Docket: T-1119-24
Citation: 2025 FC 579
Toronto, Ontario, March 31, 2025
PRESENT: Madam Justice Whyte Nowak
|
BETWEEN: |
|
CONNOR ALEXANDER MACLEOD |
|
Applicant |
|
and |
|
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA |
|
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
I. Overview
[1] The Applicant, Connor Alexander MacLeod [Applicant] (whose preferred pronoun is “they”
), applied for the Severe Permanent Disability Benefit [SPDB] under the Canada Student Financial Assistance Program and Ontario Student Assistance Program [the SPDB Application]. By letter dated April 17, 2023 [Decision], the Applicant was approved for the SPDB by Employment and Social Development Canada [the Minister]. This had two effects: the Applicant’s student loan repayment obligations were cancelled, and pursuant to the terms of the SPDB, the Applicant became ineligible for further Ontario student loans or grant funding through the Ontario Student Assistance Program [OSAP].
[2] The Applicant wishes to restore their eligibility for federal student loan financial assistance, and having failed to have the Decision revoked by way of requests for redetermination [Redetermination Requests], the Applicant now seeks judicial review of the Decision arguing that the Decision is unreasonable, including on the basis of information the Applicant chose not to disclose in their SPDB Application.
[3] This application for judicial review was filed a full year after the Applicant received the Decision, and they have not sought an extension of time to bring it. While I am sympathetic to challenges faced by self-represented litigants like the Applicant, the Federal Court has repeatedly held that there is one set of rules, and they apply equally to self-represented and represented litigants alike.
[4] For the reasons that follow, I am dismissing this application as I find that the Applicant has not shown that granting them an extension of time is in the interests of justice as there is no merit to the application.
II. Preliminary Issues
[5] The Respondent raises three preliminary issues.
A. The Applicant has not sought an extension of time
[6] First, the Respondent notes that the Applicant has brought this application nearly a full year after the 30-day timeline under the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106 to file a notice of application for judicial review and has not sought an extension of time.
[7] I agree with the Respondent that the onus was on the Applicant to seek and justify an extension of time, which requires that they show: (i) a continuing intention to pursue the application; (ii) the merits of the application; (iii) a reasonable explanation for the delay; and (iv) the absence of prejudice (Canada (Attorney General) v Hennelly, 1999 CanLII 8190 (FCA) at para 3). The Respondent argues that the Applicant’s failure to explain their delay is fatal, citing Canada (Attorney General) v Larkman, 2012 FCA 204 at paras 86-87 [Larkman].
[8] The interests of justice remains the ultimate consideration in granting an extension of time (Clinique Sherbrooke Inc v Canada, 2023 FC 1755), and I note that the Federal Court of Appeal granted an extension in Larkman given that the applicant’s case showed merit and only she and her descendants were affected by the decision, making considerations going to the public interest in the finality of decisions less important (Larkman at para 91). For this reason, I am prepared to consider whether there is some merit to the Applicant’s arguments as part of the test for an extension of time despite the Applicant having failed to formally seek an extension.
B. The additional remedies sought
[9] Second, the Respondent objects to much of the relief sought by the Applicant on this application as being outside the jurisdiction of the Federal Court. This relief includes correction of the Applicant’s Canada-Ontario Student Loan file and orders directed at George Brown College, the Minister for Colleges and Universities (Ontario) and the Attorney General of Ontario.
[10] At the hearing, the Applicant withdrew their request for these remedies but submitted that the documents that relate to them should be considered by the Court as they relate to their arguments regarding the reasonableness of the Decision. I will consider this request as part of my consideration of other new evidence submitted by the Applicant on this application.
C. New evidence submitted on judicial review
[11] The Respondent objects to the Applicant’s inclusion of new evidence in the Application Record [New Evidence] that was not before the Minister. I agree with the Respondent that it is well-established that judicial review of an administrative tribunal should be based on the record that was before the decision maker (Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada v Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (Access Copyright), 2012 FCA 22 at paras 19-20 [Access Copyright]). The Respondent acknowledges that there are recognized exceptions to this rule but argues that none of these exceptions apply (Access Copyright at para 20).
[12] The New Evidence discloses: (i) the Applicant’s academic history and communications with respect to the OSAP; (ii) the Applicant’s complete work history, which includes eight previously undisclosed jobs the Applicant held between 2016 and 2022, as well as volunteer work and artist exhibitions at which the Applicant sold their art and craftwork in 2019, 2021, 2022 and 2024; and (iii) previously undisclosed income sources between 2017 and 2024.
[13] I accept the Applicant’s submission that the documents relating to their academic and OSAP history are relevant background information which may be of assistance to the Court in understanding why the Applicant says they were forced to apply for the SPDB. Otherwise, I agree with the Respondent that the Applicant’s New Evidence amounts to an attempt to put before the Court new evidence that goes to the merits of the Decision, which must be rejected ('Namgis First Nation v Canada (Fisheries and Oceans), 2019 FCA 149 at para 7).
III. Legislative Framework
[14] Canada student loans are governed by the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act, SC 1994, c 28 [Act] and the Canada Student Financial Assistance Regulations, SOR/95-329 [Regulations].
[15] Section 11 and 11.1 of the Act allow the Minister to terminate a student loan obligation where the Minister is satisfied that a borrower has a “severe permanent disability”
that impacts their ability to repay the loan. Section 11.1 of the Act provides:
All obligations of a borrower in respect of a loan made under an agreement entered into under section 6.1 terminate if the Minister is satisfied, on the basis of information specified by the Minister and provided by or on behalf of the borrower, that the borrower, by reason of the borrower’s severe permanent disability, is unable to repay the loan and will never be able to repay it.
[16] The Regulations define “severe permanent disability”
as follows:
severe permanent disability means any impairment, including a physical, mental, intellectual, cognitive, learning, communication or sensory impairment - or a functional limitation - that prevents a person from performing the daily activities necessary to participate in the labour force in a manner that is substantially gainful, as defined in section 68.1 of the Canada Pension Plan Regulations, and is expected to remain with the person for their expected life…
[17] To be eligible for the SPDB, borrowers must meet the regulatory definition of “severe permanent disability”
and:
-
reside in Canada;
-
complete and submit the SPDB application form, including a signed acknowledgement that the information provided is true and may be shared and that if approved, the borrower will no longer be able to receive any further student financial assistance from the Government of Canada for the remainder of their life [the Declaration]; and
IV. Facts
A. The Applicant’s SPDB Application
[18] The Applicant claimed that they applied for the SPDB because they had been deemed ineligible (or restricted) for OSAP loans as they had already been funded for five or more first-year programs. The Applicant tried but failed to resolve the issue with the Ministry of Colleges and Universities (Ontario).
[19] The Applicant submitted the SPDB Application in March 2023. The Application included:
-
Details of their work history which included the fact that the Applicant was not then working and a single instance of past employment for 20 days in 2022 as a lighting technician apprentice;
-
A medical report by a physician, Dr. Laura Fung, which detailed the Applicant’s severe permanent disabilities (the primary diagnosis being autism spectrum disorder with a number of secondary diagnoses that included, inter alia, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, Tourette's syndrome, obsessive compulsive disorder, and intermittent explosive disorder) and how these diagnoses affect the Applicant’s employment.
Dr. Fung concluded that (i) the Applicant has a functional limitation caused by a mental impairment; (ii) the Applicant’s functional limitations prevent them from performing the daily activities necessary to participate in substantially gainful employment; and (iii) the Applicant’s limitations were expected to remain with the Applicant the rest of their life [the Medical Report]; and
B. The Decision
[20] The Minister considered the evidence as well as the positive recommendation of the medical adjudicator [Medical Adjudicator] who concluded that the “[t]he medical documentation does indicate eligibility for the SPDB Loan Cancellation, as per the [
Act].”
The reasons of the Medical Adjudicator supporting the Decision state in part:
Taking into account the extent of the conditions and based on the medical documentation provided, the borrower has impairments or functional limitations that prevent them from performing the daily activities necessary to participate in substantially gainful employment and are expected to remain with them for their expected life.
Based on the medical documentation provided, they are deemed to have a severe permanent disability in terms of eligibility for the CSFA program – Severe Permanent Disability Benefit.
[21] The Minister approved the Applicant’s SPDB Application.
C. The Redeterminations
[22] The Applicant twice sought a redetermination of the Decision by letters dated June 2, 2023 and August 3, 2023, in which the Applicant asked for the Decision to be revoked. The Applicant stated that the Medical Report contained “inaccurate or obsolete medical information,”
and the Applicant acknowledged that they had failed to disclose relevant employment and income information. The Applicant explained at the hearing that this was “accidental”;
in their written submissions, the Applicant explained that they were “acclimatizing to a new medication”
at the time of their submission of the SPDB Application.
[23] The Applicant’s Redetermination Requests were denied by letters dated June 27, 2023 and September 8, 2023 [Responses] on the basis that there are no provisions to cancel loan forgiveness and SPDB decisions are final.
V. Issues and Standard of Review
[24] The Applicant’s written submissions challenge the Decision as well as the Responses on the basis that all three are unreasonable. At the hearing, the Applicant argued only that the Decision is unreasonable. This was appropriate as I agree with the Respondent that the Responses are best characterized as “courtesy”
letters that merely confirm the Decision and do not affect the Applicant’s legal rights, impose legal obligations or cause prejudicial effects and therefore are not properly the subject of judicial review (Democracy Watch v Canada (Attorney General), 2021 FCA 133 at paras 23, 29).
[25] The standard of review of the merits of a decision is that of reasonableness as articulated in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 [Vavilov]. A reasonable decision bears the hallmarks of justification, transparency and intelligibility, with the burden resting on the challenging party to show that the decision is unreasonable (Vavilov at paras 99-100). A reviewing court must ensure that the decision demonstrates an internally coherent and rational chain of analysis that is justified in relation to the facts and law that constrained the decision maker (Vavilov at para 85).
VI. Analysis
[26] The Applicant effectively makes three arguments as to why the Decision is unreasonable, each of which I address in turn.
A. The Minister erred in finding that the Applicant meets the eligibility criteria for the SPDB
[27] The Applicant submits that they did not meet the criteria of severe permanent disability and should not have been granted the SPDB. The Applicant argues that the Medical Report contains outdated diagnoses, and perversely relies on their own failure to disclose relevant income and employment information, which they now say makes the case for finding the Decision to be unreasonable.
[28] Considering only the evidence that was before the Minister in arriving at the Decision, I agree with the Respondent that the Decision falls within the range of reasonable outcomes based on the facts and legal constraints that were before the Minister (Vavilov at para 86). The Minister reasonably found the Applicant eligible for the SPDB under the SPDB Adjudication Framework, considering: (i) the conclusions contained in the Medical Report; (ii) the recommendation of the Medical Adjudicator; and (iii) the fact that the Applicant had disclosed a 20-day work history and no financial information which could have supported the Applicant’s ability to secure and maintain “substantially gainful employment.”
[29] I acknowledge that the Applicant answered questions regarding their work history that are not consistent with the Applicant’s eligibility for the grant: the Applicant stated that the reason they were not currently working was not by reason of their disability, but a shortage of work, and the Applicant denied that they require lighter/modified tasks or different types of employment as a result of their disability. These statements do not detract from the reasonableness of the Minister’s Decision in light of the conclusions found in the Medical Report which itself acknowledges the Applicant’s capacity to work. Considering the whole of the Medical Report, it was reasonably open for the Medical Adjudicator and the Minister to find that although the Applicant has the capacity to work and participate in retraining for the purpose of future employment, the level of accommodations that would be required do not lend themselves to the prospect of “substantially gainful employment.”
[30] I also agree with the Respondent that it was not unreasonable for the Minister to have relied on the Applicant’s own submission that they met the criteria and the Declaration attesting to the fact that their SPDB Application was true and complete to the best of their knowledge.
B. The Minister erred in applying the SPDB criteria which are outdated
[31] Many of the Applicant’s other submissions go to the reasonableness of the eligibility criteria themselves as opposed to the Decision. For example, the Applicant submits that criteria under the Act relies on “static interpretations of disability”
and the employability criteria is irrelevant as the economy continues to shift and it becomes harder to find employment.
[32] The appropriateness of the criteria for a finding of “severe permanent disability” under the Act are matters for the Minister to consider and act on; they are not matters relevant to this Court’s role on judicial review of the Decision.
C. The Applicant filed their SPDB Application under duress
[33] Finally, the Applicant submits that their SPDB Application was made under “duress”
given that they had “no viable options”
considering the issues they were experiencing with the OSAP. There is no merit to this submission. There is nothing in the record, nor has the Applicant even suggested that they were coerced, threatened or intimidated in any way into submitting the Application or accepting the grant; rather, the Applicant voluntarily applied and had a change of heart, which is not a basis for quashing a Decision on judicial review.
VII. Conclusion
[34] I find no merit in any of the Applicant’s arguments going to the reasonableness of the Decision. Having not met any of the considerations upon which this Court could grant an extension of time, I find that it is not in the interests of justice to grant one; accordingly, this application is dismissed.
Email this Content