Canada Pension Plan (CPP) disability
Decision Information
CPP – disability – “real world” approach – contradictory evidence
The Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) overturned the Appeal Division’s (AD) decision in Tribunal file no. AD-19-592. It decided the AD in that case hadn’t considered the overall effect of all of the Claimant’s medical conditions on his ability to work. The FCA sent the matter back to the AD to decide it again. A new AD tribunal member met with the Minister and the Claimant and the parties agreed the Claimant should get a disability pension. The AD granted the appeal and the disability pension.
Summary from the May 22 to June 4, 2021, Decision Alert
The Claimant applied for a Canada Pension Plan (CPP) disability pension based on multiple medical conditions. He provided evidence on the effect they had on his ability to work, also called “functional limitations”. The Minister refused the application and the Claimant appealed to the General Division (GD). Finding his disability was not severe, the GD dismissed his appeal as well. So the Claimant appealed to the Appeal Division (AD) which found the GD made an error of law when deciding whether his conditions were “severe”. The GD had listed some of the functional limitations but didn’t consider all of them together. The AD then made the decision the GD should have, finding that despite these limitations, the Claimant still had some capacity to work and wasn’t disabled.
The FCA found the AD’s assessment of disability to be unreasonable. First, it concluded the Claimant had some work capacity, so his condition wasn’t “severe”. But the AD did not explain why it also accepted evidence suggesting his limitations did not allow him to obtain regular work. This analytical gap prevented the FCA from understanding its decision. Second, the FCA found the AD did not take a “real world” approach, as the case law required. For example, the AD did not address the evidence that his limitations did not allow him to regularly attend work. This contradicted the AD’s other finding that he could perform part-time work; its reasons did not address his personal circumstances. The FCA allowed the application for judicial review and sent the matter back to the AD for redetermination.
Note: the FCA decision appeared in the May 22 to June 4, 2021 Decision Alert.
Decision Content
Citation: DR v Minister of Employment and Social Development, 2021 SST 349
Social Security Tribunal of Canada
Appeal Division
Decision
| Appellant: | D. R. |
| Representative: | Emilie Taman |
| Respondent: | Minister of Employment and Social Development |
| Decision under appeal: | General Division decision dated May 27, 2019 (File number: GP-18-2517) |
| Tribunal member: | Jude Samson |
| Decision date: | July 28, 2021 |
| File number: | AD-21-179 |
On this page
Background
[1] D. R. is the Claimant in this case. He says that he has been unable to work since May 2015, because of injuries suffered in a motor vehicle accident. In December 2017, he applied for a disability pension under the Canada Pension Plan (CPP). However, his application was denied by the Minister, and by the Tribunal’s General and Appeal Divisions.
[2] The Federal Court of Appeal recently decided that there were errors in the Appeal Division’s decision in this case.Footnote 1 So, the Court sent the matter back to the Appeal Division for redetermination by a different member.
The parties agree on the outcome of the appeal
[3] The parties are now asking that I make a decision based on an agreement that they have reached.Footnote 2
[4] Briefly, the parties agree that:Footnote 3
- The General Division decision contains an error of law.Footnote 4 Specifically, the General Division was obliged to consider the Claimant’s condition in its totality, but it didn’t do so.
- I should allow the appeal and give the decision that the General Division should have given.Footnote 5
- The Claimant was disabled, as defined under the CPP, in September 2016. Based on his application date, this is the earliest possible deemed date of disability.Footnote 6
- The Claimant is entitled to a CPP disability pension, starting in January 2017.Footnote 7
I accept the parties’ agreement
[5] Based on the information available to me, I am accepting the parties’ agreement.
Conclusion
[6] I am allowing the Claimant’s appeal. He is entitled to a CPP disability pension, with payments starting in January 2017.