Davies v. Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development), (1999) 177 F.T.R. 88 (TD)

• Judge: Teitelbaum, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: September 08, 1999
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1999), 177 F.T.R. 88 (TD)

Davies v. Can. (1999), 177 F.T.R. 88 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1999] F.T.R. TBEd. OC.132

Daniel Davies (applicant) v. The Minister of Human Resources Development (respondent)

(T-1789-98)

Indexed As: Davies v. Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development)

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Teitelbaum, J.

October 7, 1999.

Summary:

The Review Tribunal denied Davies dis­ability benefits under the Canada Pension Plan. The vice-chairman of the Pension Appeals Board refused Davies leave to appeal and upheld the decision. Davies applied for judicial review.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, dismissed the application.

Administrative Law - Topic 9102

Boards and tribunals - Judicial review - Standard of review - The Review Tribunal denied Davies disability benefits under the Can­ada Pension Plan - The vice-chairman of the Pension Appeals Board refused Davies leave to appeal and upheld the de­cision - Davies applied for judicial review - At issue, inter alia, was the appro­priate standard of review to apply - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that a middle to lower level of defer­ence should be accorded to the Pension Appeal Board's decision - The following factors were considered: the application of the privative clause in s. 84(1) of the Canada Pension Plan; the Pension Appeal Board's special expertise; the purpose of s. 84(1) and the Plan generally; and the fact based determination - See paragraphs 1 to 40.

Courts - Topic 4021.1

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction - Trial Division - Decisions of federal boards, commissions or tribunals - [See Administrative Law - Topic 9102 ].

Government Programs - Topic 1221.1

Canada Pension Plan - Entitlement - Con­siderations - The Review Tribunal denied Davies disability benefits under the Canada Pension Plan because the totality of condi­tions suffered by Davies did not satisfy the criteria in s. 42(2) of the Canada Pension Plan - The vice-chairman of the Pension Appeals Board refused Davies leave to appeal and upheld the decision - Davies applied for judicial review, asserting, inter alia, that his age and education level com­bined with his medical conditions led to the con­clusion that it was unrealistic to expect he could obtain employment after retraining - Davies had a grade 10 educa­tion and was an electrician - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, held that the Plan did not provide for the consider­ation of age or education under s. 42(2) - The only issue was whether he was capable of obtaining some type of substan­tially gain­ful employment, not necessarily anything related to his previous job - See paragraph 46 to 48.

Government Programs - Topic 1225

Canada pension plan - Entitlement - Appeals and judicial review - [See Admin­istrative Law - Topic 9102 and Govern­ment Programs - Topic 1221.1 ].

Cases Noticed:

Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citi­zenship and Immigration), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982; 226 N.R. 201, refd to. [para. 22].

Martin v. Canada (Minister of Human Re­sources Development) (1998), 153 F.T.R. 124 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 22].

Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1999), 243 N.R. 22 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 23].

Kerth v. Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development) (1999), 173 F.T.R. 102 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 23].

Ismaili v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1995), 100 F.T.R. 139 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 41].

Statutes Noticed:

Canada Pension Plan, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-8, sect. 42(2) [para. 43]; sect. 83(1) [para. 15]; sect. 84(1) [para. 24].

Counsel:

Madeleine Hebert, for the applicant;

Michelle Mann, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

McQuesten Legal and Community Ser­vices, Hamilton, Ontario, for the appli­cant;

Morris Rosenberg, Deputy Attorney Gen­eral of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.

This application was heard on September 8, 1999, at Toronto, Ontario, by Teitelbaum, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following deci­sion on October 7, 1999.