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
The Federal Court upheld CRA’s CERB ineligibility decision against Jason Verma, finding the review procedurally fair and reasonable and dismissing judicial review.
The appeal is dismissed because the Appellant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that he had a severe disability during the MQP ending December 31, 2017; medical evidence did not establish debilitating mental health or COPD symptoms before that date and subsequent work and activities undermine a finding of a prolonged incapacity.
Source excerpt
The appeal is dismissed because the medical evidence shows the appellant's ankle condition was at least partially stabilized by surgery and managed with medication, he retained residual capacity to perform less physically demanding work or to retrain, and he failed to demonstrate meaningful attempts to obtain and maintain suitable alternative employment as required by Inclima; therefore he did not prove a 'severe' disability under the CPP.
Source excerpt
The Appeal Division's decision was reasonable: it permissibly relied on gross business earnings exceeding the regulatory substantially gainful threshold, validly rejected the applicant's anomalous expense claims, and relied on corroborating factual indicators of work capacity; furthermore, the tribunal lacks statutory authority to forgive repayment, so the repayment obligation stands.
Source excerpt
The Tribunal accepted the parties' agreed facts and the Minister's admission, and on the medical record (family physician notes, insurer conclusion, attending physician statement) found on the balance of probabilities that the Appellant's disability was severe and prolonged by March 2022; applying the CPP four‑month waiting period, payments start July 2022.
Source excerpt
The appeal is dismissed because the appellant failed to prove a severe and prolonged disability within the coverage period (to Dec 31, 2016) required for a regular CPP disability pension, and he lacked the requisite contribution years for PRDB under the applicable (old) s.44(4); additionally, receipt of an early retirement pension and treatment non‑compliance preclude entitlement to significant retroactive regular disability payments.
Source excerpt
The appeal is dismissed because the record shows only mild residual cognitive deficits and well-controlled seizures leaving the appellant with residual capacity; she failed to make meaningful efforts to obtain alternative employment suited to her limitations, thus she did not prove she was regularly incapable of pursuing any substantially gainful occupation and so did not satisfy the 'severe' element of the CPP test, obviating the need to decide 'prolonged'.
Source excerpt
Although the appellant had documented functional limitations from ulcerative colitis and degenerative disc disease, the evidence showed he retained work capacity and had earned substantially gainful income in 2020–2021; there was insufficient contemporaneous medical evidence to establish a severe disability by the MQP and the timing and circumstances of cessation of work pointed to non‑medical reasons, so the claim failed on severity and entitlement was denied.
Source excerpt
The appeal is dismissed because the appellant failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that her impairments were both severe and prolonged as of the hearing date: medical evidence characterizes her mental condition as situational and likely to improve with treatment, her physical conditions are intermittent and manageable, and she did not make meaningful efforts to pursue alternative employment, so she is not regularly incapable of pursuing any substantially gainful occupation.
Source excerpt
The appeal is dismissed because the appellant failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that his disability was severe by the MQP (December 31, 2017): pre-2018 medical records show only occasional neck and back complaints without continuous functional limitations, no objective medical evidence demonstrates a heart condition causing limitations before 2021, the chiropractor's opinions were outside his expertise and lacked corroboration, and the appellant demonstrated work capacity after the MQP by working in 2021 and earning substantially gainful income.
Source excerpt
Explore more
