[2012] 4 F.C.R. D-10
Pensions
Appeal from Federal Court judgment (2011 FC 934) dismissing judicial review of decision by Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development denying award of interest on disability pension benefits provided retroactively pursuant to Canada Pension Plan, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-8 (CPP), s. 66(4)—Appellant requesting adjustment to retroactive payments to compensate for loss of purchasing power resulting from inflation—Service Canada responding negatively to request in February 2009 letter—Applicant living at new address, only receiving Service Canada response in July 2010 letter—Federal Court ruling July 2010 letter not new decision but “courtesy letter”, thus judicial review not brought within 30 days provided for in Federal Courts Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F-7, s. 18(2); Minister not authorized to grant relief through interest awards because CPP not providing such authority—Whether Federal Court erring in ruling that judicial review application late, Minister having no remedial authority to award interest to appellant under CPP, s. 66(4)—Determining starting point of 30-day period difficult where “decision” in issue made by civil servant acting for Minister under complex, multi-layered administrative decision-making process—Federal Court not explaining why appellant’s evidence, arguments concerning late receipt of February 2009 letter ignored—Even if February 2009 letter delivered to appellant, Minister nevertheless issuing decision subject to judicial review in July 2010 letter—July 2010 letter fresh exercise of Minister’s discretion—Judicial review application thus timely—Scheuneman v. Canada (Human Resources Development), 2005 FCA 254 deciding that authority to award interest included in power conferred by s. 66(4)—In cases of administrative error, Parliament intending to empower Minister under s. 66(4) to take all appropriate remedial measures required to correct error—While s. 66(4) not adopted to provide interest payments on awards resulting from reconsiderations, appeals, s. 66(4) providing for potential interest payments in appropriate circumstances such as in present case—Extensive remedial power of Minister under s. 66(4) applying once administrative error acknowledged—Textual, contextual, purposive analysis of s. 66(4) supporting this view—Minister’s broad unfettered authority under s. 66(4) to take “appropriate” “remedial action” including compensation for loss of purchasing power of benefits resulting from their late payment in circumstances where delay resulting from administrative error extensive—Appeal allowed.
Bartlett v. Canada (Attorney General) (A-340-11, 2012 FCA 230, Mainville J.A., judgment dated September 11, 2012, 27 pp.)