Davies v. Canada ( Minister of Human Resources Development )
T-1789-98
Teitelbaum J.
7/10/99
21 pp.
Application for judicial review of decision of Pension Appeals Board (PAB) denying applicant disability benefits under Canada Pension Plan-Applicant earned grade 10 education, trade electrician certificate-Ceased working due to back condition, diagnosed by family physician as having chronic back injury, numbness of left leg, blockage in artery-Application for disability benefits received by respondent on July 6, 1995-Applicant denied disability benefits by Minister-Only applicant's family doctor expressed opinion applicant disabled-Appeal dismissed by Review Tribunal on basis applicant not disabled within meaning of Plan-Applicant's medical condition not precluding him from performing all forms of substantially gainful employment-Application for leave to Pension Appeals Board denied by Vice-Chairman-Standard of review in determining whether Court can overrule decision of Board informed by several factors: presence, absence of privative clause, expertise of tribunal, purpose of Act as whole, provision in particular, nature of question to be determined-Privative clause found in Canada Pension Plan, s. 84(1) showing higher level of deference should be granted to decisions of PAB-"Privative clause" subject to judicial review by Courts-Middle to lower level of deference should be accorded to decisions of PAB-Determinations of PAB should not be lightly interfered with unless error of fact, law-Decision of Vice-Chairman herein reasonable-In reviewing merits of PAB's decision, Court bound to only consider evidence before decision-maker-Totality of medical conditions, personal characteristics applicant submitted as cause for inability to pursue substantially gainful employment not satisfying Act, s. 42(2)-Legislation not providing for consideration of age, education under s. 42(2)-Evidence of applicant's family physician, specialists appropriately considered, weighed-PAB correctly applied test for determining disability as prescribed by Act-No reviewable error of fact, law allowing Court to interfere with PAB's decision-Application dismissed-Canada Pension Plan, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-8, ss. 42 (as am. by R.S.C., 1985 (2nd Supp.), c. 30, s. 12; S.C. 1992, c. 1, s. 23; 1996, c. 11, s. 95(b); 1997, c. 40, s. 68), 84 (as by R.S.C., 1985 (2nd Supp.), c. 30, s. 45; S.C. 1990, c. 8, s. 46).