Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The applicant sought an extended retroactive period for CPP disability benefits based on alleged incapacity to form or express intent to apply earlier

• Medical evidence indicated cognitive functions remained within normal limits despite severe and prolonged disability

• Multiple activities during the relevant period demonstrated capacity, including managing a business, retaining lawyers, and obtaining a mortgage

• Standard of reasonableness review applies to Social Security Tribunal Appeal Division decisions per Vavilov

• New evidence cannot be admitted on judicial review; only evidence before the original decision-maker is admissible

• The Appeal Division appropriately considered the decision's impact on a vulnerable individual while applying the legal framework

Background and application for disability benefits

Mr. Wadie Narouz filed an application for a Canada Pension Plan (CPP) disability pension on January 22, 2021. The Minister of Employment and Social Development approved his application, establishing the disability onset date as October 2019, with payments commencing in February 2020. This provided Mr. Narouz with the maximum retroactive period normally permitted under the CPP framework.

The incapacity claim before the Social Security Tribunal

Dissatisfied with the disability start date, Mr. Narouz appealed to the Social Security Tribunal, arguing that his incapacity should have entitled him to an even longer retroactive benefit period under sections 60(9) and 60(10) of the CPP. The Appeal Division, hearing the matter as a new case, concluded that Mr. Narouz had not demonstrated a continuous period during which he was incapable of forming or expressing the intention to apply for a disability pension before January 22, 2021.

Evidence of capacity during the relevant period

The Appeal Division examined the evidence according to the framework established in Blue c. Canada (Procureur général), which requires consideration of the nature and extent of physical or mental limitations, supporting medical evidence, other activities during the period, and how those activities illuminate the applicant's capacity to apply for benefits. While acknowledging Mr. Narouz suffered from a severe and prolonged disability, the tribunal found that medical evidence showed his cognitive functions were within normal limits. Furthermore, he had participated in his treatment plans by accepting certain treatments and refusing others, consenting to evaluations, and attending medical appointments alone. He also contributed to managing a business, hired and mandated a lawyer in more than one case, sought to obtain a mortgage to purchase a share of the family home during his separation, and met his essential needs after his separation.

The judicial review and standard of reasonableness

Mr. Narouz sought judicial review before the Federal Court of Appeal, challenging the Appeal Division's factual conclusions and arguing the medical evidence established that he suffered from major cognitive limitations. The Court applied the reasonableness standard as mandated by Vavilov, emphasizing that it must focus on the decision-maker's reasons and their justification rather than re-weighing the evidence. The Court found the decision reasonable as it was based on an internally coherent and rational analysis and justified in light of the legal and factual constraints.

Attempted introduction of new evidence

During the hearing, Mr. Narouz suggested that one of his doctors had suggested, during a consultation, that it would be wise for him to draft a power of attorney given his condition. The Court granted him permission to submit, after the hearing, the page numbers of the appeal record corresponding to the notes of this consultation. However, Mr. Narouz could not corroborate his assertion, as these notes were not in the record, including the pages he brought to the Court's attention. The day after the hearing, he wrote to the Court requesting a stay to obtain documents from his medical clinic that had not been brought to the attention of the Appeal Division. The Court rejected this request, noting that in the context of a judicial review application, the Court cannot render a new decision on the merits and the only admissible evidence is that which was before the Appeal Division.

Consideration of impact on vulnerable individuals

Mr. Narouz argued that the Appeal Division's reasons did not demonstrate that it considered the drastic effect of its decision on a vulnerable person, contrary to Vavilov principles. The Court disagreed, finding that the Appeal Division's reasons demonstrated it was aware of the applicant's situation, the challenges he had to face, and their severity. The Court expressed enormous sympathy for Mr. Narouz, who has been living with great difficulties for more than twenty years, but concluded the Appeal Division's reasons demonstrated it had considered the consequences of its decision and that these consequences were justified in light of the facts and the law.

Ruling and outcome

The Federal Court of Appeal, in a unanimous decision authored by Justice Heckman with Justices LeBlanc and Rochester concurring, dismissed the appeal. The Court held that the Appeal Division's decision was reasonable and that Mr. Narouz had not established having suffered from an incapacity entitling him to a longer retroactive benefit period than that normally provided by law. As the defendant did not seek costs, none were awarded.