C. L. v. Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development

Social Security Tribunal decision – Appeal Division – Leave to Appeal decision
Valerie Hazlett Parker
Hearing date:
Hearing type:
C. L. and Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development
Application for leave to appeal is refused
Decision date:
May 7, 2014
Reference number:
C. L. v. Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, 2014 SSTAD 94


[1] The Tribunal refuses leave to appeal to the Appeal Division of the Social Security Tribunal.


[2] On June 27, 2013, a Review Tribunal determined that a Canada Pension Plan disability pension was not payable. The Applicant filed an application for leave to appeal (the “Application”) with the Appeal Division of the Social Security Tribunal on September 20, 2013.


[3] The Tribunal must decide whether the appeal has a reasonable chance of success.

The law

[4] According to subsections 56(1) and 58(3) of the Department of Employment and Social Development (DESD) Act, “an appeal to the Appeal Division may only be brought if leave to appeal is granted” and “the Appeal Division must either grant or refuse leave to appeal”.

[5] Subsection 58(1) of the DESD Act states that the only grounds of appeal are the following:

  1. a) The General Division failed to observe a principle of natural justice or otherwise acted beyond or refused to exercise its jurisdiction;
  2. b) The General Division erred in law in making its decision, whether or not the error appears on the face of the record; or
  3. c) The General Division based its decision on an erroneous finding of fact that it made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it.

[6] The decision of the Review Tribunal is considered a decision of the General Division

[7] Subsection 58(2) of the DESD Act provides that “leave to appeal is refused if the Appeal Division is satisfied that the appeal has no reasonable chance of success”.


[8] The Applicant submitted in support of the Application that he had a severe and prolonged disability that prohibited a return to gainful employment.

[9] The Respondent made no submissions.


[10] Although a leave to appeal application is a first, and lower, hurdle to meet than the one that must be met on the hearing of the appeal on the merits, some arguable ground upon which the proposed appeal might succeed is needed in order for leave to be granted: Kerth v. Canada (Minister of Development), [1999] FCJ No. 1252 (FC).

[11] Furthermore, the Federal Court of Appeal has found that an arguable case at law is akin to determining whether legally an applicant has a reasonable chance of success: Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development) v. Hogervorst, 2007 FCA 4, Fancy v. Canada (Attorney General), 2010 FCA 63.

[12] The DESD Act sets out, in section 58, all of the grounds of appeal that I can consider to determine whether there is a reasonable chance of success on appeal. The Applicant has not provided any basis on which leave to appeal can be granted. He has not argued that the Review Tribunal made any error in law, breached natural justice or the duty of fairness, or made any error of fact. He has not indicated how his medical condition is related to one of the permissible grounds of appeal. Therefore leave to appeal is refused.

Date modified: