[2016] 1 F.C.R. D-4
Veterans
Judicial review of decision by Veterans Review and Appeal Board, Entitlement Appeal Panel finding applicant ineligible for exceptional incapacity allowance — Applicant, civilian Department of National Defence employee, passenger on Canadian Forces aircraft that crashed — Becoming paraplegic, suffering multiple amputations, developing post-traumatic stress disorder — Electing for compensation under Flying Accidents Compensation Regulations, C.R.C., c. 10 (FAC Regulations) — Requesting pension, various allowances including exceptional incapacity allowance — Appeal Panel concluding, inter alia, entitlement to special allowances arising under specific portions of Pension Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-6, not included in benefits available to civilian pensioners under FAC Regulations — Specifically, FAC Regulations, s. 3 providing only for compensation in accordance with rates set out in Schedules A and B (now Schedules I and II) of Pension Act, which do not include exceptional incapacity allowance — Appeal Panel stating word “pension” in FAC Regulations used solely to limit compensation to such pension, not to other awards or allowances — Finding denial of exceptional incapacity allowance not offending applicant’s Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, being Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, Schedule B, Canada Act 1982, 1982, c. 11 (U.K.) [R.S.C., 1985, Appendix II, No. 44], s. 15 rights — Whether Appeal Panel unreasonably interpreting, applying FAC Regulations, committing error in denying applicant’s Charter claim, in concluding that not having access to exceptional incapacity allowance not discriminatory — Appeal Panel’s interpretation of relevant provisions of FAC Regulations, Pension Act within range of reasonable possible outcomes — Plain meaning of words “compensation”, “pension”, “allowances” indicating that s. 3 granting applicant “compensation” rather than “pension” or “allowances” — Exceptional incapacity allowance distinct, separate from provisions of Pension Act dealing with pensions — Distinction made between Canadian Forces pensioners covered by Pension Act, civilian pensioners covered by FAC Regulations — Law leading to differentiated treatment that Court cannot change — Common law compensation principle applying only in context of torts, contracts, not where Parliament seeing fit to adopt compensation legislation — Appeal Panel not erring in assessment of applicant’s Charter claim — Decision not leading to discriminatory result in violation of Charter protections — Unequal treatment between severely disabled civilian FAC Regulations pensioners, military pensioners not constituting discrimination based on Charter, s. 15 enumerated or analogous ground — Legislative schemes such as FAC Regulations or Pension Act not lightly found to be discriminatory since distinctions arising under benefits legislation common — Disabled FAC Regulations pensioners all denied access to exceptional incapacity allowance no matter degree of disability — FAC Regulations, s. 3 not constituting denial of substantive equality to disabled civilian FAC Regulations pensioners — Application dismissed.
Thomson v. Canada (Attorney General) (T-2012-14, 2015 FC 985, Gascon J., judgment dated August 18, 2015, 46 pp.)