Manning v. Canada (Human Resources Development)

Manning v. Canada (Human Resources Development)

The Minister’s Delegate’s finding that no erroneous advice had been given was a reasonable, justifiable outcome on the evidence available (absence of call records, training and procedure materials inconsistent with the alleged advice) and the decision letter together with the investigation report provided sufficient reasons; therefore the judicial review application is dismissed.

Citation
2009 FC 523
Parties
Applicant: Dr. Robert Manning; Respondent: Human Resources Development Canada; Respondent: Service Canada; Respondent: The Attorney General for Canada
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 May 2009
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Under the Federal Courts Act S.18.1 / Final Judgment on Application for Judicial Review (dismissed)
Outcome
Application for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Erroneous Advice Under S.66(4), Retroactivity of Disability Benefits, Procedural Fairness (sufficiency of Reasons), Standard of Review/reasonableness
Source Language
English
Administrative Law Social Security Law Statutory Interpretation Public Benefits/canada PENSION PLAN Erroneous Advice Under S.66(4) Retroactivity of Disability Benefits Procedural Fairness (sufficiency of Reasons) Standard of Review/reasonableness

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr. Robert Manning

Applicant

Human Resources Development Canada

Respondent

Service Canada

Respondent

The Attorney General for Canada

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Under the Federal Courts Act S.18.1 / Final Judgment on Application for Judicial Review (dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Minister’s Delegate’s finding that no erroneous advice was given was reasonable
  2. 2 Whether the Minister’s Delegate breached procedural fairness by providing insufficient reasons
  3. 3 Whether the Minister committed a reviewable error in concluding no administrative error under s.66(4)

Ratio Decidendi

The Minister’s Delegate’s finding that no erroneous advice had been given was a reasonable, justifiable outcome on the evidence available (absence of call records, training and procedure materials inconsistent with the alleged advice) and the decision letter together with the investigation report provided sufficient reasons; therefore the judicial review application is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review dismissed

Orders

  • The application for judicial review is dismissed.