King v. Canada

King v. Canada

Pleadings failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action because the Federal Court of Appeal held that "erroneous advice" under s.66(4) is limited to advice given to the public and the Pension Appeals Board relied on new evidence, so the Minister's denial was not shown to result from erroneous advice or administrative error; therefore the certification motion under Rule 334.16 failed and was dismissed.

Citation
2009 FC 796
Parties
Applicant: Daniel King; Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 August 2009
Procedural Posture
Application for Judicial Review With Motion for Class Certification / Motion for Certification (dismissed)
Outcome
Motion for certification dismissed
Legal Topics
Certification Under Federal Court Rules, Judicial Review, Canada Pension Plan S.66(4), Erroneous Advice, Procedural Bars and Remedies
Source Language
English
Administrative Law Class Actions Social Security/benefits Law Pension Law Certification Under Federal Court Rules Judicial Review Canada Pension Plan S.66(4) Erroneous Advice +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daniel King

Applicant

Her Majesty the Queen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Judicial Review With Motion for Class Certification / Motion for Certification (dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the requirements of Rule 334.16 for class certification are met
  2. 2 Whether the pleadings disclose a reasonable cause of action
  3. 3 Whether a Pension Appeals Board decision establishes "erroneous advice" under s.66(4) of the CPP

Ratio Decidendi

Pleadings failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action because the Federal Court of Appeal held that "erroneous advice" under s.66(4) is limited to advice given to the public and the Pension Appeals Board relied on new evidence, so the Minister's denial was not shown to result from erroneous advice or administrative error; therefore the certification motion under Rule 334.16 failed and was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Motion for certification dismissed

Orders

  • The motion for certification of this application for judicial review as a class action is dismissed.