Whiteley v. Canada (Minister of Social Development)
The Pension Appeal Board's reasons were inadequate because they failed to analyse the law or apply it to the facts, breaching the duty of procedural fairness; accordingly the Board's decision is set aside and the matter remitted to a differently constituted panel.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2006 FCA 72
- Parties
- Applicant: Susan Whiteley; Respondent: Minister of Social Development
- Court
- Federal Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 13 February 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal to Federal Court of Appeal From Pension Appeal Board Decision Under the Canada Pension Plan / Hearing and Judgment; Board Decision Set Aside and Matter Remitted to a Differently Constituted Panel
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; Board decision set aside and matter remitted to a differently constituted panel; costs awarded to applicant in this Court
- Legal Topics
- Reasons for Decision, Procedural Fairness, Judicial Review, Canada Pension Plan, Pension Appeal Board
- 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
Susan Whiteley
Applicant
Minister of Social Development
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal to Federal Court of Appeal From Pension Appeal Board Decision Under the Canada Pension Plan / Hearing and Judgment; Board Decision Set Aside and Matter Remitted to a Differently Constituted Panel
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Pension Appeal Board provided adequate reasons for its decision
- 2 Whether the Board breached the duty of procedural fairness by failing to analyse law and evidence
- 3 Whether the applicant discharged the onus to prove disability was severe and prolonged under the Canada Pension Plan
Ratio Decidendi
The Pension Appeal Board's reasons were inadequate because they failed to analyse the law or apply it to the facts, breaching the duty of procedural fairness; accordingly the Board's decision is set aside and the matter remitted to a differently constituted panel.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; Board decision set aside and matter remitted to a differently constituted panel; costs awarded to applicant in this Court
Orders
- Set aside the Pension Appeal Board decision
- Refer the matter to a differently constituted panel of the Pension Appeal Board for redetermination
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Whiteley v. Canada (Minister of Social Development) Court (s) Database Federal Court of Appeal Decisions Date 2006-02-13 Neutral citation 2006 FCA 72 File numbers A-362-05 Decision Content Date: 20060213 Docket: A-362-05 Citation: 2006 FCA 72 CORAM: DÉCARY J.A. LÉTOURNEAU J.A. SEXTON J.A. BETWEEN: SUSAN WHITELEY Applicant and MINISTER OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT (Formerly MINISTER OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT) Respondent Heard at Halifax, Nova Scotia, on February 13, 2006. Judgment delivered from the Bench at Halifax, Nova Scotia, on February 13, 2006. REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: DÉCARY J.A. Date: 20060213 Docket: A-362-05 Citation: 2006 FCA 72 CORAM: DÉCARY J.A. LÉTOURNEAU J.A. SEXTON J.A. BETWEEN: SUSAN WHITELEY Applicant and MINISTER OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT (Formerly MINISTER OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT) Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Delivered from the Bench at Halifax, Nova Scotia, on February 13, 2006) DÉCARY J.A. [1] The reasons for decisions of the Pension Appeal Board are, in our view, totally inadequate. [2] The Board has a statutory duty to provide the parties with reasons for its decision (see subsection 83(11) of the Canada Pension Plan). The analysis of the evidence must be such as to enable the parties and, on judicial review, the Court to understand how the Board reached its decision. Furthermore, the Court must be in a position to determine whether the Board understood the state of the law and whether it applied it to the facts of the case. [3] In the case at bar, the reasons describe the evidence in a summary way for some twenty paragraphs and go on as follows, in the last paragraph: [24] In my view, the Appellant has not discharged the onus upon her to prove on a balance of probabilities that her disability was severe and prolonged as contemplated by the Canada Pension Plan on or before December 31, 2002. [4] The Board, clearly, did not analyse the law nor the evidence in any meaningful way. It is not enough to relate the evidence and then immediately conclude that the onus had not been met. The Board's failure to provide adequate reasons breached the duty of procedural fairness owed to the applicant. This Court has no other choice but to set aside the Board's decision and refer the matter to a differently constituted panel of the Board for redetermination. The applicant will be allowed her costs in this Court. "Robert Décary" J.A. FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD DOCKET: A-362-05 STYLE OF CAUSE: SUSAN WHITELEY v. MINISTER OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT (Formerly MINISTER OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT) PLACE OF HEARING: HALIFAX, NOVA SCOTIA DATE OF HEARING: FEBRUARY 13, 2006 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: DÉCARY, LÉTOURNEAU, SEXTON JJ.A. DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: DÉCARY J.A. APPEARANCES: Glenn E. Jones FOR THE APPLICANT Laura Dalloo FOR THE RESPONDENT SOLICITORS OF RECORD: Pressé & Mason Law Office Bedford, Nova Scotia FOR THE APPLICANT John H. Sims Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada FOR THE RESPONDENT