Federal Court of Appeal Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

Date: 20061114

Dockets: A-218-05

A-343-05

 

Citation: 2006 FCA 370

 

CORAM:        NADON J.A.

                        PELLETIER J.A.

                        MALONE J.A.

 

Docket: A-218-05

BETWEEN:

CHRISTY STATTON

Applicant

and

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

Respondent

 

Docket: A-343-05

BETWEEN:

CAROLE PREVOST

Applicant

and

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

Respondent

 

Heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on November 14, 2006.

Judgment delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario, on November 14, 2006.

 

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE  COURT BY:                                                       NADON J.A.

 


Date: 20061114

Dockets: A-218-05

A-343-05

 

Citation: 2006 FCA 370

 

CORAM:       NADON J.A.

                        PELLETIER J.A.

                        MALONE J.A.

 

Docket : A-218-05

BETWEEN:

CHRISTY STATTON

Applicant

and

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

Respondent

 

 

Docket: A-343-05

 

CAROLE PREVOST

 

Applicant

 

and

 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

 

Respondent

 

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario, on November 14, 2006)

 

NADON J.A.

[1]               These reasons are the reasons of the Court in applications for judicial review A-218-05 and A-343-05.

 

[2]               We are all of the view that the Pension Appeals Board made no error in concluding that section 74 of the Canada Pension Plan governed applications for disabled contributors’ child benefits and that subsection 60(8) was inapplicable. For greater certainty, we would add that in our view, subsection 60(8) is not relevant to applications for benefits arising from the legal incapacity of an applicant.

 

[3]               Hence, pursuant to subsection 74(2), benefits could not be made payable “… earlier than the twelfth month preceding the month following the month in which the application was received”.

 

[4]               As a result, the applications will be dismissed, but without costs.

 

 

“M. Nadon”

J.A.

 

 


FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

 

NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

 

 

DOCKET:                                                                              A-218-05

 

 

STYLE OF CAUSE:                                                              Christy Statton v. Attorney General of Canada

 

 

PLACE OF HEARING:                                                        Ottawa, Ontario

 

 

DATE OF HEARING:                                                          November 14, 2006

 

 

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY:       Nadon, Pelletier and Malone JJ.A.

 

DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY:                            Nadon J.A.

 

 

APPEARANCES:

 

Louis Michaud

FOR THE APPLICANT

 

Sandra Gruescu

FOR THE RESPONDENT

 

 

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

 

Clinique juridique populaire de Prescott et Russell Inc. Hawkesbury, Ontario

FOR THE APPLICANT

 

 

John H. Sims, Q.C.

Deputy Attorney General of Canada

Ottawa, Ontario

FOR THE RESPONDENT

 

 


FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

 

NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

 

 

DOCKET:                                                                              A-343-05

 

 

STYLE OF CAUSE:                                                              Carole Prevost v. Attorney General of Canada

 

 

PLACE OF HEARING:                                                        Ottawa, Ontario

 

 

DATE OF HEARING:                                                          November 14, 2006

 

 

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY:       Nadon, Pelletier and Malone JJ.A.

 

DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY:                            Nadon J.A.

 

 

APPEARANCES:

 

Louis Michaud

FOR THE APPLICANT

 

Sandra Gruescu

FOR THE RESPONDENT

 

 

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

 

Clinique juridique populaire de Prescott et Russell Inc.

Hawkesbury, Ontario

FOR THE APPLICANT

 

 

John H. Sims, Q.C.

Deputy Attorney General of Canada

Ottawa, Ontario

FOR THE RESPONDENT

 

 

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.