Canada Pension Plan (CPP) disability

Decision

[1] The Claimant has not established new material facts.

Overview

[2] The Claimant was 60 years old when he applied for a Canada Pension Plan (CPP) disability pension in 2017. He worked in construction. He stated that he had been unable to work since 2013 because of several conditions. These included problems with his hands and right wrist, shoulder and foot pain, hearing loss, prostate cancer, and back pain.^{Footnote 1} The Minister denied the application initially and upon reconsideration. The Claimant appealed to the Social Security Tribunal. In July 2019, the General Division dismissed the appeal.^{Footnote 2}

[3] The Claimant is applying to amend or rescind that decision.

[4] I decided this application based on the documents and submissions filed because an oral hearing was not required.

The General Division decision

[5] A qualifying disability must be severe and prolonged.^{Footnote 3} The Claimant’s disability was severe if it caused him to be incapable regularly of pursuing any substantially gainful occupation. His disability was prolonged if it was likely to be long continued and of indefinite duration.

[6] The Claimant was required to prove that it was more likely than not that he became disabled by the end of his Minimum Qualifying Period (MQP), which was calculated based on his contributions to the CPP. His MQP ended on December 31, 2013.^{Footnote 4}

[7] The General Division accepted that the Claimant was disabled at the time of the hearing. However, it found that he had failed to establish that it was more likely than not that he had a severe disability by the end of December 2013, when he last qualified for CPP disability.^{Footnote 5}

Issue

[8] Has the Claimant established new material facts?

Analysis

[9] I may amend or rescind the General Division decision if the Claimant presents a new material fact that could not have been discovered at the time of the hearing with the exercise of reasonable diligence.^{Footnote 6}

[10] The Claimant must submit new information that was not readily accessible at the time of hearing. The new information must also be material – that is, it could reasonably be expected to have affected the outcome of the hearing if the Tribunal Member had known about it at the time.

[11] A new facts application is not an appeal, nor is it an opportunity to reargue the merits of a claimant’s disability claim. Instead, it is a tool designed to allow the Tribunal to reopen one of its decisions if new and relevant evidence becomes known that existed but was previously undiscoverable by the exercise of reasonable diligence.^{Footnote 7}

[12] The Claimant submitted 690 pages of medical documents as new facts.^{Footnote 8} However, he did not set out any reasons why these documents were new facts. He stated only that his doctors had sent the documents to the Tribunal.^{Footnote 9}

[13] In her March 2020 letter enclosing the medical documents, Dr. Lowry set out reasons why the Claimant suffers from severe disabilities. She attempted to reargue the merits of the initial decision because she believed the decision was erroneous.^{Footnote 10} If the Claimant believed the decision was wrong, he was entitled to bring an application for leave to appeal before the Appeal Division. However, rearguing the merits of a decision is not the proper basis for a new facts application.

[14] The Minister submitted that there was insufficient information in the Claimant’s application to determine what the Claimant alleged to be new facts. The Minister stated that it had no notice of what facts in the 690 pages of medical information were alleged to be new facts.

[15] The Minister requested that the Claimant provide the following information:

1. Identify specifically which facts the Applicant alleges are “new facts” and provide references in the material to the evidence upon which he intends to rely to establish these facts;
2. Explain what efforts the Applicant took to present each of the alleged new facts to the previous Tribunal; and
3. Explain why the Applicant feels each alleged new fact would reasonably be expected to change the previous decision.^{Footnote 11}

[16] On September 24, 2020, I directed the Applicant to file a written response to the information requested by the Minister by the close of business on October 19, 2020.^{Footnote 12}

[17] The Applicant did not respond to this direction. He has not set out any basis for his new facts applications. It was his responsibility to set this out. It was also his was responsibility to respond to my direction. It is not my role to review 690 pages of medical information and speculate what, if any, facts in that information are new facts.

[18] I find that the Claimant has failed to establish new material facts.

Conclusion

[19] The application is dismissed.