Jones v. Canada (Attorney General), (2010) 373 F.T.R. 142 (FC)

• Judge: Gauthier, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: April 28, 2010
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2010), 373 F.T.R. 142 (FC);2010 FC 740

Jones v. Can. (A.G.) (2010), 373 F.T.R. 142 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2010] F.T.R. TBEd. JL.017

Douglas Jones (applicant) v. Attorney General of Canada (respondent)

(T-1650-09; 2010 FC 740)

Indexed As: Jones v. Canada (Attorney General)

Federal Court

Gauthier, J.

July 9, 2010.

Summary:

Jones applied for judicial review of a decision of the Minister denying his request for remedial action under s. 66(4) of the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) on the basis of erroneous advice or administrative error in the determination of his application for CPP disability benefits in May 1987 and in December 1994.

The Federal Court dismissed the application.

Government Programs - Topic 1222.2

Canada Pension Plan - Entitlement - Disability benefits - Jones applied for judicial review of a decision of the Minister denying his request for remedial action under s. 66(4) of the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) on the basis of erroneous advice or administrative error in the determination of his application for CPP disability benefits in May 1987 and in December 1994 - The Federal Court dismissed the application - The "decisions" made in 1987 and 1994 that Jones was still capable of gainful employment and that his condition in 1987 or 1994 was not severe and prolonged within the meaning of the CPP could not constitute erroneous advice or administrative errors - These decisions could only be challenged through the generous appeal process in the CPP and ultimately through judicial review - The same conclusion applied to all the alleged errors which related directly to such decisions such as that the reasons given for the refusal were confusing - The failure to obtain further information from Jones' doctor did not constitute an administrative error, given that there was no statutory obligation or any published policy to that effect - If the position taken by Jones was accepted, namely that before reviewing an application, the Department had to obtain whatever evidence was available from the family doctor or any specialist listed in an application or prior application, whether or not it was filed by the applicant, that it had to explain the CPP to him and that it had to tell him what information was missing from his file, including whether he should file additional evidence, then the fact that the CPP Regulations put the burden of proof on the applicant would have no meaning - There was no justification for setting aside the decision.

Cases Noticed:

Florea v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1993] F.C.J. No. 598 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 13, footnote 10].

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190; 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 32].

Manning v. Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development) et al., [2009] F.T.R. Uned. 300; 2009 FC 523, refd to. [para. 32].

Leskiw v. Canada (Attorney General) (2004), 320 N.R. 175; 2004 FCA 177, refd to. [para. 32].

Kissoon v. Canada (Minister of Human Development Resources) (2004), 245 F.T.R. 152; 2004 FC 24, affd. (2004), 329 N.R. 232; 2004 FCA 384, refd to. [para. 32].

Graceffa v. Canada (Minister of Social Development) (2006), 306 F.T.R. 193; 2006 FC 1513, refd to. [para. 34].

King v. Canada, [2010] N.R. Uned. 80; 2010 FCA 122, refd to. [para. 35].

King v. Canada (Minister of Human Resources and Social Development) (2009), 392 N.R. 227; 2009 FCA 105, refd to. [para. 36].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Vinet-Proulx (2007), 308 F.T.R. 134; 2007 FC 99, refd to. [para. 46].

Bartlett v. Canada (Attorney General) (2007), 308 F.T.R. 169; 2007 FC 89, refd to. [para. 46].

Cepeda-Gutierrez et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (1998), 157 F.T.R. 35; 83 A.C.W.S.(3d) 264 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 55].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Clegg (2008), 380 N.R. 275; 2008 FCA 189, refd to. [para. 55].

Mulveney v. Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development), [2007] F.T.R. Uned. 951; 160 A.C.W.S.(3d) 187; 2007 FC 869, refd to. [para. 56].

Scheuneman v. Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development) (2005), 337 N.R. 307; 2005 FCA 254, refd to. [para. 63, footnote 25].

King v. Canada (2007), 310 F.T.R. 120; 2007 FC 272, refd to. [para. 63, footnote 25].

Whitton v. Canada (Procureur général) (2002), 291 N.R. 318; 2002 FCA 46, refd to. [para. 63, footnote 25].

Statutes Noticed:

Canada Pension Plan Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-8, sect. 66(4) [Annex A].

Counsel:

William J. Andrews, for the applicant;

Allan Matte, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

William J. Andrews, for the applicant;

Myles J. Kirvan, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.

This application was heard on April 28, 2010, at Vancouver, British Columbia, by Gauthier, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following judgment at Ottawa, Ontario, on July 9, 2010.