Stevenson v. Canada (Attorney General), (2014) 469 F.T.R. 49 (FC)

• Judge: O'Keefe, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: May 26, 2014
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2014), 469 F.T.R. 49 (FC);2014 FC 1130

Stevenson v. Can. (A.G.) (2014), 469 F.T.R. 49 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] F.T.R. TBEd. DE.007

Francis Stevenson (applicant) v. Attorney General of Canada (respondent)

(T-1613-13; 2014 FC 1130)

Indexed As: Stevenson v. Canada (Attorney General)

Federal Court

O'Keefe, J.

November 25, 2014.

Summary:

Stevenson was a member of the R.C.M.P. from 1972 to 2009. He was diagnosed with hypertension in 1998 and with coronary artery disease in 2000. Believing that stress from his work was partially responsible for both conditions, he applied for a disability pension in accordance with s. 32(1) of the R.C.M.P. Superannuation Act and s. 21(2) of the Pension Act. The request was denied because no service connection was established. The Veterans Review and Appeal Board's reconsideration panel upheld the appeal panel's decision to reject the claim. Stevenson applied for judicial review.

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

Government Programs - Topic 3827

Pensions for government employees or R.C.M.P. - Entitlement - Disability pensions - [See Government Programs - Topic 3832 ].

Government Programs - Topic 3832

Pensions for government employees or R.C.M.P. - Entitlement - Evidence - The applicant claimed a disability pension in accordance with s. 32(1) of the R.C.M.P. Superannuation Act and s. 21(2) of the Pension Act - The claim was denied because no service connection was established - The Veterans Review and Appeal Board's reconsideration panel upheld the appeal panel's decision to reject the claim - The Federal Court, in dismissing the judicial review application, held that the Board did not err by rejecting the applicant's evidence about his stress - The Board's conclusion that the applicant had not proven that work-related stress was responsible for his heart conditions was defensible in respect of the facts and the law - The Board had before it significant evidence that the applicant possessed a number of non-work-related risk factors for the health problems he eventually had - On the other hand, it had no reliable evidence that the applicant experienced the type of chronic stress at his job that could contribute to hypertension, and significant contemporaneous evidence to the contrary - Since there was no credible evidence which could have raised any doubt or from which it could have drawn a favourable inference, s. 39 of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act was not engaged - See paragraphs 43 to 50.

Cases Noticed:

Rivard v. Canada (Procureur général) (2001), 209 F.T.R. 43; 2001 FCT 704, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Palmer, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 759; 30 N.R. 181; 106 D.L.R.(3d) 212, refd to. [para. 19].

Powell v. Canada (Attorney General) (2005), 271 F.T.R. 306; 2005 FC 433, refd to. [para. 29].

Leroux v. Canada (Attorney General) (2012), 415 F.T.R. 121; 2012 FC 869, refd to. [para. 30].

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

Wannamaker v. Canada (Attorney General) (2007), 361 N.R. 266; 2007 FCA 126, refd to. [para. 32].

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. 35].

Werring v. Canada (Attorney General), [2013] F.T.R. Uned. 115; 2013 FC 240, refd to. [para. 35].

Khosa v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2009] 1 S.C.R. 339; 385 N.R. 206; 2009 SCC 12, refd to. [para. 36].

Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union v. Newfoundland and Labrador (Treasury Board) et al., [2011] 3 S.C.R. 708; 424 N.R. 220; 317 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 340; 986 A.P.R. 340; 2011 SCC 62, refd to. [para. 36].

Frye v. Canada (Attorney General) (2005), 338 N.R. 382; 2005 FCA 264, refd to. [para. 37].

Chief Pensions Advocate v. Canada (Attorney General) (2006), 302 F.T.R. 201; 2006 FC 1317, affd. (2007), 370 N.R. 314; 2007 FCA 298, refd to. [para. 40].

Deschênes v. Canada (Attorney General), [2011] F.T.R. Uned. 293; 2011 FC 449, refd to. [para. 41].

Hynes v. Canada (Attorney General) (2012), 405 F.T.R. 238; 2012 FC 207, refd to. [para. 41].

Statutes Noticed:

Pension Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-6, sect. 2, sect. 21(2), sect. 21(2.1), sect. 82(1), sect. 84 [Annex].

Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. R-11, sect. 3(1), sect. 32 [Annex].

Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act, S.C. 1995, c. 18, sect. 3, sect. 18, sect. 25, sect. 26, sect. 31, sect. 32(1), sect. 38(1) [Annex]; sect. 39 [para. 43].

Counsel:

Roberto Ghignone, for the applicant;

Korinda McLaine, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, Ottawa, Ontario, for the applicant;

William F. Pentney, Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.

This application was heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on May 26, 2014, before O'Keefe, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following reasons for judgment and judgment, dated November 25, 2014.