Melvin v. Canada (Attorney General)
The application was dismissed because the Pension Appeals Board reasonably concluded, based on the evidentiary record, that the applicant was not disabled within the meaning of s.42(2) of the Canada Pension Plan on or before the MQP; the Board's findings were supported by evidence and fell within a range of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2010 FCA 64
- Parties
- Applicant: Karen Melvin; Respondent: Attorney General of Canada
- Court
- Federal Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 24 February 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review of Administrative Decision (canada Pension Plan Disability Pension) / Decision on Judicial Review by Federal Court of Appeal
- Outcome
- Application for judicial review dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Disability Pension Entitlement, Minimum Qualifying Period, Assessment of Medical Evidence, Standard of Review
- 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
Karen Melvin
Applicant
Attorney General of Canada
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review of Administrative Decision (canada Pension Plan Disability Pension) / Decision on Judicial Review by Federal Court of Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Pension Appeals Board erred in finding the applicant was not suffering from a severe and prolonged disability on or before the minimum qualifying period (MQP) of December 31, 2006
- 2 Whether the Board's factual findings and conclusion that the applicant was not incapable regularly of pursuing any substantially gainful occupation under s.42(2) of the Canada Pension Plan were reviewable errors
Ratio Decidendi
The application was dismissed because the Pension Appeals Board reasonably concluded, based on the evidentiary record, that the applicant was not disabled within the meaning of s.42(2) of the Canada Pension Plan on or before the MQP; the Board's findings were supported by evidence and fell within a range of acceptable and defensible outcomes.
Court Disposition
Application for judicial review dismissed
Orders
- Application for judicial review dismissed.
- Decision of the Pension Appeals Board dated May 12, 2009 is upheld.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Melvin v. Canada (Attorney General) Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2010-02-24 Neutral citation 2010 FCA 64 File numbers A-236-09 Decision Content Date: 20100224 Docket: A-236-09 Citation: 2010 FCA 64 CORAM: PELLETIER J.A. TRUDEL J.A. STRATAS J.A. BETWEEN: KAREN MELVIN Applicant and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent Heard at Halifax, Nova Scotia, on February 24, 2010. Judgment delivered at Halifax, Nova Scotia, on February 24, 2010. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: TRUDEL J.A. CONCURRED IN BY: PELLETIER J.A. STRATAS J.A. Date: 20100224 Docket: A-236-09 Citation: 2010 FCA 64 CORAM: PELLETIER J.A. TRUDEL J.A. STRATAS J.A. BETWEEN: KAREN MELVIN Applicant and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT TRUDEL J.A. [1] This is an application for judicial review concerning a decision of the Pension Appeals Board (the Board) dated May 12, 2009 (Appeal CP26065), which denied the applicant’s appeal from a decision of the Review Tribunal and dismissed her application for a disability pension as she had failed to show that she was disabled within the meaning of subsection 42(2) of the Canada Pension Plan, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-8 (the Plan) on or prior to her minimum qualifying period (MQP) of December 31, 2006. [2] The issue before this Court is whether the Board committed a reviewable error in finding that the applicant was not suffering from a severe and prolonged disability on or prior to her MQP. [3] Ms. Melvin, a self-represented litigant before this Court, applied for disability benefits on November 8, 2006, on the basis of upper back and neck pain, anxiety and depression and irritable bowel syndrome (Review Tribunal’s decision at paragraph 1). [4] Having examined the applicant’s medical evidence and record of earnings, the Board, as the Review Tribunal had done before it, found that Ms. Melvin was not entitled to a pension. The Board stated that there was no psychiatric diagnosis of bipolar mood disorder. It also concluded that the applicant was not "incapable regularly of pursuing any substantially gainful occupation" (paragraph 42(2)(a) of the Plan). As a matter of fact, the applicant was working at the time of the hearing in front of the Board and intended to increase her part-time work to 30 hours per week. The evidentiary record supports the Board’s findings. Its conclusions fall within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes that are defensible in respect of the facts and the law. [5] Therefore, this application for judicial review will be dismissed. "Johanne Trudel" J.A. "I agree J.D. Denis Pelletier" "I agree David Stratas" FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-236-09 (APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE PENSION APPEALS BOARD DATED MAY 12, 2009) STYLE OF CAUSE: Karen Melvin v. Attorney General of Canada PLACE OF HEARING: Halifax, Nova Scotia DATE OF HEARING: February 24, 2010 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: TRUDEL J.A. CONCURRED IN BY: PELLETIER J.A. STRATAS J.A. DATED: February 24, 2010 APPEARANCES: Karen Melvin ON HIS OWN BEHALF Jennifer Hockey FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: John H. Sims, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada FOR THE RESPONDENT