Date: 20040723
Docket: T-1661-03
Citation: 2004 FC 1034
Halifax, Nova Scotia this 23rd day of July, 2004
PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MacKAY
BETWEEN:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Applicant
- and -
LORRAINE COMEAU
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
MacKAY J.
[1] The Attorney General of Canada (the "Minister" or the "applicant") seeks judicial review of a decision of a Review Tribunal under the Old Age Security Act, dated May 6, 2003, by which the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the respondent, Ms. Comeau from a decision by which her benefits payable under the Act were reduced for the period July 2001 to June 2002.
[2] The application for judicial review was filed and so was the Minister's record. No written submissions were made on behalf of the respondent Ms. Comeau. It seems she had appeared on her own behalf before the Review Tribunal which considered her case. When this Court set down the Minister's application for hearing in Halifax on June 1, 2004, the respondent advised that she was unable to represent herself or to be represented at hearings in Halifax. Efforts were made to deal with the matter by telephone conference or at a hearing in person to be in Yarmouth, Nova Scotia on June 3, 2004. Initially, the respondent indicated she would appear at that hearing but then advised that she would not do so. The Court then ordered that the hearing scheduled for Yarmouth be cancelled and the application be dealt with as a motion to be dealt with in writing without personal appearance.
[3] These reasons concern my disposition of the matter. The circumstances of the applicant are taken from documents in the respondent's record, letters originally filed by Ms. Comeau with the Minister's office or the Review Tribunal, and the decision of the Review Tribunal, which the Minister seeks to review.
[4] Ms. Comeau applied for and commenced receiving benefits under the Act in the year 1999. Those benefits were based upon an estimate of her income for the year1999-2000. In that same year, in 2000, she cashed in certain RRSP funds, the proceeds of which had not been included in her estimated income for the year. In the result, benefits were overpaid to her and were subsequently reclaimed by the Minister from payments to her in the year 2000-2001. It appears Ms. Comeau understood the need for recovery of overpaid funds on those benefits.
[5] Having taken those funds into account for the year 1999 to 2000 and adjusting the benefits then payable to Ms. Comeau, the Minister then considered the same RRSP proceeds as a portion of her income in the year 2000 on which her benefits in the year 2001-2002 should be based.
[6] When the matter was considered by the Review Tribunal, that Tribunal concluded that the basis for benefits payable in 2001-2002 ought to have been an estimate of her income for the previous year, excluding the fact that she did acquire RRSP funds in the calendar year 2000.
[7] The Minister bases his application for judicial review on submissions that the Tribunal did not follow statutory provisions and that it was beyond the authority of the Tribunal to dictate how the Minister ought to treat the matter of her income for the year 2000-2001.
[8] It is well settled that the standard of review raised by the Minister's application is correctness. The Tribunal had no authority to do other than it was authorized to do under the Act. It was not authorized to direct how the Minister should treat her "income" for the year in question, nor was it authorized to allow her appeal in the circumstances of the case. I note that the Act specifically provides that on an appeal to a Review Tribunal where one of the grounds is that the Minister's decision concerned "the income or the income from a particular source or sources of an applicant or beneficiary . . .", the appeal on that ground shall be referred for decision to the Tax Court of Canada. Regulations under the Old Age Security Act, provide for a reference to the Tax Court of Canada on such issues.
[9] The Review Tribunal was obviously sympathetic to Ms. Comeau's circumstances. However, it acted in a manner which was beyond its authority under the Old Age Security Act. The law is well settled that the jurisdiction of a statutory body such as the Review Tribunal is limited to that set out in its enabling statute. Here the Tribunal erred in law in its decision to allow Ms. Comeau's appeal.
[10] In these circumstances, the Court will intervene, set aside the decision in question, and refer the matter back for reconsideration by a Review Tribunal. It may be that Tribunal is able to assist Ms. Comeau in arranging for the issue concerning her income to be considered by the Tax Court of Canada if, in reviewing her circumstances, that appears appropriate.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that the application of the Minister is allowed. The decision of the Review Tribunal concerning Ms. Comeau, dated May 6, 2003 is set aside and the matter is referred back for reconsideration by a Review Tribunal.
Each party shall bear its own costs.
"W. Andrew MacKay"
D.J.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-1661-03
STYLE OF CAUSE: ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
- and -
LORRAINE COMEAU
MOTION DEALT WITH IN WRITING WITHOUT THE APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER OF MacKAY J.
DATED: July 23, 2004
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY:
Lorraine Comeau
Self-Represented
FOR APPLICANT
Nathalie Archambault
FOR RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Lorraine Comeau
Meteghan, Nova Scotia
FOR APPLICANT
Morris Rosenberg, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
FOR RESPONDENT
Email this Content