Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Permission to appeal refused because the applicant failed to raise an arguable case that the General Division erred in finding he lacked the required contributory period (only three qualifying years within the relevant six-year window), and financial hardship cannot override CPP statutory contribution requirements.
Source excerpt
On the balance of probabilities Claimant did not have a severe disability by December 31, 2008 because contemporaneous medical evidence showed at most minor left‑ear conductive hearing loss and no other documented functional limitations that would preclude work; Claimant's personal characteristics and earnings history indicated residual capacity for substantially gainful occupations, and retrospective evidence and missing records did not establish the required severe and prolonged disability.
Source excerpt
Claimant failed to prove a severe and prolonged disability during the narrow MQP (Jan 1–Feb 29, 1988); objective medical evidence from that period is absent, later medical opinion was unreliable on the critical timing, and extensive post-1988 work activity (including multi-year seasonal full-time work with satisfactory performance and EI receipts) demonstrates residual work capacity inconsistent with a continuous severe disability since 1988, therefore appeal dismissed.
Source excerpt
On the balance of probabilities the Minister proved that from June 2010 the Appellant’s earnings met or exceeded substantially gainful thresholds and that her attendance, performance and vocational factors demonstrated she was not incapable regularly of pursuing substantially gainful occupations; therefore she was not disabled under the CPP after May 2010.
Source excerpt
The appeal is allowed because the Claimant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that her impairments were severe by the MQP (December 31, 2019); the available medical records are post‑MQP, lack contemporaneous histories or functional assessments tied to 2019, and are insufficiently probative to establish disability at the relevant date; personal characteristics and financial hardship cannot replace required medical evidence.
Source excerpt
The appeal is dismissed because the evidence did not establish, on the balance of probabilities, that the Appellant had a severe and prolonged disability during the MQP ending December 31, 2015: contemporaneous medical records show remission and functional capacity; the 2023 psychiatric opinion is temporally remote for MQP findings; and subsequent self-employment and a later high‑earning assistant manager job demonstrate capacity inconsistent with a prolonged inability to pursue substantially gainful employment.
Source excerpt
Permission to appeal was refused because the applicant did not present new evidence and failed to establish an arguable case that the General Division made a legal, factual, or mixed error; the General Division applied the correct incapacity test, properly considered and weighed medical and functional evidence, addressed language and literacy issues, and reasonably explained why it rejected the applicant's case.
Source excerpt
Leave to appeal was refused because the Applicant produced no new evidence and failed to show an arguable legal or factual error or procedural unfairness by the General Division; the General Division correctly applied binding precedent requiring medical evidence during the CPP coverage period.
Source excerpt
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to raise an arguable case that the General Division made a jurisdictional, legal, factual or procedural error, presented no new evidence, and the General Division correctly applied the statutory one‑year limitation which it could not extend.
Source excerpt
The Claimant did not meet the CPP 'severe' threshold as of December 31, 2022 because the evidence showed residual capacity for sedentary work: contemporaneous medical reports showed no significant psychiatric restrictions, objective observations undermined reported physical incapacity, treating physician correspondence was inconsistent, the Claimant completed a nearly two‑hour virtual assessment without observable difficulty, and post‑MQP work interruptions were attributable to events after 2022 (including a 2024 motor vehicle accident and personal family matters) rather than continuous limit…
Source excerpt
Explore more
