Ramos v. Canada (Human Resources Development), 2007 FCA 98

Date: 20070308

Docket: A-355-05

Citation: 2007 FCA 98

CORAM:       LÉTOURNEAU J.A.

                        EVANS J.A.              

                        PELLETIER J.A.

BETWEEN:

VIRGILIO C. RAMOS

Applicant

and

MINISTER OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

(formerly Minister of Human Resources Development)

Respondent

Heard at Winnipeg, Manitoba, on March 1, 2007.

Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on March 8, 2007.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:                                                                   LÉTOURNEAU J.A.

CONCURRED IN BY:                                                                                                   EVANS J.A.

                                                                                                                                PELLETIER J.A.

Date: 20070308

Docket: A-355-05

Citation: 2007 FCA 98

CORAM:       LÉTOURNEAU J.A.

                        EVANS J.A.              

                        PELLETIER J.A.

BETWEEN:

VIRGILIO C. RAMOS

Applicant

and

MINISTER OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

(formerly Minister of Human Resources Development)

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

LÉTOURNEAU J.A.

[1]               This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Pension Appeals Board (Board). The Board found that the applicant was not “so disabled as to prevent him from regularly pursuing any substantial gainful employment”: see Appeal Book, page 292, paragraph 24 of the reasons for judgment.

[2]               Mr. Ramos, who is originally from the Philippines, has been representing himself throughout the proceedings. At the hearing before us, Mr. Ramos’ son translated his father’s submissions into English. We conveyed our gratitude to him for his assistance. Mr. Ramos speaks English, but felt more comfortable expressing himself through his son.

[3]               I explained to the applicant what his role and obligations were before us if he wanted this Court to intervene and set aside the decision of the Board. He would have to show that the Board erred in fact or in law so that our intervention would be warranted. I also explained to the applicant that our role was limited in that, barring exceptions not applicable in the present case, we could not go beyond the record that was before us. In addition, upon review of the record for errors, we could not substitute our views on the strength of the evidence for that of the Board. In other words, we cannot re-weigh the evidence in a manner more favourable to the applicant’s position: see Osborne v. Canada (Attorney General), 2005 FCA 412. It is pursuant to these explanations that we refused the applicant the right to introduce evidence that was not before the Board.

[4]               The applicant asked this Court to review the entire file. Although what is before us is the decision of the Board, I reviewed the record to ensure that nothing of relevance and importance was overlooked or inadvertently omitted.

[5]               I am satisfied that the Board reviewed the relevant evidence, including evidence that was somewhat favourable to the appellant. Such evidence is found at page 167 of the respondent’s record and consists in a report of Dr. Rahman dated January 30, 2001. (There is a mistake as to the date of the signature of the report. The month (01) was inverted for (10). It is clear, however, from the questions answered as to the time and end of treatment that the consultation took place in January 2001: see pages 167, item 1 and page 170 under item signature). The Board acknowledges that evidence in paragraph 18 of its reasons for judgment.

[6]               The Board carefully reviewed all the evidence that was submitted to it. It then considered the law applicable to the applicant’s case, as interpreted by the courts. Although its analysis of that evidence and its application of the law to it are sketchy, I cannot find errors that, at law, would justify our intervention. The evidence was for the Board to assess and I am satisfied that the overwhelming weight of that evidence supports the conclusions of the Board.

[7]               For the sake of completeness, I should add that the burden was on the applicant to prove that he was suffering from a medical condition which disabled him from pursuing any substantial gainful employment: see Dossa v. Canada (Pension Appeals Board), 2005 FCA 387, leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada refused, April 6, 2006, No. 31299.

[8]               In addition, the determination as to the severity of an applicant’s disability is a question of mixed fact and law that can be reviewed on a standard of patent unreasonableness: see Spears v. Canada, 2004 FCA 193.

[9]               For these reasons, I would dismiss the application for judicial review without costs, as requested by the respondent.

“Gilles Létourneau”

“I agree

            John M. Evans J.A.”

“I agree

            J.D. Denis Pelletier J.A.”

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                                                      A-355-05

STYLE OF CAUSE:                                      VIRGILIO C. RAMOS V. MINISTER OF

                                                                        SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT (formerly Minister

                                                                        of Human Resources Development)

PLACE OF HEARING:                                Winnipeg, Manitoba

DATE OF HEARING:                                  March 1, 2007

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:             LÉTOURNEAU J.A.

CONCURRED IN BY:                                 EVANS J.A.

                                                                        PELLETIER J.A.

DATED:                                                         March 8, 2007

APPEARANCES:

SOLICITORS OF RECORD: