Read v. Canada (Minister of Social Development)

Read v. Canada (Minister of Social Development) Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2005-05-24 Neutral citation 2005 FCA 198 File numbers A-613-04 Decision Content Date: 20050524 Docket: A-613-04 Citation: 2005 FCA 198 CORAM: LINDEN J.A. ROTHSTEIN J.A. NOËL J.A. BETWEEN: LYNNE READ Applicant and MINISTER OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT (formerly Minister of Human Resources Development) Respondent Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on May 24, 2005. Judgment delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on May 24, 2005. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: ROTHSTEIN J.A. Date: 20050524 Docket: A-613-04 Citation: 2005 FCA 198 CORAM: LINDEN J.A. ROTHSTEIN J.A. NOËL J.A. BETWEEN: LYNNE READ Applicant and MINISTER OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT (formerly Minister of Human Resources Development) Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on May 24, 2005) ROTHSTEIN J.A. [1] In spite of the able argument of Mr. Hildebrand, we cannot agree that the Pension Appeal Board erred in any manner that would warrant interference by this Court with its decision. Upon reading the reasons of the Board, we do not see, as the applicant alleges, that the Board made its decision solely on the basis of a lack of objective medical evidence supporting a severe and prolonged disability or that it rejected the applicant's claim solely because of the absence of a definitive diagnosis. [2] As we read the Board's reasons, it had regard to the evidence of the applicant's family doctor, the rheumatologist that treated her, the findings of a functional abilities evaluation and the applicant's own evidence. In particular, the functional abilities evaluation concluded that the applicant could function at a light to medium capacity. It was the Board's consideration of all that evidence that caused it to conclude that the applicant's appeal should be dismissed. [3] The applicant says that the Board's reasons were inadequate in that they do not explain why the opinion of the family physician was discounted. However, the family physician states that he was working in cooperation with the rheumatologist. It was the rheumatologist who suggested that a functional abilities assessment be carried out. It is apparent from the Board's reasons, that it was that assessment that was significant to the Board and explains why it made its decision. [4] The application will be dismissed. "Marshall Rothstein" J.A. FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-613-04 STYLE OF CAUSE: LYNNE READ Applicant and MINISTER OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT (formerly Minister of Human Resources Development) Respondent PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO DATE OF HEARING: MAY 24, 2005 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: (LINDEN, ROTHSTEIN & NOËL JJ.A.) DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: ROTHSTEIN J.A. APPEARANCES: Jamie Hildebrand FOR THE APPLICANT Shawna Noseworthy FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Mr. Jamie Hildebrand Huron/Perth Community Legal Clinic Stratford, ON FOR THE APPLICANT John H. Sims, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada FOR THE RESPONDENT