Canada Pension Plan (CPP) disability

Decision

[1] I’m refusing permission to appeal. The appeal will not go ahead to the next step. These are the reasons for my decision.

Overview

[2] S. T. (Claimant) started receiving a Canada Pension Plan disability pension effective February 2015. She has a history of depression, anxiety, post-traumatic brain injury, psychosis, fibromyalgia, and a substance abuse disorder.

[3] The Minister of Employment and Social Development (Minister) suspended the Claimant’s disability pension payments in December 2018. The Claimant had been working since April 1, 2017. The Minister ultimately stopped the Claimant’s disability pension payments effective July 1, 2017 (allowing for a three-month paid work trial from April 1, 2017 to June 30, 2017). This created an overpayment for the pension payments she received from July 1, 2017 to December 2018.

[4] The Claimant asked the Minister to reconsider its decision to stop her disability pension and assess her with an overpayment. The Minister didn’t change its decision.

[5] The Claimant appealed to this Tribunal. The General Division dismissed the Claimant’s appeal, finding that the Claimant no longer had a severe and prolonged disability as of the end of her work trial in 2017.

Issues

[6] The issues in this appeal are:

1. a) Can it be argued that the General Division made an error of fact by ignoring medical evidence that the Claimant had a severe and prolonged disability?
2. b) Can it be argued that the General Division made an error of fact by failing to consider the Claimant’s inability to pay back the overpayment amount?
3. c) Can it be argued that the General Division made an error of fact by failing to consider the role that the Claimant says the Minister played in contributing to the overpayment by giving her the wrong advice about returning to work while continuing to receive the CPP disability pension?
4. d) Does the application set out evidence that wasn’t presented to the General Division?

I’m not giving the Claimant permission to appeal

[7] I can give the Claimant permission to appeal if their application raises an arguable case that the General Division:

• didn’t follow a fair process;
• acted beyond its powers or refused to exercise those powers;
• made an error of law;
• made an error of fact;
• made an error applying the law to the facts.^{Footnote 1}

[8] I can also give the Claimant permission to appeal if their application sets out evidence that wasn’t presented to the General Division.^{Footnote 2}

[9] Since the Claimant hasn’t raised an arguable case that the General Division made an error and hasn’t set out new evidence, I must refuse permission to appeal.

It cannot be argued that the General Division ignored relevant medical evidence.

[10] The Claimant argues that the General Division made an error of fact by ignoring medical information that she did (and still does) have a severe and prolonged disability. In particular, the Claimant notes that her doctor reported she had a severe disability. She also explains that she hasn’t worked since February 2022 and has been hospitalized four times.^{Footnote 3}

[11] The Claimant’s argument about ignoring medical evidence doesn’t have a reasonable chance of success. The General Division did consider and discuss the medical evidence from 2016 that the Claimant mentions.^{Footnote 4} However, the General Division explained that it had to decide whether the Claimant’s disability stopped being severe and prolonged when she returned to work in 2017. A person’s disability is severe within the meaning of the CPP only if they’re incapable regularly of pursuing any substantially gainful work.^{Footnote 5}

[12] The General Division decided the issues as follows:

• Although the Claimant had some functional limitations that impacted her ability to work in 2017, she was able to work in the real world.^{Footnote 6}
• The Claimant had substantially gainful earnings in 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020.^{Footnote 7}
• The Claimant’s work was not with a benevolent employer. This means that the employer didn’t vary considerably the performance, output, or product they expected from the Claimant.^{Footnote 8}

[13] The General Division didn’t ignore the medical evidence the Claimant raises. It acknowledged that evidence and then went on to assess the evidence that related to the issues it had to decide.

It cannot be argued that the General Division ignored evidence about the Claimant’s inability to repay the Minister.

[14] The Claimant notes that the General Division’s decision is unfair or in error because she doesn’t have the ability to repay the overpayment.

[15] The Claimant’s argument that the General Division ignored her inability to repay has no reasonable chance of success on appeal. The General Division doesn’t have the power to change the amount of the overpayment based on a Claimant’s inability to pay.^{Footnote 9}  Since the ability to repay is not an issue the General Division can address, so there is no possible error on that issue.

It cannot be argued that the General Division ignored evidence about a possible error by the Minister.

[16] The Claimant argues that the General Division made an error by ignoring her evidence about the Minister giving her incorrect information about working while receiving the disability pension.

[17] This argument has no reasonable chance of success at the Tribunal. The General Division explained that it cannot address alleged errors by the Minister that may have contributed to the overpayment. The General Division didn’t ignore this question. It addresses this question in its decision and explains that this is an issue for Service Canada, not the Tribunal.^{Footnote 10}

There is no new evidence.

[18] The Claimant hasn’t set out any new evidence. New evidence cannot be a reason for giving the Claimant permission to appeal.

[19] I’ve reviewed the record and I’m satisfied that the General Division didn’t ignore or misunderstand the evidence.^{Footnote 11}

[20] Since the Claimant hasn’t raised an arguable case for an error by the General Division, and she hasn’t set out any new evidence, I must refuse permission to appeal.  

Next steps

[21] There are two key pieces of information for the Claimant about possible next steps.

1. The Claimant can choose to contact Service Canada directly if she wants to request remission (cancelling in whole or in part) of the overpayment debt.

The CPP allows the Minister to decide whether to cancel all or part of a debt because:

• the amount owing can’t be collected within the reasonably foreseeable future;^{Footnote 12}
• the repayment would cause undue hardship to the Claimant;^{Footnote 13} or
• the amount owing is the result of bad advice or an administrative error by the Minister.^{Footnote 14}

2. The Claimant can choose to reapply without delay for a CPP disability pension by contacting Service Canada.

Final Note

[22] I wish to thank the Minister’s representative for her efforts to make the process understood and accessible during a difficult time for the Claimant and her family.   

Conclusion

[23] I have refused to give the Claimant permission to appeal. This means that the appeal will not proceed.