Canada Pension Plan (CPP) disability

Decision

[1] Leave (permission) to appeal is refused. This means the appeal won’t go forward.

Overview

[2] A. S. is the Claimant. She has applied for permission to appeal a General Division decision.

[3] The General Division decided the Claimant didn’t qualify for a Canada Pension Plan (CPP) disability pension or a post-retirement disability benefit. It found she had received her retirement pension for over 15 months so she could not cancel it to get a disability pension.^{Footnote 1} And she didn’t make enough years of recent contributions to get a post-retirement disability benefit.^{Footnote 2}

[4] The Claimant says the General Division made a legal error, and she disagrees with the CPP. The law and appeal process don’t take humanity into account.

[5] Unfortunately for the Claimant, I can’t give her permission to appeal the General Division decision.

Issues

[6] Is there an arguable case the General Division made a legal error by misinterpreting the sections of the CPP about cancelling a retirement pension or the sections about qualifying for the post-retirement disability benefit?

The Claimant hasn’t met the legal test to get permission to appeal

The permission to appeal test

[7] I will give the Claimant permission to appeal if she raises an arguable case the General Division made one of these errors

• didn’t respect natural justice
• made a jurisdictional error
• made a legal error, a factual error, or a mixed error of fact and law in making its decision^{Footnote 3}

[8] An arguable case is one with a reasonable chance of success.^{Footnote 4}

[9] The Claimant didn’t set out new evidence.^{Footnote 5} So I don’t need to consider this reason for giving permission to appeal.

No arguable case the General Division made a legal error

[10] On her application form, the Claimant indicates the General Division interpreted or applied the law incorrectly.^{Footnote 6} In other words, she’s arguing the General Division made a legal error in making its decision.

[11] The Claimant explains she seems to be fighting a legal process that doesn’t take humanity into account.^{Footnote 7} She says the laws the government has put into place are arbitrary and work against her at every turn.^{Footnote 8} She says taking humanity out of the law creates a system of rigid mechanical rule-following that leads to injustice, inhumane outcome, and the loss of mercy and equity.

[12] The Claimant’s argument understands her situation perfectly. The General Division applied the law—it had no choice. It had no legal power to take humanity into account.

[13] The Claimant’s argument shows she disagrees with the law as it applies to her. Yet disagreeing with the law or the outcome in her General Division appeal isn’t a ground of appeal the law lets me consider. It doesn’t show an arguable case the General Division made a legal error.

[14] I reviewed the documents in the General Division file and read the General Division decision. I didn’t find an arguable case the General Division made a legal or a factual error in making its decision.

[15] This means I can’t give the Claimant permission to appeal.

[16] Unfortunately, the Tribunal has no power to change the law, even when it’s the humane, compassionate thing to do.

Conclusion

[17] Permission to appeal denied.