War Amps of Can. v. Pension Review Bd., (1975) 10 N.R. 53 (FCA)

JudgeJackett, C.J., Pratte and Urie, JJ.
CourtFederal Court of Appeal (Canada)
Case DateFebruary 26, 1975
JurisdictionCanada (Federal)
Citations(1975), 10 N.R. 53 (FCA)

War Amps of Can. v. Pension Review Bd. (1975), 10 N.R. 53 (FCA)

MLB headnote and full text

War Amputations of Canada v. Pension Review Board and Canadian Pension Commission

Indexed As: War Amputations of Canada v. Pension Review Board and Canadian Pension Commission

Federal Court of Appeal

Jackett, C.J., Pratte and Urie, JJ.

March 14, 1975.

Summary:

This case arose out of an application for an interpretation respecting the quantum of pensions payable to armed service veterans under the federal Pension Act. The application for the interpretation was made to the Pension Review Board pursuant to s. 81(3) of the Pension Act. The Pension Review Board declared that certain policies or rules adopted and acted upon by the Canadian Pension Commission under s. 26 of the Pension Act were invalid because the Canadian Pension Commission did not have the statutory authority to make such rules for policies.

On appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal the appeal was allowed and the declaration by the Pension Review Board was set aside. The Federal Court of Appeal stated that the Canadian Pension Commission was empowered under s. 26 of the Pension Act to make rules or policies respecting disability pensions so long as such policies were directed to how the extent of a disability is to be estimated - see paragraphs 21, 22 and 54.

The Federal Court of Appeal held that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal from the declaration by the Pension Review Board because the declaration or interpretation by the Pension Review Board constituted a "decision" under s. 28(1) of the Federal Court Act - see paragraphs 3 to 11 and 40 to 44.

Armed Forces - Topic 8090

Pensions - Disability pensions - Entitlement - Statutory interpretation of the Pension Act respecting pension awards by the Canadian Pension Commission - Pension Act s. 26 - Validity of a rule or policy of the Canadian Pension Commission made pursuant to s. 26 of the Pension Act which policy distinguished between disabilities which resulted from enemy action and disabilities which resulted from accident - The Federal Court of Appeal declared that the Canadian Pension Commission was not empowered by s. 26 of the Pension Act to make such a distinction - The Federal Court of Appeal stated that the Canadian Pension Commission was empowered under s. 26 to make rules or policies respecting disability pensions so long as such policies were directed to how the extent of a disability is to be estimated - See paragraphs 21, 22 and 54.

Courts - Topic 4085

Federal Court of Canada - Jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Appeal respecting decisions of the Pension Review Board - Federal Court Act s. 28(1) - Whether an "interpretation" made by the Pension Review Board pursuant to s. 81(3) of the Pension Act constituted a "decision" within the meaning of s. 28(1) of the Federal Court Act - The Federal Court of Appeal held that such an "interpretation" constituted a "decision" reviewable by the Federal Court of Appeal under s. 28(1) of the Federal Court Act - See paragraphs 3 to 11 and 40 to 44.

Words and Phrases

Decision - The Federal Court of Appeal discussed the meaning of the word "decision" as found in s. 28 of the Federal Court Act - See paragraph 40.

Words and Phrases

Interpretation - The Federal Court of Appeal discussed the meaning of the word as found in s. 81(3) of the Pension Act - See paragraph 41 and footnote 15.

Cases Noticed:

Danmor Shoe Company Ltd., 1 N.R. 422, [1974] F.C. 22, folld. [para. 40].

Statutes Noticed:

Pension Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. P-7, sect. 26 [para. 30].

Federal Court Act, R.S.C. 1970, 2nd Supp., c. 10, sect. 28(1) [see footnote 3].

Counsel:

Brian N. Forbes and J.D. Adam, for the applicant;

Duff Friesen, for the respondents.

This appeal was heard by the Federal Court of Appeal at Ottawa, Ontario on February 26, 1975. Judgment was delivered by the Federal Court of Appeal on March 14, 1975 and the following opinions were filed:

JACKETT, C.J. - see paragraphs 1 to 23.

URIE, J. - see paragraphs 24 to 55.

PRATTE, J. concurred with both JACKETT, C.J. and URIE, J.

To continue reading

Request your trial