Canada Pension Plan (CPP) disability

Introduction

[1] The Applicant seeks leave to appeal the decision of the General Division dated June 17, 2015.  The General Division conducted the hearing by teleconference. The General Division determined that the Applicant was not eligible for a disability pension under the Canada Pension Plan, as it found that she did not have a severe disability at her minimum qualifying period of June 9, 2015.  The Applicant filed an Application Requesting Leave to Appeal to the Appeal Division on July 28, 2015.  To succeed on this application, I must be satisfied that the appeal has a reasonable chance of success.

Issue

[2] Does the appeal have a reasonable chance of success?

Submissions

[3] The Applicant submits the following:

I strongly beleive that I am a person with disability with all the pain I have physically and emotinally and all the medications that Im taking everyday so strong that itself will make me a disiable person. No way I can work again because the pain I have no one can feel it only me.

The decision that it was made for my application it NOT right I realy apprecatied if you consider and review my file again especially the all medications Im taking make me tired all day and don’t work all day for the pain I have.  [sic]

[4] The Respondent has not filed any written submissions.

Analysis

[5] Some arguable ground upon which the proposed appeal might succeed is needed for leave to be granted:  Kerth v. Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development), [1999] FCJ No. 1252 (FC).  The Federal Court of Appeal has determined that an arguable case at law is akin to determining whether legally an appeal has a reasonable chance of success: Fancy v. Canada (Attorney General), 2010 FCA 63.

[6] Subsection 58(1) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act (DESDA) sets out the grounds of appeal as being limited to the following:

1. (a) The General Division  failed to observe a principle  of natural justice or otherwise acted beyond or refused to exercise its jurisdiction;
2. (b) The General Division erred in law in making its decision, whether or not the error appears on the face of the record; or
3. (c) The General Division based its decision on an erroneous finding of fact that it made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it.

[7] I need to be satisfied that the reasons for appeal fall within any of the grounds of appeal and that the appeal has a reasonable chance of success, before leave can be granted.

[8] The Applicant has not raised any grounds which fall into the enumerated grounds of appeal under subsection 58(1) of the DESDA. She does not allege that the General Division failed to observe a principle of natural justice or otherwise acted beyond or refused to exercise its jurisdiction, nor does she allege that the General Division erred in law or based its decision on an erroneous finding of fact that it made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it.  There should be at least one reviewable error made by the General Division that gives the appeal a reasonable chance of success.

[9] While an applicant is not required to prove the grounds of appeal for the purposes of a leave application, at the very least, an applicant ought to set out some particulars of the error or failing committed by the General Division which fall into the enumerated grounds of appeal under subsection 58(1) of the DESDA. The application is deficient in this regard and I am not satisfied that the appeal has a reasonable chance of success.

[10] While the Applicant has not raised appropriate grounds of appeal, subsection 58(1) of the DESDA nonetheless enables the Appeal Division to determine if there is an error of law, whether or not the error appears on the face of the record. However, I do not readily see any errors of law which may have been made by the General Division.

[11] For the purposes of a leave application, I am restricted to considering only those grounds of appeal which fall within subsection 58(1) of the DESDA. The subsection does not permit me to undertake a reassessment of the evidence.  As the Applicant’s reasons for appeal effectively disclose no grounds of appeal for me to consider, and as the Applicant has not identified with sufficient specificity any errors which the General Division may have made in its decision, I am not satisfied that the appeal has a reasonable chance of success and I therefore refuse the application for leave.

Conclusion

[12] The application for leave to appeal is refused.