Canada (Attorney General) v. Jones
The Federal Court of Appeal concluded that the Federal Court properly found the Review Tribunal's conclusions on discoverability and materiality to be patently unreasonable; the Tribunal's decision was set aside and the application under s.84(2) was remitted to the Review Tribunal to be determined taking into...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2007 FCA 299
- Parties
- Appellant: Attorney General of Canada; Respondent: Douglas Jones
- Court
- Federal Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 20 September 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review Appeal / Appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed in part; challenged Review Tribunal decision set aside and remitted with substituted order.
- Legal Topics
- Reopening of Tribunal Decision, New Facts Under S.84(2), Discoverability, Materiality, Patent Unreasonableness, Remittal, Costs
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Attorney General of Canada
Appellant
Douglas Jones
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Appeal / Appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Review Tribunal's findings on discoverability and materiality for new facts under s.84(2) were patently unreasonable
- 2 Whether the Federal Court judge's remedial order was properly formulated
Ratio Decidendi
The Federal Court of Appeal concluded that the Federal Court properly found the Review Tribunal's conclusions on discoverability and materiality to be patently unreasonable; the Tribunal's decision was set aside and the application under s.84(2) was remitted to the Review Tribunal to be determined taking into account the new facts and the existing record, with a correction to the remedial order formulation.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed in part; challenged Review Tribunal decision set aside and remitted with substituted order.
Orders
- The application for judicial review is allowed; the decision of the Review Tribunal is set aside and the application under subsection 84(2) of the Canada Pension Plan is referred back to the Review Tribunal to be determined taking into account the new facts and the existing record.
- The parties are at liberty to address the Court on the issue of costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Canada (Attorney General) v. Jones Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2007-09-20 Neutral citation 2007 FCA 299 File numbers A-566-06 Decision Content Date: 20070920 Docket: A-566-06 Citation: 2007 FCA 299 CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A. DÉCARY J.A. RYER J.A. BETWEEN: ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Appellant and DOUGLAS JONES Respondent Heard at Vancouver, British Columbia, on September 20, 2007. Judgment delivered from the Bench at Vancouver, British Columbia, on September 20, 2007. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: RYER J.A. Date: 20070920 Docket: A-566-06 Citation: 2007 FCA 299 CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A. DÉCARY J.A. RYER J.A. BETWEEN: ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Appellant and DOUGLAS JONES Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the Bench at Vancouver, British Columbia, on September 20, 2007) RYER J.A. [1] This is an appeal from a decision of Russell J. of the Federal Court (2006 FC 1366), dated November 10, 2006, granting an application for judicial review of a decision of a review tribunal (the Review Tribunal), constituted pursuant to section 82 of the Canada Pension Plan, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-8 (the Act), dated November 8, 2005. In its decision, the Review Tribunal refused to re-open a decision of another review tribunal, dated September 17, 1996, pursuant to subsection 84(2) of the Act, on new facts. [2] In his decision, Russell J. concluded that the findings of the Review Tribunal with respect to the discoverability and materiality aspects of the test for the determination of whether there are new facts, for the purpose of subsection 84(2) of the Act, were patently unreasonable. Having considered the submissions of Counsel for the Attorney General of Canada, we have not been persuaded that the conclusion of Russell J. has been shown to contain any palpable and overriding error. Accordingly, that conclusion cannot be overturned. [3] With respect to the second issue that was argued before us, in our view, Russell J. improperly formulated his order. Accordingly, the appeal will be allowed for the sole purpose of substituting the following order for the one that he made: ORDER 1. The application for judicial review is allowed. The decision of the Review Tribunal is set aside. The application under subsection 84(2) of the Canada Pension Plan is referred back to the Review Tribunal to be determined taking into account the new facts and the existing record. 2. The parties are at liberty to address the Court on the issue of costs. [4] The Respondent will be entitled to costs on this appeal. "C. Michael Ryer" J.A.. FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-566-06 STYLE OF CAUSE: AGC v. Douglas Jones PLACE OF HEARING: Vancouver, British Columbia DATE OF HEARING: September 20, 2007 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: DESJARDINS J.A. DÉCARY J.A. RYER J.A. DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: RYER J.A. DATED: September 20, 2007 APPEARANCES: Tania Nolet FOR THE APPELLANT William J. Andrews FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: John H. Sims, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada Ottawa, Ontario FOR THE APPELLANT William J. Andrews Barrister & Solicitor Nanaimo, B.C. FOR THE RESPONDENT