stop using her hand. She also said she was unable to perform most duties that required the use of both hands. Footnote 25 [ 31 ] In July 2024, the Claimant said her right hand had limited use and tired easily. She had to rely on her left hand, which now also suffered from “strain and sensitivity”. Footnote 26 [ 32 ] In September 2024, the Claimant completed a form about pain in her right elbow area. That pain started about two months before. She said using her right arm (extending it) made the pain worse. Keeping her elbow bent made it better. She needed help for her daily home activities. Footnote 27 [ 33 ] I will now see if the medical evidence could support the claimed limitations by the end of 2024. This is important because [NAME] [NAME] applicants must provide some medical evidence about their underlying conditions. Footnote 28 Does the medical evidence support the claimed limitations? [ 34 ] By the end of 2024, the medical evidence appears to support the [APPELLANT] reported limitations with extending her right arm. It also supports limited functionality with her right hand. However, by the end of 2024, it does not support the claimed limitations with concentration, understanding instructions, or her left hand. [ 35 ] In November 2022, three months after surgery to release a trigger finger, Dr. [APPELLANT] said the Claimant had limited function with the fingers in her right hand. She had arthritis and swelling in that area. She could not do repetitive duties without pain. She also had challenges with lifting, grasping, bending the wrist, and typing. Footnote 29 [ 36 ] In February 2024, as noted, Dr. [APPELLANT] said the Claimant’s right hand had limitations from pain and movement. Dr. [NAME] did not provide a specific diagnosis. Footnote 30 [ 37 ] In October 2024, Mr. [APPELLANT] notes reveal “a lot of difficulty” with the [APPELLANT] right elbow. She had pain with resisted pronation and gripping. She had trouble lifting a plate from the dishwasher. Mr. [NAME] noted problems with hand arthritis and swelling. However, as noted, Mr. [NAME] said her arm difficulties appeared to end in March 2025. Footnote 31 [ 38 ] The Claimant said she could no longer work because of her medical condition in August 2022. However, I saw no medical documents after that date refer to difficulties with concentration, understanding instructions, or any concerns with her left hand. [ 39 ] I will now look at the Claimant’s personal characteristics. Do the Claimant’s personal characteristics limit her employability? [ 40 ] When deciding whether the Claimant had a severe [NAME] by the end of 2024, I must consider factors such as her: Footnote 32 Age Language ability Education level Past work and life experience [ 41 ] These factors will help me decide whether the Claimant could work in the real [NAME]. I will look at each of them in turn. [ 42 ] The Claimant was 62 years old at the end of 2024. She was only three years away from the typical retirement age in Canada. Her age would likely have impacted her real-[NAME] work ability by precluding highly demanding physical work. It would also have placed some limits on her ability to retrain in a new profession. [ 43 ] The Claimant speaks English fluently. English is one of Canada’s official languages. Her language ability would not have affected her prospects. [ 44 ] The Claimant is well educated. She has a Bachelor of Arts degree in Literature. She has [NAME] (Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System) training. She also has training in first aid, conflict resolution, and food safety. Footnote 33 Her education would place few limits on her employability in the real [NAME]. She would only be precluded from jobs requiring specific certification or a graduate degree. [ 45 ] The Claimant’s recent work has mostly consisted of working in a [NAME]. She worked there from 2009 to 2021. She would handle patron registration, check-in and check-out (using a compute), and unloading books. She would help patrons with computer issues and “troubleshoot” problems with the printer, copier, or scanner. She would also shelve books. Footnote 34 [ 46 ] The questions sent to the Claimant in May 2026 included several questions about her [RESPONDENT] history beyond her [NAME] work. However, she did not answer those questions. Footnote 35 This is important because the Claimant had qualifying [NAME] contributions for many years before she started working at the [NAME]. This included every year, except 1986, from 1981 to 1997. She also had some work activity in 1986, 1998, and 2005 to 2008. Footnote 36 [ 47 ] Some of the Claimant’s written statements hint at her earlier work. She described running a business related to birthday parties. But it is not clear if that was responsible for any of her earlier [NAME] contributions. Without giving details, she also said her previous jobs depended on “physically able and younger employees.” Footnote 37 [ 48 ] As for life experience, the Claimant had two children. She had travelled. In late 2024, her activities included gardening, building things, and cat rescue. Footnote 38 [ 49 ] I cannot say that the Claimant’s work history and life experiences impose many limits on what she could do in the real [NAME]. Her [NAME] work included computer tasks. She had run a business. She also did work that appeared to be relatively physical. Her experiences with travelling and raising children might remove some barriers too. Other jobs would likely have been revealed if she had answered the May 2026 questions. [ 50 ] When I look at all of the Claimant’s personal characteristics together, she has real-[NAME] work potential in a very broad range of careers. Without considering the Claimant’s medical conditions , she would only be precluded from jobs requiring significant training, specific certification (other than those areas in which she already has certification), a graduate degree, or heavy physical work. [ 51 ] I will now apply the Claimant’s personal characteristics to her limitations, so I can decide whether she had any residual work capacity by the end of 2024. I need to focus on that period because her coverage ended then. Did the Claimant have any residual work capacity by the end of 2024? [ 52 ] The Claimant likely had work capacity by the end of 2024. I will now explain why. [ 53 ] The Claimant’s only functional limitations by the end of 2024 were extending her right arm (due to elbow concerns) and limited use of her right hand. Even then, her right elbow problems appeared to resolve in March 2025. As her [NAME] must be continuous from at least the end of 2024 until now, this means my finding of residual work capacity is based largely on limitations with her right hand. [ 54 ] I accept that certain tasks would be difficult or impossible with a heavily restricted dominant hand. However, given her personal characteristics, the Claimant is not limited to work requiring regular use of the right hand. Many jobs have a focus on spoken rather than written communication. The Claimant’s work experience and high level of education would have prepared her for jobs that required little use of her right hand. [ 55 ] The Claimant’s left hand was not her dominant hand, but it was not useless either. In fact, I see no medical support for any limitations with it at the relevant times. She likely could have used her left hand for any tasks that didn’t require exceptional speed or precision. Those aspects are usually easier with the dominant hand. [ 56 ] While the Claimant would not have been suited for heavy physical work, she gardened for six hours per day in October 2024. She did this daily, and started at least two months before. It involved digging holes with a shovel, lifting out rocks, weeding, removing landscaping fabric, and building flower beds. Footnote 39 All these tasks would have required at least occasional assistance from her limited right hand. They also show that she retained significant capacity in her left hand. [ 57 ] The Claimant later said that she needed support for this heavy gardening work, and could take breaks when needed. Footnote 40 That may be true, and I do not conclude that she could work in the real [NAME] as a gardener or landscaper. However, if she could complete six hours per day of accommodated activity with such demanding tasks, she likely had significant capacity for work in a suitable and less demanding role. [ 58 ] In the past, applicants for a [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] without full use of their dominant hand were often found not to have a severe [NAME]. Footnote 41 I do not need to rely on that history to conclude that the Claimant still had some work capacity. But those past findings are consistent with such a conclusion, based on her limitations and personal characteristics. [ 59 ] As the Claimant had some residual work capacity by the end of 2024, I must now look at her attempts to work around that time. When a [NAME] [NAME] has some work capacity, she must show that efforts at obtaining and maintaining [RESPONDENT] have been unsuccessful because of her health condition. Footnote 42 Were the Claimant’s attempts to obtain and maintain suitable work unsuccessful because of her health condition? [ 60 ] I find that the Claimant’s attempts to obtain and maintain suitable work were not unsuccessful because of her health condition. I will now explain why. [ 61 ] The Claimant does not appear to have pursued or attempted any [RESPONDENT] since she stopped working at the [NAME]. Footnote 43 In October 2025, she said her birthday party business did not translate to her current part of Canada. This attempt does not appear to be recent. However, even if it was, she said the business failed because people had less disposable income in that part of Canada. Footnote 44 This means it did not fail because of her health condition. [ 62 ] In May 2026, I gave the Claimant an opportunity to describe her recent job searches and attempts. Footnote 45 However, as noted, she never answered those questions. [ 63 ] In 2024, the Claimant described some cat rescuing activity. However, she recently said the extent of that activity was housing cats who were homeless. Footnote 46 I cannot consider this a work attempt, failed or otherwise. [ 64 ] Similarly, I cannot consider the Claimant’s gardening activity as a suitable work attempt. It was very physical and, based on her personal characteristics, was not appropriate for her. Footnote 47 [ 65 ] As the Claimant’s attempts to obtain and maintain suitable work did not fail because of her health condition, I cannot find that her [NAME] was severe. Did the Claimant also have a prolonged [NAME] by the end of 2024? [ 66 ] As I found that the Claimant did not have a severe [NAME] by the end of 2024, I do not need to answer this question. Conclusion [ 67 ] The appeal is dismissed. The Claimant did not have a severe and prolonged [NAME] by the end of 2024. She is not entitled to a [NAME] [NAME] [NAME]. Footnotes Footnote 1 See GD2-68. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See GD2-204 and GD2-209. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See GD2-265 and GD2-268. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See GD2-69 and GD2-252. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 See GD2-57 and GD2-60. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 See AD1A-1. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 See AD1-5. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 Testimony from the [NAME] hearing can only be considered when a request is made and approved according to the Practice Direction on “Using testimony from [NAME] hearings in Income Security appeals at the Appeal Division.” Neither party asked me to consider that testimony under that Practice Direction. The Tribunal first advised the parties of this is a letter dated October 21, 2025. The parties were also reminded of this in March 2026 (see AD0-1) and May 2026 (see AD9-2). Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 See AD9-1 to AD9-2. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 See sections 8(2) and 17(2) of the Social Security Tribunal Rules of Procedure ( [NAME]). Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 See sections 13(1) and (2) of the [NAME]. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 See section 58 of the [NAME]. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 See AD1-3 and AD9-1. Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 See section 8(5) of the [NAME]. Return to footnote 14 referrer Footnote 15 This date is based on the Claimant’s [NAME] contributions. Her [NAME] contributions are at GD2-82 to GD2-83. Service Canada uses a person’s years of [NAME] contributions to calculate their coverage period ( MQP ). See section 44(2) of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 15 referrer Footnote 16 See Canada ([NAME] [NAME])  v  [NAME] , 2015  FC  1348, at paragraph 31. Return to footnote 16 referrer Footnote 17 See section 42(2)(a) of the [NAME]. Return to footnote 17 referrer Footnote 18 [NAME]  v  Canada ([NAME] [NAME]) , 2011  FCA  47, at paragraph 8. Return to footnote 18 referrer Footnote 19 See section 42(2)(a) of the [NAME]. Return to footnote 19 referrer Footnote 20 See GD2-36. Return to footnote 20 referrer Footnote 21 See GD1-10. Return to footnote 21 referrer Footnote 22 See GD5-4 to GD5-15. Return to footnote 22 referrer Footnote 23 See GD2-63 to GD2-66. Return to footnote 23 referrer Footnote 24 See GD2-63 to GD2-65. Return to footnote 24 referrer Footnote 25 See GD2-33. Return to footnote 25 referrer Footnote 26 See GD1-4. Return to footnote 26 referrer Footnote 27 See GD5-16. Return to footnote 27 referrer Footnote 28 [NAME]  v  Canada ([NAME] [NAME]) , 2008  FCA  377, and Canada ([NAME] [NAME])  v  [NAME] , 2020  FC  206. Return to footnote 28 referrer Footnote 29 See GD2-36. Return to footnote 29 referrer Footnote 30 See GD1-10. Return to footnote 30 referrer Footnote 31 See GD5-4, GD5-10, GD5-11, and GD5-13 to GD5-14. Return to footnote 31 referrer Footnote 32 [NAME]  v  Canada ([NAME] [NAME]) , 2002  FCA  248. Return to footnote 32 referrer Footnote 33 See GD2-69 and GD2-269. Return to footnote 33 referrer Footnote 34 See GD2-68 and GD2-268. Return to footnote 34 referrer Footnote 35 See AD9-1 to AD9-2. Return to footnote 35 referrer Footnote 36 See GD2-82 to GD2-83 and GD2-268. Return to footnote 36 referrer Footnote 37 See AD1B-1. Return to footnote 37 referrer Footnote 38 See GD2-37, GD2-269, and GD5-14. Return to footnote 38 referrer Footnote 39 See GD5-13 to GD5-14. Return to footnote 39 referrer Footnote 40 See AD1B-1 and AD3-2. Return to footnote 40 referrer Footnote 41 [NAME].  v  Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, (2008) CP25254, at paragraph 35. [NAME]. was a decision of the [NAME] Board. While decisions of the [NAME] Board are not binding on the Tribunal, they can have persuasive value. Return to footnote 41 referrer Footnote 42 [NAME]  v  Canada ([NAME] [NAME]) , 2003  FCA  117, at paragraph 3. Return to footnote 42 referrer Footnote 43 See GD1-5, GD2-68, and GD2-268. Return to footnote 43 referrer Footnote 44 See AD1B-1. Return to footnote 44 referrer Footnote 45 See AD9-1. Return to footnote 45 referrer Footnote 46 See GD5-14, AD3-2, and AD3-4. Return to footnote 46 referrer Footnote 47 See, for example, [NAME]  v.  Canada ([NAME] [NAME]) , 2014  FCA  193, at paragraph 5. Return to footnote 47 referrer