Canada Case Law

KS v Minister of Employment and Social Development

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

Permission to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to raise an arguable case of unfair procedure or any legal, jurisdictional or factual error by the General Division, and the evidence asserted as new (a 2023 doctor’s note) was already before the General Division and, regardless, is irrelevant to whether the disability was severe and prolonged by the MQP of November 30, 2015.

Source excerpt

• Canada pension plan disability
• Leave to appeal
• Procedural fairness
• New evidence
• Coverage period (mqp)

Read case analysis

BS v Minister of Employment and Social Development

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

The appeal is dismissed because the Tribunal found the disabling conditions that currently render the Appellant unable to work principally arose after the MQP (the 2019 accident) and the pre-MQP impairments (pregnancy-induced hypertension and post-partum depression and earlier anxiety) were situational or resolved and therefore not prolonged as of December 31, 2017; on the balance of probabilities the Appellant failed to prove a severe and prolonged disability by the MQP.

Source excerpt

• Canada pension plan
• Cpp disability pension
• Minimum qualifying period
• Severe and prolonged disability
• Functional limitations

Read case analysis

Next Alutech Ltd. v. Canada

Next Alutech Ltd. v. Canada (Employment and Social Development)

Court

Federal Court

The Federal Court allowed a judicial review of LMIA refusals, finding the officer fettered discretion by insisting on a bank attestation and ignoring other financial evidence.

• Fettering of discretion
• Genuineness of job offer
• Evidence required for lmia
• Subsection 203(2.1) of the regulations
• Paragraph 200(5)(c) of the regulations
• Judicial-review

Read case analysis

MK v Minister of Employment and Social Development

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

By the end of the MQP (December 31, 2024) the Claimant retained some capacity for part-time, remote, relatively independent work (eg. coding or research) supported by his education, skills and some evidence; treating opinions were focused on his former supervisory role and post-2024 opinions were inconsistent or equivocal; the Claimant made no attempts to obtain employment after August 2020 and thus could not establish on the balance of probabilities that efforts to obtain and maintain employment had failed because of his health as required by Inclima; accordingly he did not meet the CPP seve…

Source excerpt

• Cpp disability
• Severe and prolonged disability
• Residual work capacity
• Medical evidence
• Failure to seek work
• Accommodations and accommodated work

Read case analysis

The Estate of FK v Minister of Employment and Social Development

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

The appeal fails because the appellant did not have a severe disability by the MQP date of December 31, 2022: contemporaneous medical evidence did not show limitations preventing substantially gainful work by that date and the appellant continued part-time supervisory/business activities indicating residual capacity; additionally the appellant did not meet the PRDB MQP requirement, so PRDB entitlement cannot succeed.

Source excerpt

• Canada pension plan disability
• Post-retirement disability benefit
• Minimum qualifying period
• Severe and prolonged disability
• Eligibility

Read case analysis

TO v Minister of Employment and Social Development

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

The Appellant failed to prove a severe disability by the MQP date (December 31, 2017) because contemporaneous medical records show no disabling back condition before the February 2018 accident and she worked a substantially gainful job from July to December 2017 earning over $55,000; therefore she was capable of regularly engaging in remunerative employment and is not eligible for a CPP disability pension.

Source excerpt

• Cpp disability pension
• Severe and prolonged disability
• Minimum qualifying period
• Eligibility assessment

Read case analysis

DC v Minister of Employment and Social Development

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

The Appeal Division granted an extension of time because the claimant provided a reasonable explanation for the delay, but refused permission to appeal because the claimant failed to raise an arguable case that the General Division erred on the determinative issue of timeliness and the new medical evidence was irrelevant to that issue.

Source excerpt

• Extension of time
• Leave to appeal
• Appeal deadlines
• Procedural fairness
• New evidence

Read case analysis

MM v Minister of Employment and Social Development

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to raise any arguable error by the General Division and the new medical evidence related to 2020–2025 does not pertain to whether the disability was severe and prolonged on or before the coverage end date of December 31, 1999; therefore the statutory requirements for a CPP disability pension and for granting leave were not met.

Source excerpt

• Cpp disability eligibility
• Leave to appeal
• Coverage period
• Severe and prolonged disability
• New evidence

Read case analysis

AJ v Minister of Employment and Social Development

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

The appeal was dismissed because the medical evidence and objective findings showed only mild to stable impairments (SARA=8, MoCA=29/30), treating physicians did not restrict work, the Appellant demonstrated real-world work capacity (continued employment until September 2024, self-reported abilities), and she made no documented efforts after that date to find or retrain for suitable work; therefore she did not prove a severe disability as of the hearing date.

Source excerpt

• Canada pension plan disability
• Severe and prolonged disability
• Eligibility
• Reconsideration

Read case analysis

CM v Minister of Employment and Social Development

Court

Social Security Tribunal of Canada

The appellant ceased to be disabled as of September 2021 because, despite ongoing functional limitations, he was regularly capable of pursuing substantially gainful employment (demonstrated by consistent work and earnings exceeding the substantially gainful threshold for three months), his employers were not benevolent, and therefore he was no longer eligible for CPP disability; the Tribunal has no authority to forgive the resulting overpayment.

Source excerpt

• Cpp disability
• Disability cessation
• Overpayment
• Debt forgiveness
• Reconsideration

Read case analysis