Date: 20060619
Docket: A-341-05
Citation: 2006 FCA 231
CORAM: NOËL J.A.
NADON J.A.
SEXTON J.A.
BETWEEN:
WILLIAM HUTCHINSON
Applicant
and
MINISTER OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
Respondent
Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on June 19, 2006.
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on June 19, 2006.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: NADON J.A.
Date: 20060619
Docket: A-341-05
Citation: 2006 FCA 231
CORAM: NOËL J.A.
NADON J.A.
SEXTON J.A.
BETWEEN:
WILLIAM HUTCHINSON
Applicant
and
MINISTER OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on June 19, 2006)
NADON J.A.
[1] The applicant, who claims that he cannot work because he suffers from Chronic Obstruction Pulmonary Disease ("COPD") and hence that he is entitled to a disability pension, seeks to set aside a decision of a Pension Appeals Board ("the Board") dated June 28, 2005 which dismissed his appeal from a decision of the Review Tribunal dated October 27, 2003 denying his claim to a disability pension.
[2] We have not been persuaded that there is any basis to interfere with the Board's decision.
[3] In dismissing the applicant's appeal the Board found that he was capable, on or before December 31, 1993 of pursuing a gainful occupation suitable to his skills and limitations and that consequently, he was not suffering from a "severe" and "prolonged" disability within the meaning of section 42 of the Canada Pension Plan. More particularly, the Board concluded that there was insufficient evidence before it to support the applicant's contention that he was suffering from COPD.
[4] In concluding as it did, there can be no doubt that the Board carefully considered all of the evidence and in particular the evidence of Doctors' Gill and Renaud. Having reviewed all of the evidence, the Board held that the applicant suffered from a long standing history of asthma which could progress to COPD if not properly treated. In that regard, the Board noted that "Medical evidence supporting the serious condition of COPD is very skimpy". (Paragraph 26 of the Board's reasons).
[5] In the end, we are unable to conclude that the Board made any error of law, that it misapprehended the evidence or that it failed to consider relevant evidence.
[6] One last point. Mr. Campbell, who represented the applicant before us, argued that the applicant had been caught off guard when the qualifying period was moved from December 31, 1988 to December 31, 1993. As a result, Mr. Campbell says that the applicant did not have sufficient time to produce evidence of his medical condition for the period of December 31, 1988 to December 31, 1993.
[7] We see no merit in this submission, and point out that Mr. Campbell conceded that although the Board had given the applicant the opportunity of an adjournment so as to allow him additional time to gather the evidence which he said he required, he had refused the Board's offer.
[8] For these reasons, the application for judicial review will be dismissed.
"M. Nadon"
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-341-05
STYLE OF CAUSE: WILLIAM HUTCHINSON v. MINISTER OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, ON
DATE OF HEARING: June 19, 2006
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
OF THE COURT BY: (NOËL, NADON & SEXTON J.J. A.)
DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH: NADON J.A.
APPEARANCES:
| Joseph Campbell
|
For the Applicant
|
|
Rose-Gabrielle Birba
|
For the Respondent
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
| William Hutchinson
Walkerton, ON
|
For the Applicant
|
| John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
|
For the Respondent
|
Email this Content