Social Security Tribunal Rejects CPP Disability Pension Claim

OUTCOME: Dismissed

Citation: YD  v  [RESPONDENT] Development , 2026  [NAME]  126 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Decision Appellant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] Representative: [COUNSEL] [NAME] under appeal: [NAME] decision dated November 4, 2025 (GP-25-1106) Tribunal member: [NAME] of hearing: Teleconference Hearing date: April 15, 2026 Hearing participants: Appellant Respondent’s representative Decision date: May 11, 2026 File number: AD-25-806 On this page Decision Overview Issue Analysis Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] I am dismissing this appeal. The Appellant is not entitled to a [NAME] ( [NAME] ) disability pension. Overview [ 2 ] The Appellant is a 37-year-old former parking lot attendant. In 2010, he was shot in the leg while at a nightclub. He has worked only intermittently since then. [ 3 ] The Appellant applied for a [NAME] disability pension in April 2024. Footnote 1 He claimed that he was unable to work because a bullet fragment remained lodged in his left thigh. [ 4 ] Service Canada, the Minister’s public facing agency, refused the application after determining that the Appellant did not have a severe and prolonged disability as of January 2013, the last time he had [NAME] disability coverage. Footnote 2 [ 5 ] The Appellant appealed the Minister’s refusal to the Social Security Tribunal. The Tribunal’s [NAME] conducted a hearing by teleconference and dismissed the appeal. It found that, although the Appellant had some physical and psychological limitations at the end of his coverage period, he still had the capacity to regularly perform substantially gainful [RESPONDENT]. [ 6 ] The Appellant then applied for permission to appeal to the Appeal Division. In January, one of my colleagues granted the Appellant permission to appeal. Last month, I held a hearing to discuss his disability claim in full. Issue [ 7 ] For the Appellant to succeed, he had to prove that, more likely than not, he became disabled during his coverage period. Under the [NAME] , a disability must be severe and prolonged: A disability is severe if it makes a claimant incapable regularly of pursuing any substantially gainful occupation. Footnote 3 A claimant isn’t entitled to a disability pension if they are regularly able to do some kind of work that allows them to earn a living. A disability is prolonged if it is likely to be long continued and of indefinite duration or is likely to result in death. Footnote 4 The disability must be expected to keep the claimant out of the workforce for a long time. [ 8 ] The parties agreed that the Appellant’s [NAME] disability coverage period ended on January 31, 2013. Footnote 5 As a result, I had to assess the Appellant’s condition as of that date and decide whether he had functional limitations that have impeded his ability to earn a living. Analysis [ 9 ] I have applied the law to the available evidence and concluded that the Appellant did not have a severe and prolonged disability as of January 31, 2013. The Appellant had medical problems at the time, but they didn’t prevent him from regularly pursuing substantially gainful [RESPONDENT]. The Appellant did not have a severe or prolonged disability [ 10 ] [NAME] bear the burden of proving that they have a severe and prolonged disability. Footnote 6 I have reviewed the record, and I have concluded that the Appellant did not meet that burden according to the test set out in the [NAME] . [ 11 ] In his application for benefits, the Appellant said that he had been in pain since his bullet injury in July 2010. Footnote 7 He rated his ability to perform many physical tasks as poor, particularly those involving standing or walking, but he also reported difficulty with driving a car or sitting for an extended period. He added that his pain increased during winter. [ 12 ] At the hearing, the Appellant testified that he immigrated to Canada from Ethiopia in 2006. He worked briefly as a clerk in an [NAME] in Toronto and then as a valet driver for a [COMPANY]. [ 13 ] His gunshot injury was extremely traumatizing, physically and psychologically. His doctors told him it was too dangerous to remove the bullet. He tried maybe a month of physiotherapy, but it was too painful to continue. He couldn’t stand to be touched in the area where the bullet was located. He acknowledged that cost was a factor in his decision to stop treatment. [ 14 ] He considered going back to work at his previous job, but there were different people there. His mental health suffered and he lost his home. His brother had to take him to the emergency department for [NAME] treatment. In 2014, he followed his brother to X. There, he had his driver’s license reinstated and got a job at a [COMPANY]. At first, he was supposed to only drive a pick-up and load garbage, but his [NAME] started asking him to do additional tasks, such as cleaning camp trailers. When he told his [NAME] that he was in pain, he was fired. But even just driving — sitting in place for an extended period — was hard, and he was “about done” anyway. He would have quit sooner or later. The most relevant medical evidence is less than compelling [ 15 ] The Appellant undoubtedly sustained a serious injury 16 years ago, but the key question for me is whether that injury led to functional limitations that have prevented him from earning a living since then. Footnote 8 [ 16 ] The Appellant experiences left leg pain, and I don’t doubt that it interferes with his ability to work. However, the available medical evidence suggests that, while it may have prevented him from carrying on a physically demanding job in January 2013, it didn’t bar him from all forms of [RESPONDENT]. [ 17 ] A [NAME] completed a medical questionnaire in August 2024 to accompany the Appellant’s [NAME] disability application. Footnote 9 Dr. [APPELLANT] wrote that the Appellant’s gunshot wound had left him with left thigh pain and weakness, which caused him difficulties with walking, standing, pushing, pulling, and lifting. He disclosed that the Appellant had been taking Gabapentin without much effect and Tylenol #4 on and off over the years. [ 18 ] This report suggests that, 14 years after the Appellant’s injury, the focal point of his impairment continued to be his left leg. And although Dr. [NAME] supported his patient’s disability claim, his report came more than a decade after the end of the Appellant’s coverage period. Since the Appellant had to show that he became disabled before January 31, 2013, the medical reports from around that time are far more relevant. [ 19 ] The file contains nothing from the immediate aftermath of the shooting but, in September 2010, Dr. [APPELLANT], a [NAME], saw the Appellant for complaints of pain and limited function in his left leg. Footnote 10 At the time, the Appellant was using a cane to walk. A bullet remained in his left hamstring muscles, but Dr. [NAME] found no suggestion of impingement on major vascular or nerve structures and explained that the usual approach would be to leave the bullet in place. He added that surgery carried a risk of injury and concluded that the best approach was conservative. Dr. [APPELLANT] concluded that the Appellant’s symptoms likely reflected the healing process and would improve with physiotherapy. [ 20 ] The following month, Dr. [NAME] wrote that a repeat imaging test showed the bullet in the muscle mass of the Appellant’s left thigh. Footnote 11 Dr. [APPELLANT] explained that surgical removal would be difficult and only considered if there was evidence of some complication such as nerve impingement. He was optimistic that “more aggressive physiotherapy” would eventually return the Appellant to normal function. [ 21 ] In April 2011, the Appellant told Dr. [APPELLANT] that he continued to have pain in his left leg and still required a cane for walking. Footnote 12 He was depressed and had been unable to attend physiotherapy due to the cost. Dr. [APPELLANT] maintained that the Appellant’s injury would still best be managed by physiotherapy and activity. [ 22 ] The Appellant says that he experienced psychological problems in the wake of his shooting, but evidence of long-lasting trauma is scant. There is a report to the Ontario Ministry of Transportation from November 2010 in which the attending [NAME] noted only that the Appellant had presented to the ER with a first report of psychotic symptoms: “Currently driving but no recent accident.” Footnote 13 In October 2011, Dr. [NAME], a [NAME], prepared a report for the [NAME] declaring the Appellant unable to work due to [NAME] and physical limitations. Footnote 14 Dr. [APPELLANT] said that the Appellant had shown minimal improvement since treatment and offered a guarded prognosis: “His symptoms will/can be chronic.” [ 23 ] In July 2012, Dr. [APPELLANT], a [NAME], wrote that the Appellant’s left thigh pain required him to use a cane and made it difficult for him to climb stairs and take public transportation. Footnote 15 He suffered from depression and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), as well as delusions that people were following him. He had seen a [COMPANY] several times and was taking medication with some relief. Dr. [APPELLANT] did not expect any changes in the Appellant’s physical and mental condition over the long term. [ 24 ] This is the last significant item of medical evidence from before the end of the Appellant’s coverage period. The next one is dated nearly two years later — a brief letter by a [NAME] stating that she did not see any reason why the Appellant’s driver’s licence should not be reinstated. Footnote 16 She did not schedule any follow-up appointments, and there is no indication of the Appellant receiving intensive [NAME] treatment since. [ 25 ] In all, the medical evidence around the Appellant’s coverage period does not point to a severe and prolonged disability. The Appellant suffered a serious injury, but it was confined to his left thigh. The [NAME] who oversaw his care saw no issues with leaving the bullet in place and expected the Appellant to make a full recovery, provided he engaged in physiotherapy and exercise. However, it’s not clear that the Appellant fully followed through on those recommendations. [ 26 ] The Appellant testified that he tried maybe a month of physiotherapy after his injury, but there is nothing on file to confirm that he actually did so. In 2017, after moving to Alberta, he was assessed by a [NAME], who reported that he felt “pressure” on the back of his leg while sitting or lying down. Footnote 17 The [NAME] also said that he could do nothing for the Appellant because the bullet was “still in there,” and he “couldn’t stand to be touched.” [ 27 ] I note that the [NAME]’s assessment was based entirely on the Appellant’s subjective account of his pain. I also note that the Appellant’s reluctance to submit to physiotherapy contradicted his [NAME]’s judgment that activity and exercise, however painful at first, would benefit him in the long run. I find that, since the Appellant hadn’t fully explored the most promising avenues of rehabilitation at the end of his coverage period, he still had residual capacity to pursue substantially gainful [RESPONDENT]. [ 28 ] As we will now see, the Appellant succeeded in doing just that. The Appellant’s condition, looked at as a whole, didn’t prevent him from working in the real world [ 29 ] I find that, despite the Appellant’s medical conditions, he still had some ability to work as of January 31, 2013. I am reinforced in this belief when I look at his overall employability at the time. [ 30 ] The leading case on the interpretation of “severe” is [NAME] , which requires the Tribunal, when assessing disability, to consider a disability claimant as a “whole person” in a real-world context. Footnote 18 Employability is not to be assessed in the abstract, but rather in light of all circumstances. Those circumstances fall into two categories: The claimant’s medical condition — this is a broad inquiry, requiring that the claimant’s condition be assessed in its totality; Footnote 19 and The claimant’s background — matters such as age, education level, language proficiency and past work and life experience are relevant. [ 31 ] In this case, the Appellant sustained a localized bullet injury. There are indications that the Appellant also experienced PTSD and depression following his injury, but his [NAME] suggested that these psychological conditions were largely a function of his physical limitations, which were themselves treatable. In 2011, a [NAME] declared that the Appellant’s mental health problems contributed to a long-term disability, but her report contained minimal detail and it’s not clear that she saw him for anything other than a one-time assessment. The following year, a [NAME] said that the Appellant was prone to delusional thinking but, other than a single ER visit in 2010, there is no evidence of [NAME] intervention for such a disorder. [ 32 ] So, the evidence of disability before January 31, 2013 is weak. It appears weaker when one considers the fact that a [NAME] approved reinstatement of the Appellant’s drivers license in 2014 as a prelude to his return to work. [ 33 ] From November 2014 to April 2015, the Appellant earned more than $28,000 — an amount above the statutory threshold for “substantially gainful” at the time. Footnote 20 According to information that he provided pursuant to his first [NAME] disability application, the Appellant worked full-time as a driver, averaging 30 to 40 hours per week in eight-hour shifts, 14 days on and 14 days off. The Appellant said that while his leg would “bother” him, he was able to work as scheduled. [ 34 ] At the hearing, the Appellant said that he left his job after his [NAME] demanded that he take on physical tasks beyond what he believed he was hired to do. But the fact remains that he was capable, despite his condition, of regularly performing a driving job for an extended period — one that also required an element of lifting and carrying. The Appellant insisted that he was ready to quit anyway, even if his [NAME] had not asked him to do take on more duties, but he has previously said that he was let go was “with no explanation.” Footnote 21 [ 35 ] The [APPELLANT] case is not helped by the fact that, despite managing a job that predominantly involved driving for several months, he never attempted another one like it. Case law has held that, where there is evidence of work capacity, [NAME] must also show that their efforts at obtaining and maintaining [RESPONDENT] have been unsuccessful by reason of their health condition. Footnote 22 [ 36 ] The Appellant’s driving job demonstrates that he was employable, despite his impairment, after his leg injury. At the end of his coverage period, he was only 24 years old — young enough to go back to school or retrain for a relatively physically undemanding line of work. English is not his first language but, after living in Canada for 20 years, he has acquired basic functional proficiency in it. The evidence, looked at as a whole, suggests he was capable of maintaining a regular job as of January 31, 2013 and continuously thereafter. Conclusion [ 37 ] The Appellant suffered a serious injury in 2010, but there wasn’t enough evidence to show that it prevented him working after his recovery. His [NAME] at the time saw no reason why he couldn’t regain full functionality, and he later held a well-paying job for several months. There was little to indicate that his leaving that job had anything to do with his medical condition. [ 38 ] The appeal is dismissed. Footnotes Footnote 1 See the Appellant’s application for the [NAME] disability pension dated August 22, 2024, GD2R-28. The Appellant had previously applied for the pension in February 2018 — see GD2R-342. Service Canada denied that application, and the Appellant did not pursue the matter further. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See the Minister’s reconsideration decision letter dated June 18, 2025, GD2R-7. Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See section 42(2)(a)(i) (https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-8/page-9.html#h-168630) of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 See section 42(2)(a)(ii) (https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-8/page-9.html#h-168630) of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 Under section 44(2) (https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-8/page-10.html#docCont) of the [NAME] , a minimum qualifying period ( MQP ) is established by making threshold contributions to the [NAME] . The Appellant’s [NAME] contributions are listed on his record of earnings at GD2R-50. In this case the Appellant’s MQP ended on December 31, 2012. By application of the [NAME] ’s so-called proration provision, the MQP was extended to January 31, 2013. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 See section 44(1) (https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-8/page-10.html#h-168677) of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 See the Appellant’s [NAME] disability application, GD2-31. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 [NAME]  v  Canada ([NAME] [NAME]) , 2008  FCA  33 (https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2008/2008fca33/2008fca33.html). Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 [NAME] medical reported dated August 21, 2024 by Dr. [NAME], [NAME], GD2-107. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 See consult report dated September 7, 2010 by Dr. [NAME], [NAME], GD2R-136. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 See Dr. [NAME] report dated October 26, 2010, GD2R-165. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 See Dr. [NAME] report dated April 19, 2011, GD2R-171, Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 See medical condition report dated November 16, 2010 by Dr. [NAME], [NAME], GD2R 444. Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 See report dated October 5, 2011 by Dr. [NAME] [NAME], [NAME], GD2R-158. Return to footnote 14 referrer Footnote 15 See letter dated July 30, 2012 by Dr. [NAME] [NAME], [NAME], GD2R-297. Return to footnote 15 referrer Footnote 16 See letter dated May 12, 2014 by Dr. [NAME] [NAME], [NAME], GD2R-175. Return to footnote 16 referrer Footnote 17 [NAME] report by an unknown [NAME] dated November 16, 2017, GD2R-183. Return to footnote 17 referrer Footnote 18 [NAME]  v  Canada ([NAME] [NAME]) 2001  FCA  248 (https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2001/2001fca248/2001fca248.html?resultId=50a3a1a9f40d4fa9a71bf4d9554d5762 &searchId=2026-01-29T15:37:06:581/18ddb8b8e9954593bb3992eb03809c94). Return to footnote 18 referrer Footnote 19 [NAME]  v  [NAME] [NAME] of Canada , 2011  FCA  47 (https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2011/2011fca47/2011fca47.html?resultId=c97608eeaec0408aa230770322962ace &searchId=2026-01-29T15:38:13:721/ee5bc3bcd1104709be41835f4af62fc5). Return to footnote 19 referrer Footnote 20 The Appellant’s record of [RESPONDENT] indicates earnings of $8,206 in 2014 and $20,235 in 2015 — see GD2R-50. Return to footnote 20 referrer Footnote 21 See the Appellant’s first application for the [NAME] disability pension dated February 26, 2018, GD2R-342. Return to footnote 21 referrer Footnote 22 [NAME]  v  Canada ([NAME] [NAME]) , 2003  FCA  117 (https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2003/2003fca117/2003fca117.html). Return to footnote 22 referrer