Canada Pension Plan (CPP) disability

Decision and reasons

Decision

[1] Leave to appeal is refused.

Overview

[2] N. M. (Claimant) applied for a Canada Pension Plan disability pension and claimed that she was disabled by a number of conditions, including a respiratory condition, food and environmental allergies, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and osteoarthritis.

[3] The Minister of Employment and Social Development refused the application. The Claimant appealed this decision to the Tribunal. The Tribunal’s General Division dismissed the appeal. It decided that the Claimant did not have a severe disability because she was able to do sedentary work.

[4] The Claimant then applied to have the General Division’s decision rescinded or amended based on new material facts. The General Division refused this application because it decided that the documents presented were not new material facts under the Department of Employment and Social Development Act (DESD Act). Leave to appeal from this decision is refused because the appeal does not have a reasonable chance of success.

Grounds of appeal

[5] The DESD Act governs the Tribunal’s operation. It provides rules for appeals to the Appeal Division. An appeal is not a re-hearing of the original claim. Instead, I must decide whether the General Division:

1. failed to provide a fair process;
2. failed to decide an issue that it should have, or decided an issue that it should not have;
3. made an error in law; or
4. based its decision on an important factual error.^{Footnote 1}

[6] However, before I can decide an appeal, I must decide whether to grant leave (permission) to appeal. The DESD Act says that leave to appeal must be refused if the appeal does not have a reasonable chance of success.^{Footnote 2} Therefore, to be granted leave to appeal the Claimant must present at least one ground of appeal (reason for appealing) that falls under the DESD Act and on which the appeal has a reasonable chance of success.

[7] In the Application to the Appeal Division the Claimant wrote about her struggles with food and environmental allergies, her ongoing research and attempts to improve her health by restricting her diet, and other matters. This information did not point to any ground of appeal under the DESD Act.

[8] The Tribunal wrote to the Claimant, explained what grounds of appeal the Appeal Division can consider, and asked the Claimant to provide grounds of appeal. The Claimant responded and again described her food and environmental allergies, her research and her efforts to improve her health.

Analysis

[9] In the documents filed with the Appeal Division, the Claimant explains the nature of her environmental and food allergies, her ongoing research about food additives and chemical additives to the water where she lives and their impact on her digestive system and other health-related matters, her ongoing need to consult regularly with her doctor, and her belief that she is disabled. She does not point to the General Division having overlooked any information or making any factual error.

[10] I appreciate that the Claimant has a number of limitations that make it difficult for her to leave her home and do many things. However, much of this information was presented to the General Division. The General Division considered this when it first decided that she was not disabled. The repetition of this does not point to the General Division having made any errors under the DESD Act.

[11] New evidence generally is not permitted on an appeal under the DESD Act.^{Footnote 3} The Claimant’s new material does not fall into any of the exceptions to this rule. Leave to appeal cannot be granted on the basis that the Claimant has new evidence.

[12] I have read the General Division decision in question and reviewed the written record. The General Division did not overlook or misconstrue any important information. It considered each document that the Claimant says was a new material fact.^{Footnote 4}

[13] There is no suggestion that the General Division made an error in law or failed to provide a fair process.

Conclusion

[14] Leave to appeal is refused.