Canada (Attorney General) v. McGee, (2007) 367 N.R. 94 (FCA)

• Judge: Létourneau, Nadon and Pelletier, JJ.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: May 28, 2007
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2007), 367 N.R. 94 (FCA);2007 FCA 208

Can. (A.G.) v. McGee (2007), 367 N.R. 94 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2007] N.R. TBEd. JN.025

Attorney General of Canada (applicant) v. Peter McGee (respondent)

(A-491-06; 2007 FCA 208)

Indexed As: Canada (Attorney General) v. McGee

Federal Court of Appeal

Létourneau, Nadon and Pelletier, JJ.A.

May 28, 2007.

Summary:

The Minister of Social Development Canada applied for leave to appeal a decision of a Review Tribunal under the Canada Pension Plan Act and sought an extension of time to file the application for leave. A designated member of the Pension Appeals Board granted an extension of time and leave to appeal. The respondent moved to strike the order extending the time. On the day of the hearing of the merits of the appeal, the Board granted the motion to strike and dismissed the appeal. The Attorney General applied for judicial review.

The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the application, set aside the Board's decision and remitted the matter to the Board for a hearing on the merits of the appeal by a differently constituted panel.

Government Programs - Topic 1203

Canada Pension Plan - General - Jurisdiction - The Minister of Social Development Canada applied for leave to appeal a decision of a Review Tribunal under the Canada Pension Plan Act and sought an extension of time to file the application for leave - A designated member of the Pension Appeals Board granted an extension of time and leave to appeal - The respondent moved to strike the order extending the time - On the day of the hearing of the merits of the appeal, the Board granted the motion to strike and dismissed the appeal - The Federal Court of Appeal set aside the decision - The extension of time was not challenged by way of judicial review and therefore became final and binding - The Board's jurisdiction was statutory and it derived all of its powers from the Canada Pension Plan Act - The Board's jurisdiction was over decisions of a Review Tribunal - The Act did not give the Board the power to sit on appeal or review a final and binding decision rendered by one of its members.

Government Programs - Topic 1225

Canada Pension Plan - Entitlement - Appeals and judicial review (incl. application for leave to appeal) - [See Government Programs - Topic 1203 ].

Cases Noticed:

Martin v. Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development) (1999), 252 N.R. 141 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

Oliveira v. Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development) (2004), 320 N.R. 168; 2004 FCA 136, refd to. [para. 6].

Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development) v. Dawdy (2006), 290 F.T.R. 54; 2006 FC 429, refd to. [para. 6].

Callihoo v. Canada (Attorney General) (2000), 190 F.T.R. 114 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 6].

Kerth v. Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development) (1999), 173 F.T.R. 102 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 6].

Counsel:

Allan Matte, for the applicant.

Solicitors of Record:

John H. Sims, Q.C., Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the applicant.

This application was heard at Fredericton, New Brunswick, on May 28, 2007, by Létourneau, Nadon and Pelletier, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal. Létourneau, J.A., delivered the following reasons for judgment orally for the court on the same date.