Canada Pension Plan (CPP) disability

Decision and reasons

Decision

[1] I am refusing the application for leave to appeal. These reasons explain why.

Overview

[2] A. E. (Claimant) applied for a disability pension under the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) in November 2018. He has pain in his back, neck and shoulder. He gets severe headaches. He was in a car accident in November 1996, and someone assaulted him in 1999. He did some work bundling newspapers in 2007 and in 2008, but he had to stop because of his back pain. He had back surgery in 2010, but he still has a spinal cord injury and lots of pain.

[3] The Minister denied the Claimant’s application for the disability pension. There is a formula for deciding whether someone has enough contributions to be considered for a disability pension. The formula is based on the number of years claimants earned money and contributed to the Canada Pension Plan. The Claimant had only three years of valid contributions to the CPP in his working history (1995, 2007 and 2008). The Minister denied the Claimant’s application because, according to the formula and all the rules that apply, he did not have enough years of valid contributions to be eligible for a disability pension.

[4] The Claimant appealed the Minister’s decision to this Tribunal. The General Division dismissed his appeal, explaining that he did not meet the requirements for contributions to qualify for a disability pension.

[5] I must decide whether there is any argument that the General Division made an error under the Department of Employment and Social Development Act (DESDA) that would justify giving the Claimant leave (permission) to appeal.

[6] There is no arguable case that the General Division made an error here. I refuse the application for leave to appeal.

Issue

[7] Is it arguable that the General Division member made an error when she dismissed the Claimant’s appeal?

Analysis

Reviewing General Division decisions

[8] The Appeal Division does not give the Claimant or the Minister a chance to re-argue their case again from the beginning. Instead, the Appeal Division reviews the General Division’s decision to decide if it contains errors.

[9] That review is based on the wording of the DESDA, which sets out the “grounds of appeal.” To grant the application for permission to appeal, I must find that it can be argued that the General Division made one of these types of errors:

1. 1. The General Division hearing process was not fair in some way.
2. 2. The General Division did not decide an issue that it should have decided; or, it decided something it did not have the power to decide.
3. 3. The General Division based its decision on an important error of fact.
4. 4. The General Division made an error of law when making its decision.^{Footnote 1}

[10] At the leave to appeal stage, a claimant must show that the appeal has a reasonable chance of success.^{Footnote 2} To meet this requirement, a claimant needs to show only that there is some arguable ground on which the appeal might succeed.^{Footnote 3}

No arguable case that the General Division made an error

[11] There is no arguable case for an error by the General Division. The Claimant has not raised any argument about a possible error that has a reasonable chance of success.

[12] The Claimant appealed because he says the General Division made an error by focusing on his medical condition in January 1996. The Claimant agrees that he was not disabled in January of 1996, and that is why he never applied for a disability pension way back then. He explains that it was the car accident, and later the assault, that resulted in injuries and meant that he could no longer work. His documents explain that he had to stop working altogether in June 2010.

[13] The Claimant has not raised an argument for an error by the General Division.

[14] The General Division had no choice but to follow the laws about CPP benefits. The General Division explained and applied the law correctly: based on the contributions he made to the CPP, the Claimant can only have a disability pension if he shows he had a severe and prolonged disability that started in January of 1996 and was continuous from that date on. From January 1995 to June 1996 the Claimant was not disabled – he worked in his convenience store.

[15] The Claimant applied for the disability pension in November 2018. To qualify for a disability pension, he would have needed to have contributions to the CPP in at least four of the years between 2021 and 2017. He did not meet that requirement.

[16] But, there is a section of the CPP that allows another path to meeting the requirements for contributions. Under this provision, sometimes called the “late applicant rule”, claimants can qualify for a disability pension if they made contributions that were high enough in five of the last ten years, or two of the last three years between 1987 and 1997.^{Footnote 4} The Claimant did not have enough contributions to meet that requirement either.  According to the CPP, this lack of sufficient contributions disqualifies the Claimant from receiving a disability pension, no matter what his physical condition may have been.

[17] In addition, while trying to find any possible way to count the Claimant’s contributions, the General Division recognized that he did have some earnings in 1996. As a result of a rule about making contributions for part of a year (called the proration rule), the Claimant could qualify for a disability pension, but only if he became disabled sometime in January of 1996.^{Footnote 5}

[18] The General Division was not wrong to focus on January 1996. Given all of the rules about contributions to the CPP, the Claimant could only receive a disability pension if his disability was severe and prolonged in January 1996. Even though he has a disability now, he has not made enough contributions to the CPP to qualify. The only possible way for him to get a pension would be if he was found disabled in January 1996 and for the proration rule to apply. The Claimant does not argue with the fact that he was not disabled back in January 1996. The Claimant did not want the General Division to dismiss his appeal, but the General Division did not make an error.

[19] I reviewed the documents in the Claimant’s case and I do not see any case that the General Division may have ignored or misunderstood the evidence.^{Footnote 6} The Claimant did not make any argument that the General Division failed to provide him with a fair process. I see no evidence of that kind of problem in the file.

Conclusion

[20] I refuse the application for leave to appeal.