Date: 20100513
Docket: T-1650-07
Citation: 2010 FC 527
Ottawa, Ontario, May 13,
2010
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice O'Keefe
BETWEEN:
ISAC
SCHENKMAN
Applicant
and
THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
O’KEEFE J.
[1]
This
is an application for judicial review of a decision by a division of Public
Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC). The Superannuation Pension
Transition and Client Services Sector of PWGSC (the Sector) conveyed its
decision in a letter to the applicant dated November 1, 2004, to request
recovery of an overpayment made to the applicant between 1999 and 2002.
[2]
The
applicant seeks:
1. A declaration that
the respondent is not entitled to recover any alleged overpayment of pension monies
from the applicant’s Public Service Superannuation Plan, pursuant to the Public
Service Superannuation Act and its Regulations;
2. An order reimbursing
the applicant for all monies wrongfully deducted from his Public Service
Superannuation pension since January 2005; and
3. Costs.
Background
[3]
The
applicant was an employee of PWGSC in Toronto as an engineer from
1982 until he was terminated in January 1999 for alleged just cause. He began
receiving his pension benefits immediately. The applicant, however, successfully
grieved his termination and in August 2002, was reinstated retroactive to the
date of his termination. The retroactive reinstatement meant that he received
pensionable salary for the period between January 1999 and August 2002.
[4]
On
September 15, 2004, the applicant resigned from the public service. The
regional human resources office immediately advised the applicant of his
pension entitlements, including the effect of his re-employment. The applicant
then applied to the Sector for his pension entitlements.
[5]
By
two letters dated November 1, 2004, the Sector advised him of his general
pension entitlement, once again highlighting the effect his re-employment had
on those entitlements and of the overpayment which occurred during the period
January 1999 to August 2002. The overpayment letter stated in part:
When you became re-employed in the Public
Service in August 2002, you were fully re-instated to your termination date of
January 7, 1999. Therefore, this created an overpayment which must be repaid.
The amount of the overpayment is:
Basic Pension $71,1078.01
[sic]
Supplementary Retirement Benefit $
2,437.00
Total $73,515.01
and can be repaid by one of the following
methods:
1. You can make one lump sum
payment of $73,515.01 payable to the Receiver General for Canada. Send your cheque or money
order to this office.
2. You can have monthly
deductions of $538.71 (PSSA) for life and $47.25 (SRBA) for 57 months with a
final payment of $22.26. These deductions will be effective January 2005.
If we do not hear from you within 30 days
of the date of this letter, we will assume you have chosen Method 2.
[6]
The
applicant did not make an election within 30 days and the Sector began monthly
deductions from his pension beginning January 2005. The applicant took action
with respect to the demand for repayment and challenged the validity of the
alleged overpayment. In June 2005, the applicant commenced an action in this
Court seeking reimbursement of the monies deducted and damages (Docket
T-957-05). That action, through various procedural events, was eventually
converted into the application for judicial review which is now before the
Court challenging the determination of the sector that the applicant had been
overpaid and the decision to seek recovery.
The Factual Dispute
[7]
The
approximate date on which the applicant was made aware of the overpayment,
though not necessarily dispository, is the subject of dispute. The applicant
claims that he was first informed of the overpayment when he received the letter
above, despite the fact that according to the Sector, the overpayment was
triggered and became effective in August of 2002.
[8]
While
the applicant disputes the validity of the alleged overpayment, he also alleges
that PWGSC deliberately refrained from informing him of the overpayment for
over two years for tactical reasons. Through requests for information, the
applicant has collected various internal emails within PWGSC which indicate
that the Sector and PWGSC were both aware of the overpayment and discussed when
the applicant should be informed. No mention of the overpayment was found in
the internal emails of the Sector, which had control over the pension and
superannuation.
[9]
The
respondent agrees that the overpayment was triggered in August 2002, at the
time of the retroactive reinstatement. The respondent, however, highlights the
separation between the Sector, which is responsible for recovering the pension
overpayment, and the PWGSC’s human resources department, which was responsible
for most other aspects of employee compensation. The Sector had no involvement
in any of the applicant’s previous employment proceedings. The respondent
explains that while the Sector may have been aware of the overpayment prior to
November 2004, it was not obliged to recover any overpayment until the
applicant began receiving his pension again.
[10]
The
respondent also alleges that as early as August 2003, in a telephone
conversation, the applicant was advised of the overpayment. He was advised that
while he would be credited with pensionable service for the period January 1999
to August 2002, he would also be required to repay the pension benefits
received during that period.
Issues
[11]
The issues
are as follows:
1. What
is the standard of review?
2. Was
the Sector’s determination that the applicant had been overpaid correct?
3. Was
the Sector’s decision to seek recovery made in a fair manner?
Applicant’s Written Submissions
[12]
The
applicant submits that the decision should be subject to the correctness
standard because the decision was made by an unidentified lower level decision maker
within the Sector who is not conferred any degree of discretion.
[13]
Section
6 of the Public Service Superannuation Regulations, SOR/93-450 (the
Regulations) refers only to the collection of pension amounts paid “in error”.
The applicant submits that clearly the pension payments he received during the
period January 1999 to August 2002 were not made in error, but were his
absolute entitlement as a direct consequence of his age at termination. One can
draw the inference that the authors of the legislation never contemplated a
situation as in the present case, where an individual who had reached
retirement age would be terminated for cause and subsequently reinstated.
[14]
The
applicant also submits that there is no basis in the legislation for the
imposition of life insurance premiums in the monthly deductions.
[15]
The
applicant further argues that he was denied procedural fairness by the decision
of the Sector not to disclose the overpayment to the applicant until after he
had resigned from employment and released all claims against PWGSC.
Respondent’s Written Submissions
[16]
The
respondent agrees that the appropriate standard of review is correctness since
the decision involved the application of mandatory statutory requirements, but
asserts that the decision was correct. The respondent explains that the Public
Service Superannuation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-36 (the PSSA) and the
Regulations expressly mandate both the entitlement to pension benefits and the
recovery of pension overpayments.
[17]
Since
the applicant was reinstated to the date of his termination, sections 27 and 30
of the Regulations deem his employment to have been without interruption during
that period. Section 29 of the PSSA expressly prohibits anyone from receiving
both pension benefits and pensionable salary for the same period by terminating
any pension payments in the event of re-employment. This prohibition is also
consistent with the Income Tax Regulations, C.R.C. c. 945, paragraph
8503(3)(b) says the respondent. Section 6 of the Regulations then directs the
recovery of any pension amounts paid in error and authorizes the process
whereby the payee can elect to repay in a lump sum or by monthly deductions.
[18]
The
respondent submits that the Sector was simply required to recover the
overpayment and did not treat the applicant any differently than any other
employee. His reinstatement meant that his previous entitlement to a pension
was in error. He was not entitled to an annuity for the period January 1999 to
August 2002. He was in fact a contributor during this period.
[19]
In
regards to the applicant’s claim that the Sector deliberately withheld
notification, the respondent says that the timing was simply the result of
statutory requirements. The applicant, who was represented by counsel
throughout the entire labour proceedings, is presumed to know the plain
statutory requirements even though that dispute did not address pension
entitlement. Pursuant to the PSSA, the Sector was not entitled to recover the
overpayments from the applicant’s annuity until that annuity became payable
once again.
Analysis and Decision
[20]
Issue
1
What is the standard of review?
I agree with the parties. The
standard of review for the determination of the overpayment is correctness.
Since the applicant’s only challenge to the validity of the overpayment is a
tentatively raised argument regarding the meaning of the words “in error” in
section 6 of the Regulations, the question before the Court can be
characterized as a question of law, subject to the correctness standard.
Regardless, we are clearly dealing with a question in which the decision maker
cannot be shown deference. The decision was the result of following mandatory
requirements and was simply a determination of verifiable facts and did not
involve any degree of discretion.
[21]
With
regard to the Sector’s decision to seek recovery for the overpayment, the
applicant’s primary argument is that the timing and overall conduct of the
Sector was procedurally unfair. As such, I would review this issue as a matter
of procedural fairness. If the duty of fairness is found to have been breached,
the decision will be vacated (see Richter v. Canada (Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration), 2008 FC 806, [2009] 1 F.C.R. 675, 73 Imm.
L.R. (3d) 131 at paragraph 9, aff’d 2009 FCA 73).
[22]
Issue
2
Was the Sector’s
determination that the applicant had been overpaid correct?
Subsection
6(1) of the Regulations provides:
|
6.(1) Where an amount has been paid in
error under the Act to any person on account of any annuity or annual
allowance, the Minister shall forthwith demand payment from that person of an
amount equal to the amount paid in error.
|
6.(1)
Si, en vertu de la Loi, un montant a été versé par erreur à une personne en
raison d’une pension ou d’une allocation annuelle, le ministre doit,
immédiatement, sommer cette personne de payer un montant égal au montant qui
a été payé par erreur.
|
[23]
The
applicant’s assertion is that the pension annuity payments made to him during
the period January 1999 to August 2002 were not made in error, because the
Sector was obliged to make those payments at the time.
[24]
Essentially,
the applicant is asserting that the determination of whether payments are made
in error for the purposes of section 6, can only be made with reference to the
point in time when the payment was made. I do not find sufficient support for
this somewhat narrow reading.
[25]
The
proper approach to statutory interpretation bears repeating. As formulated by Mr.
Justice Iacobucci in Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd., [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27 at
paragraph 21, who quoted as follows from Elmer Driedger, Construction of
Statutes, 2nd ed. (Markham, Ontario: Butterworths, 1983):
... the words of an Act are to be read in
their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously
with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of
Parliament.
[26]
The
applicable thrust of this oft-cited passage is that when the words of an
enactment are capable of supporting multiple meanings, the meaning most
consistent with the scheme or object of the enactment is the correct meaning.
Therefore, I would turn to other clues within the Regulations and its enabling
statute, the PSSA, which provide insight into the objective of section 6.
[27]
Section
5 of the PSSA governs required employee contributions to the superannuation account
or the Public Service Pension Fund. The section is compressive and detailed but
generally, persons employed full time in the public service for a period of six
months or greater are contributors for the purposes of the PSSA.
[28]
Section
13 governs when benefits become available to contributors with two or more
years of service.
[29]
Section
29 clearly implies a prohibition against receiving a pension benefit and a
pensionable salary for the same period. Such a prohibition accords with common
sense and a fundamental principle of pension schemes generally - periods of
contribution and periods of benefit receipt are to be mutually exclusive. It
would frustrate that purpose if the words of section 6 were read so narrowly as
the applicant suggests.
[30]
The
applicant does not dispute that for the period January 1999 to August 2002 he
received pension benefits and as a result of his retroactive reinstatement,
pensionable salary. In retrospect, since the applicant became re-employed
immediately after his termination in January 1999, his benefits should have
been terminated without delay. Thus, the payments were made in error and the
Sector was correct in determining an overpayment resulted.
[31]
It
does not matter that no mistake was made at the time. In this context, in error
has a significantly broader meaning than by mistake. I would not allow judicial
review on this ground.
[32]
Issue
3
Was the Sector’s decision to
seek recovery made in a fair manner?
The applicant alleges that the
Sector deliberately withheld notice of the overpayment in bad faith. While it
is clear that the Sector does have some degree of discretion regarding when to
notify the payee and demand repayment, the Sector is also restricted by certain
provisions. Indeed, the respondent asserts that the Sector simply followed
these provisions (see subsection 8(9) of the PSSA in the Annex to this
decision).
[33]
Thus,
while the Crown reserves the right to any form of recourse, the Minister is
only given express authorization to recover monies through deductions from
subsequent payments. In the present case, the Sector notified the applicant and
made the demand for repayment as soon as the applicant began receiving
subsequent payments following his resignation in September 2004.
[34]
An
official notification to the applicant of the overpayment and his future
obligations would have been a courtesy, but I have not found any basis for the
legal entitlement to such notification and I am thus not inclined to set aside
the decision for the failure to give one.
[35]
I
would note the overpayment was a simple operation of law that resulted from his
retroactive reinstatement. Everyone is presumed to know the law and that
presumption is stronger in the present case because the applicant was
represented by counsel throughout his labour proceedings and continued to be
represented long after the reinstatement decision (see VR Interactive Corp.
v. Canada (Customs and Revenue Agency), 2005 FC 273, [2005] 2 C.T.C. 78 at
paragraph 15 and Alexis Nakota Sioux Nation v. Canada (Minister of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development), 2006 FC 721, 46 Admin. L.R. (4th) 210 at
paragraph 24).
[36]
As
well, there is some evidence that the applicant’s attention was specifically
drawn to the issue of overpayment. Attached to the affidavit of Karen Trites, a
senior policy advisor at the Sector, was a note taken from a telephone call
from the applicant and a client inquiry officer on September 3, 2003. The note
indicates that the client inquiry officer informed the applicant about the
benefits his re-employment would have on his pension, but also about the
overpayment. The note also indicates that the applicant said he would speak to
his lawyer about the overpayment. I would not allow judicial review on this
ground.
[37]
At
the hearing of this matter, the parties informed me that the life insurance
premiums were deducted in error and that the parties would resolve that issue.
Consequently, this decision and order do not encompass the claim concerning
life insurance.
[38]
The
application for judicial review is therefore dismissed with costs to the
respondent.
JUDGMENT
[39]
IT
IS ORDERED that the application for judicial review is dismissed with costs
to the respondent. This order does not encompass the claim for the return of
the life insurance premiums.
“John
A. O’Keefe”
ANNEX
Relevant Statutory Provisions
Public Service Superannuation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-36
|
5.(1) Subsections (1.1) to (1.4) apply to
persons employed in the public service, other than
(a) [Repealed,
1992, c. 46, s. 2]
(b) an
employee who is engaged for a term of six months or less or a seasonal
employee, unless he or she has been employed in the public service
substantially without interruption for a period of more than six months;
(c) subject to
section 5.2, a person who, immediately before July 4, 1994, was employed in
the public service as a part-time employee within the meaning of this Act as
it read at that time and who has been so employed substantially without
interruption since that time;
(d) an
employee in receipt of a salary computed at an annual rate of less than nine
hundred dollars, except any such employee who was a contributor under Part I
of the Superannuation Act immediately before January 1, 1954 and has been
employed in the public service substantially without interruption since that
time;
(e) persons in
positions, as determined by the Governor in Council with effect from July 11,
1966, in the whole or any portion of any board, commission or corporation
that has its own pension plan while that pension plan is in force;
(f) an
employee on leave of absence from employment outside the public service who,
in respect of his or her current service, continues to contribute to or under
any superannuation or pension fund or plan established for the benefit of
employees of the person from whose employment he or she is absent;
(g) an
employee whose compensation for the performance of the regular duties of his
or her position or office consists of fees of office;
(h) an
employee engaged locally outside Canada; or
(i) a
sessional employee, a postmaster or assistant postmaster in a revenue post
office, a person employed as a clerk of works, a member of the staff of Government
House who is paid by the Governor General from his or her salary or allowance
or an employee of a commission that is appointed under Part I of the
Inquiries Act and added to Part I of Schedule I, unless designated by the
Minister individually or as a member of a class.
(j) [Repealed,
1992, c. 46, s. 2]
(1.1) A person
is required to contribute, in respect of every year in the period beginning
on January 1, 2000 and ending on December 31, 2003, by reservation from
salary or otherwise,
(a) four per
cent of the portion of his or her salary that is less than or equal to the
Year’s Maximum Pensionable Earnings, as that term is defined in subsection
11(3); and
(b) seven and
one-half per cent of the portion of his or her salary that is greater than the
Year’s Maximum Pensionable Earnings.
(1.2) A person
is required to contribute, in respect of every portion of the period
beginning on January 1, 2004, by reservation from salary or otherwise, at the
contribution rates determined by the Treasury Board in respect of that
portion on the recommendation of the Minister.
(1.3) The
contributions shall be made to the Superannuation Account for the period
beginning on January 1, 2000 and ending on March 31, 2000 and shall be made
to the Public Service Pension Fund for the period after that.
(1.4) In
determining the contribution rates for the purposes of subsection (1.2) and
paragraphs (3)(b), (3.1)(b) and (4)(b), the rates must not
(a) exceed by
more than four-tenths of one per cent in respect of any portion of salary,
whether less than, equal to or more than the Year’s Maximum Pensionable
Earnings, the previous rate; and
(b) result in
a total amount of contributions that would exceed forty per cent of the
current service cost for the portion of the period in respect of the benefits
payable under Parts I and III of this Act.
. . .
8.(9) Where
any amount has been paid in error under this Part or Part III on account of
any annuity, annual allowance or supplementary benefit, the Minister may
retain by way of deduction from any subsequent payment of that annuity,
allowance or supplementary benefit, in the manner prescribed by the
regulations, an amount equal to the amount paid in error, without prejudice
to any other recourse available to Her Majesty with respect to the recovery
thereof.
13.(1) The following provisions are
applicable in respect of any contributor who has to the contributor’s credit
two or more years of pensionable service:
(a) if the
contributor ceases to be employed in the public service, having reached sixty
years of age, the contributor is entitled to an immediate annuity;
. . .
29. The
following provisions apply to any person who is entitled, under subsection
12(1) or 13(1) or any regulations made for the purposes of section 24.2, to
an annuity or an annual allowance, or who has been granted, as a contributor
under Part I of the Superannuation Act, any annual allowance or adjusted
annual allowance thereunder:
(a) if that
person is re-employed in the public service and becomes a contributor under
this Part, whatever right or claim that he or she may have to the annuity,
annual allowance or adjusted annual allowance shall be terminated without
delay, but the period of service on which the benefit was based, except any
period specified in clause 6(1)(a)(iii)(C) or (E), may be counted by that
person as pensionable service for the purposes of subsection 6(1), except
that if that person, on ceasing to be so re-employed, exercises his or her
option under this Part in favour of a return of contributions, or is not
entitled under this Part to any benefit other than a return of contributions,
the amount so returned shall not include any amount paid into the
Superannuation Account or the Public Service Pension Fund to his or her
credit at any time before the time when he or she became re-employed, but
whatever right or claim that, but for this paragraph, he or she would have
had to the annuity, annual allowance or adjusted annual allowance on ceasing
to be so re-employed shall then be restored to him or her; and
. . .
|
5.(1)
Les paragraphes (1.1) à (1.4) s’appliquent à toute personne employée dans la
fonction publique, à l’exception :
a) [Abrogé,
1992, ch. 46, art. 2]
b)
d’un employé qui est engagé pour une durée maximale de six mois ou d’un employé
saisonnier, à moins qu’il n’ait été employé dans la fonction publique sans
interruption sensible pendant une période supérieure à six mois;
c)
sous réserve de l’article 5.2, d’un employé à temps partiel travaillant à ce
titre dans la fonction publique la veille du 4 juillet 1994 et dont le
service à ce titre au sens de la présente loi — dans sa version à cette date
— n’a pas été sensiblement interrompu depuis lors;
d)
d’un employé qui touche un traitement calculé d’après un taux annuel
inférieur à neuf cents dollars, à l’exception d’un employé qui était
contributeur selon la partie I de la Loi sur la pension de retraite
immédiatement avant le 1er janvier 1954 et qui a été employé dans la fonction
publique sans interruption sensible depuis cette époque;
e) des
personnes qui occupent des postes, déterminés par le gouverneur en conseil
avec effet à compter du 11 juillet 1966, au sein de quelque office, conseil,
bureau, commission ou personne morale ou de quelque service de ceux-ci, ayant
son propre régime de pension, tant qu’un tel régime de pension est en
vigueur;
f) d’un
employé en congé d’un emploi hors de la fonction publique, qui, à l’égard de
son service courant, continue de contribuer à un fonds ou régime de pension
de retraite ou de pension, ou en vertu d’un tel fonds ou régime, établi au
bénéfice des employés de la personne qui lui a accordé un emploi d’où il est
absent;
g) d’un
employé dont la rémunération pour l’exercice des fonctions régulières de son
poste ou de sa charge consiste en des honoraires;
h) d’un
employé recruté sur place à l’étranger;
i)
d’un employé de session, d’un maître de poste ou d’un maître de poste adjoint
dans un bureau de poste à commission, d’une personne employée en qualité de
conducteur de travaux, d’un membre du personnel de la Résidence du gouverneur
général qui est payé par le gouverneur général sur son traitement ou son
indemnité, d’un employé d’une commission qui est nommée selon la partie I de
la Loi sur les enquêtes et ajoutée à la partie I de l’annexe I, à moins qu’il
ne soit désigné par le ministre, individuellement ou en tant que membre d’une
catégorie.
j)
[Abrogé, 1992, ch. 46, art. 2]
(1.1)
Pour chaque année de la période débutant le 1er janvier 2000 et se terminant
le 31 décembre 2003, la personne est astreinte à payer, à titre de
contribution, par retenue sur son traitement ou d’autre façon:
a)
quatre pour cent de la portion de son traitement qui ne dépasse pas le
maximum des gains annuels ouvrant droit à pension, au sens du paragraphe
11(3);
b)
sept et demi pour cent de la portion de son traitement qui dépasse le maximum
des gains annuels ouvrant droit à pension.
(1.2)
À compter du 1er janvier 2004 et pour toute partie de la période en cause, la
personne est astreinte à payer, par retenue sur son traitement ou d’autre
façon, la contribution calculée selon les taux que le Conseil du Trésor
détermine sur recommandation du ministre.
(1.3)
Les contributions sont versées au compte de pension de retraite en ce qui
touche la période débutant le 1er janvier 2000 et se terminant le 31 mars
2000. Par la suite, elles
sont versées à la Caisse de retraite de la fonction publique.
(1.4)
Pour l’application du paragraphe (1.2) et des alinéas (3)b), (3.1)b) et
(4)b), les taux de contribution ne peuvent :
a) être
supérieurs au taux précédent de plus de quatre dixièmes pour cent, pour toute
portion du traitement, que celle-ci dépasse ou non le maximum des gains
annuels ouvrant droit à pension;
b)
porter le total des contributions à plus de quarante pour cent du coût des
prestations de service courant, pour la période en cause, relativement aux
prestations payables au titre des parties I et III.
. .
.
8. (9)
Lorsqu’un montant à valoir sur une pension, allocation annuelle ou prestation
supplémentaire a été payé par erreur aux termes de la présente partie ou de
la partie III, le ministre peut retenir, par déduction sur les versements
ultérieurs de cette pension, allocation annuelle ou prestation
supplémentaire, de la manière prescrite par les règlements, un montant égal à
celui qui a été payé par erreur, sans préjudice de tout autre recours ouvert
à Sa Majesté quant au recouvrement de ce montant.
13.(1)
Les dispositions suivantes s’appliquent à l’égard d’un contributeur qui
compte à son crédit au moins deux années de service ouvrant droit à pension :
a)
s’il cesse d’être employé dans la fonction publique après avoir atteint l’âge
de soixante ans, il a droit de recevoir une pension immédiate;
. .
.
29.
Les dispositions suivantes s’appliquent à toute personne qui a droit, en
vertu des paragraphes 12(1) ou 13(1) ou des règlements pris en application de
l’article 24.2, à une pension ou à une allocation annuelle, ou qui a obtenu,
en qualité de contributeur selon la partie I de la Loi sur la pension de
retraite, une allocation annuelle ou une allocation annuelle ajustée sous son
régime :
a) lorsqu’elle
est de nouveau employée dans la fonction publique et devient un contributeur
selon la présente partie, tout droit ou titre qu’elle peut avoir à cette
pension, allocation annuelle ou allocation annuelle ajustée, cesse
immédiatement, mais la période de service sur laquelle cette prestation
reposait — à l’exception de toute pareille période mentionnée aux divisions
6(1)a)(iii)(C) ou (E) — peut être comptée par cette personne comme service
ouvrant droit à pension pour l’application du paragraphe 6(1), sauf que, si
cette personne, dès qu’elle cesse d’être ainsi employée de nouveau, exerce
son option en vertu de la présente partie en faveur d’un remboursement de
contributions, ou n’a pas droit, d’après la présente partie, à une prestation
autre qu’un remboursement de contributions, le montant ainsi remboursé ne
peut comprendre aucun montant payé au compte de pension de retraite ou à la
Caisse de retraite de la fonction publique à son crédit en tout temps avant
le moment où elle est devenue ainsi employée de nouveau, mais tout droit ou
titre que, sans le présent alinéa, cette personne aurait eu à la pension,
l’allocation annuelle ou l’allocation annuelle ajustée, en cessant d’être
ainsi employée de nouveau, lui est dès lors rendu;
. . .
|
Public
Service Superannuation Regulations,
SOR/93-450
|
6.(1) Where an
amount has been paid in error under the Act to any person on account of any
annuity or annual allowance, the Minister shall forthwith demand payment from
that person of an amount equal to the amount paid in error.
|
6.(1)
Si, en vertu de la Loi, un montant a été versé par erreur à une personne en
raison d’une pension ou d’une allocation annuelle, le ministre doit,
immédiatement, sommer cette personne de payer un montant égal au montant qui
a été payé par erreur.
|
Email this Content