Maclean v. Canada (Attorney General)

Maclean v. Canada (Attorney General)

The Appeal Division reasonably concluded that subsection 66(2) imposes a one-year limitation that must be complied with and that it had no statutory discretion to waive or extend that period; because the applicant's request was filed years after the decisions were communicated, the Appeal Division correctly...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2019 FCA 277
Parties
Applicant: Randy MacLean; Respondent: Attorney General of Canada
Court
Federal Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review of Administrative Decision (social Security Tribunal) / Final Decision on Judicial Review by Federal Court of Appeal
Outcome
Application for judicial review dismissed without costs.
Legal Topics
Limitation Period, Rescind or Amend Decisions, Tribunal Discretion, New Facts, Canada Pension Plan Disability Benefits
Source Language
en
Administrative Law Social Security Law Pension Benefits Statutory Interpretation Limitation Period Rescind or Amend Decisions Tribunal Discretion New Facts +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Randy MacLean

Applicant

Attorney General of Canada

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review of Administrative Decision (social Security Tribunal) / Final Decision on Judicial Review by Federal Court of Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the Appeal Division reasonably applied subsection 66(2) of the Department of Employment and Social Development Act to refuse the application as time-barred
  2. 2 Whether the Social Security Tribunal had discretion to waive the one-year limitation period in s.66(2)
  3. 3 Whether the medical reports relied on by the applicant constituted new facts that would permit rescission or amendment of the Pension Appeals Board decisions

Ratio Decidendi

The Appeal Division reasonably concluded that subsection 66(2) imposes a one-year limitation that must be complied with and that it had no statutory discretion to waive or extend that period; because the applicant's request was filed years after the decisions were communicated, the Appeal Division correctly dismissed the application as time-barred.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review dismissed without costs.

Orders

  • Application for judicial review dismissed without costs