Date: 20080528
Docket: T-1502-07
Citation:
2008 FC 682
Ottawa, Ontario, May 28, 2008
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Blanchard
BETWEEN:
PIERRE
DUGRÉ
Applicant
and
ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND
JUDGMENT
I. Introduction
[1]
This
is an application for judicial review pursuant to section 18.1 of the Federal
Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, against a decision of the Veterans
Review and Appeal Board (the Board) dated May 23, 2007. In this
decision, the Board refused an application to reconsider an appeal decision on
pension entitlement dated September 17, 2003, in accordance with
subsection 32(1) of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act, S.C. 1995,
c. 18 (the Act).
II. Factual background
[2]
The
applicant served in the Canadian Armed Forces (the Forces) between 1987 and
2006.
[3]
In
2006, the Forces discharged the applicant for medical reasons as the result of
a permanent disability making him unsuitable by the Forces’ universality of service
standards. The applicant’s physical unsuitability was attributed to lumbar
problems after he suffered a fall on July 21, 1988.
[4]
On
October 27, 2000, the applicant applied for pension for spondylolysis L5 and
spondylolisthesis L5-S1, the result of an L1 lumbar vertebral fracture, aggravated
when he served in the regular forces in accordance with subsections 21(1),(2)
and (5) of the Pension Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-6, which he
claimed were entirely the result of his fall on July 21,
1988,
when he fell from a height of 4 to 6 feet directly onto his back during a
physical activity session.
[5]
On
November 16, 2001, the Minister of Veterans Affairs granted full pension
entitlement to the applicant for the L1 lumbar fracture for his service in the regular
forces.
[6]
In
another decision dated September 9, 2002, the Minister of
Veterans Affairs refused the applicant’s pension application for spondylolysis
L5 and spondylolisthesis L5-S1. He determined that the conditions claimed by
the applicant were not caused by the pensionable condition of the L1 lumbar
vertebral fracture and were not aggravated when he served in the regular forces.
[7]
The
applicant appealed the decision dated September 9, 2002, before the Review Board.
[8]
On
April
7, 2003,
the Board set aside the Minister’s decision, granting him pension benefits for spondylolysis
L5 and spondylolisthesis L5-S1 in the proportion of two fifths for the part of
the disability or the aggravation thereof which resulted from or were connected
to serving in the regular forces. In its decision, the Board pointed out that
it was withholding a proportion of three fifths because the conditions were
endogenous.
[9]
The
applicant appealed the decision dated April 7, 2003, before the Appeal Board on
the grounds that he should have received full and complete pension and not a
partial pension of two fifths. In its decision dated September 17, 2003, the
Appeal Board awarded for the spondylolysis L5 and the spondylolisthesis L5-S1 three
fifths of the pension for the portion of the disability or aggravation consecutive
to or related to the service in the regular forces and confirmed the Minister’s
positive decision.
[10]
On
May
18, 2007,
the applicant filed, under section 32 of the Act, an application for
reconsideration of the decision by the Appeal Board dated September 17, 2003. Before
the Review Board, the applicant submitted that he was not seeking any
indemnification for the spondylolysis L5, but that his request was for the spondylolisthesis
L5-S1, for which he was seeking full pension entitlement.
[11]
In
a decision dated May 23, 2007, the Board’s review panel refused the application
for reconsideration of the decision of the Appeal Board dated September 17,
2003.
[12]
The
applicant filed this application for judicial review on August 15, 2007, against the
decision made by the Board on May 23, 2007.
III. Impugned
decision
[13]
In
its decision dated May 23, 2007, the Board refused the application for
reconsideration for the following reasons:
(a)
The Board did
not detect any error of law or fact and made its decision on the basis of the evidence
before it;
(b)
Dr.
Fecteau’s report, dated September 24, 2004, did not add any fact that could
change the opinion given by the Board on February 23, 2001, since Dr. Fecteau’s
second opinion complemented what had already been discussed;
(c)
The Board was
of the opinion that withholding the pension entitlement of two fifths was
medically documented;
(d)
The applicant’s
conditions were endogenous;
(e)
Even if
the medical opinions suggested that there was a possibility that the conditions
were entirely related to the applicant’s military service, the documentary
evidence in the record did not corroborate these allegations.
IV. Issue
[14]
The
only issue is whether the Board erred in its assessment of the evidence by
refusing to grant full pension entitlement under subsection 21(1) of the Pension Act.
V. Standard of review
[15]
In
Dunsmuir v. Nouveau Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9, the Supreme Court of Canada
determined that there should only be two standards of review, the standard of correctness
and the standard of reasonableness. The Court stated that the standard of
correctness must be maintained in respect of jurisdictional and some other
questions of law (see Dunsmuir at paragraph 50). When applying
the correctness standard, a reviewing court will not show deference to the
decision maker’s reasoning process. It will rather undertake its own analysis
of the question and decide whether or not the tribunal’s decision is correct.
[16]
The Supreme Court also instructs that in judicial review,
reasonableness is concerned mostly with the existence of justification,
transparency and intelligibility within the decision-making process. It is
also concerned with whether the decision falls within a range of possible,
acceptable outcomes which are defensible in respect of the facts and law (see Dunsmuir
at paragraph 47).
[17]
Guidance with regard to the questions that will be reviewed on a
reasonableness standard can be found in the existing case law (see Dunsmuir
at paragraph 54). The appropriate deference to be given to a tribunal will
be determined in consideration of the following factors: the existence of a
privative clause; whether the decision-maker has special expertise in a
discrete and special administrative regime; and the nature of the issue (see Dunsmuir
at paragraph 55).
[18]
In
McTague v. Canada (Attorney General), [1999] F.C.J. No. 1559
(Lexis), Justice John Evans applied the pragmatic and functional
approach to determine the appropriate standard of review to apply to the Board’s
decisions. He determined that the appropriate standard of review in the case of
decisions by the Veterans Review and Appeal
Board is that of reasonableness simpliciter, except when the issue
involves the Board’s assessment or interpretation of inconsistent evidence and
the conclusions that it drew from it regarding whether the applicant’s disability
was in fact caused or aggravated by the military service. In the latter case,
the appropriate standard of review is that of patent unreasonableness (Bradley
v. Canada (Attorney
General),
2001 FCT 793, [2001] F.C.J. No. 1152 (Lexis), at paragraphs 16 and
17). See also Wannamaker v. Canada (Attorney
General), 2007 FCA 126, [2007] F.C.J. No. 466
(Lexis), at paragraph 12; and Thériault v. Canada
(Attorney General), 2006 FC 1070, [2006] F.C.J. No. 1354
(Lexis), at paragraphs 22 and 23.
[19]
In this matter, there are provisions in the Act
providing for a series of administrative appeals against the refusal of a
pension application. In this case, the review panel
has a certain expertise in regard to issues related to pension entitlement and
the question is essentially one of mixed law and facts. Accordingly, some
deference is contemplated. For these reasons, I am of the opinion that the
appropriate standard of review is that of reasonableness.
VI. Analysis
[20]
The
applicant states that the Board erred in withholding two fifths of the pension
on the ground that his personal condition was such that his spinal column was more
at risk. The applicant alleges that the Board had no medical basis for making
such a determination. He points out that, paradoxically, the Board recognizes
in its decision that the medical opinions appear to indicate that there is a
possibility that the conditions are entirely related to military service. The
applicant also points out that the Board erred in determining that Dr. Fecteau’s
opinion merely complements the evidence and that in its decision, it admits
that the medical reports seem to indicate that there is a possibility that the applicant’s
conditions are entirely related to military service. However, the Board determined
that the evidence does not corroborate these allegations. Indeed, the applicant
points out that the Board ignored the following factors that were in his favour:
(a)
His
excellent physical condition when he enlisted with the Canadian Armed Forces;
(b)
No visits
to physicians for lumbar problems before the fall on July 21, 1988;
(c)
His fall
on July 21, 1988, was documented at the time by a statement of an eyewitness;
(d)
The
existence of back trauma, namely a fracture, spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis;
(e)
The fall
on July 21, 1988, caused the first onset of the applicant’s back pain;
(f)
The pain
continued throughout his career in Canada
as well as on missions abroad (“special duty area”); and
(g)
The
applicant’s condition was aggravated over the years because the Canadian Armed
Forces did not provide him with the appropriate care or reassign him to new
duties to protect his back from any physical deterioration.
Finally, the applicant alleges that the Board
disregarded section 39 of the Act by refusing to draw from all the circumstances
of the case and all the evidence presented to it every reasonable inference in
favour of the applicant. The applicant points out that the Board ought to have
accepted the new medical evidence because it reported plausible and uncontradicted
facts. According to the applicant, the Board acted contrary to section 32
of the Act in refusing to reconsider the application so as to favour the
achievement of the Act’s objectives.
[21]
The
respondent contends that the proportion of three fifths of the applicant’s pension
entitlement is consistent with the requirements of subsection 21(2.1) of
the Pension Act. Further, the medical expertise clearly indicates that
the applicant’s conditions are congenital and that he had these conditions when
he enlisted. The respondent also contends that the medical expert reports
establish that the applicant’s fall was not the only cause of his conditions. In
the respondent’s opinion, the Board complied with the requirements of section 39
of the Act by taking into account the two new medical reports. The respondent maintains
that the pension entitlement guidelines for spondylolisthesis and spondylolysis
state that most spondylolytic problems and cases of spondylolisthesis are
congenital. It is alleged that the medical reports of Dr. Fecteau and
Dr. Montminy do not add anything more in regard to the information already
filed in the record.
[22]
Subsection
21(9) of the Act provides that there is a presumption regarding the applicant’s
medical condition at the time of the enlistment. More specifically, when a
disability or
disabling condition is not obvious at the time of enlistment, there
is a presumption that the applicant’s medical condition is the condition that
was found on the enlistment medical examination. In this case, the unrefuted
evidence, specifically Dr. Montminy’s medical report dated April 20, 2005,
indicates that [translation] “when
[the applicant] enlisted in the Armed Forces, he already had spondylolisthesis
with spondylolysis. However, this spondylolisthesis had always been asymptomatic
and it is absolutely impossible in spondylolisthesis of this degree to identify
it at the physical examination when the patient is asymptomatic” [emphasis
added]. Given that it is not at all disputed that the applicant had
asymptomatic spondylolisthesis when he enlisted, the presumption of subsection 21(9)
applies.
[23]
Notwithstanding
the existence of this presumption, it should be noted that the acknowledged
condition does not necessarily cause a disability. On this point, we must rely
on the medical evidence establishing that the applicant was healthy and that he
had no obvious symptoms when he enlisted. Indeed, Dr. Montminy is of the
opinion that [translation] “it is
likely that [the applicant] could have pursued his career as an infantryman
without any restriction unless another accident were to bring on spondylolisthesis.”
In this case, following the fall on July 21, 1988, the applicant not only fractured
an L1 vertebra resulting in a fracture of 15%, but he also brought on L5-S1 spondylolisthesis
which before had been entirely dormant. Indeed, according to the testimony of Private Gagnon,
an eyewitness to the fall in question, the applicant fell at least five feet
directly onto his lower back and his spine. The uncontradicted evidence establishes
that but for this trauma, the applicant’s spondylolisthesis would probably not
have become symptomatic. Also according to Dr. Fecteau’s report, since the
fall the applicant [translation] “has
functional limitations and if ever he were to have to perform demanding
physical activities, we could expect to see the lumbar pain resurface with the
protective spasms usually associated with it.” In other words, the applicant’s condition
caused him a significant disability.
[24]
The
respondent’s argument is essentially based on the thin skull rule which is
founded on the principle that the wrongdoer is responsible for the damages incurred by the applicant, even if these are
unforeseeably serious because of a predisposition. This doctrine also provides
that the respondent need not put the applicant in a position
better than his original situation. In fact, the respondent is responsible for
the prejudice caused, but it need not indemnify the applicant for the
debilitating effects attributable to the pre-existing condition which the
applicant would have suffered anyway. In other words, the wrongdoers must take their victims as they are and they are
therefore liable even if the prejudice suffered by the applicant is more
significant than it would have been if the victim were not afflicted with spondylolysis
(Athey v. Leonati, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 458 at paragraphs 34 and 35).
In this case, the respondent maintains that the conditions suffered by the
applicant are not entirely the result of his fall on July 21, 1988, but that
his pre-existing condition, i.e. asymptomatic spondylolisthesis, also contributed. The respondent also maintains that the
conditions ailing the applicant are [translation]
“also the result of his personal condition
recognized by the physicians and by the applicant himself.” Therefore, also in
the opinion of the respondent, under subsection 21(2.1) of the Act, it was
not unreasonable for the Board to withhold two fifths of the pension. I cannot
accept this argument. The evidence in the record clearly indicates that
before the fall on July 21, 1988, the applicant was in good health despite the
asymptomatic spondylolisthesis. No evidence in this
case indicates that the debilitating effects suffered by the applicant are attributable
to the pre-existing condition.
[25]
As
noted above, Dr. Montminy is of the opinion that but
for his fall, the applicant could have pursued his infantry career without any limitations.
The evidence does not support the claim that the debilitating effects were
caused by the applicant’s pre-existing condition. To the contrary, the evidence
is clear that it was very well the fall on July
21, 1988, that brought on the spondylolisthesis. Consulting the “Entitlement
Eligibility Guidelines for Spondylolisthesis and Spondylolysis” (the
Guidelines), “severe trauma to the vertebral spine” is listed among the causes and/or
aggravation leading to spondylolisthesis. These same Guidelines define this
type of trauma as follows:
Severe trauma to the lumbar spine means a
major, high impact, direct injury to the lumbar spine which produces immediate
lumbar pain and
precludes unaided ambulation for a period of at least 2 weeks, and is
associated with other fractures and/or significant soft tissue injuries.
Examples:
A fall from a significant height directly
onto the back;
A major motor vehicle accident;
A blow across the back by a heavy, high
momentum object, e.g. a falling tree.
[Emphasis added.]
This is the same kind of
trauma suffered by the applicant on July 21, 1988.
[26]
The
evidence establishes that that anyone who suffers “[a] fall from a significant
height directly onto the back” would probably experience the same symptoms as
the applicant. In such circumstances, the applicant’s pre-existing is of no
consequence. The evidence does not therefore support the Board’s finding to the
effect that the applicant’s pre-existing condition in these circumstances would
have an impact on his disability. Accordingly, the Board erred in determining
that the applicant, suffering from spondylolisthesis, would be entitled to only
three fifths of the total degree of disability because of his predisposition.
[27]
Finally,
the applicant submits that the Board refused to draw from all the circumstances
of the case and all the evidence presented to it every reasonable inference in
favour of the applicant. First, bear in mind that the special provisions under
section 39 of the Act require the Board to draw every
reasonable inference in favour of the applicant, to accept any
uncontradicted evidence that it considers to be credible in the circumstances
and to resolve in favour of the applicant any doubt, in the weighing of
evidence, as to whether the applicant has established a case. The applicant
also benefits from section 3 of the Act, which provides that the powers, duties
or functions of the Board shall be liberally construed and interpreted to the
end that the recognized obligation of the people and Government of Canada to
those who have served their country so well and to their dependants may be
fulfilled.
[28]
In this case, the documentary evidence, inter alia Dr.
Montminy’s report, was uncontradicted evidence supporting the applicant’s
claims. In my opinion, the Board did not make the necessary inferences from Dr.
Montminy’s report and narrowly interpreted the evidence by selecting certain passages
while disregarding others which favoured the interpretation submitted by the applicant.
The Board’s interpretation of this evidence was not consistent with the
provisions of sections 3 and 39 of the Act. The inferences most favourable
to the applicant were not accepted. This amounts to a reviewable error. It
should be noted that the Board is at liberty to impugn and reject any report
but must do so by relying on medical evidence responding to the points raised
in the impugned report and in accordance with the specific provisions of
section 39 of the Act. In this case, the applicant filed credible evidence
of the connection between the fall and the appearance of symptomatic spondylolisthesis.
VII. Conclusion
[29]
Considering all of the evidence and for the reasons discussed
above, I am of the opinion that in finding as it did, the Board’s decision was
unreasonable, which justifies the intervention of this Court. The application
for judicial review will therefore be allowed.
[30]
The
matter will be referred to the Board for reconsideration by a differently
constituted review panel in accordance with these reasons.
JUDGMENT
THE COURT
ORDERS AND DIRECTS that
1.
the application for judicial review be allowed.
2.
The matter be referred to the Board for
reconsideration by a differently constituted review panel, in accordance with
these reasons.
3. The costs of this application be awarded to the applicant.
“Edmond P. Blanchard”
Certified
true translation
Kelley
A. Harvey, BCL, LLB
Appendix
Veterans Review and Appeal
Board Act,
S.C. 1995, c. 18:
|
3. The provisions of this Act and of any other Act of
Parliament or of any regulations made under this or any other Act of
Parliament conferring or imposing jurisdiction, powers, duties or functions on
the Board shall be liberally construed and interpreted to the end that the
recognized obligation of the people and Government of Canada to those who
have served their country so well and to their dependants may be fulfilled.
32. (1) Notwithstanding section 31, an appeal panel may, on
its own motion, reconsider a decision made by it under subsection 29(1) or
this section and may either confirm the decision or amend or rescind the
decision if it determines that an error was made with respect to any finding
of fact or the interpretation of any law, or may do so on application if the
person making the application alleges that an error was made with respect to
any finding of fact or the interpretation of any law or if new evidence is
presented to the appeal panel.
(2) The Board may exercise the powers of an appeal panel
under subsection (1) if the members of the appeal panel have ceased to hold
office as members.
(3) Sections 28 and 31 apply, with such modifications as
the circumstances require, with respect to an application made under
subsection (1).
39. In all proceedings under this Act, the Board shall
(a) draw from all
the circumstances of the case and all the evidence presented to it every
reasonable inference in favour of the applicant or appellant;
(b) accept any
uncontradicted evidence presented to it by the applicant or appellant that it
considers to be credible in the circumstances; and
(c) resolve in
favour of the applicant or appellant any doubt, in the weighing of evidence,
as to whether the applicant or appellant has established a case.
|
3. Les dispositions de la présente loi et de
toute autre loi fédérale, ainsi que de leurs règlements, qui établissent la
compétence du Tribunal ou lui confèrent des pouvoirs et fonctions doivent
s’interpréter de façon large, compte tenu des obligations que le peuple et le
gouvernement du Canada reconnaissent avoir à l’égard de ceux qui ont si bien
servi leur pays et des personnes à leur charge.
32. (1) Par dérogation à l’article 31, le comité
d’appel peut, de son propre chef, réexaminer une décision rendue en vertu du
paragraphe 29(1) ou du présent article et soit la confirmer, soit l’annuler
ou la modifier s’il constate que les conclusions sur les faits ou
l’interprétation du droit étaient erronées; il peut aussi le faire sur
demande si l’auteur de la demande allègue que les conclusions sur les faits
ou l’interprétation du droit étaient erronées ou si de nouveaux éléments de
preuve lui sont présentés.
(2) Le Tribunal, dans les cas où les membres
du comité ont cessé d’exercer leur charge, peut exercer les fonctions du
comité visées au paragraphe (1).
(3) Les articles 28 et 31 régissent, avec les
adaptations de circonstance, les demandes adressées au Tribunal dans le cadre
du paragraphe (1).
39. Le Tribunal applique,
à l’égard du demandeur ou de l’appelant, les règles suivantes en matière de
preuve :
a) il tire des circonstances et des éléments de
preuve qui lui sont présentés les conclusions les plus favorables possible à
celui-ci;
b) il accepte tout élément de preuve non
contredit que lui présente celui-ci et qui lui semble vraisemblable en
l’occurrence;
c) il tranche en sa faveur toute incertitude
quant au bien-fondé de la demande.
|
Pension
Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-6:
|
21. (1) In respect of
service rendered during World War I, service rendered during World War II
other than in the non-permanent active militia or the reserve army, service
in the Korean War, service as a member of the special force, and special duty
service,
( a) where a member of the
forces suffers disability resulting from an injury or disease or an
aggravation thereof that was attributable to or was incurred during such
military service, a pension shall, on application, be awarded to or in
respect of the member in accordance with the rates for basic and additional
pension set out in Schedule I;
( b) where a member of the
forces dies as a result of an injury or disease or an aggravation thereof
that was attributable to or was incurred during such military service, a
pension shall be awarded in respect of the member in accordance with the
rates set out in Schedule II;
( c) no deduction shall be made
from the degree of actual disability of a member of the forces who has
rendered service in a theatre of actual war, service in the Korean War or
special duty service on account of a disability or disabling condition that
existed in the member before the member’s period of service in World War I or
World War II, service in the Korean War or special duty service, as the case
may be, except
(i) to the extent that the member is receiving a
pension for that disability or disabling condition, or
(ii) to the extent that that disability or disabling
condition was obvious or was recorded on medical examination prior to
enlistment;
( d) an applicant shall not be
denied a pension in respect of disability resulting from injury or disease or
aggravation thereof incurred during military service or in respect of the
death of a member of the forces resulting from that injury or disease or the
aggravation thereof solely on the grounds that no substantial disability or
disabling condition is considered to have existed at the time of discharge of
that member;
( e) where a member of the
forces who has seen service during World War I or World War II is, on
retirement or discharge from that service, passed directly to the Department
for treatment, a pension shall be paid to or in respect of the member for
disability or death incurred by the member during treatment;
( f) no pension shall be paid
for disability or death incurred by a member of the forces,
(i) while on leave of absence without pay,
(ii) during a period of absence without leave for which
the pay of the member was stopped, or
(iii) when the member of the forces has, during leave
of absence with pay, undertaken an occupation that is unconnected with
military service,
unless the disability or death was attributable to that
military service;
( g) where
(i) a pension for disability has been awarded to a
member of the forces in respect of service in a theatre of actual war,
service in the Korean War or special duty service, and
(ii) the member’s degree of actual disability in
respect of any of that service subsequently changes,
the pension shall, regardless of the cause of the change,
be increased, decreased or discontinued, as the case requires, to reflect the
new degree of actual disability in respect of that service, except that, if a
member is receiving a pension in respect of more than one type of service
referred to in subparagraph (i), the total pension payable by virtue of this
subsection may not exceed the amount of pension for the total actual
disability arising from all the service referred to in that subparagraph;
( h) where a member of the
forces is in receipt of an additional pension under paragraph ( a), subsection (5) or section 36 in respect of a spouse
or common-law partner who is living with the member and the spouse or
common-law partner dies, except where an award is payable under subsection
34(8), the additional pension in respect of the spouse or common-law partner
shall continue to be paid for a period of one year from the end of the month
in which the spouse or common-law partner died or, if an additional pension
in respect of another spouse or common-law partner is awarded to the member
commencing during that period, until the date that it so commences; and
( i) where, in respect of a
survivor who was living with the member of the forces at the time of the
member’s death,
(i) the pension payable under paragraph ( b)
is less than
(ii) the aggregate of the basic pension and the
additional pension for a spouse or common-law partner payable to the member
under paragraph ( a), subsection (5) or section 36
at the time of the member’s death,
a pension equal to the amount described in subparagraph
(ii) shall be paid to the survivor in lieu of the pension payable under
paragraph ( b) for a period of one year commencing
on the effective date of award as provided in section 56 (except that the
words “from the day following the date of death” in subparagraph 56(1)( a)(i) shall be read as “from the first day of the month
following the month of the member’s death”), and thereafter a pension shall
be paid to the survivor in accordance with the rates set out in Schedule II.
(2) In respect of military service
rendered in the non-permanent active militia or in the reserve army during
World War II and in respect of military service in peace time,
( a) where a member of the forces suffers
disability resulting from an injury or disease or an aggravation thereof that
arose out of or was directly connected with such military service, a pension
shall, on application, be awarded to or in respect of the member in
accordance with the rates for basic and additional pension set out in
Schedule I;
( b) where a member of the
forces dies as a result of an injury or disease or an aggravation thereof
that arose out of or was directly connected with such military service, a
pension shall be awarded in respect of the member in accordance with the
rates set out in Schedule II;
( c) where a member of the
forces is in receipt of an additional pension under paragraph ( a), subsection (5) or section 36 in respect of a spouse
or common-law partner who is living with the member and the spouse or
common-law partner dies, except where an award is payable under subsection
34(8), the additional pension in respect of the spouse or common-law partner
shall continue to be paid for a period of one year from the end of the month
in which the spouse or common-law partner died or, if an additional pension in
respect of another spouse or common-law partner is awarded to the member
commencing during that period, until the date that it so commences; and
( d) where, in respect of a
survivor who was living with the member of the forces at the time of that
member’s death,
(i) the pension payable under paragraph ( b)
is less than
(ii) the aggregate of the basic pension and the
additional pension for a spouse or common-law partner payable to the member
under paragraph ( a), subsection (5) or section 36
at the time of the member’s death,
a pension equal to the amount described in subparagraph
(ii) shall be paid to the survivor in lieu of the pension payable under
paragraph ( b) for a period of one year commencing
on the effective date of award as provided in section 56 (except that the
words “from the day following the date of death” in subparagraph 56(1)( a)(i) shall be read as “from the first day of the month
following the month of the member’s death”), and thereafter a pension shall
be paid to the survivor in accordance with the rates set out in Schedule
…
(5) In addition to any pension awarded
under subsection (1) or (2), a member of the forces who
( a) is eligible for a pension
under paragraph (1)( a) or (2)( a) or this subsection in respect of an injury or disease
or an aggravation thereof, or has suffered an injury or disease or an
aggravation thereof that would be pensionable under that provision if it had
resulted in a disability, and
( b) is suffering an additional
disability that is in whole or in part a consequence of the injury or disease
or the aggravation referred to in paragraph ( a)
shall, on application, be awarded a
pension in accordance with the rates for basic and additional pension set out
in Schedule I in respect of that part of the additional disability that is a
consequence of that injury or disease or aggravation thereof.
35. (1) Subject to section
21, the amount of pensions for disabilities shall, except as provided in
subsection (3), be determined in accordance with the assessment of the extent
of the disability resulting from injury or disease or the aggravation
thereof, as the case may be, of the applicant or pensioner.
(1.1) Despite anything in this Act, if the
extent of disability of a member of the forces, in respect of the aggregate of
all of the member’s disability assessments, exceeds 100%, no pension shall be
paid in respect of any percentage points exceeding 100%.
(1.2) Any disability assessments under the Canadian
Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act shall
be taken into account for the purpose of determining whether the extent of
disability exceeds 100%.
(2) The assessment of the extent of a
disability shall be based on the instructions and a table of disabilities to
be made by the Minister for the guidance of persons making those assessments.
|
21. (1) Pour le service accompli pendant la Première Guerre mondiale
ou la Seconde Guerre mondiale, sauf dans la milice active non permanente ou
dans l’armée de réserve, le service accompli pendant la guerre de Corée, le
service accompli à titre de membre du contingent spécial et le service
spécial :
a) des pensions sont, sur demande, accordées aux membres des forces
ou à leur égard, conformément aux taux prévus à l’annexe I pour les pensions
de base ou supplémentaires, en cas d’invalidité causée par une blessure ou
maladie — ou son aggravation — survenue au cours du service militaire ou
attribuable à celui-ci;
b) des pensions sont accordées à l’égard des membres des forces,
conformément aux taux prévus à l’annexe II, en cas de décès causé par une
blessure ou maladie — ou son aggravation — survenue au cours du service
militaire ou attribuable à celui-ci;
c) l’invalidité ou l’affection entraînant incapacité dont était
atteint le membre des forces qui a accompli du service sur un théâtre réel de
guerre, du service pendant la guerre de Corée ou du service spécial, et qui
est antérieure au service accompli pendant la Première ou la Seconde Guerre
mondiale, au service accompli pendant la guerre de Corée ou au service
spécial n’autorise aucune déduction sur le degré d’invalidité véritable, sauf
dans la mesure où il reçoit une pension à cet égard ou si l’invalidité ou
l’affection était évidente ou a été consignée lors d’un examen médical avant
l’enrôlement;
d) un demandeur ne peut être privé
d’une pension à l’égard d’une invalidité qui résulte d’une blessure ou
maladie ou de son aggravation contractée au cours du service militaire, ou à
l’égard du décès d’un membre des forces causé par cette blessure ou maladie
ou son aggravation, uniquement du fait que nulle invalidité importante ou
affection entraînant une importante incapacité n’est réputée avoir existé au
moment de la libération de ce membre des forces;
e) lorsqu’un membre des forces qui a fait du service pendant la
Première ou la Seconde Guerre mondiale est, lors de sa retraite ou de sa
libération de ce service, transféré directement au ministère pour un
traitement, il est payé à ce membre, ou à son égard, une pension pour
invalidité contractée ou décès survenu au cours de ce traitement;
f) aucune pension n’est payée à l’égard de l’invalidité contractée
ou du décès survenu d’un membre des forces :
(i) soit lorsqu’il est en congé sans
solde,
(ii) soit pendant une période
d’absence sans permission pour laquelle sa solde a été suspendue,
(iii) soit lorsque ce membre des
forces, durant un congé avec solde, a exercé un métier ou une profession qui
n’a aucun rapport avec le service militaire,
à moins que son invalidité ou son décès
ne soit attribuable à son service militaire;
g) la pension pour invalidité accordée au membre des forces au
titre du service sur un théâtre réel de guerre, du service effectué pendant
la guerre de Corée ou du service spécial est, en cas de changement du degré
d’invalidité véritable lié à un de ces services, rajustée ou discontinuée en
fonction du nouveau degré d’invalidité véritable sans qu’il soit tenu compte
de la cause du changement; toutefois, si le membre des forces reçoit une
pension pour plus d’un de ces services, le total de la pension à payer en
application du présent paragraphe ne peut être supérieur au montant de la
pension pour toute l’invalidité véritable découlant de l’ensemble de ces
services;
h) sauf si une compensation est payable aux termes du paragraphe
34(8), la pension supplémentaire que reçoit un membre des forces en
application de l’alinéa a), du paragraphe (5) ou
de l’article 36 continue d’être versée pendant l’année qui suit la fin du
mois du décès de l’époux ou du conjoint de fait avec qui il cohabitait alors
ou, le cas échéant, jusqu’au versement de la pension supplémentaire accordée
pendant cette année à l’égard d’un autre époux ou conjoint de fait;
i) lorsque, à l’égard d’un survivant qui
vivait avec le membre des forces au moment du décès de ce dernier :
(i) la pension payable en application
de l’alinéa b)
est inférieure à :
(ii) la somme de la pension de base et
de la pension supplémentaire pour un époux ou conjoint de fait qui, à son
décès, est payable au membre en application de l’alinéa a),
du paragraphe (5) ou de l’article 36,
une pension égale à la somme visée au
sous-alinéa (ii) est payée au survivant au lieu de la pension visée à
l’alinéa b) pendant une période de un an à compter
de la date depuis laquelle une pension est payable aux termes de l’article 56
(sauf que pour l’application du présent alinéa, la mention « si elle est
postérieure, la date du lendemain du décès » à l’alinéa 56(1)a) doit s’interpréter comme signifiant « s’il est
postérieur, le premier jour du mois suivant celui au cours duquel est survenu
le décès ») et, après cette année, la pension payée au survivant l’est
conformément aux taux prévus à l’annexe II.
(2) En ce qui concerne le service
militaire accompli dans la milice active non permanente ou dans l’armée de
réserve pendant la Seconde Guerre mondiale ou le service militaire en temps
de paix :
a) des pensions sont, sur demande, accordées aux membres des forces
ou à leur égard, conformément aux taux prévus à l’annexe I pour les pensions
de base ou supplémentaires, en cas d’invalidité causée par une blessure ou
maladie — ou son aggravation — consécutive ou rattachée directement au
service militaire;
b) des pensions sont accordées à l’égard des
membres des forces, conformément aux taux prévus à l’annexe II, en cas de
décès causé par une blessure ou maladie — ou son aggravation — consécutive ou
rattachée directement au service militaire;
c) sauf si une compensation est payable aux
termes du paragraphe 34(8), la pension supplémentaire que reçoit un membre
des forces en application de l’alinéa a), du
paragraphe (5) ou de l’article 36 continue d’être versée pendant l’année qui
suit la fin du mois du décès de l’époux ou du conjoint de fait avec qui il
cohabitait alors ou, le cas échéant, jusqu’au versement de la pension
supplémentaire accordée pendant cette année à l’égard d’un autre époux ou
conjoint de fait;
d) d’une part, une pension égale à la somme
visée au sous-alinéa (ii) est payée au survivant qui vivait avec le membre
des forces au moment du décès au lieu de la pension visée à l’alinéa b) pendant une période d’un an à compter de la date
depuis laquelle une pension est payable aux termes de l’article 56 — sauf que
pour l’application du présent alinéa, la mention « si elle est
postérieure, la date du lendemain du décès » à l’alinéa 56(1)a) doit s’interpréter comme signifiant « s’il est
postérieur, le premier jour du mois suivant celui au cours duquel est survenu
le décès » — d’autre part, après cette année, la pension payée au
survivant l’est conformément aux taux prévus à l’annexe II, lorsque, à
l’égard de celui-ci, le premier des montants suivants est inférieur au second
:
(i) la pension payable en application
de l’alinéa b),
(ii) la somme de la pension de base et
de la pension supplémentaire pour un époux ou conjoint de fait qui, à son
décès, est payable au membre en application de l’alinéa a),
du paragraphe (5) ou de l’article 36.
[…]
(5) En plus de toute pension accordée au
titre des paragraphes (1) ou (2), une pension est accordée conformément aux
taux indiqués à l’annexe I pour les pensions de base ou supplémentaires, sur
demande, à un membre des forces, relativement au degré d’invalidité
supplémentaire qui résulte de son état, dans le cas où :
a) d’une part, il est admissible à une pension au titre des alinéas
(1)a) ou (2)a) ou du
présent paragraphe, ou a subi une blessure ou une maladie — ou une
aggravation de celle-ci — qui aurait donné droit à une pension à ce titre si
elle avait entraîné une invalidité;
b) d’autre part, il est frappé d’une invalidité supplémentaire
résultant, en tout ou en partie, de la blessure, maladie ou aggravation qui
donne ou aurait donné droit à la pension.
35. (1) Sous réserve de l’article 21, le montant des pensions pour
invalidité est, sous réserve du paragraphe (3), calculé en fonction de
l’estimation du degré d’invalidité résultant de la blessure ou de la maladie
ou de leur aggravation, selon le cas, du demandeur ou du pensionné.
(1.1) Aucune pension n’est accordée pour
toute partie du total des degrés d’invalidité estimés à l’égard du membre des
forces excédant cent pour cent.
(1.2) Dans le calcul du total des degrés
d’invalidité, il est tenu compte de tout degré d’invalidité estimé au titre
de la Loi sur les mesures de réinsertion et d’indemnisation des militaires
et vétérans des Forces canadiennes.
(2) Les
estimations du degré d’invalidité sont basées sur les instructions du
ministre et sur une table des invalidités qu’il établit pour aider quiconque
les effectue.
|
Email this Content