Digests

Bélanger v. Canada (Attorney General)

T-661-02

2003 FC 1049, Blais J.

9/9/03

18 pp.

Application for judicial review of Treasury Board (TB) decision dismissing applicant's claim for surviving spouse benefits under Public Service Superannuation Act, s. 13(2)-- Raymond Carrier and Louise-Ella Goyette married June 21, 1958, under Quebec regime of conventional separation as to property--From about October 21, 1981, couple lived separately--Following death of Mr. Carrier, applicant applied for surviving spouse benefits, as Mr. Carrier's common law spouse--Legal widow of deceased, Ms. Goyette, respondent in case at bar, also applied for benefits-- TB denied applicant's claim and advised her that Ms. Goyette considered only surviving spouse of Mr. Carrier for purposes of Act--Whether TB made error warranting Court's intervention in denying applicant's claim for surviving spouse benefits--TB contacted both applicant and her counsel on numerous occasions in order to obtain further clarifications and statutory declaration that could support applicant's version regarding obvious contradictions appearing in record --Partial answers sent to TB--However, request sent to applicant's counsel dated September 26, 2001, in order to obtain statutory declaration attesting to steps taken to find secondary evidence to support applicant's claim for survivor's benefits, did not receive satisfactory response--In case at bar, parties decided to perpetuate situation that can be characterized as confused in regard to their true status--Ms. Goyette separated as to bed and board but remained nonetheless legitimate spouse of Mr. Carrier--As for Mr. Carrier, he deliberately chose to perpetuate ambiguous situation as to marital status--Quite obvious that support payment to his wife had income tax advantages for him, since he could deduct amount of support paid--Had he proceeded to divide pension, whether at time of separation in 1981 or at time of judgment in 1985, total amount of pension to be paid would have been reduced appreciably--Had he proceeded with this division in 1990, when retired, he would have undoubtedly lost significant amount of income that would have been paid directly to his wife--He could have applied to court to stop paying support, but then he would have lost tax advantage--Court will never know exactly what reasons led Mr. Carrier to perpetuate ambiguous situation, which has forced both applicant and respondent to go to Court to settle matter--It appears that TB accumulated significant amount of information from number of different sources--Faced with inaccuracies and contradictions in documents filed by all parties, it communicated without hesitation with both parties on numerous occasions in order to obtain additional information--Only after it had given parties every opportunity to explain inaccuracies or concerns raised by documents submitted that TB finally made decision--Despite having read documents submitted very carefully and analysed arguments submitted orally by counsel, impossible to conclude that TB's decision arbitrary or unreasonable--TB did not fail to observe principle of natural justice, procedural fairness or any other procedure lawfully bound to comply with--Argument that TB did not give reasons for decision unfounded--TB, on several occasions, told applicant what objections had been raised that prevented it from favourably responding to application and ways in which to remedy situation--In circumstances, this approach specifically fulfilled duty of procedural fairness-- TB acted in accordance with its obligations of procedural fairness--Application for judicial review dismissed--Public Service Superannuation Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. P-36, s. 13(2) (as am. by S.C. 1999, c. 34, s. 65).