S. F. v. Minister of Employment and Social Development

S. F. v. Minister of Employment and Social Development Collection Canada Pension Plan (CPP) disability Decision date 2018-01-22 Neutral citation 2018 SST 57 Reference number AD-17-857 Member Valerie Hazlett Parker Division Appeal Division Decision Application for leave to appeal refused Decision Content On this page Decision Overview Issues Analysis Conclusion Reasons and decision Decision [1] Leave to appeal is refused. Overview [2] Mr. S. F. (Applicant) completed high school, some college accounting courses and has been trained to drive heavy trucks and as a painter. He worked as a painter until the end of 2012. In October 2012 and December 2012 he was injured at work. He claims that he is disabled under the Canada Pension Plan as a result of these injuries and consequent ongoing pain. He has been diagnosed with a number of other medical conditions as well. The Minister of Employment and Social Development refused the Applicant’s application for a disability pension. The Applicant appealed this decision to the Tribunal. The Tribunal’s General Division dismissed the appeal. The Applicant’s request for leave to appeal to the Tribunal’s Appeal Division is refused as the General Division made no error regarding the weight it gave to the evidence that was before it. Issues [3] The Applicant requests leave to appeal on the basis that the General Division erred in how it weighed the medical evidence that was before it. I must decide whether this is a ground of appeal that has a reasonable chance of success on appeal. Analysis [4] The Department of Employment and Social Development Act (DESD Act) governs the Tribunal’s operation. The only grounds of appeal available under the DESD Act are that the General Division failed to observe a principle of natural justice, made an error of law, or based its decision on an erroneous finding of fact made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it. In addition, leave to appeal is to be refused if the appeal has no reasonable chance of success.Footnote 1 The Applicant’s arguments for leave to appeal must be considered in this context. [5] The Applicant contends that the General Division erred because it gave greater weight to medical reports prepared by medical specialists rather than his treating physician. The General Division’s mandate is to receive the evidence from the parties, weigh it, and make a decision based on the law and the facts.Footnote 2 The decision contains a detailed summary of all of the evidence that was before it. It explains why it gave greater weight to the specialists’ evidence. The explanation for giving greater weight to the specialists’ evidence is intelligible and sensible. Therefore, the Applicant’s argument is not a ground of appeal that may have a reasonable chance of success. [6] I have also reviewed the written record. I am satisfied that the General Division did not overlook or misconstrue any important evidence. There is no indication that the General Division failed to observe the principles of natural justice or made an error in law. Conclusion [7] Leave to appeal is refused because the Applicant did not present a ground of appeal that may have a reasonable chance of success on appeal. Footnotes Footnote 1 Section 58 of the DESD Act. Footnote 2 See Simpson v. Canada (Attorney General), 2012 FCA 82.