Villani v. Canada (Attorney General), (2001) 275 N.R. 324 (FCA)

• Judge: Linden, Isaac and Malone, JJ.A.
• Court: Federal Court of Appeal (Canada)
• Case Date: June 04, 2001
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2001), 275 N.R. 324 (FCA);2001 FCA 248;205 DLR (4th) 58;275 NR 324;38 Admin LR (3d) 115;[2001] FCJ No 1217 (QL)

Villani v. Can. (A.G.) (2001), 275 N.R. 324 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2001] N.R. TBEd. AU.016

Giuseppe Villani (appellant) v. The Attorney General of Canada (respondent)

(A-245-00; 2001 FCA 248)

Indexed As: Villani v. Canada (Attorney General)

Federal Court of Appeal

Linden, Isaac and Malone, JJ.A.

August 3, 2001.

Summary:

The applicant applied for a disability pension under the Canada Pension Plan. The Minister denied the application. The Review Tribunal affirmed the Minister's decision. The Pension Appeals Board, dismissed the appeal, holding that the applicant was not disabled within the meaning of s. 42(2) of the Plan. The applicant applied for judicial review.

The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the application and remitted the matter to a differently constituted panel.

Government Programs - Topic 1202

Canada Pension Plan - General - Inter­pretation - The Federal Court of Appeal held that the Canada Pension Plan was benefits-conferring legislation and, there­fore, should be given a generous construc­tion - See paragraphs 26 to 29.

Government Programs - Topic 1221.2

Canada Pension Plan - Entitlement - Severe disability - The applicant applied for a disability pension under the Canada Pension Plan - The Pension Appeals Board held that the applicant did not have a "severe" disability as required by s. 42(2)(a)(i) of the Plan - The Board held that s. 42(2)(a)(i) required that an applicant be incapable of pursuing "any occupation" without regard to the applicant's lack of education, special skills or basic language -The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the applicant's application for judicial review -The Board applied the wrong test for disability - The proper severity test in­volved an aspect of employability - The court stated that "the hypothetical occupa­tions which a decision-maker must con­sider cannot be divorced from the particu­lar circumstances of the applicant, such as age, education level, language proficiency and past work and life experience".

Government Programs - Topic 1225

Canada Pension Plan - Entitlement - Appeals and judicial review - The Federal Court of Appeal agreed that the standard of review of Pension Appeals Board deci­sions on questions of fact was one of patent unreasonableness - However, the court held that the standard of review on questions of law or mixed fact and law was correctness - See paragraphs 16 to 22.

Statutes - Topic 523.1

Interpretation - General principles - Ben­efits-conferring legislation - [See Gov­ernment Programs - Topic 1202 ].

Words and Phrases

Severe - The Federal Court of Appeal discussed the meaning of the word "severe" within the context of a disability as used in s. 42(2)(a)(i) of the Canada Pension Plan, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-8.

Cases Noticed:

Davies v. Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development) (1999), 177 F.T.R. 88 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 13].

Pasiechnyk v. Workers' Compensation Board (Sask.) - see Pasiechnyk et al. v. Procrane Inc. et al.

Pasiechnyk et al. v. Procrane Inc. et al., [1997] 2 S.C.R. 890; 216 N.R. 1; 158 Sask.R. 81; 153 W.A.C. 81; 149 D.L.R.(4th) 577, refd to. [para. 16].

Director of Investigation and Research, Competition Act v. Southam Inc. et al., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 748; 209 N.R. 20, refd to. [para. 17].

Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citi­zenship and Immigration), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982; 226 N.R. 201, refd to. [para. 18].

Wirachowsky v. Canada, [2000] N.R. Uned. 233 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

Powell v. Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development) (2000), 258 N.R. 123 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development) v. Skoric, [2000] 3 F.C. 265; 251 N.R. 368 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27; 221 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 27].

Abrahams v. Canada (Attorney General), [1983] 1 S.C.R. 2; 46 N.R. 185, refd to. [para. 27].

Hills v. Canada (Attorney General), [1988] 1 S.C.R. 513; 84 N.R. 86, refd to. [para. 27].

Gagnon v. Canada Employment and Im­migration Commission, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 29; 86 N.R. 268, refd to. [para. 27].

Caron et al. v. Canada Employment and Immigration Commission, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 48; 123 N.R. 302, refd to. [para. 27].

Statutes Noticed:

Canada Pension Plan, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-8, sect. 42(2)(a)(i) [paras. 15, 24]; sect. 44 [paras. 15, 23].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Driedger, Elmer A., Construction of Stat­utes (3rd Ed. 1994), p. 356 [para. 26].

Canada, Hansard, House of Commons and Senate, Special Joint Committee Report on Bill C-136, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence (December 1, 1964), Issue No. 2, p. 247 [para. 41].

Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debate (2nd Sess., 26th Parliament) (November 9, 1964), pp. 9899, 9923 [para. 28].

Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debate (2nd Sess., 26th Parliament) (November 16, 1964), p. 10,140 [para. 28].

Hansard - see Canada, Hansard, House of Commons and Senate.

Hansard - see Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debate.

Counsel:

Giuseppe Villani, on his own behalf;

Mary Tobin Oates, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

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

This application was heard at Toronto, Ontario, on June 4, 2001, by Linden, Isaac and Malone, JJ.A., of the Federal Court of Appeal. On August 3, 2001, Isaac, J.A., delivered the following decision for the Court of Appeal.