Elliot v. Canada (Attorney General), (2003) 307 N.R. 344 (FCA)

• Judge: Décary, Nadon and Pelletier, JJ.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: July 04, 2003
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2003), 307 N.R. 344 (FCA);2003 FCA 298

Elliot v. Can. (A.G.) (2003), 307 N.R. 344 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2003] N.R. TBEd. JL.016

Daniel William Elliot (appellant) v. Attorney General for Canada for Veterans Review and Appeal Board (respondent)

(A-590-02; 2003 FCA 298)

Indexed As: Elliot v. Canada (Attorney General)

Federal Court of Appeal

Décary, Nadon and Pelletier, JJ.A.

July 4, 2003.

Summary:

Elliot made a claim for military disability and pension entitlement for Irritable Bowel Syndrome which Elliot claimed resulted from a meal he had taken at CFB Borden. The claim was denied at both the ministerial and Veterans Review and Appeal Board levels. Elliot applied for judicial review.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Divi­sion, in a decision reported 226 F.T.R. 145, dismissed the application. Elliot appealed.

The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Armed Forces - Topic 8082

Pensions - Disability pensions - Entitle­ment - Evidence and proof (incl. standard of proof) - Elliot made a claim for military disability and pension entitlement for Irritable Bowel Syndrome which Elliot claimed resulted from a meal he had taken at CFB Borden - The claim was denied at both the ministerial and Veterans Review and Appeal Board levels - On judicial review, the trial judge upheld the decision - The Board's conclusion that Elliot's IBS was not causally linked to that meal at the mess hall was supported by the evidence, and Elliot's evidence had not raised a "benefit of the doubt" to be resolved in his favour - The Federal Court of Appeal upheld the decision - The court added that if the direction, in s. 39(a) of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act, to draw every reasonable inference in favour of the appellant was to have any meaning, it had to apply in cases where an inference would not be drawn on a balance of probabilities - A reasonable inference was therefore one that was not necessarily probable but none­theless had to be more than a mere possi­bility.

Government Programs - Topic 2542

Veterans' pensions - Entitlement - Evi­dence and proof - [See Armed Forces - Topic 8082 ].

Cases Noticed:

Metcalfe v. Canada (1999), 160 F.T.R. 281 (T.D.), consd. [para. 41].

Statutes Noticed:

Pension Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-6, sect. 21(2)(a), sect. 21(3)(f) [para. 18].

Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act, S.C. 1995, c. 18, sect. 3, sect. 39 [para. 18].

Counsel:

Daniel W. Elliot, for the appellant;

Tracy King, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

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

This appeal was heard at Edmonton, Alberta, on May 26, 2003, by Décary, Nadon and Pelletier, JJ.A, of the Federal Court of Appeal.

The decision of the Court of Appeal was delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on July 4, 2003, by Nadon, J.A.