The Estate of FK v Minister of Employment and Social Development

The Estate of FK v Minister of Employment and Social Development Collection Canada Pension Plan (CPP) disability Decision date 2026-03-10 Neutral citation 2026 SST 183 Reference number AD-26-106 Member Glenn Betteridge Division Appeal Division Decision Application for leave to appeal refused Related decisions SST - The Estate of FK v Minister of Employment and Social Development - 2026 SST 60 - 2026-01-26 - General Division Decision Content Citation: The Estate of FK v Minister of Employment and Social Development, 2026 SST 183 Social Security Tribunal of Canada Appeal Division Leave to Appeal Decision Applicant: The Estate of F. K. Respondent: Minister of Employment and Social Development Decision under appeal: General Division decision dated January 26, 2026 (GP-25-1316) Tribunal member: Glenn Betteridge Decision date: March 10, 2026 File number: AD-26-106 On this page Decision Overview Issue The Estate hasn’t met the legal test to get permission to appeal Conclusion Decision [1] Leave (permission) to appeal is refused. The appeal won’t go forward. Overview [2] The Estate of F. K. has applied for permission to appeal a General Division decision. I’ll refer to F. K. and the Estate. [3] In June 2024, F. K. applied for a Canada Pension Plan (CPP) disability pension. The Minister denied his application—at first then on reconsideration. He died at the end of January 2025. His Estate appealed the Minister’s reconsideration decision to the General Division. [4] The General Division dismissed the appeal. It decided F. K. didn’t qualify for a disability pension, because his disability wasn’t severe by the end of his coverage period (December 31, 2022). It also decided he didn’t meet the contributory requirement for a post-retirement disability benefit. [5] The Estate argues the General Division made factual errors.Footnote 1 It says there’s proof F. K.’s disability was severe and prolonged from January 2022. And the functional limitations F. K. indicated on his disability application started in 2022/2023. [6] Unfortunately for the Estate, I can’t give permission to appeal the General Division decision. The Estate hasn’t shown an arguable case the General Division made an error. Issue [7] Is there an arguable case the General Division made a factual error in making its decision? The Estate hasn’t met the legal test to get permission to appeal The permission to appeal test [8] I will give the Estate permission to appeal if it raises an arguable case the General Division made one of these errors didn’t respect natural justice decided an issue it had no authority to decide, or didn’t decide an issue it should have decided made a legal error, a factual error, or a mixed error of fact and law in making its decisionFootnote 2 [9] An arguable case is one with a reasonable chance of success.Footnote 3 [10] The Estate isn’t relying on new evidence to get permission to appeal.Footnote 4 So I won’t consider that ground of appeal. The CPP disability test [11] To qualify for a CPP disability pension, a person has to show their disability was both severe and prolonged by the end of their coverage period. F. K.’s coverage period ended December 31, 2022.Footnote 5 The CPP defines severe and prolonged.Footnote 6 Court decisions explain what those definitions mean. No arguable case the General Division made a factual error when it assessed the evidence [12] The Estate argues the General Division made factual errors. I believe the Estate is referring to Dr Jacobsen’s October 2025 letter when it says there’s proof F. K.’s disability was severe and prolonged as of January 2022. The Estate also says the functional limitations F. K. marked on his disability application form started in 2022/2023. This argument challenges the General Division finding F. K. likely wrote about his functional limitations at the time he applied for a CPP disability pension—June 2024 (paragraph 17). Finally, the Estate says the General Division got F. K.’s age wrong. [13] The Estate’s arguments don’t show an arguable case the General Division based its decision on a factual finding it reached by misunderstanding or ignoring relevant evidence. The General Division’s reasons show me it thoroughly considered and thoughtfully assessed the relevant evidence—about F. K.’s medical conditions and functional limitations, including whether he worked while living with cancer and undergoing treatment. [14] The General Division’s mistake about F. K.’s age at his death is really unfortunate. And I imagine upsetting for his wife. This mistake had no effect on the outcome in the appeal. [15] The General Division gave detailed, logically and legally sound reasons for preferring Dr Jacobsen’s August 2024 letter to his October 2025 letter (paragraphs 25 to 29). Those reasons show me it didn’t misunderstand either letter or ignore the October 2025 letter. It reasoned its way through this conflicting evidence. [16] There isn’t an arguable case the General Division based its decision on a flawed factual finding when it found F. K. likely wrote about his functional limitations as of June 2024. I say this for two reasons. [17] First, F. K. used the present tense when he filled in the narrative details in his CPP application.Footnote 7 In contrast, when he completed the self-employment questionnaire he distinguished his past and present functioning.Footnote 8 [18] Second, and more importantly, the CPP disability test focuses on a person’s ability to work in the real world. The measure of severe isn’t whether a person suffers from severe impairments, but whether their disability prevents them from earning a living.Footnote 9 Severity isn’t based on a person’s inability to do the work they used to do—but rather on their inability to perform substantially gainful work. [19] Ultimately, the General Division decided F. K. didn’t qualify for a disability pension because it found he continued to work up to—then after—December 31, 2022 (paragraphs 31, 33, 35, 36, 38 to 43). It noted F. K. said so on his CPP application. And his doctors’ evidence supported what he said. This meant his disability wasn’t severe. So he didn’t meet the legal test to get a CPP disability pension. [20] Finally, the Tribunal has to apply the law. We can’t find F. K. was eligible for a disability pension based on his wife’s financial hardship. Or out of compassion for the devastating losses he and his family lived through—and his family continues to bear—since he was diagnosed with cancer. Conclusion [21] The Estate hasn’t shown an arguable case the General Division made an error. So I can’t give it permission to appeal. Footnotes Footnote 1 The Estate completed the General Division appeal form to ask for permission to appeal the General Division decision. However, it gave all the information the Appeal Division application form asks for. So I didn’t ask the Estate to complete an Appeal Division form. Footnote 2 See section 58.1(a) and (b) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act (DESD Act). Footnote 3 See Abramowitz v Canada (Attorney General), 2024 FC 1793 at paragraph 32; Kryklywicz v Canada (Attorney General), 2026 FC 36 at paragraph 64. Footnote 4 See section 58.1(c) of the DESD Act. Footnote 5 See section 44(2) of the Canada Pension Plan (CPP). Footnote 6 See section 42(2)(a) of the CPP. Footnote 7 See GD2-162 to GD2-165. Footnote 8 See GD2-103 to GD2-105. Footnote 9 See Klabouch v Canada (Minister of Social Development), 2008 FCA 33 at paragraphs 14, 15.