Sanders v. Canada (Attorney General), (2015) 480 F.T.R. 36 (FC)

• Judge: St-Louis, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: March 17, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2015), 480 F.T.R. 36 (FC);2015 FC 556

Sanders v. Can. (A.G.) (2015), 480 F.T.R. 36 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] F.T.R. TBEd. MY.012

Robert Sanders (applicant) v. Attorney General of Canada (respondent)

(T-1082-14; 2015 FC 556)

Indexed As: Sanders v. Canada (Attorney General)

Federal Court

St-Louis, J.

April 29, 2015.

Summary:

Sanders applied for a disability pension, alleging that his dementia was related to his overexposure to chemicals during his military service. The Veteran's Review and Appeal Board denied Sanders' application for reconsideration of an earlier entitlement appeal decision which upheld the denial of Sanders' entitlement to a pension on the basis of insufficient evidence to support the claim that his dementia was attributable to his service in the regular force in peacetime (Pension Act, s. 21(2)(a)). Sanders applied for judicial review.

The Federal Court, on the standard of reasonableness, dismissed the application.

Armed Forces - Topic 8082

Pensions - Disability and survivor pensions - Entitlement - Evidence and proof (incl. standard of proof) - [See Armed Forces - Topic 8094 ].

Armed Forces - Topic 8093

Pension - Disability and survivor pensions - Entitlement - Judicial review - [See Armed Forces - Topic 8094 ].

Armed Forces - Topic 8094

Pensions - Disability and survivor pensions - Entitlement - Activity connected to military - Sanders applied for a disability pension, alleging that his dementia was related to his overexposure to chemicals during his military service - The Veteran's Review and Appeal Board denied Sanders' application for reconsideration of an earlier entitlement appeal decision which upheld the denial of Sanders' entitlement to a pension on the basis of insufficient evidence to support the claim that his dementia was attributable to his service in the regular force in peacetime (Pension Act, s. 21(2)(a)) - The Review Board confirmed the Appeal Board's finding that there was no evidence of exposure, and thus no causal linkage between Sanders' military service and his condition - The Federal Court dismissed the judicial review application - The "no causal linkage" conclusion was reasonable - The opinion evidence was, for the most part, based on Sanders' testimony, without any other properly admissible evidence to establish its basis - Even where the evidence was not only based on Sanders' testimony, it remained non-conclusive - The Court also found that the Appeal Board's qualification of the evidence as "speculative" and not "convincing", amounted to a determination that it was not credible - Sections 3 and 39 of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act did not result in an automatic pension award on the basis of injury submissions - The evidence tendered in this case could not raise a doubt as to causation - See paragraphs 34 to 48.

Government Programs - Topic 2542

Veterans' pensions - Entitlement - Evidence and proof - [See Armed Forces - Topic 8094 ].

Government Programs - Topic 2555

Veterans' pensions - Entitlement - Appeals or judicial review - [See Armed Forces - Topic 8094 ].

Cases Noticed:

McAllister v. Canada (Attorney General), [2013] F.T.R. Uned. 330; 2013 FC 689, refd to. [para. 14].

Quann v. Canada (Attorney General) (2013), 431 F.T.R. 308; 2013 FC 460, refd to. [para. 16].

Boisvert v. Canada (Attorney General), [2009] F.T.R. Uned. 880; 2009 FC 735, refd to. [para. 32].

Lunn v. Veterans Affairs Canada (2010), 379 F.T.R. 59; 2010 FC 1229, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Abbey, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 24; 43 N.R. 30, refd to. [para. 39].

Wannamaker v. Canada (Attorney General) (2007), 361 N.R. 266; 2007 FCA 126, refd to. [para. 39].

Elliot v. Canada (Attorney General) (2003), 307 N.R. 344; 2003 FCA 298, refd to. [para. 41].

Weare v. Canada (Attorney General) (1998), 153 F.T.R. 75 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 45].

Hall v. Canada (Attorney General) (1998), 152 F.T.R. 58 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 45].

Statutes Noticed:

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

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

Counsel:

Daniel Johnson and Duncan Marsden, for the applicant;

Darcie Charlton, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Borden Ladner Gervais, LLP, Calgary, Alberta, for the applicant;

William F. Pentney, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Edmonton, Alberta, for the respondent.

This application for judicial review was heard at Calgary, Alberta, on March 17, 2015, before St-Louis, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following judgment and reasons, dated April 29, 2015, at Montreal, Quebec.