Residents of Ontario have the opportunity to pay into the Canadian Pension Program (CPP). Due to the CPP’s ability to deliver long term disability benefits to qualified residents of Ontario, those same men and women can apply for such benefits. Of course, not every applicant enjoys the pleasure of being accepted, as someone that deserves such a benefit.
Options open to those applicants that receive a denial letter:
• Appeal the denial
• Try to qualify for one of Ontario’s other disability programs
Conditions to be met by resident that plans to apply to one of Ontario’s other disability programs:
• That adult must be younger than 65.
• That adult must have contributed to the CPP.
• The same adult should have been working during at least 4 of the past 6 years.
What option remains open to someone that fails to get accepted into one of the alternate disability programs?
First, an adult that has been denied acceptance into such a program can request a reconsideration of the announced decision. If a reconsideration of the decision does not ensure the applicant’s acceptance, that same applicant can appeal the reconsidered decision.
What form should such an appeal take?
The appeal must be crafted in writing. That written document should contain evidence that supports the arguments that highlight the applicant’s qualifications. If the applicant was self-employed during any of the 4 working years, then details on the applicant’s business should be included in the package with the completed letter.
Most applicants find it easy to offer proof of age. An applicant’s greatest challenge might be that of showing proof of past contributions to CPP. Personal Injury Lawyer in St. Catharines know that possible challenge calls attention to the fact that any resident of Ontario that gives money to CPP should make a point of obtaining and saving a receipt.
Who should receive the appeal that has been stated in writing?
That letter needs to go to the Social Security Tribunal (SST). It will be read and studied by those that work in the General Level of that Tribunal. The letter’s writer should hope that someone working on the General Level has a general knowledge about all of Ontario’s disability programs. Such a knowledge would appear capable of aiding the identification of various possibilities. Indeed, the required process seems to suggest the existence of an effort aimed at finding the best program. Otherwise, why would the Tribunal welcome a reconsidered decision?
Obviously, the Social Security Tribunal handles cases of those younger than 65. That fact suggests that the Canadian government has acknowledged a significant feature of disabilities. Not everyone that becomes disabled has worked for a full 4 decades. Employees lack a guarantee of their failure to develop a disabling condition before retirement.