Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Judicial review centered on whether the Appeal Division's decision met the standard of reasonableness.

• The applicant challenged the interpretation of "severe" and "substantially gainful" disability under the Canada Pension Plan.

• The Appeal Division's retroactive use of a regulatory threshold was contested and partially found unreasonable.

• Reimbursement of CPP benefits was disputed, as payments were sent directly to the province rather than the applicant.

• The applicant claimed the Adjudication Framework should have been considered, but it was not on record.

• The court dismissed the application without awarding costs, upholding the Appeal Division’s overall decision.

Facts and outcome of the case

Tariq Ahsan, a former journalist and university instructor, was receiving disability payments through the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) due to post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, and rheumatoid arthritis. In 1997, he was approved for a Canada Pension Plan (CPP) disability pension, although the federal funds were offset against the ODSP benefits, leaving him with no net financial gain. Nevertheless, receiving the CPP disability pension allowed him to access vocational rehabilitation and his daughter to qualify for educational support.

Between 2009 and 2016, Mr. Ahsan worked part-time as a parking attendant. Although he disclosed this income to Ontario and the Canada Revenue Agency, he did not inform the federal disability program directly. The Minister of Employment and Social Development reassessed his eligibility and concluded that he was no longer suffering from a "severe and prolonged" disability as defined by paragraph 42(2)(a) of the Canada Pension Plan. As a result, the Minister demanded repayment of disability benefits issued during that period.

Mr. Ahsan's appeal to the General Division of the Social Security Tribunal was dismissed. The Appeal Division upheld this decision but was found to have applied the CPP Regulations section 68.1 threshold retroactively for the 2009–2013 period, which was incorrect. However, it still concluded that his employment during that time was “substantially gainful,” meaning he did not qualify for the disability pension. For the 2014–2016 period, the Appeal Division applied the income threshold inconsistently, but the Federal Court of Appeal determined that no useful purpose would be served by remitting the matter. To requalify, Mr. Ahsan would need to reapply.

Mr. Ahsan also argued that the Appeal Division should have considered the Adjudication Framework used by the Minister’s staff. The Court acknowledged the inconsistency in the Appeal Division’s rejection of the framework but ultimately found the decision reasonable for the years in question.

Regarding repayment, Mr. Ahsan emphasized the unfairness of being asked to repay money he never personally received, as the federal payments were sent directly to Ontario. The Court noted he had indications from Ontario that full benefits for 2009 to 2016 would be restored if he were found ineligible for the CPP benefits, allowing him to reimburse the federal government.

Ultimately, the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed Mr. Ahsan’s application for judicial review without costs, affirming the Appeal Division’s ruling and confirming the Attorney General of Canada as the proper respondent.