Date: 20060315
Docket: T-20-05
Citation: 2006 FC
225
Ottawa, Ontario, March 15, 2006
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice O’Keefe
BETWEEN:
LARRY
W. NELSON
Applicant
- and -
THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
O’KEEFE J.
[1]
This
is an application for judicial review of a decision by the Veterans Review and
Appeal Board (the VRAB), dated November 15, 2004, which refused the applicant’s
request for reconsideration of a decision of the former Veterans Appeal Board
(the VAB) of April 20, 1995 that denied the applicant pension disability
benefits under subsection 21(2) of the Pension Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-6
(the Pension Act).
[2]
The
applicant seeks:
1. an order
quashing or setting aside the decision of the VRAB dated November 15, 2004;
2. an order
remitting the matter for reconsideration by a differently constituted panel of
the VRAB; and
3. a
declaration that the Minister’s Table of Disabilities, Chapter 9, Ears and
Hearing, to the extent that it purports to supersede the definition of
“disability” under subsection 3(1) of the Pension Act, is of no force and
effect in respect of the applicant’s application for pension benefits.
Background
[3]
Larry
Nelson (the applicant) was born on July 6, 1950. He 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 applicant worked in the infantry
for several years and drove an armoured personnel carrier.
[4]
Prior
to joining the armed forces, the applicant 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 applicant had some
high frequency hearing loss in his left ear. The applicant 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.
[5]
The
applicant’s hearing continued to worsen after his discharge and in 1991, he was
diagnosed with bilateral moderately severe high frequency sensorineural hearing
loss. The applicant 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 because the applicant’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.
[6]
The
applicant appealed this decision to the Entitlement Board, which denied the
appeal on February 28, 1994. The applicant then appealed that decision to the
VAB, which also denied the appeal, on April 20, 1995.
[7]
Meanwhile,
the applicant continued to consult with doctors. As a result of audiometry
tests performed by Dr. R.B. Stillwater, a specialist in otolaryngology in Winnipeg, Manitoba, and the
medical opinions received from him and other doctors regarding the cause of the
applicant’s hearing loss, the applicant contacted Veterans Affairs in January
1997 to determine if his application for a hearing loss disability pension
could be reopened. In January 1998, Veterans Affairs responded unfavourably to
his request.
[8]
After
sporadic telephone contact between the applicant and Veterans Affairs, the
applicant’s case was eventually assigned to a Veterans Affairs area advocate in
March 2003, who invited the applicant to submit new evidence. The applicant
accordingly submitted letters and reports from his doctors. They suggested that
the applicant’s hearing loss at the time of his discharge, and the subsequent
deterioration in his hearing after his discharge, were likely caused by
excessive noise exposure during his years of military service.
[9]
On
August 31, 2004, an area advocate filed a request for reconsideration of the applicant’s
pension application. By letter dated November 15, 2004, the VRAB denied the
request for reconsideration. This is the judicial review of that decision.
Reasons for
the VRAB’s Decision
[10]
The
applicant submitted various letters and medical reports from Dr. Kerr Graham,
Dr. R.B. Stillwater, and Dr. R.K. Watson, prepared on various dates between
1994 and 2003. The VRAB found that these letters and reports were credible, but
they were nonetheless inadmissible as new evidence under the criteria
enunciated in Mackay v. Canada (Attorney General) (1997), 129
F.T.R. 286 at paragraph 26 (T.D.). That case held that the criteria for
admissibility of new evidence are: (1) the evidence should generally not be
admitted if it could have been adduced earlier by due diligence; (2) the
evidence must be relevant in the sense that it bears upon a decisive or
potentially decisive issue in the trial; (3) the evidence must be credible in the
sense that it is reasonably capable of belief; and (4) the evidence must be
such that if believed it could reasonably, when taken with other evidence
adduced at trial, be expected to have affected the result. The VRAB found that
the proffered evidence did not satisfy the second and fourth criteria.
[11]
In
particular, the VRAB found that the evidence did not address the relevant issue
in this case, namely, that the applicant did not have the disability level
hearing loss at the time of his discharge from the armed forces. The VRAB
stated:
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 [Chapter 9 of the Table of Disabilities]
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.
Given that situation, the
information you offer as new evidence could not, when taken with other
evidence adduced earlier, be expected to affect the result.
[12]
The VRAB
consequently refused to admit the applicant’s new evidence and denied the
applicant’s request for reconsideration.
Issues
[13]
The
applicant raised these issues in his memorandum:
1. Did
the VRAB err in law by allowing the Minister’s Table of Disabilities, Chapter 9
to supersede the definition of “disability” found in subsection 3(1) of the
Pension Act?
2. Did the VRAB
act without jurisdiction or refuse to exercise its jurisdiction in finding that
the applicant did not have a “disability” as defined under subsection 3(1) of
the Pension Act?
3. Did the VRAB
act without jurisdiction or refuse to exercise its jurisdiction by denying the
applicant a hearing loss disability pension in view of all the medical evidence
and medical opinions?
4. Did the VRAB
err in law by failing to overturn the decisions of the Entitlement Board issued
February 28, 1994 and the VAB issued April 20, 1995, denying the applicant a
hearing loss disability pension?
[14]
The
respondent submitted that the issues raised by the applicant are more properly
stated in the context of this Court’s ability to review the VRAB’s decision of
November 15, 2004. Pursuant to section 111 of the Veterans Review and Appeal
Board Act, S.C. 1995, c. 18 (the Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act),
which is reproduced below, the VRAB has the discretion to reconsider a decision
of the VAB if (1) an error was made with respect to any finding of fact or the
interpretation of any law in the decision, or (2) new evidence is presented by
the applicant. Accordingly, the respondent restated the issues as follows:
1. Did the VRAB
err in failing to reconsider the VAB decision of April 20, 1995 for errors of
law or errors of fact?
2. Did the VRAB
err in refusing to admit the new evidence submitted by the applicant for
reconsideration?
Applicant’s
Submissions
[15]
The
applicant submitted that the statutory interpretation of what constitutes a
“disability” is a pure question of law and therefore the standard of review for
the decision of the VRAB is correctness.
[16]
The
applicant referred to various provisions of the Pension Act including
section 3, which defines a “disability” to mean “the loss or lessening of the
power to will and to do any normal, mental or physical act.” Subsection 21(2)
provides that an individual is entitled to a disability pension if it can be
shown that the disability arose out of or was directly connected with military
service.
[17]
The
applicant also referred to subsection 35(2) of the Pension Act which
provides that “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”. The applicant submitted that the
purpose of this provision is to provide a mechanism for quantifying the extent
of a disability to promote a uniform standard of assessment (see King v.
Canada (Attorney
General)
(2000), 182 F.T.R. 226 at paragraph 17 (T.D.)). The applicant submitted that
rather than using the Minister’s Table of Disabilities to quantify the extent
of a disability, the VRAB effectively allowed the Table of Disabilities to
supersede the definition of “disability” found in section 3 of the Pension Act.
The applicant submitted that this is a reviewable error.
[18]
The
applicant submitted that where a conflict or inconsistency exists between
statutory and subordinate provisions, the statutory provision must prevail (see
Friends of the Oldman River Society v. Canada (Minister of
Transport),
[1992] 1 S.C.R. 3 at paragraph 42). It was therefore submitted that the Pension
Act must prevail over the Table of Disabilities in cases of conflict.
[19]
The
applicant submitted that section 39 of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act
mandates that a claimant is to be provided with the benefit of any
reasonable doubt (see Metcalfe v. Canada (Attorney General)
(1999), 160 F.T.R. 281 at paragraph 17 (T.D.)). This means that if the evidence
is uncontradicted and is considered credible, the VRAB must accept it (see Martel
v. Canada (Attorney
General),
2004 FC 1287 at paragraph 41). The applicant submitted that in the present
case, all of the medical evidence supported his contention that his hearing
loss resulted from excessive exposure to loud noises during his years of
military service, and no evidence was tendered with the VRAB to contradict this
contention. The applicant submitted, therefore, that the VRAB committed a
jurisdictional error when it failed to draw from the evidence every reasonable
inference in favour of the applicant and failed to accept the uncontradicted
medical evidence presented to it.
Respondent’s
Submissions
[20]
The
respondent submitted that the Pension Act and Table of Disabilities,
taken together, set out a generalized definition of a disability, the statutory
mandate to create guidelines for determining the extent of disabilities, and
objective criteria for that purpose. The respondent submitted that the hearing
loss provisions in the Table of Disabilities can be read such that there is no
conflict with its parent legislation. The respondent submitted that the Federal
Court has previously found that the VRAB’s reliance on the Table of
Disabilities does not fetter the VRAB’s discretion, as the Table of
Disabilities are specifically authorized by legislation, namely subsection
35(2) of the Pension Act (see Gavin v. Canada (Attorney General)
(1999), 170 F.T.R. 304 at paragraph 8 (T.D.)).
[21]
The
respondent submitted that the standard of patent unreasonableness is applicable
to decisions of the VRAB involving the interpretation of medical evidence (see Caswell
v. Canada (Attorney
General), 2004
FC 1364 at paragraph 17). The respondent submitted that the central and
determinative piece of evidence before the VAB was an undated audiogram, taken
at the time of the applicant’s discharge in 1978, which showed a hearing loss
of insufficient severity to constitute a disability. The respondent submitted
that this evidence plainly contradicted all the subsequent medical evidence,
and thus, the VRAB was entitled to reject the applicant’s evidence (see Caswell
at paragraph 26).
[22]
The
respondent submitted that it was because of this 1978 audiogram that the VAB
concluded that there was no causal link between the applicant’s service and his
hearing loss. The respondent submitted that the new evidence did not address
the 1978 audiogram, and thus the applicant did not establish that his new
evidence was relevant and capable of affecting the result.
[23]
The
respondent submitted that the conclusions drawn by the VAB on April 20, 1995,
and the VRAB on November 15, 2004, were clearly supported by the evidence
before it and the applicant’s evidence was incapable of rebutting the evidence
of the prior hearing test and establishing a link between the applicant’s
service and his hearing loss. On this basis, the respondent submitted that the
VRAB was entitled to reject the applicant’s evidence, and the decision to do so
cannot be said to be patently unreasonable.
Relevant Statutory Provisions
[24]
The
relevant provisions of the Pension Act are set out below.
|
3. (1) In this
Act,
. . .
"award"
means a pension, compensation, an allowance or a bonus payable under 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;
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;
. . .
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.
(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.
|
|
3.
(1) Les définitions qui suivent s'appliquent à la présente loi.
. .
.
«compensation»
Pension, indemnité, allocation ou boni payable en vertu de 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.
21.(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;
. .
.
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.
(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.
|
[25]
Section
18 of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act gives the VRAB “full and
exclusive jurisdiction to hear, determine and deal with all applications for
review that may be made to the [VRAB] under the Pension Act”. That Act also has
a privative clause in section 31, which states that a “decision of the majority
of members of an appeal panel is a decision of the [VRAB] and is final and
binding”.
[26]
Section
111 of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act provides the VRAB with the
discretion to reconsider decisions of the former VAB and other predecessor bodies
in certain circumstances. It reads:
|
111. The
Veterans Review and Appeal Board may, on its own motion, reconsider any
decision of the Veterans Appeal Board, the Pension Review Board, the War
Veterans Allowance Board, or an Assessment Board or an Entitlement Board as
defined in section 79 of the Pension Act, 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, in
the case of any decision of the Veterans Appeal Board, the Pension Review
Board or the War Veterans Allowance Board, do so on application if new
evidence is presented to it.
|
|
111.
Le Tribunal des anciens combattants (révision et appel) est habilité à
réexaminer toute décision du Tribunal d'appel des anciens combattants, du
Conseil de révision des pensions, de la Commission des allocations aux
anciens combattants ou d'un comité d'évaluation ou d'examen, au sens de
l'article 79 de la Loi sur les pensions, et soit à la confirmer, soit à
l'annuler ou à la modifier comme s'il avait lui-même rendu la décision en
cause s'il constate que les conclusions sur les faits ou l'interprétation du
droit étaient erronées; s'agissant d'une décision du Tribunal d'appel, du
Conseil ou de la Commission, il peut aussi le faire sur demande si de
nouveaux éléments de preuve lui sont présentés.
|
[27]
In addition, the VRAB is governed by the following provisions under the Veterans
Review and Appeal Board Act:
|
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.
38. (1) The
Board may obtain independent medical advice for the purposes of any
proceeding under this Act and may require an applicant or appellant to undergo
any medical examination that the Board may direct.
(2) Before
accepting as evidence any medical advice or report on an examination obtained
pursuant to subsection (1), the Board shall notify the applicant or appellant
of its intention to do so and give them an opportunity to present argument on
the issue.
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.
38.
(1) Pour toute demande de révision ou tout appel interjeté devant lui, le
Tribunal peut requérir l'avis d'un expert médical indépendant et soumettre le
demandeur ou l'appelant à des examens médicaux spécifiques.
(2)
Avant de recevoir en preuve l'avis ou les rapports d'examens obtenus en vertu
du paragraphe (1), il informe le demandeur ou l'appelant, selon le cas, de
son intention et lui accorde la possibilité de faire valoir ses arguments.
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.
|
Relevant Policy Guidelines
[28]
As the respondent relied on
policy guidelines in justifying its decision, I shall reproduce the relevant
portions from the Veterans Affairs Table of Disabilities, Chapter 9, Ears and
Hearing:
|
9.01 -
Hearing loss Entitlement
General
A clinical
audiologist's diagnosis or opinion concerning the type of hearing loss (e. g.
noise- induced, presbycusis, conductive, etc.) will be considered by departmental
adjudicators. The Department will not consider a diagnosis or opinion
proclaimed by any one other than a physician or clinical audiologist.
For
sensorineural hearing loss claims, in making the determination that the
pattern of hearing loss is noise- induced, adjudicators will consider decibel
losses at all frequencies, including the 4000, 6000 and 8000 hertz
frequencies.
A disability
is established:
(i) 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
(ii) 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.
Once a
disability is established, the type of hearing loss and its relationship to service
must be determined.
Generally,
entitlement will be awarded for bilateral hearing loss unless there is
compelling evidence of disability in one ear only that is attributable or
directly connected to service.
. . .
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:
(i) if there
is evidence of significant service- related noise exposure; and
(ii) 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.
|
|
9.01
- Hypoacousie admissibilité
Généralités
Les
arbitres du Ministère tiendront compte du diagnostic ou de l'opinion d'un
audiologiste clinique concernant le type d'hypoacousie (p. ex. causée par le
bruit, presbyacousie ou de transmission). Il ne sera pas tenu compte d'un diagnostic
ou d'une opinion prononcé par toute personne autre qu'un médecin ou un
audiologiste clinique.
Dans
le cas des demandes à l'égard de la surdité de perception, les arbitres
tiendront compte de la perte de décibels à toutes les fréquences, y compris
celles de 4 000, 6 000 et 8 000 hertz pour déterminer si l'hypoacousie est
attribuable au bruit.
Il
y a invalidité:
i.
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
ii.
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.
Une
fois l'invalidité établie, il faut déterminer le type d'hypoacousie et s'il
est imputable au service.
En
général, une pension est accordée pour une perte d'audition bilatérale, à
moins que des preuves concluantes démontrent que l'hypoacousie n'affecte
qu'une oreille et qu'elle est attribuable ou directement liée au service.
. .
.
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:
i.
si, selon la preuve, il y a eu exposition considérable au bruit au cours du
service;
ii.
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 and Decision
[29]
I propose to consider the
following issue:
Did the VRAB err in refusing to reconsider
the previous decision of the VAB?
[30]
At the hearing, it became clear
that the major question to be determined was how it was to be determined
whether a person had a disability. Was it pursuant to the definition of
disability contained in section 3 of the Pension Act, or by using the
Veterans Affairs Table of Disabilities, Chapter 9, Ears and Hearing? This table
was made by the Minister pursuant to subsection 35(2) of the Pension Act.
[31]
It is accepted law
that the provisions of an enactment cannot be changed by a regulation or
policy. Justice La Forest stated in Friends of the Oldman River
Society at paragraph 42:
. . . Just as subordinate legislation
cannot conflict with its parent legislation so too it cannot conflict with its
parent legislation unless a statute so authorizes. Ordinarily, then, an act of Parliament
must prevail over inconsistent or conflicting subordinate legislation . . .
[32]
In the present case, section 3 of the Pension Act contains the
following definition of “disability”:
“disability” means the loss or lessening
of the power to will and to do any normal mental or physical act.
[33]
Section 9.01 of the Veterans Affairs Table of Disabilities, Chapter 9,
Ears and Hearing states in part:
A disability is established:
(i) 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
(ii) 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.
[34]
In 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.
[35]
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.
[36]
In its decision, the VRAB stated in part:
. . . 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 [Chapter 9 of the Table of Disabilities]
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.
Given that situation, the information you
offer as new evidence could not, when taken with other evidence adduced
earlier, be expected to affect the result.
[37]
It is obvious from the VRAB’s decision that it followed section 9.01 of
the Table in order to determine whether the applicant had a disability. It did
not apply the definition of “disability” contained in section 3 of the Pension
Act. The VRAB made an error of law in failing to apply the definition of
“disability” contained in section 3 of the Pension Act.
[38]
As 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 at 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.
[39]
The applicant’s application to set aside the decision of the VRAB is
granted and the matter is referred to a new panel of the VRAB for
redetermination.
[40]
The applicant shall have his costs of the application.
ORDER
[41]
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The
decision of the VRAB dated November 15, 2004 is set aside and the matter is
referred to a different panel of the VRAB for redetermination.
2. The
applicant shall have his costs of the application.
“John
A. O’Keefe”
Email this Content