PENSIONS |
Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development) v. Quesnelle
A-415-02
2003 FCA 92, Evans J.A
20/2/03
7 pp.
Judicial review of Pension Appeals Board's finding respondent entitled to disability pension on ground suffered from severe and prolonged disability within meaning of Canada Pension Plan, s. 42(2)(a)(i)--Board under statutory duty to provide parties with reasons for decision pursuant to s. 83(11)--In omitting to explain rejection of very considera-ble body of apparently credible evidence indicating respondent's disability not "severe", Board failed to discharge elementary duty of providing adequate reasons for decision-- In absence of any indication in reasons that Board engaged in meaningful analysis of evidence, decision cannot stand-- Only justification provided by Board for finding that found testimony of respondent and Dr. Leung to be credible--Does not pass muster as "reasons" on any standard of adequacy-- Fact Pension Appeals Board comprises serving and former federally appointed judges indication Parliament expected more by way of reasons than Board provided in present case --Court not convinced Board erred in law in paraphrasing statutory test, especially since Board had correctly stated legal test earlier in reasons--Nonetheless, generally unwise for Board to formulate in words other than words contained in statute legal test applying in case--Application for judicial review allowed--Canada Pension Plan, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-8, ss. 42(2)(a)(i) (as am. by R.S.C., 1985 (2nd Supp.), c. 30, s. 12), 83(11) (as am. idem, s. 45).