Salls v. Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development), (2000) 187 F.T.R. 280 (TD)

• Judge: Rouleau, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: May 24, 2000
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2000), 187 F.T.R. 280 (TD)

Salls v. Can. (2000), 187 F.T.R. 280 (TD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2000] F.T.R. TBEd. JL.123

Gillian Salls (applicant) v. The Minister of Human Resources Development (respondent)

(T-2204-98)

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

Federal Court of Canada

Trial Division

Rouleau, J.

June 28, 2000.

Summary:

A review tribunal held that Salls was not disabled within the meaning of s. 42(2) of the Canada Pension Plan Act. Salls applied for leave to appeal. The Pension Appeal Board denied leave. Salls applied for judicial review of the decision not to grant leave.

The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, set aside the decision of the Pension Appeal Board and directed that the application for leave to appeal be referred for reconsideration by a different board member.

Government Programs - Topic 1225

Canada Pension Plan - Entitlement - Appeals and judicial review (incl. application for leave to appeal) - A review tribunal held that Salls was not disabled within the meaning of s. 42(2) of the Canada Pension Plan Act - Salls applied for leave to appeal - The Pension Appeal Board denied leave - Salls applied for judicial review of the decision not to grant leave - The Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, referred the application for leave for reconsideration - The court stated that reasons of the board for refusing leave went beyond the fundamental question before it of whether an arguable case or question of law or jurisdiction had been raised by the application for leave to appeal - Rather, the board addressed whether the review tribunal's decision was correct and whether the appeal would succeed if allowed to proceed - That constituted a reviewable error of law which warranted intervention.

Cases Noticed:

Kerth v. Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development) (1999), 173 F.T.R. 102 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 7].

Counsel:

Thomas E. Plupek, for the applicant;

John Vaissi Nagy and Thomas Dastous, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Thomas E. Plupek, Edmonton, Alberta, for the applicant;

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

This application was heard at Edmonton, Alberta, on May 24, 2000, before Rouleau, J., of the Federal Court of Canada, Trial Division, who delivered the following judgment on June 28, 2000.