Hepplewhite v. Hepplewhite, 2005 FCA 179

Date: 20050512

Docket: A-507-03

Citation: 2005 FCA 179

CORAM:        NOËL J.A.

NADON J.A.

MALONE J.A.

BETWEEN:

                                                      DARLENE HEPPLEWHITE

                                                                                                                                            Applicant

                                                                           and

                                                     ROGER HEPPLEWHITE and

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

                                                                                                                                      Respondents

          Heard at Vancouver, British Columbia, on May 12, 2005.

             Judgment delivered from the Bench at Vancouver, British Columbia, on May 12, 2005.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY:                                                      NOËL J.A.

Date: 20050512

Docket: A-507-03

Citation: 2005 FCA 179

CORAM:        NOËL J.A.

NADON J.A.

MALONE J.A.

BETWEEN:

                                                      DARLENE HEPPLEWHITE

                                                                                                                                            Applicant

                                                                           and

                                                     ROGER HEPPLEWHITE and

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

                                                                                                                                      Respondents

                                     REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

              (Delivered from the Bench at Vancouver, British Columbia, on May 12, 2005)

NOËL J.A.

[1]                This application for judicial review concerns a decision of the Pension Appeals Board (the "Board") dated September 18, 2003 ((2003), C.E.B. & P.G.R. 8817 (Can. Pen. Apps. Bd.)) which held that the applicant and Mr. Hepplewhite did not cohabit during the period from 1980 to 1990.

[2]                The applicant submits that the Board could not reasonably conclude on the facts before it that she and Mr. Hepplewhite did not cohabit during that period.

[3]                Whether the test on judicial review is unreasonableness or patent unreasonableness, as seems to be conceded, we are of the view that it was open to the Board to conclude that the parties did not cohabit.

[4]                The application for judicial review will accordingly be dismissed. As no costs were sought, none are awarded.

"Marc Noël"