Canada Pension Plan (CPP) disability

Decision and reasons

Decision

[1] Leave to appeal is refused.

Introduction

[2] The Claimant is a former teacher who most recently worked as a cake decorator at an arts and crafts retailer. In December 2014, she applied for a Canada Pension Plan disability pension, claiming that she could no longer work because of arthritis and carpal tunnel syndrome.

[3] The Minister refused the Claimant’s application, initially and on reconsideration, because it found that the Claimant’s disability was not “severe and prolonged,” as defined by the Canada Pension Plan. The Minister’s reconsideration letter, dated August 17, 2015,^{Footnote 1} advised the Claimant that, if she disagreed with the Minister’s decision, she had the right to file an appeal with the General Division of the Social Security Tribunal within 90 days.

[4] More than four years later, on November 22, 2019, the Claimant did file an appeal, but she submitted it to the Minister, not the Tribunal. On January 22, 2020,^{Footnote 2} the Minister advised the Claimant by mail that she should direct her appeal to the Tribunal, as indicated in the reconsideration letter. The Claimant filed a notice of appeal with the Tribunal on June 19, 2020,

[5] The General Division then considered the matter by way of a documentary review. In a decision dated August 5, 2020, the General Division dismissed the appeal because it was made more than one year after the Claimant had received the Minister’s reconsideration letter.

[6] On September 11, 2020, the Claimant submitted an application requesting leave to appeal to the Tribunal’s Appeal Division. She insisted that she had good reasons for submitting a late appeal, among them her continuing impairment, her father’s illness and death, the COVID-19 crisis, and her fear that pursuing her claim would stigmatize her son in his professional studies.

[7] Having reviewed the Claimant’s submissions against the underlying record, I have concluded that the Claimant’s reasons for appealing have no reasonable chance of success.

Issue

[8] There are only three grounds of appeal to the Appeal Division. An applicant must show that the General Division acted unfairly, interpreted the law incorrectly, or based its decision on an important error of fact.^{Footnote 3}

[9] An appeal can proceed only if the Appeal Division first grants leave to appeal.^{Footnote 4} At this stage, the Appeal Division must be satisfied that the appeal has a reasonable chance of success.^{Footnote 5} This is a fairly easy test to meet, and it means that an applicant must present at least one arguable case.^{Footnote 6}

[10] I have to decide whether the Applicant has an arguable case.

Analysis

[11] I have reviewed the record, and I see no arguable case on any ground of appeal.

[12] Under the law, an appeal to the General Division must be submitted to the Tribunal within 90 days after the day on which the Minister’s reconsideration decision was communicated to the claimant.^{Footnote 7} The General Division may allow further time to make the appeal, but in no case can it be made more than one year after the day on which the decision was communicated to the claimant.^{Footnote 8}

[13] In this case, the General Division found that the notice of appeal was submitted to the Tribunal more than one year after the Claimant received the Minister’s reconsideration letter. I can see no arguable case that the General Division committed an error in doing so.

[14] In her correspondence, the Claimant has never denied that she submitted her notice of appeal more than one year after receiving the reconsideration letter. Indeed, the record indicates that the reconsideration letter was sent to the Claimant on August 17, 2015 and that her misdirected appeal was not filed until more than four years later—on November 22, 2019. The Claimant points to personal and medical issues that she insists prevented her from responding earlier. However, the General Division reviewed the evidence and saw nothing to indicate that she had filed, or attempted to file, any document with either the Minister or the Tribunal until long after the 90-day “soft” and one-year “hard” deadlines. The Claimant has not explained how the General Division erred in making this finding.

[15] For appeals submitted more than one year after reconsideration, the law is strict and unambiguous. The governing legislation states that in no case may an appeal be brought more than one year after the reconsideration decision was communicated to a claimant. While extenuating circumstances may be considered for appeals that come after 90 days but within a year, the wording of the legislation all but eliminates scope for a decision‑maker to exercise discretion once the year has elapsed. The Claimant’s explanations for filing her appeal late are therefore rendered irrelevant, as are other factors, including the merits of her disability claim.

[16] It is unfortunate that missing a filing deadline may have cost the Claimant an opportunity to make an appeal, but the General Division was bound to follow the letter of the law, and so am I. the Claimant may regard this outcome as unfair, but I can exercise only such jurisdiction as granted by the Appeal Division’s enabling legislation. This reality is reflected in cases such as Canada v Tucker,^{Footnote 9} which held that an administrative tribunal is not a court but a statutory decision‑maker and therefore not empowered to provide any form of equitable relief.

Conclusion

[17] In my view, the General Division did not base its decision to deny the Claimant an extension to appeal on an erroneous finding of fact, nor did it err in law or breach a principle of natural justice. As I see no reasonable chance of success on the grounds of appeal put forward, the application for leave to appeal is refused.