SST Denies Claimant Permission to Appeal CPP Disability Pension Cut

OUTCOME: Refused

Citation: DL  v  [RESPONDENT] and [NAME] Development , 2026  [NAME]  243 [NAME] Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Leave to [NAME] Applicant: [redacted] Respondent: [redacted] [NAME] [NAME] dated April 20, 2026 (GP-25-1463) Tribunal member: [NAME] [NAME] date: June 10, 2026 File number: AD-26-355 On this page [NAME] The Claimant hasn’t met the legal test to get permission to appeal [NAME] [ 1 ] Leave (permission) to appeal is refused. This means [APPELLANT].’s appeal won’t go forward. Overview [ 2 ] [APPELLANT]. is the Claimant in this case. She has applied for permission to appeal a [NAME] [NAME]. [ 3 ] The [NAME] decided the Minister proved her disability stopped being severe in September 2023. That’s because she went back to work full-time as a custodian and earned a living from. Footnote 1 This meant she no longer qualified for a [NAME] ( [NAME] ) disability pension as of September 2023. Footnote 2 [ 4 ] The [APPELLANT] says the [NAME] hearing was unfair and it got the facts wrong. She also says she has evidence the [NAME] didn’t have. [ 5 ] Unfortunately for the Claimant, I can’t give her permission to appeal the [NAME] [NAME]. She hasn’t shown an arguable case the [NAME] used an unfair process. Or shown an arguable case the [NAME] made an error about the facts. Finally, the [NAME] had the evidence she described in her application. Issues [ 6 ] I have to decide whether there is an arguable case the [NAME] used an unfair process during the hearing by not asking the Claimant questions about her injuries or going over her medical documents with her made an important factual error by ignoring or misunderstanding she was deemed catastrophically disabled after a 1998 car accident, she has more good days than bad days, and her daily life is actually hell [ 7 ] I also have to decide whether the Claimant’s application sets out evidence the [NAME] didn’t have. The Claimant hasn’t met the legal test to get permission to appeal The [NAME] disability test focuses on employability and earning a living [ 8 ] The [APPELLANT] says it was insane for the [NAME] to say she’s not disabled because she works. Footnote 3 I appreciate the [APPELLANT] disagrees with the [NAME] [NAME]. And I can understand why she seems frustrated and confused about why the Minister and Tribunal have decided to stop her disability pension. [ 9 ] The law about the [NAME] disability pension is complicated. To collect a [NAME] disability pension, a person must have a severe and prolonged disability. The courts have stated the [NAME] disability test focuses on employability . Footnote 4 The measure of whether a disability is severe is not whether a person suffers from severe impairments or daily pain. Footnote 5 It’s whether the person’s disability prevents them from working and earning a living . [ 10 ] This law is the key to understanding the [NAME] [NAME] and why I can’t give the Claimant permission to appeal that [NAME]. The permission to appeal test [ 11 ] There is no right to appeal a [NAME] [NAME]. This means the Claimant has to get permission before her appeal can go forward to an Appeal Division hearing. [ 12 ] The law says I should give her permission if she raises an arguable case the [NAME] made one of these errors. Footnote 6 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 [NAME] [ 13 ] I can also give the Claimant permission if her application sets out evidence the [NAME] didn’t have. Footnote 7 I will call this new evidence and the new evidence test. No arguable case the [NAME] hearing was unfair to the Claimant [ 14 ] The Claimant argues the [NAME] hearing was unfair because the member didn’t go over the documents she sent in. Footnote 8 She also says the member didn’t ask her questions about her injuries. This isn’t what she expected. She says she doesn’t understand how to get her voice heard and have someone believe she is disabled and her daily life is hell. [ 15 ] This argument doesn’t show an arguable case the [NAME] hearing was unfair to the Claimant. [ 16 ] When the Minister has stopped a person’s [NAME] disability pension, the [NAME] has to decide whether the person has successfully returned to work and is earning a living. In legal terms, the key issues are whether their disability stopped being severe under the [NAME] disability test. And, if so, when it stopped being severe. [ 17 ] The [NAME] properly focused the hearing on those issues. Footnote 9 [ 18 ] At the beginning of the hearing, the [NAME] member told the Claimant he had read all the documents. The member turned the hearing over to the Claimant to present her case. Footnote 10 When she finished, the [NAME] asked her questions about her return to work, her three-month job trial, and when she accepted her full-time job. It also asked her questions about her job duties, wages, accommodations, performance, and evaluations. All if these questions were relevant to the legal issues in her appeal. [ 19 ] Then the [NAME] gave the Claimant three more chances to say anything else she wanted to add. Footnote 11 Which she did. On the third chance, the Claimant said she wanted to show the member scars from the 1998 car accident and her surgeries. So, the member switched the teleconference to a video conference. Footnote 12 The [APPELLANT] showed her scars. And spent [NAME] five minutes testifying about her medical conditions, surgeries, rehab, and medications. [ 20 ] To summarize, I don’t see an arguable case the [NAME] hearing was unfair to the Claimant. The member focused the hearing on the legal issues it had to decide. It asked the Claimant detailed questions about those issues. And it gave the Claimant a full and fair opportunity to present her arguments and evidence. No arguable case the [NAME] made a factual error [ 21 ] The [APPELLANT] says the [NAME] got the facts wrong. Footnote 13 She argues she was deemed catastrophically disabled after her 1998 car accident, she has more good days than bad days, and her daily life is actually hell. [ 22 ] The [NAME] makes a factual error when it reaches a factual finding by ignoring or misunderstanding relevant evidence. Relevant means evidence that helps to prove whether someone meets a legal test. [ 23 ] As I stated above, the legal test for a severe disability under the [NAME] focuses on employability. This means the [NAME] could ignore the fact [NAME], under [NAME] legal scheme or plan, deemed her to be catastrophically disabled after her car accident. [ 24 ] The [NAME] considered the [APPELLANT] medical diagnoses and functional limitations. Footnote 14 It didn’t ignore or misunderstand that evidence. It found that she still had functional limitations that affected her ability to work as of the hearing date. Footnote 15 [ 25 ] So, there’s no arguable case the [NAME] made a factual error. And the [NAME]’s [NAME] is supported by evidence her disability stopped being severe under the [NAME] disability test. The [NAME] accepted undisputed evidence the [APPELLANT] accepted a full-time custodial job in September 2023. Footnote 16 That job wasn’t benevolent, meaning the employer got value from her work. Footnote 17 She continued that job up to the date of the hearing. Footnote 18 And she earned over $20,000 in 2023 and over $39,000 in 2024. Footnote 19 The [NAME] had the Claimant’s evidence [ 26 ] The [APPELLANT] says she has evidence the [NAME] didn’t have. Footnote 20 Evidence of two falls at work. She says she sent in that evidence—a letter and pictures—but it wasn’t accepted. [ 27 ] The [NAME] had the [APPELLANT] evidence about her falls at work. The Tribunal received her evidence on March 14, 2026. Then added it to the [NAME] record as document GD10. Footnote 21 [ 28 ] So, I can’t give her permission to appeal based on new evidence. Conclusion [ 29 ] The Claimant hasn’t shown an arguable case the [NAME] made an error. And she didn’t set out new evidence in her application to appeal. [ 30 ] This means I can’t give her permission to appeal. And her appeal won’t go forward. Footnotes Footnote 1 I am using “earning a living” as plain language for the phrase “substantially gainful occupation,” used in section 44(2)(a)(i) of the [NAME] ( [NAME] ) and section 68.1 of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 1 referrer Footnote 2 See sections 42(2)(a) and 70(1) of the [NAME] . Return to footnote 2 referrer Footnote 3 See AD1-3. Return to footnote 3 referrer Footnote 4 [NAME]  v  Canada ([NAME] [NAME]) , 2025  FCA  38 at paragraph 16; [NAME]  v  Canada ([NAME] [NAME]) , 2022  FCA  4 at paragraph 22; [NAME]  v  Canada ([NAME]) , 2008  FCA  33 at paragraph 14; [NAME]  v  Canada ([NAME] [NAME]) , 202  FC  2006 at paragraph 33. Return to footnote 4 referrer Footnote 5 The courts have said, a person’s capacity to work—not their diagnoses, their pain, or the severity of their impairments—determines whether their disability meets the [NAME] test for severe. [NAME]  v  Canada ([NAME] [NAME]) , 2025  FCA  38 at paragraph 16; [NAME]  v  Canada ([NAME]) , 2008  FCA  33 at paragraph 14 Return to footnote 5 referrer Footnote 6 See sections 58.1(a) and (b) of the Department of [RESPONDENT] and [NAME] Development Act ( DESD  Act). The courts have said an “arguable case” of an error is one that discloses a reasonable chance of success. [NAME]  v  Canada ([NAME] [NAME]) , 2024  FC  1793 at paragraph 32; [NAME]  v  Canada ([NAME] [NAME]) , 2026  FC  36 at paragraph 64 Return to footnote 6 referrer Footnote 7 See section 58.1(c) of the DESD  Act. Return to footnote 7 referrer Footnote 8 See AD1-3 and AD1B-3. Return to footnote 8 referrer Footnote 9 This is part of active adjudication under the Tribunal’s rules. See sections 17(1) and 17(2)(a) of the [NAME] Security Tribunal Rules of Procedure . Return to footnote 9 referrer Footnote 10 Listen to the [NAME] hearing recording starting at 11:00. Return to footnote 10 referrer Footnote 11 Listen to the [NAME] hearing recording at 23:13; 24:15; 28:21. Return to footnote 11 referrer Footnote 12 Listen to the [NAME] hearing recording at 41:30. Return to footnote 12 referrer Footnote 13 See AD1-3. Return to footnote 13 referrer Footnote 14 [NAME] [NAME] at paragraphs 19 to 22. Return to footnote 14 referrer Footnote 15 [NAME] [NAME] at paragraphs 21. Return to footnote 15 referrer Footnote 16 [NAME] [NAME] at paragraphs 24, 25. Return to footnote 16 referrer Footnote 17 [NAME] [NAME] at paragraph 26. Return to footnote 17 referrer Footnote 18 [NAME] [NAME] at paragraphs 29. Return to footnote 18 referrer Footnote 19 [NAME] [NAME] at paragraphs 27 and 28. Return to footnote 19 referrer Footnote 20 See AD1B-4. Return to footnote 20 referrer Footnote 21 The law says I can presume the [NAME] considered that evidence—it didn’t need to refer to it in its [NAME]. [NAME]  v  Canada ([NAME] [NAME]) , 2022  FCA  157 at paragraph 46. Return to footnote 21 referrer