Date: 20070515
Docket: A-158-06
Citation: 2007 FCA 200
CORAM: CHIEF
JUSTICE RICHARD
LINDEN J.A.
RYER
J.A.
BETWEEN:
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Appellant
and
LARRY W. NELSON
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
[1]
This is an
appeal of the decision of Justice O’Keefe of the Federal Court dated March 15,
2006 (2006 FC 225), granting an application for judicial review of a decision
by the Veterans Review and Appeal Board (“VRAB”) dated November 15, 2004. The
VRAB refused the respondent’s request for reconsideration of a decision of the
former Veterans Appeal Board (“VAB”) of April 20, 1995, that denied the
respondent pension disability benefits under subsection 21(2) of the Pension
Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-6 (the “Pension Act” or the “Act”).
Summary of the Facts
[2]
There is
no dispute over the facts giving rise to this proceeding. Briefly, the
respondent served in the Canadian Regular Forces from August 13, 1970, until
his honourable discharge on July 17, 1978. During the course of his service,
the respondent worked in the infantry for several years and drove an armoured
personnel carrier.
[3]
Prior to
joining the armed forces, the respondent was medically examined and it was
found that he did not have any hearing problems. However, an undated
audiogram, taken at about the time of his discharge, indicated that the respondent
had some high frequency hearing loss in his left ear. The respondent believes
that the hearing loss was due to excessive noise exposure during the course of
his military service, from performing tasks such as firing small arms and
missiles, driving personnel carriers, and working on aircraft.
[4]
The
respondent’s hearing continued to worsen after his discharge and, in 1991, he
was diagnosed with bilateral moderately severe high frequency sensorineural
hearing loss. The respondent subsequently applied for a hearing loss
disability pension on the basis of his 1991 diagnosis. His application was
denied on June 7, 1993, by the Canadian Pension Commission on the ground that the
respondent’s hearing loss at the time of his discharge was not sufficiently
severe to be considered a disability as described in a report of the Pensions
Medical Advisory Division dated May 20, 1993.
[5]
The
respondent appealed this decision to the Entitlement Board of the Canadian
Pension Commission, which denied the appeal on February 28, 1994. The respondent
then appealed that decision to the VAB, which also denied the appeal, on April
20, 1995.
[6]
The
respondent continued to consult with doctors and, as a result of audiometry
tests and medical opinions regarding the cause of the respondent’s hearing
loss, the respondent filed a request for reconsideration of his pension
application on August 31, 2004.
[7]
By letter
dated November 15, 2004, the VRAB denied the respondent’s request for
reconsideration on the basis that the result of the respondent’s audiogram did
not satisfy the requirement of what constitutes a hearing disability according
to the Veterans Affairs Table of Disabilities, Chapter 09, (“Table of
Disabilities”). The VRAB stated the following at pages 2 to 3 of its decision:
The proffered evidence
is credible enough, but none of it addresses the relevant issue in the case,
which was that the Appellant did not have a disability level hearing loss at
the time of his discharge from the Canadian Armed Forces.
The proffered evidence
is credible enough, but none of it addresses the relevant issue in the case,
which was that the Appellant did not have a disability level hearing loss at
the time of his discharge from the Canadian Armed Forces.
The policy followed by
the Department of Veterans Affairs dictates that if the recorded decibel losses
at discharge do not meet the minimum level accepted by the Minister as a
disability, the claimed condition is not pensionable.
While Ministerial or
Departmental policies regarding entitlement do not normally restrict the jurisdiction
of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, that is not the case with the
Minister’s Policy on Hearing Loss. The hearing loss policy is written and
included as part of the Veterans Affairs Canada Table of Disabilities, which
document has legislative authority.
...
… While the Board
recognizes that some decibel losses were recorded within the Appellant’s
military service, and while it recognizes that excessive noise exposure within
that service was at least a partial cause of those decibel losses and,
therefore, of the Appellant’s present-day hearing loss disability, it is bound
by the legislative authority of the hearing loss policy which states, in part:
If the audiogram on
release from service does not meet the requirements for hearing loss disability,
any hearing loss demonstrated on subsequent audiograms is not considered due to
service-related noise exposure and, therefore, pension entitlement is not
normally awarded.
The VRAB therefore denied the respondent’s request for
reconsideration.
[8]
The
respondent brought an application for judicial review of the VRAB’s refusal to
reconsider its earlier decision. The applications judge allowed the
application by order dated March 15, 2006. The appellant now appeals the
applications judge’s decision to this Court.
Relevant Statutory Provisions
[9]
For our
purposes, the relevant provisions of the Pension Act are set out below.
|
CONSTRUCTION
Construction
2. The provisions of this Act shall be
liberally construed and interpreted to the end that the recognized obligation
of the people and Government of Canada to provide compensation to those
members of the forces who have been disabled or have died as a result of
military service, and to their dependants, may be fulfilled.
|
RÈGLE D’INTERPRÉTATION
Règle d’interprétation
2. Les dispositions de la présente loi s’interprètent d’une façon libérale
afin de donner effet à l’obligation reconnue du peuple canadien et du
gouvernement du Canada d’indemniser les membres des forces qui sont devenus
invalides ou sont décédés par suite de leur service militaire, ainsi que les
personnes à leur charge.
|
|
INTERPRETATION
Definitions
3. (1)
In this Act,
…
"disability" means the loss or lessening of the
power to will and to do any normal mental or physical act;
…
"pension" means
a pension payable under this Act on account of the death or disability of a
member of the forces, including a final payment referred to in Schedule I;
|
DÉFINITIONS ET INTERPRÉTATION
Définitions
3. (1) Les définitions qui suivent s’appliquent à la présente loi.
…
«invalidité » La perte ou l’amoindrissement de la
faculté de vouloir et de faire normalement des actes d’ordre physique ou
mental.
…
«pension
» Pension payable en vertu de la présente loi en raison du décès ou de
l’invalidité d’un membre des forces, y compris un paiement définitif visé à
l’annexe I.
|
|
POWERS OF THE
MINISTER
Powers
of the Minister
5. (1)
Subject to this Act and any other Act of Parliament and to the regulations
made under this or any other Act of Parliament, the Minister has full power
to decide on all matters and questions relating to the award, increase,
decrease, suspension or cancellation of any pension or other payment under
this Act and to the recovery of any overpayment that may have been made.
Additional
duties
(2) The Governor in Council may, by order, confer on the
Minister duties like those under subsection (1) in respect of pensions or
other payments authorized by any other Act of Parliament or by the Governor
in Council.
Benefit of
doubt
(3) In making a decision under this Act, the Minister
shall
(a)
draw from all the circumstances of the case and all the evidence presented to
the Minister every reasonable inference in favour of the applicant or
pensioner;
(b)
accept any uncontradicted evidence presented to the Minister by the applicant
or pensioner that the Minister considers to be credible in the circumstances;
and
(c)
resolve in favour of the applicant or pensioner any doubt, in the weighing of
evidence, as to whether the applicant or pensioner has established a case.
Decisions shall be made expeditiously
(4) Decisions of the Minister shall be made as informally
and expeditiously as the circumstances and considerations of fairness permit.
…
|
POUVOIRS DU MINISTRE
Ministre
5. (1) Sous réserve des autres dispositions de la présente loi ou de toute
autre loi fédérale ou de leurs règlements, le ministre a tout pouvoir de
décision en ce qui touche l’attribution, l’augmentation, la diminution, la
suspension ou l’annulation de toute pension ou autre paiement prévu par la
présente loi ainsi que le recouvrement de tout versement excédentaire.
Pouvoir équivalent
(2) Le gouverneur en conseil peut, par décret, conférer
au ministre un pouvoir équivalent au sujet des pensions ou autres paiements
autorisés au titre de toute autre loi ou par lui-même.
Décisions
(3) Lorsqu’il prend une décision, le ministre :
a) tire des circonstances portées à sa connaissance et des
éléments de preuve qui lui sont présentés les conclusions les plus favorables
possible au demandeur ou au pensionné;
b) accepte tout élément de preuve non contredit que
celui-ci lui présente et qui lui semble vraisemblable en l’occurrence;
c) tranche en sa faveur toute incertitude quant au
bien-fondé de la demande.
Procédure
(4) Dans la mesure où les circonstances et l’équité le
permettent, le ministre prend ses décisions sans formalisme et en procédure
expéditive.
…
|
|
PART III
PENSIONS
…
Service in militia or reserve army and in peace time
21(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;
…
|
PARTIE III
PENSIONS
…
Milice active non permanente ou armée de
réserve en temps de paix
(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;
…
|
|
Pensions
for Disabilities
Pension in accordance with extent of disability
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.
…
How extent of disability assessed
(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.
|
Pensions pour invalidité
Montant conforme au degré d’invalidité
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.
…
Estimation du degré d’invalidité
(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.
|
Relevant Policy Guidelines
[10]
The
relevant portions of the Veterans Affairs Table of Disabilities, Chapter 09,
Ears and Hearing, are reproduced below.
|
Old
Table of Disabilities (1995 Edition) – Chapter 09
|
|
A disability is established:
- when the Pure
Tone Average (PTA)1 over the 500, 1000, 2000 and 3000 hertz
frequencies is 25 decibels or more for either ear;
or
- when the above
criteria is not met, and there is a loss of 50 decibels or more at the
4000 hertz frequency in both ears.
|
Il y a invalidité :
- lorsque le
seuil d'audition moyen (SAM)1 est de 25 décibels ou plus, aux
fréquences de 500, 1 000, 2 000 et 3 000 hertz, dans l'oreille droite ou
l'oreille gauche;
out
- lorsque le
requérant ne répond pas aux critères précités, et que la perte
d'audition est de 50 décibels ou plus à la fréquence de 4 000 hertz dans
les deux oreilles.
|
|
Noise- induced hearing loss claims under subsection
21( 2) of the Pension Act:
Where there is no audiogram during service
or on release, it should be demonstrated medically that the current loss is,
in fact, a noise- induced one. This determination should be made by a
departmental adjudicator who has examined the result of a current audiometric
test and has been given the factual history of the applicant. The adjudicator
will also consider any other medical evidence on file.
The evidence should show that the loss
arose out of, was directly connected with or was aggravated by service (e. g.
significant service- related noise exposure that seems reasonably to be the
cause of the current disability).
In cases where there is an audiogram on
release and it shows a noise- induced hearing loss, full entitlement may be
considered:
- if there is
evidence of significant service- related noise exposure; and
- there is no
evidence of pre- enlistment hearing loss or of other contributing
factors (e. g. an audiogram showing post- discharge deterioration,
medical opinions to the effect that age or non- service noise exposure
are factors, etc.).
Partial entitlement may be considered if
there is evidence of pre- enlistment hearing loss or of other contributing
factors (e. g. an audiogram showing post- discharge deterioration, medical
opinions to the effect that age or non- service noise exposure are factors,
etc.).
If the audiogram on release from service
does not meet the requirements for hearing loss disability, any hearing loss
demonstrated on subsequent audiograms is not considered due to service-
related noise exposure and therefore, pension entitlement is not normally
awarded.
In any event, each individual case should
be considered on its own merits.
|
Demande de pension pour
surdité attribuable à l'exposition au bruit aux termes du paragraphe 21(2) de
la Loi sur les pensions
Lorsque aucun audiogramme n'a
été passé au cours du service militaire ou au moment de la libération, il
doit être établi médicalement que la surdité est attribuable à l'exposition
au bruit. Seul un arbitre du Ministère qui a examiné le résultat d'un examen
audiométrique récent et qui a considéré les antécédents médicaux du requérant
peut déterminer si tel est le cas. L'arbitre étudiera aussi la preuve
médicale au dossier.
La preuve doit démontrer que la
perte d'audition est attribuable ou liée directement au service ou qu'elle a
été aggravée par l'exposition au bruit pendant le service (p. ex. la preuve
doit établir qu'il y a eu une exposition considérable au bruit durant le
service militaire et que l'on peut conclure que celle-ci est la cause de
l'invalidité actuelle).
Lorsqu'un audiogramme passé au
moment de la libération révèle une perte d'audition due au bruit, on peut
envisager la pleine pension :
- si, selon la
preuve, il y a eu exposition considérable au bruit au cours du service;
- si rien ne
confirme l'existence de la perte d'audition avant l'enrôlement ou d'un
facteur qui en serait la cause (p. ex. un audiogramme démontrant une
détérioration après la libération, des avis médicaux selon lesquels
l'âge ou l'exposition au bruit en dehors du service sont des facteurs,
etc.).
On peut envisager d'accorder une
pension partielle lorsque, d'après la preuve, le requérant souffrait déjà de
surdité avant de s'enrôler et qu'il existe un ou plusieurs facteurs
contributifs (p. ex. un audiogramme démontrant une détérioration après la
libération, des avis médicaux selon lesquels l'âge ou l'exposition au bruit
en dehors du
service sont des facteurs,
etc.).
Si l'audiogramme effectué au
moment de la libération est négatif, toute perte d'ouïe établie par un
audiogramme ultérieur ne peut être imputée à l'exposition au bruit reliée au
service et ne donne habituellement pas droit à une pension.
Chaque cas doit être étudié en
toute objectivité.
|
Analysis
[11]
The issue
before us on this appeal involves a question of law and, more specifically, the
interpretation of the word “disability” in subsection 3(1) of the Pension Act.
[12]
The Pension Act is
the source of law for the award of disability pensions to members of the forces.
Section 2 provides that the Act shall be liberally construed and interpreted.
It recognizes the obligation of the people and Government of Canada to provide
compensation to those members of the forces who have been disabled or have died
as a result of military services and to their dependants. Subsection 5(3)
stipulates the rules of evidence which apply to any decision taken by the
Minister under the Act.
[13]
The term “disability” or “disabilities” appears
in many sections of the Act. Subsection 3(1) defines “disability” as follows:
|
"disability"
means the loss or lessening of the power to will and to do any normal mental
or physical act;
|
«invalidité
» La perte
ou l’amoindrissement de la faculté de vouloir et de faire normalement des
actes d’ordre physique ou mental.
|
|
|
|
[14]
Pursuant to subsection 21(2) of the Act, a
member of the forces is entitled to a pension if it can be shown that the
disability arose out of or was directly connected with military service. Once
the member of the forces has established that the disability arose out of
military service, an assessment of the extent of the disability must then be
made to determine the amount of the disability pension.
[15]
Subsection 35(2) of the Act provides that the
assessment of the extent of a disability must be based on the instructions and
a table of disabilities to be made by the Minister for the guidance of persons
making those assessments. The
Table of Disabilities, Chapter 09 – Ears and Hearing, are guidelines established
by Minister of Veterans Affairs pursuant to subsection 35(2) of the Act. They are provided for the guidance of physicians and surgeons to promote
a uniform standard of assessment: King v. Canada (Attorney General) (2000), 182 F.T.R.
226 at para. 17 (T.D.), aff’d (2000) 261 N.R. 93 (F.C.A.).
[16]
As noted by the applications judge, the VRAB
relied on the guidelines to determine whether the respondent met the definition
of disability in subsection 3(1) of the Act. It considered that its
interpretation of the term “disability” in that subsection was governed by the
Minister’s guidelines on hearing loss as reflected in the Table of
Disabilities.
[17]
The applications judge found that there was an
inconsistency between the definition of “disability” in subsection 3(1) of the
Act and Chapter 09 of the Table of Disabilities:
FCA/CAFIn my view, section 3 of the Pension Act means
that an applicant would have a disability if his or her ability to hear was
lessened or lost. Section 9.01 on the other hand, only permits a disability to
be established if certain levels of hearing loss are established. This is
inconsistent with the definition of disability in the Pension Act which
provides that an applicant has a disability if his or her ability to hear is
lessened.
As noted earlier, when there is a conflict between a
statutory provision (section 3 of the Pension Act) and a provision of
subordinate legislation or policy, the Act prevails. In the present case, the
Minister established the Veterans Affairs Table of Disabilities, Ears and
Hearing, pursuant to section 35 of the Pension Act. Accordingly, the
definition of “disability” contained in section 3 of the Pension Act is the
prevailing definition [paragraphs 34-35].
[18]
As such, the applications judge concluded that
the VRAB made an error of law in failing to apply the definition of
“disability” contained in subsection 3(1) of the Act. He stated the following:
there was clearly an error of law made by the previous
tribunal in regard to the definition of “disability”, the VRAB had the
statutory mandate under section 111 of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act
to determine whether or not it should reconsider the earlier decision. The
VRAB committed a reviewable error by ignoring this error of law in determining
whether or not to reconsider the earlier decision. The VRAB did not dispute
that the applicant did suffer some hearing loss during his military service
which was a least partially caused by noise exposure within that military
service. There is no question that the Minister can establish and use a table
to assess the extent of a disability, but to determine whether or not there is
a disability, section 3 of the Pension Act applies [paragraph 38].
[19]
The applications
judge correctly found that the VRAB committed an error of law by relying on the
provisions of the Table of Disabilities to determine if the respondent had a
disability rather than applying the definition of “disability” contained in subsection
3(1) of the Act.
[20]
On appeal,
the appellant submits that, had the applications judge considered the French
version of the Act together with the English version, he would have come to a
different conclusion. The appellant argues that “[t]he only consistent meaning
in each of the two versions of s. 3 of the Pension Act, requires that
‘disability’ be read to mean that a ‘normal mental or physical act’ is the
ability to hear normally.”
[21]
I note that the
definition of “disability” contained in subsection 3(1) of the Act dates back
to 1920 and that counsel have not drawn to my attention any case where it has
been suggested that there is an inconsistency between the two versions.
[22]
The difference
between the English and French versions is grammatical; the word “normal” in
the English version is used as an adjective whereas the word “normalement” in
the French version is used as an adverb. By focusing on this grammatical
variation, the appellant is attempting to create a conflict between the two versions
in order to narrow the scope of the definition of “disability”. However, in my
view, the variation between the texts makes no practical difference to the
proper interpretation of the term. As the applications judge concluded, “an
applicant would have a disability if his or her ability to hear was lessened or
lost” (paragraph 34).
[23]
Even if there is a
variation between the English and French versions, a purposive interpretation
of the Act would support the applications judge’s conclusion. The proper
approach to statutory construction is to adopt the interpretation that accords
with the true meaning, spirit and intent of the enactment and best ensures the
attainment of its object. In Canada (Attorney General) v. Mossop,
[1993] 1 S.C.R. 554 at 618, the Supreme Court of Canada held that “[i]t is an
established principle of interpretation in Canada that French and English texts
of legislation are deemed to be equally authoritative […] and where there is a
discrepancy between the two, it is the meaning which furthers the purpose of
the legislation which must prevail [….]” See also Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes
Ltd. (Re), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27 at para. 21.
[24]
In this case, section
2, which was added to the Act in the early 1970s, requires that the provisions
of that Act be liberally construed and interpreted to recognize Canada’s obligation to provide compensation to those members of
the forces who have been disabled or have died as a result of military service.
Section 5 of the Act is also aimed at making the application process as
informal and expeditious as possible, requiring the Minister to draw every
reasonable inference in favour of the applicant and to resolve any doubt in
favour of the applicant when weighing the evidence.
[25]
The applications
judge did not err in law in his interpretation of the term “disability” in
section 3 of the Pension Act.
[26]
Accordingly, the appeal
will be dismissed with costs.
"J. Richard"
“I agree
A.M.
Linden J.A.”
“I agree
C. Michael Ryer J.A.”
Email this Content