Date: 20030123
Docket: A-117-02
Neutral citation: 2003 FCA 34
CORAM: STRAYER J.A.
SEXTON J.A.
EVANS J.A.
BETWEEN:
MINISTER OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Applicant
and
JUDITH A SCOTT
Respondent
Heard at Halifax, Nova Scotia on, Monday, December 16, 2002
JUDGMENT delivered at Ottawa, on Thursday, January 23, 2003
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: STRAYER J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: SEXTON J.A.
EVANS J.A.
Date: 20030123
Docket: A-117-02
Neutral citation: 2003 FCA 34
CORAM: STRAYER J.A.
SEXTON J.A.
EVANS J.A.
BETWEEN:
MINISTER OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Applicant
and
JUDITH A. SCOTT
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
STRAYER J.A.
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Pension Appeals Board. That decision reversed the decision of a Review Tribunal under the Canada Pension Plan ("CPP") which had held that the respondent was not eligible for disability benefits. By paragraph 42(2)(a) of the CPP a person is considered disabled only if he or she has a "severe" and "prolonged" mental or physical disability. That paragraph goes on to define "severe" to require that the claimant "is incapable regularly of pursuing any substantially gainful occupation". The Tribunal was not satisfied that the respondent met that test.
[2] On appeal to the Pension Appeals Board from the Tribunal, the Board had before it evidence to indicate that the respondent had had a drinking problem which she overcame. She then worked at Canada Post for 15 years and took voluntary retirement there in 1995, receiving $318 per month by way of pension. She applied in February, 1998 for a disability allowance and the latest date at which she had to establish disability was December 31, 1997.
[3] The Board had before it a medical report from her family doctor, Dr. Crooks, dated October 12, 1997 which noted that she had a long history of depression but that she "appears euthymic at present". He noted that she was currently not taking any medication and "her mood appears normal now but prognosis for recurrence is guarded". There was also a letter dated September 9, 1997 to Dr. Crooks from a psychiatrist, Dr. Rosenberg, who had been treating the respondent since October 17, 1980. He reported that his last contact with her was on February 5, 1997. He noted that while not working (i.e. not employed) she was "working around the house", and that her "sleep was restful, with good energy and motivation, good concentration and memory, and good appetite". The Board also had before it a letter of January 19, 1999 from Dr. Crooks saying that he had not seen this patient since August, 1998. He noted that she did have recurrent episodes of depression but was stable when last seen. He concluded as follows:
There has been no significant change in this patient's condition in the past few years. She is certainly capable of performing some types of work but would not be fit for labor intensive work and would not do well in stressful circumstances.
[4] The Board also heard the evidence of Dr. Robert Rowan, a medical advisor to the applicant. He testified that having reviewed the file including the medical opinions he could find no medical information that would lead him to conclude that, as of the relevant date, December 31, 1997, the respondent suffered from a mental condition that prevented her from working.
[5] The Board also had evidence that she had had some short-term employment prior to the end of December, 1997, and that more recently the respondent has become engaged in looking after the rental of apartments in an apartment building. In return for the work she does in respect of the apartments she is provided with a rent-free apartment in the building. Before us the respondent confirmed that she had been engaged in this work since May, 2001 and, as of December 16, 2002, was still so engaged.
[6] The Pension Appeals Board after reviewing this evidence stated as follows:
Under these circumstances I consider the appellant incapable of regular employment referred to in the statute and that her appeal should be allowed. The date of onset of the disability is the end of 1995. The appellant is therefore entitled to receive disability benefits in accordance with paragraph 42(2)(b).
[7] With respect I believe that the Board made an error of law in stating the test as being whether the appellant is "incapable of regular employment". The standard of review on this issue is correctness. As noted above, the test of whether a disability is "severe", the issue here, is stated by the statute to be whether that person "is incapable regularly of pursuing any substantially gainful occupation . . . ." It is the incapacity, not the employment, which must be "regular" and the employment can be "any substantially gainful occupation". In my view the words employed by the Board set the test for a qualifying disability at too low a threshold and were an incorrect interpretation of the statutory requirements.
[8] Additionally, in my view the Board based its decision on an erroneous finding of fact made without regard for the material before it, a ground for judicial review under paragraph 18.1(4)(d) of the Federal Court Act which provides a statutory standard of review generally equivalent to "patent unreasonableness". The Board had before it uncontradicted evidence from three physicians, none of whom could confirm that she was incapable of any substantially gainful occupation as of December, 1997. Further, the Board had evidence before it that, consistently with the opinions of the doctors, she has been able to work in the renting of apartments and obtains part of her livelihood, that is her accommodation, in return, a form of "substantially gainful occupation". It appears not to have had regard to this evidence.
[9] For those reasons, I would grant the application for judicial review, set aside the decision of the Pension Appeals Board of October 17, 2001, restore the decision of the Review Tribunal and remit the matter to the Board, differently constituted, for a rehearing consistent with these reasons.
(s) "B.L. Strayer"
J.A.
I agree
"J. Edgar Sexton"
I agree
"John M. Evans"
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-117-02
STYLE OF CAUSE: MINISTER OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT v. JUDITH A. SCOTT
PLACE OF HEARING: HALIFAX, NOVA SCOTIA
DATE OF HEARING: DECEMBER 16, 2002
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: STRAYER J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: SEXTON J.A.
EVANS J.A.
DATED: January 23, 2003
APPEARANCES:
FLORENCE CLANCY FOR THE APPLICANT
JUDITH A. SCOTT FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
MORRIS ROSENBERG
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA FOR THE APPLICANT
Email this Content