Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Federal Court dismissed judicial review, finding the Minister reasonably concluded no administrative error occurred in mailing a CPP reconsideration letter and that section 7 was not engaged.
Leave to appeal was refused because the application did not raise an arguable case that the General Division erred on the facts or law and did not present any new evidence; the record of earnings showed no valid years of CPP contributions (therefore claimant is not a contributor) and that record is presumed accurate, so claimant is ineligible for a CPP retirement pension.
Source excerpt
The Appeal Division reasonably exercised discretion in refusing to admit a new s.7 argument; the General Division erred in law by failing to identify a distinction created by CPP s.74(2) that is based on an enumerated or analogous ground and by lacking evidence of a disproportionate impact on children of disabled parents, and the Appeal Division reasonably decided the matter itself rather than remit; accordingly the retroactivity cap in CPP s.74(2) does not infringe s.15(1) in these applications and all judicial review applications are dismissed.
Source excerpt
The Federal Court allowed judicial review of a CPP remedial-relief refusal, finding procedural unfairness and unreasonableness for failing to address the applicant’s central submissions.
Leave to appeal was refused because the claimant has no arguable ground that the General Division erred: he failed to provide medical evidence establishing a severe and prolonged disability during the relevant CPP coverage periods (ending December 31, 2007 and March 31, 2008 proration), and his other complaints (procedural, Charter, bias) are unsupported or mischaracterize the Tribunal's role, so the appeal has no reasonable chance of success.
Source excerpt
The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that she had a severe disability by the MQP (December 31, 2009): medical records show improvement and activity in early 2009, there is a significant evidentiary gap for Feb 2009–Mar 2010, later medical reports post‑MQP are not determinative, and there was no evidence of attempts at alternate work; allegations of adjudicator bias were rejected under the reasonable‑apprehension test.
Source excerpt
The Appeal Division reasonably dismissed the appeal as moot because the Minister issued a reconsideration decision before the Appeal Division’s ruling, eliminating any live controversy about whether a reconsideration decision was required; the Appeal Division correctly concluded it lacked jurisdiction to review the Minister’s reconsideration decision and lacked statutory authority to direct the Minister’s procedures or award costs or damages under the DESDA.
Source excerpt
Atkin v. Canada (Employment and Social Development)
The Appeal Division reasonably concluded that the General Division did not commit a reviewable error by not expressly determining whether the applicant's business was substantially gainful, that the appropriate standard of review is reasonableness, and that the record adequately supported the General Division's finding that the applicant had the capacity to pursue substantially gainful work; therefore the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the application.
Source excerpt
The General Division made a material erroneous finding of fact by stating reports dated before the MQP did not mention depression when clinical notes and a prescription for Paxil in the record showed treatment for depression before the MQP; that erroneous finding was material because it led the General Division to assess only the physical condition and not the claimant's conditions in their totality, warranting allowance of the appeal and remittal for a new hearing since the record was incomplete (no hearing recording) and claimant testimony is required.
Source excerpt
Leave to appeal refused because the Appeal Division’s limited statutory grounds were not met: the General Division applied the binding Ding legal test correctly and did not commit an error of law or base its decision on an erroneous finding of fact made perversely or without regard to the material before it; issues about Service Canada delays are outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to review.
Source excerpt
Explore more
