Thibault Estate v. Canada (Attorney General), 2005 FC 47

• Judge: Martineau, J.
• Court: Federal Court (Canada)
• Case Date: January 11, 2005
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: 2005 FC 47;(2005), 268 F.T.R. 48 (FC)

Thibault Estate v. Can. (A.G.) (2005), 268 F.T.R. 48 (FC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2005] F.T.R. TBEd. JA.042

The Estate of Juliette Thibault (applicant) v. The Attorney General of Canada (respondent)

(T-1018-04; 2005 FC 47)

Indexed As: Thibault Estate v. Canada (Attorney General)

Federal Court

Martineau, J.

January 17, 2005.

Summary:

Thibault was born in 1914 and became eligible for Canada Pension Plan retirement benefits upon retirement but never made an application. She died in 2002 at the age of 87. Veinot, Thibault's son, applied for a retirement pension on behalf of Thibault's estate. Human Resources Development Canada approved the application and paid Thibault's estate a post-mortem retirement pension that included 11 months of retroactive benefits. After a reconsideration gave the same results, Veinot appealed to the Review Tribunal. The Tribunal confirmed the decision. Veinot applied for leave to appeal.

The Federal Court dismissed the application.

Government Programs - Topic 1225

Canada Pension Plan - Entitlement - Appeals and judicial review (incl. application for leave to appeal) - Thibault was born in 1914 and became eligible for Canada Pension Plan retirement benefits upon retirement but never made an application - She died in 2002 at the age of 87 - Veinot, Thibault's son, applied for a retirement pension on behalf of Thibault's estate - Human Resources Development Canada approved the application and paid Thibault's estate a post-mortem retirement pension that included 11 months of retroactive benefits (Canada Pension Plan, s. 67(3)) - After a reconsideration gave the same results, Veinot appealed to the Review Tribunal - The Tribunal confirmed the decision and held that the period of retroactivity was limited to 11 months pursuant to s. 67(3) and that the limit on retroactivity of benefits applied to applications made by estates - Consequently, there was no arguable case - Veinot applied for leave to appeal - The Federal Court dismissed the application - The Tribunal applied the right test, i.e., whether the application raised an arguable case - Further, the court held that the reasons given by the Tribunal could stand up to a probing analysis.

Government Programs - Topic 1235

Canada Pension Plan - Entitlement - Retroactive benefits - [See Government Programs - Topic 1225 ].

Cases Noticed:

Meyer v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2003), 301 N.R. 373 (F.C.A.), consd. [para. 8].

Paproski v. Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development), [2000] F.T.R. Uned. 703 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 14].

Rafuse v. Pension Appeals Board (Can.) et al. (2002), 286 N.R. 385 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

Martin v. Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development) (1999), 252 N.R. 141 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

Callihoo v. Canada (Attorney General) (2000), 190 F.T.R. 114 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 15].

Davies v. Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development) (1999), 177 F.T.R. 88 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 15].

Rafuse v. Pension Appeals Board (Can.) et al. (2000), 199 F.T.R. 255 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 15].

Wihksne v. Canada (Attorney General) (2000), 186 F.T.R. 124 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 15].

Kerth v. Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development) (1999), 173 F.T.R. 102 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 16].

Counsel:

Charles Demond, for the applicant;

Florence Clancy, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Charles Demond, Bedford, Nova Scotia, for the applicant;

John H. Sims, Q.C., Deputy Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the respondent.

This application was heard on January 11, 2005, at Halifax, Nova Scotia, before Martineau, J., of the Federal Court, who delivered the following decision on January 17, 2005.