Canada Pension Plan (CPP) disability

Decision

[1] I am refusing leave (permission) to appeal. The appeal will not go ahead to the next step. These are the reasons for my decision.

Overview

[2] R. M. (Claimant) has applied for a disability pension five times. He made his fifth application on September 28, 2021. The Minister of Employment and Social Development (Minister) dismissed the application because the Pension Appeals Board had already made a decision that was final and binding in June 2004. The Claimant appealed that decision to this Tribunal.

[3] The General Division decided that the Claimant’s coverage period (his minimum qualifying period, or MQP) is December 31, 2003 and it hasn’t changed since his first application in December 2001. The General Division dismissed the Claimant’s appeal, applying the rule against deciding a matter that has already been decided (res judicata).

[4] The issues in this appeal are:

1. a) Has the Claimant raised an arguable case that the General Division made an error of fact by ignoring important evidence?
2. b) Does the application set out evidence that wasn’t presented to the General Division?

I’m not giving the Claimant permission to appeal

[5] 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; or
• made an error in the way it applied the law to the facts.^{Footnote 1}

[6] 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}

[7] Since the Claimant hasn’t raised an arguable case and hasn’t set out new evidence that could justify granting leave to appeal, I must refuse permission to appeal.

The Claimant hasn’t raised an arguable case that the General Division made an error of fact by ignoring important medical evidence.

[8] The Claimant argues that the General Division made an error of fact by ignoring medical reports, a report from a judge, and the fact that he receives the disability tax credit.^{Footnote 3}

[9] The Claimant hasn’t raised an arguable case for an error of fact. The evidence that the Claimant states that the General Division ignored aren’t relevant to the issue the General Division had to decide. The Claimant wanted the General Division to decide whether he had a severe and prolonged disability on or before December 31, 2003. He wants (and has always wanted) the General Division to find that he is eligible for the CPP disability pension.

[10] However, the General Division decided that the Claimant’s appeal could not go ahead because the PAB already made a final and binding decision in June 2004 about whether the Claimant was eligible for the disability pension: he wasn’t eligible.

[11] The General Division considered the three factors that must be in place to apply the rule against deciding something that has already been decided. It concluded that the issues remained the same, the parties remained the same, and the PAB decision was final.^{Footnote 4}

[12] Further, the General Division considered whether there were any circumstances that would make it unjust to apply the rule against deciding something that has already been decided.^{Footnote 5}

[13] There is nothing about any of the evidence the Claimant has provided that is relevant to these questions about deciding something that has already been decided.

[14] Since the evidence isn’t relevant, it doesn’t matter whether the General Division didn’t consider it in its decision. The Claimant has no arguable case for an error of fact based on ignoring evidence.

The Claimant hasn’t provided new evidence that would justify granting permission to appeal.

[15] The Claimant has provided the following documents:^{Footnote 6}

• a medical letter from 2022
• a medical report that is difficult to read
• an MRI report from 2003
• one page from a transcript of his workers’ compensation appeal from 2021.

[16] Regardless of whether any of these documents are new, they cannot be a reason for granting permission to appeal. They aren’t relevant to the decision the Claimant is appealing from the General Division. That decision was about whether to apply the rule against deciding something that has already been decided. Nothing about these documents could change the outcome of that decision.

[17] I am satisfied there’s no arguable case that General Division ignored or misunderstood the evidence.^{Footnote 7} There’s also no arguable case for an error in the process the General Division provided to the Claimant, who asked for a decision in writing. There’s also no arguable case that the General Division made an error of law about the rule against deciding something that has already been decided.^{Footnote 8}

Conclusion

[18] I refused permission to appeal. This means that the appeal will not proceed.