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
La Cour fĂ©dĂ©rale rejette le contrĂŽle judiciaire dâun refus de demande CH, jugeant raisonnable lâanalyse sur lâidentitĂ©, lâĂ©tablissement, lâintĂ©rĂȘt supĂ©rieur des enfants et la preuve mĂ©dicale.
Res judicata confined the relevant period to October 21âDecember 31, 2005 (the Window); there is no persuasive contemporaneous medical or functional evidence showing a deterioration in the claimantâs work capacity during that Window and treating physician statements relied on were either consistent with preâWindow conditions or given many years later and thus entitled to limited weight; on the balance of probabilities the claimant did not begin to have a severe disability in the Window, so the appeal fails.
Source excerpt
The Appellant failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that she lacked the cognitive ability to form or express an intention to apply for CPP disability before November 2020 because contemporaneous medical reports showed coherent thought and insight, her activities (consenting to treatment, managing daily tasks) indicated capacity, and the physicians' declarations did not outweigh that evidence; therefore she is not entitled to earlier deemed disability or additional retroactive payments.
Source excerpt
The Appeal Division dismissed the appeal because the General Division did not commit a reviewable error of law or fact: it reasonably weighed medical and nonâmedical evidence, properly considered the claimant's functional limitations and personal circumstances, and rationally concluded the claimant did not meet the CPP definition of a severe and prolonged disability as of December 31, 2020.
Source excerpt
The Appeal Division dismissed the appeal because the General Division acted within its powers, applied the correct legal tests, appropriately weighed conflicting medical and testimonial evidence, and reasonably concluded there was insufficient proof that the claimant lacked the capacity to form or express an intention to apply for CPP disability before January 2018.
Source excerpt
The Appeal Division's decision was unreasonable because it failed to provide adequate analysis showing the General Division had considered whether the applicant's incapacity was 'regular' as required by CPP s.42(2)(a)(i) and applicable jurisprudence (Villani and Vavilov), and therefore the Appeal Division's conclusion could not be justified; the matter is remitted for redetermination and costs awarded to the applicant.
Source excerpt
The Appeal is dismissed because the General Division acted within its jurisdiction, gave adequate reasons for its assessment of Dr. Nagel's opinion (which did not preclude sedentary work), and properly applied the employment efforts test by finding the Claimant's job search lacked the breadth and regularity required to meet the reasonableness standard.
Source excerpt
The General Division applied an impermissibly high standard by requiring confidence and conclusive proof from the psychological assessment; on the correct balance of probabilities and weighing the claimant's testimony together with an uncontradicted October 2018 psychological assessment diagnosing chronic pain disorder with major depressive disorder (GAF 50) the claimant proved a severe and prolonged disability and is entitled to a CPP disability pension effective as found by the Appeal Division.
Source excerpt
The Applicant failed to identify any ground under s.58(1) DESDA that had a reasonable chance of success; merely re-stating medical evidence and disagreeing with the General Division does not show an arguable legal error, and the General Division acted within its factâfinding authority in weighing medical reports, so leave to appeal is refused.
Source excerpt
The Appeal Division found the General Division committed reviewable legal error under DESDA s.58(1) by failing to apply required case law (Villani, Lalonde, Kaminski, Monk) in a realâworld severity assessment, by not examining outstanding treatments and the reasonableness of any refusal, and by improperly discounting medical reports solely because they were insurerâgenerated and by making an overbroad factual finding that there was "no evidence of work capacity" without acknowledging contrary evidence; accordingly the appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for a new hearing before a diffeâŠ
Source excerpt
Explore more
