On this page
Reasons and decision
Decision
Leave to appeal is refused.
Overview
[1] The Applicant, T. P., who is now 65 years old, was born in India and has training as an engineer and computer programmer. After immigrating to Canada in 2000, he found work as a line worker for an auto parts manufacturer, a job that ended in September 2012 after sustaining injuries to both hands, his right wrist and his right shoulder.
[2] In March 2015, the Respondent, the Minister of Employment and Social Development (Minister), refused Mr. T. P.’s application for a disability pension under the Canada Pension Plan (CPP). The Minister acknowledged that he had a repetitive strain injury, among other medical conditions, but it found insufficient evidence that they prevented him from performing suitable work within his functional limitations during the minimum qualifying period (MQP), which ended on December 31, 2014.
[3] Mr. T. P. appealed the Minister’s refusal to the General Division of the Social Security Tribunal of Canada (Tribunal). On March 7, 2017, the General Division convened a hearing by teleconference but ultimately found that Mr. T. P. had not demonstrated a severe disability, nor had he fulfilled his obligation to seek alternative employment that would be better suited to his physical limitations.
[4] On April 17, 2017, Mr. T. P. requested leave to appeal from the Tribunal’s Appeal Division, citing the many medical reports that supported his disability claim. The Tribunal asked Mr. T. P. to provide additional reasons for his appeal, and he responded by way of a letter dated May 30, 2017. He wrote that he was unhappy with the decision to deny him benefits and alleged that the General Division had failed to observe a principle of natural justice.
[5] I have reviewed the General Division’s decision against the underlying record and have concluded that Mr. T. P. has not advanced any grounds that would have a reasonable chance of success on appeal.
Issues
[6] According to section 58 of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act (DESDA), there are only three grounds of appeal to the Appeal Division: The General Division (i) failed to observe a principle of natural justice; (ii) erred in law; or (iii) based its decision on an erroneous finding of fact made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material. An appeal may be brought only if the Appeal Division first grants leave to appeal,Footnote 1 but the Appeal Division must first be satisfied that the appealhas a reasonable chance of success.Footnote 2 The Federal Court of Appeal has held that a reasonable chance of success is akin to an arguable case at law.Footnote 3
[7] My task is to determine whether Mr. T. P. has presented an arguable case that the General Division erred according to one or more of the grounds set out in section 58.
Analysis
[8] Mr. T. P. submits that the General Division dismissed his appeal despite evidence indicating that his overall condition was “severe” and “prolonged” according to the CPP criteria for disability. He suggests that the General Division disregarded medical opinions that described the impact of his health problems on his ability to work.
[9] I do not see a reasonable chance of success on this ground.
[10] It is settled law that an administrative tribunal charged with fact finding is presumed to have considered all the evidence before it and need not discuss each and every element of a party’s submissions.Footnote 4 That said, I have reviewed the General Division’s decision and have found no indication that it ignored, or gave inadequate consideration to, any significant item of evidence. The General Division’s decision contains what appears to be a thorough summary of Mr. T. P.’s medical file, followed by an analysis that meaningfully discussed the documentary and oral evidence.
[11] In the end, Mr. T. P.’s submissions amount to a recapitulation of evidence and argument that were already presented to the General Division. He has not identified how, in coming to its decision, the General Division failed to observe a principle of natural justice, committed an error of law or relied on an erroneous finding of fact. My review of its decision indicates that the General Division analyzed in detail Mr. T. P.’s claimed medical conditions—chronic pain in his upper extremities—and whether they affected his capacity to regularly pursue substantially gainful employment during the MQP. In doing so, it took into account his background— including his age, education and work experience—but found that they were not significant impediments to his ability to perform alternate work. The General Division put forth defensible reasons for preferring certain items of evidence over others, and I do not see an arguable case that it disregarded material evidence.
[12] Bald allegations of error are insufficient grounds of appeal. In the absence of detailed reasons, I find this claimed ground of appeal to be so broad as to amount to a request to retry the entire claim. If Mr. T. P. is asking me to reassess the evidence and substitute my judgment for the General Division’s, I am unable to do so. My authority as an Appeal Division member permits me to determine only whether any of an applicant’s reasons for appealing fall within the specified grounds under subsection 58(1) and whether any of them have a reasonable chance of success.
Conclusion
[13] Since Mr. T. P. has not identified any grounds of appeal under subsection 58(1) of the DESDA that would have a reasonable chance of success on appeal, the application for leave to appeal is refused.