Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development) v. Landry

Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development) v. Landry Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2005-05-10 Neutral citation 2005 FCA 167 File numbers A-454-03 Notes Digest Decision Content Date: 20050510 Docket: A-454-03 Citation: 2005 FCA 167 CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A. LÉTOURNEAU J.A. PELLETIER J.A. BETWEEN: MINISTER OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT Applicant and JEAN-GUY LANDRY Respondent Hearing held at Fredericton, New Brunswick, February 28, 2005. Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, May 10, 2005. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT: LÉTOURNEAU J.A. CONCURRED IN BY: DESJARDINS J.A. PELLETIER J.A. Date: 20050510 Docket: A-454-03 Citation: 2005 FCA 167 CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A. LÉTOURNEAU J.A. PELLETIER J.A. BETWEEN: MINISTER OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT Applicant and JEAN-GUY LANDRY Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT LÉTOURNEAU J.A. [1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Pensions Appeal Board (Board) dated August 6, 2004. In that decision, the Board dismissed the applicant's appeal of the decision made by a Review Tribunal (Tribunal) on April 22, 2002. Issues [2] The issue raised in these proceedings involves the role and powers of the Board when it sits on an appeal of a decision made by a Tribunal under subsection 84(2) of the Canada Pension Plan, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-8 (Plan). It will be recalled that under that subsection, the Tribunal may rescind or amend a decision given by it, on new facts which warrant doing so. It should be noted that the Board also has that power in respect of its decisions. I mention this immediately because, as we shall see later, this is an important factor to be considered in defining the Board's role and powers. Relevant Statutory Provisions [3] At this point, it is useful to reproduce the relevant provisions of the Plan. 60. (1) No benefit is payable to any person under this Act unless an application therefor has been made by him or on his behalf and payment of the benefit has been approved under this Act. 60. (1) Aucune prestation n'est payable à une personne sous le régime de la présente loi, sauf si demande en a été faite par elle ou en son nom et que le paiement en ait été approuvé selon la présente loi. (2) Notwithstanding anything in this Act, but subject to subsections (2.1) and (2.2), an application for a benefit, other than a death benefit, that would have been payable in respect of a month to a deceased person who, prior to the person's death, would have been entitled on approval of an application to payment of that benefit under this Act may be approved in respect of that month only if it is made within 12 months after the death of that person by the estate, the representative or heir of that person or by any person that may be prescribed by regulation. (2) Indépendamment des autres dispositions de la présente loi, et sous réserve des paragraphes (2.1) et (2.2), une demande de prestation, autre qu'une prestation de décès, qui aurait été payable pour un mois à une personne décédée et qui, avant son décès, aurait, après approbation d'une demande à cet effet, eu droit au paiement de cette prestation conformément à la présente loi, ne peut être approuvée que lorsqu'elle est présentée, dans les douze mois suivant le décès de cette personne, par l'ayant droit, le représentant ou l'héritier de cette personne, ou encore par toute personne visée par règlement. (2.1) An application referred to in subsection (2) in respect of a disability benefit may not be approved if the application is received after December 31, 1997. (2.1) La demande de prestation d'invalidité reçue après le 31 décembre 1997 ne peut être approuvée au titre du paragraphe (2). (2.2) An application referred to in subsection (2) in respect of a retirement pension may only be approved in respect of a month after the deceased contributor had reached age 70. (2.2) Dans le cas d'une pension de retraite, la demande ne peut être approuvée que pour un mois après que le cotisant décédé a atteint l'âge de soixante-dix ans. (3) Where a disabled contributor's child's benefit would, if the application had been approved, have been payable to a child of a disabled contributor on application made prior to the death of the child or an orphan's benefit would, if the application had been approved, have been payable to an orphan of a contributor on application made prior to the death of the orphan and the child or orphan dies after December 31, 1977, not having reached eighteen years of age, and no application has been made at the time of the death of the child or orphan, an application may be made within one year after the death by the person or agency having custody and control of the child or orphan at the time of the death or, where there is at that time no person or agency having custody and control, by such person or agency as the Minister may direct. (3) La personne ou l'organisme qui, au moment du décès d'un enfant d'un cotisant invalide ou d'un orphelin d'un cotisant, en a la garde et la surveillance ou, si à cette époque, aucune personne ou aucun organisme n'en a la garde et la surveillance, la personne ou l'organisme que peut désigner le ministre peuvent, dans l'année qui suit ce décès, présenter une demande dans le cas où une prestation d'enfant de cotisant invalide ou d'orphelin de cotisant aurait été payable, si la demande avait été approuvée, à un enfant d'un cotisant invalide ou à un orphelin d'un cotisant respectivement, sur demande présentée avant son décès, si celui-ci survient après le 31 décembre 1977 et avant que cet enfant ou orphelin n'ait atteint l'âge de dix-huit ans et avant qu'une demande n'ait été présentée. (4) Where an application is made pursuant to subsection (2) or (3), a benefit that would have been payable to a deceased person referred to in subsection (2) or a deceased child or orphan referred to in subsection (3) shall be paid to the estate or such person as may be prescribed by regulation. (4) Lorsqu'une demande est présentée conformément au paragraphe (2) ou (3), est versée aux ayants droit ou aux personnes autorisées par règlement toute prestation qui aurait été payable à une personne décédée visée au paragraphe (2) ou à un enfant ou orphelin décédé visé au paragraphe (3). (5) Any application made pursuant to subsection (2) or (3) is deemed to have been received (a) on the date of the death of a person who, prior to his death, would have been entitled, on approval of an application, to payment of a benefit under this Act; or (b) on the date of the death of a child or an orphan referred to in subsection (3) where the person having custody and control of the child or orphan did not make an application prior to the death of the child or orphan. (5) Une demande présentée conformément au paragraphe (2) ou (3) est réputée avoir été reçue : a) soit le jour du décès d'une personne qui, avant son décès, aurait eu droit, sur approbation de la demande, au versement d'une prestation en vertu de la présente loi; b) soit le jour du décès de l'enfant ou de l'orphelin visé au paragraphe (3) si la personne ou l'organisme qui en a la garde et la surveillance n'a pas présenté de demande avant le décès de l'enfant ou de l'orphelin. (6) An application for a benefit shall be made to the Minister in prescribed manner and at the prescribed location. (6) Une demande de prestation doit être présentée au ministre en la manière et à l'endroit prescrits. (7) The Minister shall forthwith on receiving an application for a benefit consider it and may approve payment of the benefit and determine the amount thereof payable under this Act or may determine that no benefit is payable, and he shall thereupon in writing notify the applicant of his decision. (7) Le ministre examine, dès qu'il la reçoit, toute demande de prestation; il peut en approuver le paiement et en déterminer le montant payable aux termes de la présente loi, ou il peut arrêter qu'aucune prestation n'est payable et avise dès lors par écrit le requérant de sa décision. (8) Where an application for a benefit is made on behalf of a person and the Minister is satisfied, on the basis of evidence provided by or on behalf of that person, that the person had been incapable of forming or expressing an intention to make an application on the person's own behalf on the day on which the application was actually made, the Minister may deem the application to have been made in the month preceding the first month in which the relevant benefit could have commenced to be paid or in the month that the Minister considers the person's last relevant period of incapacity to have commenced, whichever is the later. (8) Dans le cas où il est convaincu, sur preuve présentée par le demandeur ou en son nom, que celui-ci n'avait pas la capacité de former ou d'exprimer l'intention de faire une demande le jour où celle-ci a été faite, le ministre peut réputer cette demande de prestation avoir été faite le mois qui précède celui au cours duquel la prestation aurait pu commencer à être payable ou, s'il est postérieur, le mois au cours duquel, selon le ministre, la dernière période pertinente d'incapacité du demandeur a commencé. (9) Where an application for a benefit is made by or on behalf of a person and the Minister is satisfied, on the basis of evidence provided by or on behalf of that person, that (a) the person had been incapable of forming or expressing an intention to make an application before the day on which the application was actually made, (b) the person had ceased to be so incapable before that day, and (c) the application was made (i) within the period that begins on the day on which that person had ceased to be so incapable and that comprises the same number of days, not exceeding twelve months, as in the period of incapacity, or (ii) where the period referred to in subparagraph (i) comprises fewer than thirty days, not more than one month after the month in which that person had ceased to be so incapable, the Minister may deem the application to have been made in the month preceding the first month in which the relevant benefit could have commenced to be paid or in the month that the Minister considers the person's last relevant period of incapacity to have commenced, whichever is the later. (9) Le ministre peut réputer une demande de prestation avoir été faite le mois qui précède le premier mois au cours duquel une prestation aurait pu commencer à être payable ou, s'il est postérieur, le mois au cours duquel, selon lui, la dernière période pertinente d'incapacité du demandeur a commencé, s'il est convaincu, sur preuve présentée par le demandeur : a) que le demandeur n'avait pas la capacité de former ou d'exprimer l'intention de faire une demande avant la date à laquelle celle-ci a réellement été faite; b) que la période d'incapacité du demandeur a cessé avant cette date; c) que la demande a été faite, selon le cas : (i) au cours de la période -- égale au nombre de jours de la période d'incapacité mais ne pouvant dépasser douze mois -- débutant à la date où la période d'incapacité du demandeur a cessé, (ii) si la période décrite au sous-alinéa (i) est inférieure à trente jours, au cours du mois qui suit celui au cours duquel la période d'incapacité du demandeur a cessé. (10) For the purposes of subsections (8) and (9), a period of incapacity must be a continuous period except as otherwise prescribed. (10) Pour l'application des paragraphes (8) et (9), une période d'incapacité doit être continue à moins qu'il n'en soit prescrit autrement. (11) Subsections (8) to (10) apply only to individuals who were incapacitated on or after January 1, 1991. (11) Les paragraphes (8) à (10) ne s'appliquent qu'aux personnes incapables le 1er janvier 1991 dont la période d'incapacité commence à compter de cette date. (12) The Minister may require an applicant or other person or a group or class of persons to be at a suitable place at a suitable time in order to make an application for benefits in person or to provide additional information about an application. ... (12) Le ministre peut demander à tout requérant ou autre personne ou à tout groupe ou catégorie de personnes de se rendre à une heure raisonnable à un endroit convenable pour présenter en personne une demande de prestations ou fournir des renseignements supplémentaires concernant la demande. ... 81. (1) Where (a) a spouse, former spouse, common-law partner, former common-law partner or estate is dissatisfied with any decision made under section 55, 55.1, 55.2 or 55.3, (b) an applicant is dissatisfied with any decision made under section 60, (c) a beneficiary is dissatisfied with any determination as to the amount of a benefit payable to the beneficiary or as to the beneficiary's eligibility to receive a benefit, or (d) a beneficiary or the beneficiary's spouse or common-law partner is dissatisfied with any decision made under section 65.1, the dissatisfied party or, subject to the regulations, any person on behalf thereof may, within ninety days after the day on which the dissatisfied party was notified in the prescribed manner of the decision or determination, or within such longer period as the Minister may either before or after the expiration of those ninety days allow, make a request to the Minister in the prescribed form and manner for a reconsideration of that decision or determination. 81. (1) Dans les cas où : a) un époux ou conjoint de fait, un ex-époux ou ancien conjoint de fait ou leurs ayants droit ne sont pas satisfaits d'une décision rendue en application de l'article 55, 55.1, 55.2 ou 55.3, b) un requérant n'est pas satisfait d'une décision rendue en application de l'article 60, c) un bénéficiaire n'est pas satisfait d'un arrêt concernant le montant d'une prestation qui lui est payable ou son admissibilité à recevoir une telle prestation, d) un bénéficiaire ou son époux ou conjoint de fait n'est pas satisfait d'une décision rendue en application de l'article 65.1, ceux-ci peuvent, ou, sous réserve des règlements, quiconque de leur part, peut, dans les quatre-vingt-dix jours suivant le jour où ils sont, de la manière prescrite, avisés de la décision ou de l'arrêt, ou dans tel délai plus long qu'autorise le ministre avant ou après l'expiration de ces quatre-vingt-dix jours, demander par écrit à celui-ci, selon les modalités prescrites, de réviser la décision ou l'arrêt. (2) The Minister shall forthwith reconsider any decision or determination referred to in subsection (1) and may confirm or vary it, and may approve payment of a benefit, determine the amount of a benefit or determine that no benefit is payable, and shall thereupon in writing notify the party who made the request under subsection (1) of the Minister's decision and of the reasons therefor. ... (2) Le ministre reconsidère sur-le-champ toute décision ou tout arrêt visé au paragraphe (1) et il peut confirmer ou modifier cette décision ou arrêt; il peut approuver le paiement d'une prestation et en fixer le montant, de même qu'il peut arrêter qu'aucune prestation n'est payable et il doit dès lors aviser par écrit de sa décision motivée la personne qui a présenté la demande en vertu du paragraphe (1). ... 82. (1) A party who is dissatisfied with a decision of the Minister made under section 81 or subsection 84(2), or a person who is dissatisfied with a decision of the Minister made under subsection 27.1(2) of the Old Age Security Act, or, subject to the regulations, any person on their behalf, may appeal the decision to a Review Tribunal in writing within 90 days, or any longer period that the Commissioner of Review Tribunals may, either before or after the expiration of those 90 days, allow, after the day on which the party was notified in the prescribed manner of the decision or the person was notified in writing of the Minister's decision and of the reasons for it. ... 82. (1) La personne qui se croit lésée par une décision du ministre rendue en application de l'article 81 ou du paragraphe 84(2) ou celle qui se croit lésée par une décision du ministre rendue en application du paragraphe 27.1(2) de la Loi sur la sécurité de la vieillesse ou, sous réserve des règlements, quiconque de sa part, peut interjeter appel par écrit auprès d'un Tribunal de révision de la décision du ministre soit dans les quatre-vingt-dix jours suivant le jour où la première personne est, de la manière prescrite, avisée de cette décision, ou, selon le cas, suivant le jour où le ministre notifie à la deuxième personne sa décision et ses motifs, soit dans le délai plus long autorisé par le commissaire des tribunaux de révision avant ou après l'expiration des quatre-vingt-dix jours. ... (11) A Review Tribunal may confirm or vary a decision of the Minister made under section 81 or subsection 4(2) or under subsection 27.1(2) of the Old Age Security Act and may take any action in relation to any of those decisions that might have been taken by the Minister under that section or either of those subsections, and the Commissioner of Review Tribunals shall thereupon notify the Minister and the other parties to the appeal of the Review Tribunal's decision and of the reasons for its decision. ... (11) Un Tribunal de révision peut confirmer ou modifier une décision du ministre prise en vertu de l'article 81 ou du paragraphe 84(2) ou en vertu du paragraphe 27.1(2) de la Loi sur la sécurité de la vieillesse et il peut, à cet égard, prendre toute mesure que le ministre aurait pu prendre en application de ces dispositions; le commissaire des tribunaux de révision doit aussitôt donner un avis écrit de la décision du Tribunal et des motifs la justifiant au ministre ainsi qu'aux parties à l'appel. ... 83. (1) A party or, subject to the regulations, any person on behalf thereof, or the Minister, if dissatisfied with a decision of a Review Tribunal made under section 82, other than a decision made in respect of an appeal referred to in subsection 28(1) of the Old Age Security Act, or under subsection 84(2), may, within ninety days after the day on which that decision was communicated to the party or Minister, or within such longer period as the Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the Pension Appeals Board may either before or after the expiration of those ninety days allow, apply in writing to the Chairman or Vice-Chairman for leave to appeal that decision to the Pension Appeals Board. ... 83. (1) La personne qui se croit lésée par une décision du Tribunal de révision rendue en application de l'article 82 - autre qu'une décision portant sur l'appel prévu au paragraphe 28(1) de la Loi sur la sécurité de la vieillesse - ou du paragraphe 84(2), ou, sous réserve des règlements, quiconque de sa part, de même que le ministre, peuvent présenter, soit dans les quatre-vingt-dix jours suivant le jour où la décision du Tribunal de révision est transmise à la personne ou au ministre, soit dans tel délai plus long qu'autorise le président ou le vice-président de la Commission d'appel des pensions avant ou après l'expiration de ces quatre-vingt-dix jours, une demande écrite au président ou au vice-président de la Commission d'appel des pensions, afin d'obtenir la permission d'interjeter un appel de la décision du Tribunal de révision auprès de la Commission. ... (11) The Pension Appeals Board may confirm or vary a decision of a Review Tribunal under section 82 or subsection 84(2) and may take any action in relation thereto that might have been taken by the Review Tribunal under section 82 or subsection 84(2), and shall thereupon notify in writing the parties to the appeal of its decision and of its reasons therefor. ... (11) La Commission d'appel des pensions peut confirmer ou modifier une décision d'un Tribunal de révision prise en vertu de l'article 82 ou du paragraphe 84(2) et elle peut, à cet égard, prendre toute mesure que le Tribunal de révision aurait pu prendre en application de ces dispositions et en outre, elle doit aussitôt donner un avis écrit de sa décision et des motifs la justifiant à toutes les parties à cet appel. ... 84. (1) A Review Tribunal and the Pension Appeals Board have authority to determine any question of law or fact as to (a) whether any benefit is payable to a person, (b) the amount of any such benefit, (c) whether any person is eligible for a division of unadjusted pensionable earnings, (d) the amount of that division, (e) whether any person is eligible for an assignment of a contributor's retirement pension, or (f) the amount of that assignment, and the decision of a Review Tribunal, except as provided in this Act, or the decision of the Pension Appeals Board, except for judicial review under the Federal Court Act, as the case may be, is final and binding for all purposes of this Act. 84. (1) Un Tribunal de révision et la Commission d'appel des pensions ont autorité pour décider des questions de droit ou de fait concernant : a) la question de savoir si une prestation est payable à une personne; b) le montant de cette prestation; c) la question de savoir si une personne est admissible à un partage des gains non ajustés ouvrant droit à pension; d) le montant de ce partage; e) la question de savoir si une personne est admissible à bénéficier de la cession de la pension de retraite d'un cotisant; f) le montant de cette cession. La décision du Tribunal de révision, sauf disposition contraire de la présente loi, ou celle de la Commission d'appel des pensions, sauf contrôle judiciaire dont elle peut faire l'objet aux termes de la Loi sur la Cour fédérale, est définitive et obligatoire pour l'application de la présente loi. (2) The Minister, a Review Tribunal or the Pension Appeals Board may, notwithstanding subsection (1), on new facts, rescind or amend a decision under this Act given by him, the Tribunal or the Board, as the case may be. (2) Indépendamment du paragraphe (1), le ministre, un Tribunal de révision ou la Commission d'appel des pensions peut, en se fondant sur des faits nouveaux, annuler ou modifier une décision qu'il a lui-même rendue ou qu'elle a elle-même rendue conformément à la présente loi. Arguments of the Parties [4] More specifically, the applicant in this case asserts that the Board exceeded its jurisdiction when, in the appeal from the Tribunal's decision, it considered facts submitted by the respondent without first determining whether they were new facts, and accordingly facts that it was entitled to consider. These were facts that either had not been submitted to the Tribunal or had been rejected by the Tribunal because it did not regard them as new facts. [5] In the applicant's submission, the hearing de novo that is held by the Board in respect of a decision of the Tribunal is not a new hearing in the traditional, broad sense of the term when it is an appeal from a decision made by the Tribunal under subsection 84(2). In other words, it is not, as in the case of an appeal from a decision made by the Tribunal under section 82, a hearing in which the Board may consider any relevant evidence, including additional evidence that was not considered by the Tribunal. The Board's role and powers are defined and circumscribed by the parameters of the particular right of review conferred by subsection 84(2). [6] The respondent, who represented himself and whose health, it seems, has deteriorated, did not appear at the hearing. He was informed by counsel for the applicant that, for compassionate reasons, his eligibility for benefits would not be contested. Nonetheless, the applicant's application for judicial review is of considerable importance for all pending and future cases involving review on the basis of new facts. Analysis of the Decision and of the Role and Powers of the Board [7] I agree with the applicant that when the Board sits on an appeal of a decision that has been revised under subsection 84(2) it cannot disregard the intrinsic limitations on an appeal of that nature: that the Tribunal's review of its decision is based on new facts. Otherwise, the distinction between the right to appeal a decision made by the Tribunal under section 82 and the right to appeal a revised decision made by the Tribunal under subsection 84(2) would become blurred, and the latter would become redundant and have no purpose since any fact, whether new or not, could be considered. [8] The limits that subsection 84(2) places on the Board's jurisdiction mean that it must consider the facts on which the Tribunal's decision was originally based and the facts that it admitted as new facts when it revised the decision. The facts that are presented to the Board at the hearing, and that it may itself characterize as new, whether or not those facts were submitted to the Tribunal, should be added to those facts. Strictly speaking, the Board should be limited to the new facts that were submitted to the Tribunal. However, because it also has the power, under subsection 84(2), to review its own decision, based on new facts, it could also be asked to do so once it has made its decision regarding the Tribunal's decision. It is therefore better for it, on the appeal of the Tribunal's decision, to rule immediately on the new facts that were not submitted to the Tribunal but that are now before the Board. [9] Moreover, with respect to the facts that were presented to the Tribunal but were rejected by it, in purely practical terms, the Board must be able to review the Tribunal's refusal to consider those facts to be new facts. If this were otherwise, it would mean that to challenge that refusal, the aggrieved party would have to apply to the Federal Court to have that aspect of the decision reviewed, when an appeal is properly pending before the Board in respect of the facts that were accepted as new facts. The result, in operational terms and in terms of time and judicial economy, would be a pointless and potentially prejudicial splitting of the proceedings. For example, the appeal to the Board would have to be stayed while waiting for the Federal Court to rule on the case submitted to that Court regarding the existence of new facts, because the Federal Court's decision could have an impact on the Board's decision. [10] It is therefore apparent that in an appeal of a decision that has been revised under subsection 84(2) of the Plan, the idea that the appeal to the Board must be heard de novo by the Board means something different from the traditional meaning, which is that an entirely new case is presented, independent of the original case. Here, the appeal de novo is heard on the basis of the case originally presented to the Tribunal, with the addition of the new facts that the Tribunal accepted when it revised its decision and the facts that the Board accepted as new facts. This is what I understand from the disposition by this Court in its decision in Kent v. Canada (Attorney General), 2004 FCA 420 in which it was held that the appeal hearing is a hearing de novo based on all the available evidence. At that hearing, the Board exercises the powers set out in subsection 83(11) of the Plan: it may take any action that might have been taken by the Tribunal under subsection 84(2). [11] In this case, the Board had jurisdiction to hear the appeal from the Tribunal's decision, because the Tribunal had recognized one of the four medical reports (Dr. Baines' report) submitted by the respondent to be new evidence and, based on that new fact, had amended the earlier decision by a Tribunal. This was then a new decision, subject to appeal under section 83: Oliveira v. Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development), 2004 FCA 136; Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development) v. Fleming, 2004 FCA 288; Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development) v. Hogervorst, 2004 FCA 433. [12] On the other hand, in order to rule on the merits of the respondent's application for disability benefits, the Board could not have had regard to the facts rejected by the Tribunal or to facts presented to the Board that had not been presented to the Tribunal without first satisfying itself, and deciding, that they were new facts. [13] For these reasons, the application for judicial review will be allowed but, in the circumstances, without costs. The Board's decision will be set aside and the matter will be referred back for a new hearing, if the applicant thinks it appropriate, to be held before a differently constituted panel of the Board. "Gilles Létourneau" J.A. "I concur Alice Desjardins J.A." "I agree J.D.Denis Pelletier J.A." Certified true translation Jacques Deschênes, LLB FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-454-03 STYLE OF CAUSE: MINISTER OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT v. JEAN-GUY LANDRY PLACE OF HEARING: Fredericton, N.B. DATE OF HEARING: February 28, 2005 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT: LÉTOURNEAU J.A. CONCURRED IN BY: DESJARDINS J.A. PELLETIER J.A. DATED: May 10, 2005 APPEARANCES: Stéphan Bertrand Rose-Gabrielle Birba FOR THE APPLICANT Jean-Guy Landry FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: John H. Simms, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada Department of Justice Ottawa, Ontario FOR THE APPLICANT