DO v Minister of Employment and Social Development

DO v Minister of Employment and Social Development

Leave to appeal refused because the Claimant failed to present any arguable case: the General Division reasonably applied the child‑rearing provision (dropping only full calendar year 2009), properly relied on recorded earnings showing only three valid years, and correctly concluded proration could not produce the required MQP.

Citation
2021 SST 37
Parties
Applicant (claimant): D. O.; Respondent (minister): Minister of Employment and Social Development
Court
Social Security Tribunal of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Canada Pension Plan (cpp) Disability Appeal / Leave to Appeal Application Before Appeal Division; Extension of Time for Late Filing Considered
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Canada Pension Plan, Disability Benefits, Child‑rearing Provision, Minimum Qualifying Period, Leave to Appeal, Proration Provision, Evidence of Earnings
Source Language
English
Social Security Administrative Law Pension Law Tribunal Practice and Procedure Canada Pension Plan Disability Benefits Child‑rearing Provision Minimum Qualifying Period +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 7 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

D. O.

Applicant (claimant)

Minister of Employment and Social Development

Respondent (minister)

Procedural Posture

Canada Pension Plan (cpp) Disability Appeal / Leave to Appeal Application Before Appeal Division; Extension of Time for Late Filing Considered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the leave to appeal application was filed late and whether an extension should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the Claimant raised an arguable case on the limited grounds of appeal (unfairness, legal error, or important error of fact)
  3. 3 Whether the child‑rearing provision permits removal of partial calendar years for MQP calculation

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal refused because the Claimant failed to present any arguable case: the General Division reasonably applied the child‑rearing provision (dropping only full calendar year 2009), properly relied on recorded earnings showing only three valid years, and correctly concluded proration could not produce the required MQP.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • Extension of time to file leave application granted for three‑day delay
  • Leave to appeal refused; appeal not permitted to proceed