Canada Pension Plan (CPP) disability

Decision

[1] Consistent with parties’ agreement, I am:

• granting the Claimant an extension of time to request leave (permission) to appeal
• granting the Claimant leave to appeal
• allowing the appeal because the General Division made an important error of fact in its decision
• fixing (remedying) the error of fact by giving the decision that the General Division should have given. The Claimant has an extension of time for her reconsideration request of December 14, 2020.

Overview

[2] C. I. (Claimant) says that she has been unable to work since February 2017. She explains that she has post-traumatic stress disorder and continual breakdowns, recurring heart and stroke concerns, high blood pressure, and arrhythmia.

[3] She applied for a Canada Pension Plan (CPP) disability pension in July, 2019.^{Footnote 1} The Minister of Employment and Social Development Canada (Minister) refused the application on October 16, 2019.^{Footnote 2} There is a 90-day time limit for requesting reconsideration.^{Footnote 3} The Minister did not receive the Claimant’s request for reconsideration until December 14, 2020.^{Footnote 4} On December 23, 2020, the Minister refused to extend the time for the Claimant to request reconsideration.^{Footnote 5} The Claimant appealed to this Tribunal.

[4] The General Division decided that the Minister did not act judicially when it refused to extend the time.^{Footnote 6} The General Division completed its own analysis, and it too refused to extend the time for the Claimant to request reconsideration.^{Footnote 7}

[5] The Claimant asks for permission (leave) to appeal the General Division decision to the Appeal Division. The General Division decision is dated June 11, 2021. The Claimant filed the application for leave to appeal on February 3, 2022. Her request to the Appeal Division is late.^{Footnote 8} She is not more than a year late though, so I can decide whether she can have an extension of time to appeal.^{Footnote 9}

The parties agree on the outcome of the appeal

[6] At a settlement conference, the Claimant and the Minister reached an agreement to settle the appeal. They agreed that:

• The Appeal Division should grant the Claimant an extension of time to appeal as such an extension is in the interests of justice.
• The General Division made an error of fact when it considered whether the Claimant met the test for an extension of time for requesting reconsideration. The General Division ignored some of the Claimant’s evidence about her medical conditions during the delay, including the nature and frequency of her stays in hospital.
• Taking into account the testimony that the General Division ignored, the Claimant showed that she met all four parts of the test to receive an extension of time for a reconsideration request:
  1. The Claimant gave a reasonable explanation for the delay.
  2. The Claimant showed a continuing intention to appeal.
  3. The delay results in no prejudice to the Minister.
  4. The Claimant has a reasonable chance of success.^{Footnote 10}
• The Appeal Division should allow the appeal, finding that the General Division made an error of fact.
• The Appeal Division should give the decision that the General Division should have given, and extend the time for the Claimant’s request for reconsideration to the Minister.

I accept the proposed outcome

[7] I accept the parties’ agreement entirely.

[8] It is in the interests of justice to give the Claimant an extension of time to request leave to appeal to the Appeal Division. The Federal Court requires that the Appeal Division consider essentially the same four factors as the Minister and the General Division considered when looking at the Claimant’s lateness at the reconsideration level.^{Footnote 11}

[9] The Claimant does not need to meet all factors in order to have an extension to get leave to appeal. In some cases, one factor will weigh more heavily than others will. The overriding consideration is that a decision about an extension of time serve the interests of justice.^{Footnote 12}

[10] In my view, given that the parties have reached an agreement that resolves the entire appeal, it is in the interests of justice to grant the extension of time for leave to appeal. In addition, the Claimant has a reasonable chance of success on appeal, which is an important factor here.

[11] I am satisfied that the General Division made the error of fact as outlined by the parties. I can intervene in a General Division decision when the decision maker ignored important evidence.^{Footnote 13}

[12] The Claimant’s testimony at the General Division hearing was important. She gave a description of the significant medial challenges she was experiencing during the delay. She described the times that she had been in the hospital and the reasons for those hospital stays.^{Footnote 14}

[13] The General Division referenced “medical emergencies” very briefly, but did not grapple with the detailed evidence the Claimant gave about hospitalizations.^{Footnote 15} It was important enough that the General Division needed to discuss it. Without having grappled with that evidence, I can infer that the General Division ignored it.

[14] To fix the error, I will give the decision that the General Division should have given in accordance with the parties’ agreement.^{Footnote 16}

[15] The Claimant met the test for an extension of time to request a reconsideration decision from the Minister. In my view, when you take the Claimant’s testimony about the hospital stays into account, it becomes clear: the Claimant had a reasonable explanation for the delay due to the nature of her health challenges. She required inpatient treatment more than once between when she got the Minister’s decision and the time she requested reconsideration. For those same reasons, she met the requirement for showing she had a continuing intention to appeal.

[16] I adopt the General Division’s reasoning that the Claimant met the other two parts of the test. First, the Minister never disputed (and the General Division found) that there was no prejudice to the Minister resulting from the delay. Second, the Claimant has a reasonable chance of success.

[17] The Claimant will have the extension of time to request reconsideration so that the Minister can go ahead to process her December 2020 request for reconsideration.

[18] I thank the Minister and the Claimant for the way they contributed to resolving this appeal.

Conclusion

[19] I granted the Claimant an extension of time to request leave (permission) to appeal.

[20] I granted the Claimant leave to appeal.

[21] I allowed the appeal according to the parties’ agreement. The General Division made an important error of fact in its decision.

[22] To fix the error, I gave the decision that the General Division should have given: I granted the Claimant an extension of time the time for her reconsideration request of December 14, 2020.