[1] After a hearing, the Pension Appeals Board determined that Mr. Jagpal had failed to establish that he was disabled as of December 31, 1989. Mr. Jagpal is seeking judicial review of that decision.

[2] We are unable to find that the decision of the Pension Appeals Board is patently unreasonable, or that the Pension Appeals Board made any error of law. This application for judicial review must be dismissed. As the Crown has not asked for costs, none will be awarded.

[3] Mr. Jagpal says that he has some new medical evidence that is relevant to his claim. That evidence was obtained after the hearing before the Pension Appeals Board and so was not considered by the Board. It remains open to Mr. Jagpal to request a reconsideration of his claim, based on that new evidence, under subsection 84(2) of the Canada Pension Plan, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-8.

(Sgd.) AKaren R. Sharlow@

J.A.

AI agree@ (Sgd.) AMarshall E. Rothstein@

J.A.

AI agree@ (Sgd.) AB. Malone@

J.A.

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET: A-128-05

STYLE OF CAUSE: Bill Jagpal v. Attorney General of Canada

PLACE OF HEARING: Vancouver, British Columbia

DATE OF HEARING: January 19, 2006

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT: ROTHSTEIN, SHARLOW, MALONE JJ.A

DATED: January 20, 2006

APPEARANCES:

Mr. Bill Jagpal

FOR THE APPLICANT

Ms. Rose-Gabrielle Birba

FOR THE RESPONDENT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

John H. Sims, Q.C.

Deputy Attorney General of Canada

Ottawa, Ontario

FOR THE RESPONDENT

You are here

Jagpal v. Canada (Attorney General), 2006 FCA 26

Citations2006 FCA 26

Case tabs

Citations
2006 FCA 26