Date: 20090428
Docket: T-427-08
Citation: 2009 FC 429
Ottawa, Ontario, April 28,
2009
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Hughes
BETWEEN:
ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF CANADA
Applicant
and
GIANNOULA
KERMENIDES
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
[1]
This
is an application for judicial review brought by the Attorney General of Canada
in respect of a decision made on February 8, 2008 by a member of the Pension
Appeal Board under the provisions of the Canada Pension Plan, R.S.C.
1985, c. C-8 refusing leave to appeal from a decision of a Review Tribunal
constituted under the provisions of the Plan. For the reasons that
follow I will allow the application and return the matter for redetermination
by a different member all without costs.
[2]
The
underlying facts are simple and not in dispute. The Respondent Ms. Kermenides
applied for benefits under the Plan in June 2006 on the basis of
disabilities, both physical and psychological resulting from lower back
disorders. She had previously worked as a massage therapist and was unable to
continue. Initially her claim was denied. She appealed to the Review Tribunal
constituted for that purpose under the Plan. The Review Tribunal held a
hearing, received evidence from three health care providers and from Ms.
Kermenides common-law spouse. She herself was not in a condition fit to give
evidence. The Tribunal ruled in favour of Ms. Kerminides. The Minister, under
the provisions of the Plan, sought leave to appeal that decision to the
Pension Appeal Board. A member of that Board denied leave to appeal stating in
an endorsement made February 8, 2008:
The Review Tribunal evaluated
the medical and other evidence presented at the hearing and its conclusions
cannot be faulted.
The totality of the
Respondent’s medical problems made it clear she is disabled.
No other evidence being
suggested or proposed there is no realistic change of success on appeal.
Leave is refused.
[3]
This
is the decision that is the subject of this judicial review application.
[4]
The
scheme of the Plan provides that a person who is disabled may
apply initially to the Minister of Social Development, for a pension if they
believe that they meet certain criteria as being “disabled” as defined in
section 42(2) of the Plan:
|
When person deemed disabled
(2) For the purposes of this Act,
(a) a person shall
be considered to be disabled only if he is determined in prescribed manner to
have a severe and prolonged mental or physical disability, and for the
purposes of this paragraph,
(i) a disability is severe only if by reason thereof the
person in respect of whom the determination is made is incapable regularly of
pursuing any substantially gainful occupation, and
(ii) a disability is prolonged only if it is determined
in prescribed manner that the disability is likely to be long continued and
of indefinite duration or is likely to result in death; and
(b) a person shall
be deemed to have become or to have ceased to be disabled at such time as is
determined in the prescribed manner to be the time when the person became or
ceased to be, as the case may be, disabled, but in no case shall a person be
deemed to have become disabled earlier than fifteen months before the time of
the making of any application in respect of which the determination is made.
|
Personne
déclarée invalide
(2) Pour l’application de la présente loi :
a) une
personne n’est considérée comme invalide que si elle est déclarée, de la
manière prescrite, atteinte d’une invalidité physique ou mentale grave et
prolongée, et pour l’application du présent alinéa :
(i) une invalidité n’est grave que si elle rend la
personne à laquelle se rapporte la déclaration régulièrement incapable de
détenir une occupation véritablement rémunératrice,
(ii) une invalidité n’est prolongée que si elle est
déclarée, de la manière prescrite, devoir vraisemblablement durer pendant une
période longue, continue et indéfinie ou devoir entraîner vraisemblablement
le décès;
b) une
personne est réputée être devenue ou avoir cessé d’être invalide à la date
qui est déterminée, de la manière prescrite, être celle où elle est devenue
ou a cessé d’être, selon le cas, invalide, mais en aucun cas une personne
n’est réputée être devenue invalide à une date antérieure de plus de quinze
mois à la date de la présentation d’une demande à l’égard de laquelle la
détermination a été établie.
|
[5]
If such person is dissatisfied with the
Minister’s decision they may seek a review by a Review Tribunal established
under the Plan. Following a decision by the Review Tribunal either
party, the Minister or the person claiming benefits, may seek leave to appeal
to the Pension Appeals Board (PAB)from a member of that Board. That is the
process engaged here. Such an application is provided for in section 83(1) of
the Plan:
|
Appeal to Pension Appeals Board
83. (1)
A party or, subject to the regulations, any person on behalf thereof, or the
Minister, if dissatisfied with a decision of a Review Tribunal made under
section 82, other than a decision made in respect of an appeal referred to in
subsection 28(1) of the Old Age Security Act, or under subsection 84(2), may,
within ninety days after the day on which that decision was communicated to
the party or Minister, or within such longer period as the Chairman or
Vice-Chairman of the Pension Appeals Board may either before or after the
expiration of those ninety days allow, apply in writing to the Chairman or
Vice-Chairman for leave to appeal that decision to the Pension Appeals Board.
|
Appel à la Commission d’appel des
pensions
83. (1) La personne qui se croit lésée par une décision du tribunal de
révision rendue en application de l’article 82 — autre qu’une décision
portant sur l’appel prévu au paragraphe 28(1) de la Loi sur la sécurité de la
vieillesse — ou du paragraphe 84(2), ou, sous réserve des règlements,
quiconque de sa part, de même que le ministre, peuvent présenter, soit dans
les quatre-vingt-dix jours suivant le jour où la décision du tribunal de
révision est transmise à la personne ou au ministre, soit dans tel délai plus
long qu’autorise le président ou le vice-président de la Commission d’appel
des pensions avant ou après l’expiration de ces quatre-vingt-dix jours, une
demande écrite au président ou au vice-président de la Commission d’appel des
pensions, afin d’obtenir la permission d’interjeter un appel de la décision
du tribunal de révision auprès de la Commission.
|
[6]
Sections
83(2) and (2.1) provide that the Chairman, Vice-Chairman or a designated member
of that Board may “either grant or refuse that leave”:
|
Decision of Chairman or Vice-Chairman
(2) The Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the Pension Appeals Board shall,
forthwith after receiving an application for leave to appeal to the Pension
Appeals Board, either grant or refuse that leave.
Designation
(2.1) The Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the Pension Appeals Board may
designate any member or temporary member of the Pension Appeals Board to
exercise the powers or perform the duties referred to in subsection (1) or
(2).
|
Décision
du président ou du vice-président
(2) Sans délai suivant la réception d’une demande
d’interjeter un appel auprès de la Commission d’appel des pensions, le
président ou le vice-président de la Commission doit soit accorder, soit
refuser cette permission.
Désignation
(2.1) Le président ou le vice-président de la Commission
d’appel des pensions peut désigner un membre ou membre suppléant de celle-ci
pour l’exercice des pouvoirs et fonctions visés aux paragraphes (1) ou (2).
|
[7]
If
leave is refused, section 83(3) provides that written reasons must be given by
the decision maker:
|
Where leave refused
(3) Where leave to appeal is refused, written reasons must be given by
the person who refused the leave.
|
Permission refusée
(3) La personne qui refuse l’autorisation d’interjeter
appel en donne par écrit les motifs.
|
[8]
If
leave is granted there is no requirement for reasons and the appeal proceeds.
Section 83(4) says:
|
Where leave granted
(4) Where leave to appeal is granted, the application for leave to
appeal thereupon becomes the notice of appeal, and shall be deemed to have
been filed at the time the application for leave to appeal was filed.
|
Permission accordée
(4) Dans les cas où l’autorisation d’interjeter appel est
accordée, la demande d’autorisation d’interjeter appel est assimilée à un
avis d’appel et celui-ci est réputé avoir été déposé au moment où la demande
d’autorisation a été déposée.
|
[9]
The
Plan is silent as to criteria for the granting or refusing leave except
that, where leave is refused, written reasons are to be provided. It is
reasonable to conclude that those written reasons must provide the parties with
adequate information as to the basis upon which leave was refused.
[10]
Notwithstanding
that the Plan itself establishes no criteria for granting, or in this
case, refusing leave, the jurisprudence establishes that the basis for consideration
must be whether there is some arguable ground upon which the appeal “might”
succeed; the member should not decide whether the application “could” succeed.
The law was recently reviewed by O’Reilly J. of this Court in Canada (Attorney
General) v. Pelland, October 16, 2008, 2008 FC 1164 where he
summarized at paragraphs 8 and 9:
8 On a leave application, the PAB
must determine whether there is some arguable ground on which the appeal might
succeed. It should not decide whether the applicant could actually succeed.
9 These propositions are set out in a
series of cases: Kurniewicz v. Canada (Minister of Manpower and
Immigration), (1974) 6 N.R. 225 (F.C.A.); Kerth
v. Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development [1999] F.C.J. No. 1252; Martin
v. Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development),
[1999] F.C.J. No. 1972; Callihoo
v. Canada (Attorney General), [2000] F.C.J. No. 612.
[11]
The
words set out in the reasons given for refusal to grant leave should not be
reduced to a mantra. The member refusing leave should not be required to
follow a strict formula or be tied strictly to words such as “some arguable
ground” and not use words such as “no reasonable chance on appeal”. The
reasons provided should make it clear to the reader that the member, in
arriving at the decision whether to refuse leave, was not deciding the merits
of the matter itself but was determining whether a party could make some
reasonable argument challenging the merits of the decision of the Review
Tribunal.
[12]
In
the present case, in reading the written reasons of the member, I am satisfied
that he did not turn his mind to the criteria as to whether some reasonable
argument could be made. He appears to have simply made up his mind as to the
ultimate merits of the matter. This was wrong.
[13]
The
application will be allowed and the matter will be returned for redetermination
by a different member. The Applicant did not ask for costs and none will be
awarded.
JUDGMENT
FOR THE REASON PROVIDED
HEREIN:
THIS COURT ADJUDGES that:
- The application is
allowed;
- The matter as to
whether leave to appeal ought to be granted is returned to the Pension
Appeal Board for redetermination by a different member;
- There are no costs
awarded.
"Roger
T. Hughes"
Email this Content