Canada Pension Plan (CPP) disability

Decision and reasons

Decision

[1] The application for leave to appeal is refused. This appeal will not proceed.

Overview

[2] In May 2018, the Applicant, R. R., applied for a disability pension under the Canada Pension Plan (CPP). The Applicant argues that he was unable to work because of his mental health condition.

[3] The Minister of Employment and Social Development finds that the Applicant does not meet the conditions to be eligible for a disability pension. As a result, it denied the Applicant’s pension application. The Applicant appealed the Minister’s decision to the General Division, but the General Division dismissed his appeal.

[4] The Applicant now wants to appeal the General Division’s decision to the Appeal Division. He argues that the CPP is unreasonable and that people in situations like his must be eligible for a disability pension. Furthermore, he accuses the General Division of dismissing his appeal entirely because of his income.

[5] Unfortunately for the Applicant, I have found that the appeal has no reasonable chance of success. As a result, I must refuse leave to appeal, and his appeal cannot proceed. These are the reasons for my decision.

Issue

[6] This is the issue I examine in this decision: Has the Applicant raised an arguable case on which the appeal might succeed?

Analysis

[7] The Tribunal must apply the law and follow certain procedures.^{Footnote 1} As a result, this appeal follows a two-step process: the leave to appeal stage and the merits stage. If the appeal has no reasonable chance of success, it cannot proceed to the merits stage.^{Footnote 2}

[8] The legal test that the Applicant needs to meet at this stage is a low one: Is there any arguable case on which the appeal might succeed?^{Footnote 3} To answer that question, I must determine whether the General Division made at least one of the errors (or grounds of appeal) set out in section 58(1) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act (DESD Act).

[9] On July 10, 2020, the Tribunal invited the Applicant to provide more information about the reasons for his appeal. It received the Applicant’s response a few days later.^{Footnote 4}

The Applicant has not raised an arguable case on which the appeal might succeed.

[10] The issue before the General Division was whether the Applicant had a severe and prolonged disability before the end of his qualifying period, on December 31, 2006.^{Footnote 5}

[11] The Applicant acknowledges that the General Division based its decision on the right law, but he claims that the law is unreasonable. He argues that the General Division found him ineligible for a disability pension because his income [translation] “exceeded the limit,” especially in 2008 and 2009. He says he should not be disqualified from receiving disability benefits simply because he tried to return to work or because he has an episodic disability. Furthermore, he notes that that income came from a project designed by his brother-in-law to help and encourage him.

[12] Jurisdiction to amend laws belongs to Parliament. The Tribunal is bound by the law as it is written. It does not have jurisdiction to amend the law, even if there may be good reasons to do so.

[13] As for the Applicant’s income, the General Division did not base its decision on this factor alone. Rather, it is one of the relevant factors the General Division considered before finding that the evidence did not establish that the Applicant had a severe and prolonged disability under the CPP.^{Footnote 6}

[14] Furthermore, the General Division took into account the regularity or the episodic nature of the Applicant’s disability as part of its assessment.^{Footnote 7}

[15] Therefore, I find that the Applicant has not raised an arguable case on which the appeal might succeed.

[16] Regardless of this finding, I cannot stop at the precise grounds of appeal that the Applicant has raised.^{Footnote 8} Therefore, I reviewed the documents on file, I listened to the audio recording of the General Division hearing, and I studied the decision under appeal. I am therefore satisfied that the General Division did not overlook or misconstrue relevant evidence.

Conclusion

[17] While this may not be the answer the Applicant was hoping for, I cannot use the principles of equity or consider extenuating circumstances to grant leave to appeal.

[18] I sympathize with the Applicant’s circumstances. Nevertheless, I find that his appeal has no reasonable chance of success. As a result, I have no choice but to refuse leave to appeal.