Canada Pension Plan (CPP) disability

Decision and Reasons

Decision

[1] Leave to appeal is refused.

Overview

[2] D. H. (Claimant) suffered injuries to his arm in 2006 and 2014. He applied for a Canada Pension Plan disability pension in 2014. The Minister of Employment and Social Development (Minister) refused the application. The Claimant requested that the Minister reconsider its decision on June 30, 2017, after the time permitted to do so. The Minister refused to extend the time for the Claimant to request reconsideration. The Claimant appealed this decision to the Social Security Tribunal. The Tribunal’s General Division dismissed the appeal. Leave to appeal this decision to the Tribunal’s Appeal Division is refused because the Claimant did not present any grounds of appeal under the Department of Employment and Social Development Act (DESD Act).

Analysis

[3] The DESD Act governs the Tribunal’s operation. It provides only three grounds of appeal that can be considered, namely, that the General Division failed to observe a principle of natural justice or made a jurisdictional error, made an error in law, or based its decision on an erroneous finding of fact made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it.^{Footnote 1} In addition, leave to appeal is to be refused if the appeal has no reasonable chance of success.^{Footnote 2}

[4] In his application for leave to appeal, the Claimant “checked off” the boxes for each of the grounds of appeal under the DESD Act. In his description of the grounds of appeal, he wrote that he has nerve, functional, and strength problems on a daily basis; that he is stressed and has mental health problems, and that a job would be impossible. Since this did not explain how the General Division may have erred under the DESD Act, the Tribunal wrote to the Claimant and asked him to explain how the General Division erred. The Claimant responded with a statement that he is homeless, that his right arm had been broken and rebroken and has been problematic ever since the hardware from it was removed, and that he would like to have a hearing.

[5] Unfortunately, these statements do not point to any error made by the General Division. I have reviewed the General Division decision. It correctly states that the issue to be decided was whether the Minister judicially exercised its discretion when it decided to refuse to extend the time for the Claimant to request reconsideration of its decision. The General Division set out the law that applies when deciding this and applied it to the facts. I am satisfied that the General Division did not overlook or misconstrue any important information. I am also satisfied that it made no error in law and observed the principles of natural justice.

Conclusion

[6] I have great sympathy for the Claimant and his circumstances. Leave to appeal cannot, however, be granted on the basis of compassion or extenuating circumstances. Leave to appeal must be refused because there is no ground of appeal that may have a reasonable chance of success on appeal.