NG v Minister of Employment and Social Development

NG v Minister of Employment and Social Development Collection Canada Pension Plan (CPP) disability Decision date 2026-02-18 Neutral citation 2026 SST 132 Reference number GP-25-1104 Member Selena Bateman Division General Division Decision Appeal dismissed Decision Content Citation: NG v Minister of Employment and Social Development, 2026 SST 132 Social Security Tribunal of Canada General Division – Income Security Section Decision Appellant: N. G. Representative: E. G. Respondent: Minister of Employment and Social Development Decision under appeal: Minister of Employment and Social Development reconsideration decision dated May 29, 2025 (issued by Service Canada) Tribunal member: Selena Bateman Type of hearing: Teleconference Hearing date: February 5, 2026 Hearing participants: Appellant Appellant’s representative Decision date: February 18, 2026 File number: GP-25-1104 On this page Decision Overview What I have to decide Reasons for my decision Conclusion Decision [1] The appeal is dismissed. [2] The Appellant, N. G., stopped being disabled as of November 2017. He wasn’t entitled to a Canada Pension Plan disability pension after November 2017. Overview [3] The Appellant is now 63 years old. He is a self-employed electrician. He applied for a CPP disability pension in November 2011 due to depression. His CPP disability benefit payment began in September 2011. Footnote 1 [4] The Minister of Employment and Social Development (Minister) later reassessed the Appellant’s eligibility for a CPP disability pension. The Minister then decided that he stopped being disabled as of April 2018, because he had returned to work. Footnote 2 [5] The Appellant appealed this decision to the Social Security Tribunal’s General Division. He claims he stopped being disabled by depression in 2019 or 2020. He says that he shouldn’t be required to payback the overpayment amount. He needed this money to slowly rebuild his business, because clients lost their trust in him. Footnote 3 [6] The Minister says that the Appellant stopped being disabled as of April 2018. He reported he had returned to work. The Minister gave him a three-month work trial from February through April 2018. The Minister says that he demonstrated his capacity to work. Footnote 4 [7] I agree with the Minister that the Appellant stopped being disabled. But I find he stopped being disabled as of November 2017. What I have to decide [8] I have to decide whether the Appellant stopped being disabled. If he stopped being disabled, then I also have to decide when. [1] The Minister must prove that the Appellant stopped being disabled—that is, he no longer had a severe and prolonged disability. The Minister has to prove this on a balance of probabilities. This means the Minister must show that it is more likely than not the Appellant stopped being disabled.Footnote 5 [9] The Canada Pension Plan defines “severe” and “prolonged.” [10] A disability is severe if it makes an appellant incapable regularly of pursuing any substantially gainful occupation. A disability is prolonged if it is likely to be long continued and of indefinite duration, or is likely to result in death. Footnote 6 [11] The Appellant’s disability can’t have an expected recovery date. The disability must be expected to keep the Appellant out of the workforce for a long time. Reasons for my decision The Appellant was no longer disabled as of November 2017 [12] The Appellant was no longer disabled as of November 2017. He was capable regularly of pursuing a substantially gainful occupation by that date. He worked in the workforce on a reliable basis. [13] The Minister met the burden of proof. My cancellation date is earlier than the Minister’s. This is because I primarily relied on the medical evidence over what the Appellant said at the hearing and wrote to the Minister. [14] While the Minister allowed for a three-month return to work trial after a return to work, this isn’t in the legislation. I am not bound to do the same. I am satisfied that the Appellant’s severe disability ended by November 2017. What the Appellant says about his functional limitations [2] The Appellant says that he was disabled from depression. He says that: Depression caused him decreased energy, fatigue, restlessness, and poor sleep. He had suicidal ideation and he needed hospitalization in 2011. In 2015, his doctor made an application for him to have a psychiatric assessment under the Mental Health Act. Footnote 7 His depression treatment worked for a few weeks, then the effects faded. Footnote 8 His mental health was still very bad in 2018. He spent the days sleeping. He tried to leave him home and see friends, but he couldn’t work. Footnote 9 What the Minister says about the Appellant’s functional limitations [3] The Minister agrees that the Appellant had functional limitations. But, the Minister argues that his functional limitations no longer prevented him from working. The Minister says that since February or March 2018, the Appellant was working as an electrician which included wiring houses, troubleshooting, installing lighting and providing building maintenance. Footnote 10 The Appellant’s mental health condition improved by November 2017 [15] The evidence supports that the Appellant’s functional limitations changed since he applied for a CPP disability pension. I find that in November 2017 the Appellant no longer had limitations from depression that regularly impacted his ability to work. There was no evidence that he had a relapse of depression. He regained his ability to work regularly. [16] The family doctor’s records mention that the Appellant was working from August 2017 onward. In January 2021, he told his doctor that he was able to work, but couldn’t handle stress or fast-paced deadlines. Footnote 11 [17] The Appellant didn’t have any relapses of depression since at least September 2017. He had mild symptoms of depression from about 2018 to March 2021. Footnote 12 The Appellant’s depression treatment [18] The Appellant’s depression treatment ended in November 2017. The medical records support that he didn’t have severe limitations by this time. He was working daily. [19] The Appellant received elective electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) from 2015 to 2017. He wanted to do ECT, and didn’t want to take medications. He had three series of ECT with a noted improvement. Footnote 13 [20] In August 2017, the Appellant wanted to work the same day as having ECT. Footnote 14 In November 2017, he didn’t report depressive symptoms or psychosis. He told the ECT provider that his wife wanted him to have ECT. The provider suggested a psychiatric assessment before doing any further ECT, instead of letting his wife make a unilateral decision for him to have ECT. He was working daily, including the day before and after the ECT treatment. He missed one day of work the week prior due to the flu. Footnote 15 [21] I also note that the Appellant was diagnosed with obstructive sleep apnea in 2012. Footnote 16 This medical condition isn’t the reason why he was approved for CPP disability. This medical condition didn’t prevent him from working by November 2017. The parties’ positions on the Appellant’s work history [22] The Minister says that the Appellant started working around January 2018 at his self-employed electrical business. Footnote 17 [23] The Appellant provided different responses to the question of when he resumed working. Because this is critical to the issue under appeal, I discuss each and explain what I find is more likely to be true. [24] I primarily relied on what the medical evidence said about the Appellant’s work efforts. It is objective and contemporaneous. His testimony contradicted what he wrote to the Minister about his work efforts. It also contradicted what some of the medical evidence said about his symptoms and work efforts. [25] At the hearing, the Appellant said that he didn’t work since January or February 2018. He said he spent time with a friend who does renovations. He did this to pass time and get out of the house. He was looking for clients, however. [26] Also at the hearing, the Appellant said that he didn’t remember what year he resumed working. He thought it may have been at the end of 2018. He says that his self-employment hours varied, depending on the work he could find. He got small jobs, mostly to keep himself busy. [27] In the appeal documents, the Appellant wrote that he forced himself to work again in January 2018. He built his client base in February or March 2018. Footnote 18 The Appellant’s business earnings show work capacity [28] The Minister says that the Appellant worked for nine years above the substantially gainful occupation amount since starting his CPP disability pension. Footnote 19 [29] The Minister noted the Appellant’s unreported work activity, and argues that it supports that he had work capacity in 2018. In 2018, his company earned $105,338. His net income was $10,380. In 2019, the company earned $279,207. Starting that year he had a 50/50 partner. Footnote 20 [30] The Appellant argues that I shouldn’t consider his company’s income as reflective of work capacity. He says that the company had a lot of gross expenses. He also says that the $105,000 isn’t a lot of income for a company. [31] I considered the company’s gross and net income and the Appellant’s personal income. First, the success or failure of a business on its own isn’t necessarily relevant. Footnote 21 Business losses must be linked to a disability to establish a clear connection. The Appellant failed to do this. [32] The Appellant opened his business in January 2013. It made gross income and continued to operate under his leadership, throughout his illness. His business reported gross income of at least $57,600 each year from 2014 to 2018. Footnote 22 [33] There is no case to be made for the Appellant having a benevolent employer. Footnote 23 He worked for his own business, particularly prior to taking on a business partner/electrician in 2019. There also is no evidence that his work was accommodated or modified due to his disability. But he was still able to work enough to earn a living. [34] The Appellant played an active role in his business. In 2018, he tried to find clients and take on more work. He wasn’t clear on how many hours he worked or what his schedule was in his testimony or in the file evidence. I relied on the company’s gross earnings for 2018 to support that he worked throughout year, not only at the end of 2018 as he told me at the hearing. [35] After November 2017, the Appellant continued working. Footnote 24 When he doesn’t work, the business couldn’t operate. His daughter and wife helped him with tasks including advertising and record keeping. Footnote 25 [36] The Appellant did a lot of the electrical work himself. He didn’t have a business partner until 2019. I accept that his family assisted him in his business, such as in bookkeeping and marketing. That doesn’t advance his case that he continued to be severely disabled. It simply tells me that he had family help in specific areas that weren’t his main skillset. He may have also hired out some work over the years. This shows that he could supervise, delegate, and perform oversight roles. These duties support work capacity. The Minister has proven that the Appellant can work [37] The Appellant doesn’t need to prove that he can’t work. Rather, the Minister needs to prove that he can work. [38] When I am deciding whether the Appellant can work, I can’t just look at his medical condition and how it affects what he can do. I also have to consider factors like his: age level of education language abilities work and life experienceFootnote 26 [39] These factors support the Appellant’s ability to work. As of 2017, he was 55 years old. He had a decade left before the usual age of retirement. He came to Canada from Albania in 2001, where he worked as an electrical engineer. Footnote 27 He speaks English. [40] The Appellant based his CPP disability application on depression. He isn’t suited to high-pressure, demanding or stressful work. He also may need flexibility in terms of hours and working at his own pace. [41] But the Minister proved that the Appellant was no longer severely disabled. He was able to regularly do some kind of substantially gainful work, despite his functional limitations. He was self-employed and he could work at his own pace. He was no longer severely disabled as of November 2017. The Appellant’s other arguments [4] The Appellant’s representative argues that he shouldn’t be asked to repay any amount to the Minister. He slowly built up his business again. He needed to regain the trust of his clients, find new jobs, and attract new clients. This took time, and his family needed resources. Footnote 28 [5] I cannot make a decision on compassionate grounds. The Appellant would need to discuss the issue of repayment directly with the Minister. Conclusion [42] The Minister has proven that the Appellant was no longer entitled to a CPP disability pension as of November 2017. He was working regularly because his health improved. [43] The disability pension payments the Appellant got after November 2017 are considered an overpayment that is owed to the Minister. [44] This means the appeal is dismissed. Footnotes Footnote 1 See GD2R-727 to 732 and 739. Footnote 2 See GD2R-8 to 9. Footnote 3 See GD1, GD2R-734 to 735. Footnote 4 See GD7. Footnote 5 See Atkinson v Canada (Attorney General), 2014 FCA 187. Footnote 6 Section 42(2)(a) of the Canada Pension Plan gives this definition of severe and prolonged disability. Section 68.1 of the Canada Pension Plan Regulations says a job is “substantially gainful” if it pays a salary or wages equal to or greater than the maximum annual amount a person could receive as a disability pension. Footnote 7 See GD2R-24. Footnote 8 See GD2R-735.The Appellant was referring to ECT. Footnote 9 The Appellant stated this at the hearing. Footnote 10 See GD7. Footnote 11 See GD2R-1000 to 1003. Footnote 12 See GD2R-807 and 881 to 882. Footnote 13 See GD2R-827 to 830. Footnote 14 See GD2R-899 and 1000. Footnote 15 See GD2R-834. Footnote 16 See GD2R-838 to 840 and 885. Footnote 17 See GD7, GD2R-18, 772, and 774. Also see the Canada Pension Plan Regulations section 68.1. Footnote 18 See GD1-8, GD2R-17, 711, 735, and 805. The Appellant authored these documents on August 2020, January 2021, and July 2025. Footnote 19 See GD7. Footnote 20 See GD2R-18 and 772. The Appellant said that he had a 50/50 partnership at the hearing. Footnote 21 See Kiriakidis v Canada (Attorney General), 2011 FCA 316. Footnote 22 See GD2R-18. Footnote 23 Atkinson v Canada (Attorney General), 2014 FCA 187. Footnote 24 See GD1-8 and GD2R-845. Footnote 25 See GD2R-854 to 864. Footnote 26 See Villani v Canada (Attorney General), 2001 FCA 248. Footnote 27 See GD2R-711. Footnote 28 See GD1-8.