SST Denies Claimant Permission to Appeal CPP Disability Decision

OUTCOME: Refused

Citation: RB  v  [RESPONDENT] [NAME] , 2026  SST  237 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Leave to Appeal Decision Applicant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] General Division decision dated March 19, 2026 (GP-25-1630) Tribunal member: [NAME] date: June 5, 2026 File number: AD-26-373 On this page Decision Overview Issues The Claimant hasn’t met the legal test to get permission to appeal Conclusion Decision [ 1 ] Leave (permission) to appeal is refused. This means the appeal won’t go forward. Overview [ 2 ] [APPELLANT]. is the Claimant. She has applied for permission to appeal a General Division decision. [ 3 ] To qualify for a [NAME] ( [NAME] ) disability pension, the [APPELLANT] had to prove her disability was both severe and prolonged by the end of her coverage period. Footnote 1 A disability is severe when it prevents a person from earning a living in the real world doing any job. Footnote 2 [ 4 ] The General Division decided the [APPELLANT] didn’t prove her disability was severe by the end of her coverage period. The General Division found the [APPELLANT] was still able to work in the real world as of December 31, 2025. [ 5 ] The [APPELLANT] argues the General Division decision is unfair because she suffers from rheumatoid arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis. She also sent evidence she says the General Division didn’t have. [ 6 ] Unfortunately for the [APPELLANT], I can’t give her permission to appeal the General Division decision. I can’t consider the fairness of the decision or of the outcome of the appeal. These aren’t errors the law lets me consider. And the General Division had the evidence she sent with her application. Issues [ 7 ] I have to decide whether there is an arguable case the General Division made an error because its decision and the outcome in the appeal are unfair to the Claimant. [ 8 ] I also have to decide whether the Claimant’s application sets out evidence the General Division didn’t have. The Claimant hasn’t met the legal test to get permission to appeal The permission to appeal test [ 9 ] There is no right to appeal a General Division decision. This means the Claimant has to get permission for her appeal to go forward. [ 10 ] I will give her permission if she raises an arguable case the General Division made one of these errors. Footnote 3 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 [ 11 ] I can also give the Claimant permission if her application sets out evidence the General Division didn’t have. Footnote 4 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 her appeal. Footnote 5 The law doesn’t let me consider the unfairness of the decision or of the outcome for a claimant [ 12 ] The [APPELLANT] argues the General Division decision was unfair. Footnote 6 She explains her diagnoses (rheumatoid arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis) physically limit her and cause her to suffer. Her doctors can explain and she has test results to prove it. [ 13 ] The law lets me consider the fairness of the procedure or process the General Division used to hear her appeal. The Claimant’s unfairness argument isn’t about the procedure or process, it’s about the result. The unfairness of the General Division decision or outcome of the appeal isn’t an error the law lets me consider. So, the Claimant’s unfairness argument doesn’t show an arguable case the General Division made an error. [ 14 ] The [APPELLANT] argument seems to misunderstand the [NAME] disability benefit. The courts have said the [NAME] disability test is hard to meet, and it focuses on employability. Footnote 7 This means not everyone who worked, contributed to the plan, and suffers from a serious medical condition can get a [NAME] disability pension. And a person’s suffering or functional limitations are only relevant if they limit a person’s ability to earn a living. [ 15 ] To get a [NAME] disability pension, a person has to prove their disability regularly prevents them from earning a living in the real world doing any work—by the end of their coverage period and indefinitely after that. The Claimant’s evidence doesn’t meet the new evidence test [ 16 ] The Claimant included documents with her application. She says these documents are new evidence. [ 17 ] I disagree. [ 18 ] The documents the [APPELLANT] sent don’t add new evidence. The General Division already had each document, or the relevant facts from the document. A report from [NAME], Dr. [NAME] [NAME], dated November 7, 2024. This report was in the medical documents the General Division had—in two places. Footnote 8 Prescription receipts for an injectable medication she uses (Hulio). Footnote 9 The evidence before the General Division listed this medication. Footnote 10 The General Division referred to this “treatment” (see paragraph 23). The cost and reimbursement of this medication—the only new information—isn’t relevant or arguably relevant to an issue in her appeal. To make its decision, the General Division didn’t have to consider whether she failed to follow this treatment because it was expensive. A hematology report from Lifelabs, dated December 6, 2025. Footnote 11 This report was in her family doctor’s chart, which the General Division had. Footnote 12 A one-line letter from her family doctor, dated May 6, 2026: “This patient has ankylosing spondylitis, which is a lifelong condition and is on regular medication and injectios [ sic ] for same every 2 weeks, under the care of [NAME].” Footnote 13 This was the foundation of her application for a [NAME] disability pension. It was well documented in the General Division record and decision. An Appointment Notice, for November 4, 2025, with Dr. [NAME]. Footnote 14 The General Division had the report Dr. [APPELLANT] wrote after the Claimant went to that appointment. Footnote 15 So, the General Division had evidence of the appointment. [ 19 ] To summarize, the evidence the Claimant set out in her application doesn’t meet the permission to appeal test. No other reason I can give the Claimant permission to appeal [ 20 ] I reviewed the documents in the General Division file. Then compared that evidence to the evidence the General Division used to make factual findings to reach its decision. I didn’t find an arguable case the General Division misunderstood or ignored relevant evidence. Or made a finding of fact without any evidence to support it. [ 21 ] I reviewed the legal test the Claimant had to meet to get a [NAME] disability pension. And I reviewed the law the General Division used to reach its decision. The General Division correctly cited then used the legal test for disability under the [NAME] . In other words, there’s no arguable case the General Division made a legal error. Conclusion [ 22 ] The Claimant hasn’t shown an arguable case the General Division made an error. And she didn’t set out new evidence in her application. [ 23 ] I looked but didn’t find an arguable case the General Division made a factual error or a legal error. [ 24 ] This means I can’t give the Claimant permission to appeal. So her appeal won’t go forward. Footnotes Footnote 1 See section 42(2)(a) and section 44(2) of the [NAME]. Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 [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 2 referrer Footnote 3 See sections 58.1(a) and (b) of the Department of [RESPONDENT] [NAME] ( [NAME]). 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 3 referrer Footnote 4 See section 58.1(c) of the [NAME]. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2026  FC  36 at paragraphs 67 to 69. Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 See AD1-23. Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 See for example [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2014  FCA  178; [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2022  FCA  4; and [NAME]  v  Canada (Attorney General) , 2025  FCA  38. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 See GD1-9 and GD7-12. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 See AD1-2 and AD1-3. Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 See for example GD1-10, GD1-11, GD2-95, GD2-100, GD2-102, GD2-107, GD2-118, and GD7-5. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 See AD1-18. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 See GD7-21. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 See AD1-4. Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 See AD1-20. Return to footnote 14 referrer Footnote 15 See GD7-8. Return to footnote 15 referrer