Federal Court Decisions

Decision Information

Canada (Attorney General) v. Borai

Court (s) Database	Federal Court Decisions
Date	2008-09-08
Neutral citation	2008 FC 999
File numbers	T-1672-07

Decision Content

Date: 20080908

Docket: T-1672-07

Citation: 2008 FC 999

Ottawa, Ontario, September 8, 2008

PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Phelan

BETWEEN:

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

Applicant

and

YOUSRI EL BORAI

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT

I. INTRODUCTION

[1] The central issue in this judicial review is whether the Pension Appeals Board (PAB) could grant leave to appeal a decision of the Review Tribunal (RT) affirming the Minister’s decision denying the Respondent survivor benefits under the Canada Pension Plan (Act). The grounds upon which leave was sought was the failure of the RT to alter the date of disability of the Respondent’s deceased spouse from August 2003 to January 2004. The Crown seeks this judicial review of the PAB’s leave decision on the basis that there was no arguable case upon which leave could be granted because there was no jurisdiction over the issue of the disability date in respect of the Respondent’s wife.

[2] The Respondent was unrepresented before the Court in these proceedings and his submissions were largely directed to the unfair results of his situation and the confusing provisions with respect to disability payments under the Act and survivor benefits under the same.

II. BACKGROUND

[3] The late Mrs. El Borai originally applied for disability pension in February of 2003 but that application was denied because she had returned to work in April that year. She then applied in December of 2003 for disability pension at which time she claimed that she had become disabled as of August 2003. Mrs. El Borai’s application was accepted and benefits were payable from the date of disability which was accepted as being August 2003.

[4] In oral argument before the Court, Mr. El Borai, who had submitted no Respondent’s Record, indicated that the date chosen for disability was largely influenced by the requirements of Manufacturer’s Life with which Mrs. El Borai had a disability policy. The details of this particular aspect of the case are not before the Court.

[5] In any event, there was no challenge to the August 2003 deemed date of disability and payments commenced in the usual course.

[6] Mrs. El Borai died on May 25, 2004 and shortly thereafter, Mr. El Borai applied for death benefits, survivor’s pension, and orphan’s benefits under ss. 57-59 of the Act (these provisions need not be produced here but needless to say are complex if not confusing). Eligibility for these benefits is determined by s. 44 of the Act and is based on the contributor’s (in this case, Mrs. El Borai) contributory period and minimum qualifying years.

[7] Mr. El Borai’s application for these survivor benefits and pension was denied on the basis that the contribution period which Mrs. El Borai had to have in order to be eligible under the Act was 8 years (7.66 years rounded in accordance with established precedent). Regrettably, it was determined by the Minister that Mrs. El Borai had only 7 years of valid contributions. That decision of the Minister of June 23, 2004 was re-affirmed on re-consideration pursuant to s. 81 of the Act on October 26, 2004.

[8] Mr. El Borai commenced two challenges to the decision denying him and his family survivor benefits. Firstly, he appealed the Minister’s decision with respect to his ineligibility for benefits to the RT pursuant to s. 82 of the Act, and secondly, he applied to the Minister to re-open his wife’s file in order to have the Minister re-consider the decision with respect to her deemed date of disability. The application for re-consideration was an effort to bring as “new evidence” the fact that Mrs. El Borai made contributions in 2004 pursuant to s. 84(2) of the Act. If valid, the effect thereof would be that she would have had 8 years of contribution and thus Mr. El Borai and family would be eligible for survivor benefits.

[9] The re-consideration application pursuant to s. 84(2) was denied on the grounds that there were no new facts and that, in any event, that evidence would not have affected the outcome because the amounts paid in 2004 would have been insufficient to meet the minimum requirements for consideration as payments for that year. Notwithstanding the usual warning contained in the Minister’s letter with respect to the right to apply for judicial review, no judicial review proceedings were instituted.

[10] In respect of the appeal to the RT, that appeal was denied on the grounds that the RT, in an appeal under s. 82, had no jurisdiction in respect of amending the deemed date of disability. It was at least implied that an application to re-open Mrs. El Borai’s case under s. 84(2) would have been a more appropriate procedure.

[11] In addition to the RT finding as to jurisdiction, it then went on to consider the issue of whether Mrs. El Borai’s 2004 income of $326.63 and her CPP contribution of $36.31 should be counted as part of the minimum qualifying period, thereby adding a further year to the 7 years already considered as applicable. The RT concluded that the contributions would not have been sufficient to meet the minimum amount required of $1,458.33. The result of that finding is that even if the deemed disability date had been changed to reflect the fact that Mrs. El Borai had earned income and made contributions in 2004, she would only have had 7 years of valid contributions since those of 2004 would not be considered as sufficient to constitute a year’s contribution.

[12] Mr. El Borai then sought leave to appeal the RT’s decision on the following grounds:

The review [sic] Tribunal erred in not allowing the Appellant’s late wife’s Canada Pension Plan disability benefits deemed date of disability be changed to January 2004 instead of August 2003. In not making this change the Appellant is not entitled to the Death Survivor and Orphan’s Benefits effective in June 2004 (month following the death of his spouse Mrs. Laila L. Elborai [sic]). The attached Pension Appeals Board Decision (Appendix A) along with the Federal Court Decision (Appendix B) concerning the granting of Mrs. Skoric’s Survivor Benefits, mirror the case of Mr. El Borai.

[13] The Crown has characterized this leave application as restricted to the issue of the failure to alter Mrs. El Borai’s deemed disability date. However, in the statement of facts upon which the leave is based, Mr. El Borai raised the issue of whether a contribution of $36.13 for the year 2004 might qualify as a valid contribution sufficient to constitute an extra year of contributions. The precise wording of the allegation is as follows:

10. It is noted that for the year 2004 Mrs. El Borai made a contribution of $36.13 to the Canada Pension Plan for the year 2004 (that was issued until January or February of the following year 2005 “Appendix E”). Based on a contribution rate of 4.95% in the year 2004 the $36.31 CPP contribution would have paid for earnings in excess of $730.00, that is well over the monthly pro-rated basic exception for disability of $333. 34 ($4,000 divided by 12 months = $333.34), and would allow the late Mrs. El Borai’s spouse and children to receive monthly benefits as a result of her death.

That submission raises issues somewhat similar to those in Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development) v. Skoric, [2000] 3 F.C. 265 (F.C.A.).

[14] However, in the Order sought, Mr. El Borai requested as follows:

1. It is respectfully requested that the late Mrs. El Borai’s deemed date of disability be changed to January 2004 instead of August 2003, and that the pro-rated contribution for the year 2004 be used, as outlined in point 10 above.

2. This would change the date the contributory period ended to January 2004 instead of August 2003. Thus increasing the total contributory period to 30 years, less the Child Rearing Drop-out Period (CRDO) 6 years leaving a contributory period of 24 years. With the 2004 contribution the 8 year contributory period for Death, Survivor and Orphans benefits would be met.

3. The non-entitlement on the disability benefits for the period December 2003 to April 2004, could be withheld from the arrears payment on the survivor benefits.

[15] The first issue is to determine what was truly at issue in the leave application. While there is a suggestion that the issues of contributory amount and contributory period were raised, as in the Skoric decision, on a fair reading of the leave application, that issue only became relevant if the deemed disability date was changed. The Skoric decision held that contributions made outside the contribution period could be recognized in certain circumstances. I agree with the Applicant that the Skoric decision is not relevant to the grounds of appeal as raised by Mr. El Borai. Leave in this present case was granted without reasons - as is the usual case where leave is granted. The true issue in the leave application, therefore, was the ability to change the disability date.

III. ANALYSIS

[16] The standard of review is not determinative in this case. This Court in Canada (A.G.) v. Dale, 2006 FC 1364, held that the issue is one of jurisdiction which does not attract deference and it further held in that case that even if the standard of review was reasonableness, if the PAB lacked jurisdiction over the issue, it would be unreasonable to find, as one must in order to grant leave (see Callihoo v. Canada (A.G.), [2000] F.C.J. No. 612 (F.C.T.D.) (QL)), that there was an arguable case.

[17] The parties had accepted that the RT proceeding was a s. 82 appeal over the Minister’s re‑consideration under s. 81 upholding the denial of survivor benefits.

[18] The Minister’s decision in respect of the disability rendered earlier was made under s. 60 of the Act. That decision was the subject of an unsuccessful s. 84(2) application for re-consideration. No judicial review of that decision was taken; nor any other proceeding commenced.

[19] The current efforts to have the RT and PAB alter the Minister’s disability decision is, in reality, a collateral attack on the Minister’s earlier re-consideration decision. Collateral attacks should not generally be permitted (see R. v. Consolidated Maybrun Mines Ltd., [1998] 1 S.C.R. 706 and Burstyn v. Canada (Customs and Revenue Agency), 2006 FC 744). This is particularly the case where the Act sets out avenues of relief which the Respondent has used. Even the right of a re‑consideration application potentially remains open.

[20] The RT was correct in finding that it had no jurisdiction to adjust the disability date since the Minister’s decision in this regard was not before it under s. 82.

[21] The RT having no jurisdiction over the issue, the PAB likewise had no jurisdiction under s. 83 to grant leave to appeal. The PAB’s jurisdiction is limited to those matters over which the RT had jurisdiction to decide.

IV. CONCLUSION

[22] For these reasons, the judicial review will be allowed and the decision of the Pension Appeals Board quashed. No costs will be allowed in the circumstances of this case.

JUDGMENT

THIS COURT ORDERS AND ADJUDGES that this application for judicial review is allowed and the decision of the Pension Appeals Board quashed. No costs will be allowed in the circumstances of this case.

“Michael L. Phelan”

Judge

ANNEX A

Canada Pension Plan, R.S. 1985, c. C-8

44. (1) Subject to this Part,

(a) a retirement pension shall be paid to a contributor who has reached sixty years of age;

(b) a disability pension shall be paid to a contributor who has not reached sixty-five years of age, to whom no retirement pension is payable, who is disabled and who

(i) has made contributions for not less than the minimum qualifying period,

(ii) is a contributor to whom a disability pension would have been payable at the time the contributor is deemed to have become disabled if an application for a disability pension had been received before the contributor’s application for a disability pension was actually received, or

(iii) is a contributor to whom a disability pension would have been payable at the time the contributor is deemed to have become disabled if a division of unadjusted pensionable earnings that was made under section 55 or 55.1 had not been made;

(iv) [Repealed, 1997, c. 40, s. 69]

(c) a death benefit shall be paid to the estate of a deceased contributor who has made contributions for not less than the minimum qualifying period;

(d) subject to subsection (1.1), a survivor’s pension shall be paid to the survivor of a deceased contributor who has made contributions for not less than the minimum qualifying period, if the survivor

(i) has reached sixty-five years of age, or

(ii) in the case of a survivor who has not reached sixty-five years of age,

(A) had at the time of the death of the contributor reached thirty-five years of age,

(B) was at the time of the death of the contributor a survivor with dependent children, or

(e) a disabled contributor’s child’s benefit shall be paid to each child of a disabled contributor who

(i) has made contributions for not less than the minimum qualifying period,

(iv) [Repealed, 1997, c. 40, s. 69]

(f) an orphan’s benefit shall be paid to each orphan of a deceased contributor who has made contributions for not less than the minimum qualifying period.

(1.1) In the case of a common-law partner who was not, immediately before the coming into force of this subsection, a person described in subparagraph (a)(ii) of the definition “spouse” in subsection 2(1) as that definition read at that time, no survivor’s pension shall be paid under paragraph (1)(d) unless the common-law partner became a survivor on or after January 1, 1998.

(2) For the purposes of paragraphs (1)(b) and (e),

(a) a contributor shall be considered to have made contributions for not less than the minimum qualifying period only if the contributor has made contributions on earnings that are not less than the basic exemption of that contributor, calculated without regard to subsection 20(2),

(i) for at least four of the last six calendar years included either wholly or partly in the contributor’s contributory period or, where there are fewer than six calendar years included either wholly or partly in the contributor’s contributory period, for at least four years,

(i.1) for at least 25 calendar years included either wholly or partly in the contributor’s contributory period, of which at least three are in the last six calendar years included either wholly or partly in the contributor’s contributory period, or

(ii) for each year after the month of cessation of the contributor’s previous disability benefit; and

(b) the contributory period of a contributor shall be the period

(i) commencing January 1, 1966 or when he reaches eighteen years of age, whichever is the later, and

(ii) ending with the month in which he is determined to have become disabled for the purpose of paragraph (1)(b),

but excluding

(iii) any month that was excluded from the contributor’s contributory period under this Act or under a provincial pension plan by reason of disability, and

(iv) in relation to any benefits payable under this Act for any month after December, 1977, any month for which the contributor was a family allowance recipient in a year for which the contributor’s unadjusted pensionable earnings are less than the basic exemption of the contributor for the year, calculated without regard to subsection 20(2).

(3) For the purposes of paragraphs (1)(c), (d) and (f), a contributor shall be considered to have made contributions for not less than the minimum qualifying period only if he has made contributions

(a) for at least one third of the total number of years included either wholly or partly within his contributory period, excluding from the calculation of that contributory period any month in a year after the year in which he reaches sixty-five years of age and for which his unadjusted pensionable earnings were equal to or less than his basic exemption for that year, but in no case for less than three years; or

(b) for at least ten years.

44. (1) Sous réserve des autres dispositions de la présente partie :

a) une pension de retraite doit être payée à un cotisant qui a atteint l’âge de soixante ans;

b) une pension d’invalidité doit être payée à un cotisant qui n’a pas atteint l’âge de soixante-cinq ans, à qui aucune pension de retraite n’est payable, qui est invalide et qui :

(i) soit a versé des cotisations pendant au moins la période minimale d’admissibilité,

(ii) soit est un cotisant à qui une pension d’invalidité aurait été payable au moment où il est réputé être devenu invalide, si une demande de pension d’invalidité avait été reçue avant le moment où elle l’a effectivement été,

(iii) soit est un cotisant à qui une pension d’invalidité aurait été payable au moment où il est réputé être devenu invalide, si un partage des gains non ajustés ouvrant droit à pension n’avait pas été effectué en application des articles 55 et 55.1;

(iv) [Abrogé, 1997, ch. 40, art. 69]

c) une prestation de décès doit être payée à la succession d’un cotisant qui a versé des contributions pendant au moins la période minimale d’admissibilité;

d) sous réserve du paragraphe (1.1), une pension de survivant doit être payée à la personne qui a la qualité de survivant d’un cotisant qui a versé des cotisations pendant au moins la période minimale d’admissibilité, si le survivant :

(i) soit a atteint l’âge de soixante-cinq ans,

(ii) soit, dans le cas d’un survivant qui n’a pas atteint l’âge de soixante-cinq ans :

(A) ou bien avait au moment du décès du cotisant atteint l’âge de trente-cinq ans,

(B) ou bien était au moment du décès du cotisant un survivant avec enfant à charge,

e) une prestation d’enfant de cotisant invalide doit être payée à chaque enfant d’un cotisant invalide qui :

(i) soit a versé des cotisations pendant au moins la période minimale d’admissibilité,

(iv) [Abrogé, 1997, ch. 40, art. 69]

f) une prestation d’orphelin doit être payée à chaque orphelin d’un cotisant qui a versé des cotisations pendant au moins la période minimale d’admissibilité.

(1.1) Dans le cas d’un conjoint de fait qui n’était pas, à la date d’entrée en vigueur du présent paragraphe, une personne visée au sous-alinéa a)(ii) de la définition de « conjoint » au paragraphe 2(1), dans sa version à cette date, la pension de survivant n’est payée en vertu de l’alinéa (1)d) que si le conjoint de fait est devenu un survivant le 1^er janvier 1998 ou après cette date.

(2) Pour l’application des alinéas (1)b) et e) :

a) un cotisant n’est réputé avoir versé des cotisations pendant au moins la période minimale d’admissibilité que s’il a versé des cotisations sur des gains qui sont au moins égaux à son exemption de base, compte non tenu du paragraphe 20(2), selon le cas :

(i) soit, pendant au moins quatre des six dernières années civiles comprises, en tout ou en partie, dans sa période cotisable, soit, lorsqu’il y a moins de six années civiles entièrement ou partiellement comprises dans sa période cotisable, pendant au moins quatre années,

(i.1) pendant au moins vingt-cinq années civiles comprises, en tout ou en partie, dans sa période cotisable, dont au moins trois dans les six dernières années civiles comprises, en tout ou en partie, dans sa période cotisable,

(ii) pour chaque année subséquente au mois de la cessation de la pension d’invalidité;

b) la période cotisable d’un cotisant est la période qui :

(i) commence le 1^er janvier 1966 ou au moment où il atteint l’âge de dix-huit ans, en choisissant celle de ces deux dates qui est postérieure à l’autre,

(ii) se termine avec le mois au cours duquel il est déclaré invalide dans le cadre de l’alinéa (1)b),

mais ne comprend pas :

(iii) un mois qui, en raison d’une invalidité, a été exclu de la période cotisable de ce cotisant conformément à la présente loi ou à un régime provincial de pensions,

(iv) en ce qui concerne une prestation payable en application de la présente loi à l’égard d’un mois postérieur à décembre 1977, un mois relativement auquel il était bénéficiaire d’une allocation familiale dans une année à l’égard de laquelle ses gains non ajustés ouvrant droit à pension étaient inférieurs à son exemption de base pour l’année, compte non tenu du paragraphe 20(2).

(3) Pour l’application des alinéas (1)c), d) et f), un cotisant n’est réputé avoir versé des cotisations pendant au moins la période minimale d’admissibilité que s’il a versé des cotisations :

a) soit pendant au moins trois années, représentant au moins le tiers du nombre total d’années entièrement ou partiellement comprises dans sa période cotisable, celle-ci ne comprenant pas tout mois dans une année qui suit l’année où il atteint l’âge de soixante-cinq ans et à l’égard de laquelle ses gains non ajustés ouvrant droit à pension étaient égaux ou inférieurs à son exemption de base pour cette année;

b) soit pendant au moins dix années.

60. (1) No benefit is payable to any person under this Act unless an application therefor has been made by him or on his behalf and payment of the benefit has been approved under this Act.

(2) Notwithstanding anything in this Act, but subject to subsections (2.1) and (2.2), an application for a benefit, other than a death benefit, that would have been payable in respect of a month to a deceased person who, prior to the person’s death, would have been entitled on approval of an application to payment of that benefit under this Act may be approved in respect of that month only if it is made within 12 months after the death of that person by the estate, the representative or heir of that person or by any person that may be prescribed by regulation.

(2.1) An application referred to in subsection (2) in respect of a disability benefit may not be approved if the application is received after December 31, 1997.

(2.2) An application referred to in subsection (2) in respect of a retirement pension may only be approved in respect of a month after the deceased contributor had reached age 70.

(3) Where a disabled contributor’s child’s benefit would, if the application had been approved, have been payable to a child of a disabled contributor on application made prior to the death of the child or an orphan’s benefit would, if the application had been approved, have been payable to an orphan of a contributor on application made prior to the death of the orphan and the child or orphan dies after December 31, 1977, not having reached eighteen years of age, and no application has been made at the time of the death of the child or orphan, an application may be made within one year after the death by the person or agency having custody and control of the child or orphan at the time of the death or, where there is at that time no person or agency having custody and control, by such person or agency as the Minister may direct.

(4) Where an application is made pursuant to subsection (2) or (3), a benefit that would have been payable to a deceased person referred to in subsection (2) or a deceased child or orphan referred to in subsection (3) shall be paid to the estate or such person as may be prescribed by regulation.

(5) Any application made pursuant to subsection (2) or (3) is deemed to have been received

(a) on the date of the death of a person who, prior to his death, would have been entitled, on approval of an application, to payment of a benefit under this Act; or

(b) on the date of the death of a child or an orphan referred to in subsection (3) where the person having custody and control of the child or orphan did not make an application prior to the death of the child or orphan.

(6) An application for a benefit shall be made to the Minister in prescribed manner and at the prescribed location.

(7) The Minister shall forthwith on receiving an application for a benefit consider it and may approve payment of the benefit and determine the amount thereof payable under this Act or may determine that no benefit is payable, and he shall thereupon in writing notify the applicant of his decision.

(8) Where an application for a benefit is made on behalf of a person and the Minister is satisfied, on the basis of evidence provided by or on behalf of that person, that the person had been incapable of forming or expressing an intention to make an application on the person’s own behalf on the day on which the application was actually made, the Minister may deem the application to have been made in the month preceding the first month in which the relevant benefit could have commenced to be paid or in the month that the Minister considers the person’s last relevant period of incapacity to have commenced, whichever is the later.

(9) Where an application for a benefit is made by or on behalf of a person and the Minister is satisfied, on the basis of evidence provided by or on behalf of that person, that

(a) the person had been incapable of forming or expressing an intention to make an application before the day on which the application was actually made,

(b) the person had ceased to be so incapable before that day, and

(i) within the period that begins on the day on which that person had ceased to be so incapable and that comprises the same number of days, not exceeding twelve months, as in the period of incapacity, or

(ii) where the period referred to in subparagraph (i) comprises fewer than thirty days, not more than one month after the month in which that person had ceased to be so incapable,

the Minister may deem the application to have been made in the month preceding the first month in which the relevant benefit could have commenced to be paid or in the month that the Minister considers the person’s last relevant period of incapacity to have commenced, whichever is the later.

(10) For the purposes of subsections (8) and (9), a period of incapacity must be a continuous period except as otherwise prescribed.

(11) Subsections (8) to (10) apply only to individuals who were incapacitated on or after January 1, 1991.

(12) The Minister may require an applicant or other person or a group or class of persons to be at a suitable place at a suitable time in order to make an application for benefits in person or to provide additional information about an application.

60. (1) Aucune prestation n’est payable à une personne sous le régime de la présente loi, sauf si demande en a été faite par elle ou en son nom et que le paiement en ait été approuvé selon la présente loi.

(2) Indépendamment des autres dispositions de la présente loi, et sous réserve des paragraphes (2.1) et (2.2), une demande de prestation, autre qu’une prestation de décès, qui aurait été payable pour un mois à une personne décédée et qui, avant son décès, aurait, après approbation d’une demande à cet effet, eu droit au paiement de cette prestation conformément à la présente loi, ne peut être approuvée que lorsqu’elle est présentée, dans les douze mois suivant le décès de cette personne, par l’ayant droit, le représentant ou l’héritier de cette personne, ou encore par toute personne visée par règlement.

(2.1) La demande de prestation d’invalidité reçue après le 31 décembre 1997 ne peut être approuvée au titre du paragraphe (2).

(2.2) Dans le cas d’une pension de retraite, la demande ne peut être approuvée que pour un mois après que le cotisant décédé a atteint l’âge de soixante-dix ans.

(3) La personne ou l’organisme qui, au moment du décès d’un enfant d’un cotisant invalide ou d’un orphelin d’un cotisant, en a la garde et la surveillance ou, si à cette époque, aucune personne ou aucun organisme n’en a la garde et la surveillance, la personne ou l’organisme que peut désigner le ministre peuvent, dans l’année qui suit ce décès, présenter une demande dans le cas où une prestation d’enfant de cotisant invalide ou d’orphelin de cotisant aurait été payable, si la demande avait été approuvée, à un enfant d’un cotisant invalide ou à un orphelin d’un cotisant respectivement, sur demande présentée avant son décès, si celui-ci survient après le 31 décembre 1977 et avant que cet enfant ou orphelin n’ait atteint l’âge de dix-huit ans et avant qu’une demande n’ait été présentée.

(4) Lorsqu’une demande est présentée conformément au paragraphe (2) ou (3), est versée aux ayants droit ou aux personnes autorisées par règlement toute prestation qui aurait été payable à une personne décédée visée au paragraphe (2) ou à un enfant ou orphelin décédé visé au paragraphe (3).

(5) Une demande présentée conformément au paragraphe (2) ou (3) est réputée avoir été reçue :

a) soit le jour du décès d’une personne qui, avant son décès, aurait eu droit, sur approbation de la demande, au versement d’une prestation en vertu de la présente loi;

b) soit le jour du décès de l’enfant ou de l’orphelin visé au paragraphe (3) si la personne ou l’organisme qui en a la garde et la surveillance n’a pas présenté de demande avant le décès de l’enfant ou de l’orphelin.

(6) Une demande de prestation doit être présentée au ministre en la manière et à l’endroit prescrits.

(7) Le ministre examine, dès qu’il la reçoit, toute demande de prestation; il peut en approuver le paiement et en déterminer le montant payable aux termes de la présente loi, ou il peut arrêter qu’aucune prestation n’est payable et avise dès lors par écrit le requérant de sa décision.

(8) Dans le cas où il est convaincu, sur preuve présentée par le demandeur ou en son nom, que celui-ci n’avait pas la capacité de former ou d’exprimer l’intention de faire une demande le jour où celle-ci a été faite, le ministre peut réputer cette demande de prestation avoir été faite le mois qui précède celui au cours duquel la prestation aurait pu commencer à être payable ou, s’il est postérieur, le mois au cours duquel, selon le ministre, la dernière période pertinente d’incapacité du demandeur a commencé.

(9) Le ministre peut réputer une demande de prestation avoir été faite le mois qui précède le premier mois au cours duquel une prestation aurait pu commencer à être payable ou, s’il est postérieur, le mois au cours duquel, selon lui, la dernière période pertinente d’incapacité du demandeur a commencé, s’il est convaincu, sur preuve présentée par le demandeur :

a) que le demandeur n’avait pas la capacité de former ou d’exprimer l’intention de faire une demande avant la date à laquelle celle-ci a réellement été faite;

b) que la période d’incapacité du demandeur a cessé avant cette date;

c) que la demande a été faite, selon le cas :

(i) au cours de la période — égale au nombre de jours de la période d’incapacité mais ne pouvant dépasser douze mois — débutant à la date où la période d’incapacité du demandeur a cessé,

(ii) si la période décrite au sous-alinéa (i) est inférieure à trente jours, au cours du mois qui suit celui au cours duquel la période d’incapacité du demandeur a cessé.

(10) Pour l’application des paragraphes (8) et (9), une période d’incapacité doit être continue à moins qu’il n’en soit prescrit autrement.

(11) Les paragraphes (8) à (10) ne s’appliquent qu’aux personnes incapables le 1^er janvier 1991 dont la période d’incapacité commence à compter de cette date.

(12) Le ministre peut demander à tout requérant ou autre personne ou à tout groupe ou catégorie de personnes de se rendre à une heure raisonnable à un endroit convenable pour présenter en personne une demande de prestations ou fournir des renseignements supplémentaires concernant la demande.

81. (1) Where

(a) a spouse, former spouse, common-law partner, former common-law partner or estate is dissatisfied with any decision made under section 55, 55.1, 55.2 or 55.3,

(b) an applicant is dissatisfied with any decision made under section 60,

(c) a beneficiary is dissatisfied with any determination as to the amount of a benefit payable to the beneficiary or as to the beneficiary’s eligibility to receive a benefit,

(d) a beneficiary or the beneficiary’s spouse or common-law partner is dissatisfied with any decision made under section 65.1, or

(e) a person who made a request under section 70.1, a child of that person or, in relation to that child, a person or agency referred to in section 75 is dissatisfied with any decision made under section 70.1,

the dissatisfied party or, subject to the regulations, any person on behalf thereof may, within ninety days after the day on which the dissatisfied party was notified in the prescribed manner of the decision or determination, or within such longer period as the Minister may either before or after the expiration of those ninety days allow, make a request to the Minister in the prescribed form and manner for a reconsideration of that decision or determination.

(2) The Minister shall forthwith reconsider any decision or determination referred to in subsection (1) and may confirm or vary it, and may approve payment of a benefit, determine the amount of a benefit or determine that no benefit is payable, and shall thereupon in writing notify the party who made the request under subsection (1) of the Minister’s decision and of the reasons therefor.

81. (1) Dans les cas où :

a) un époux ou conjoint de fait, un ex-époux ou ancien conjoint de fait ou leurs ayants droit ne sont pas satisfaits d’une décision rendue en application de l’article 55, 55.1, 55.2 ou 55.3,

b) un requérant n’est pas satisfait d’une décision rendue en application de l’article 60,

c) un bénéficiaire n’est pas satisfait d’un arrêt concernant le montant d’une prestation qui lui est payable ou son admissibilité à recevoir une telle prestation,

d) un bénéficiaire ou son époux ou conjoint de fait n’est pas satisfait d’une décision rendue en application de l’article 65.1,

e) la personne qui a présenté une demande en application de l'article 70.1, l'enfant de celle-ci ou, relativement à cet enfant, la personne ou l'organisme visé à l'article 75 n'est pas satisfait de la décision rendue au titre de l'article 70.1,

ceux-ci peuvent, ou, sous réserve des règlements, quiconque de leur part, peut, dans les quatre-vingt-dix jours suivant le jour où ils sont, de la manière prescrite, avisés de la décision ou de l’arrêt, ou dans tel délai plus long qu’autorise le ministre avant ou après l’expiration de ces quatre-vingt-dix jours, demander par écrit à celui-ci, selon les modalités prescrites, de réviser la décision ou l’arrêt.

(2) Le ministre reconsidère sur-le-champ toute décision ou tout arrêt visé au paragraphe (1) et il peut confirmer ou modifier cette décision ou arrêt; il peut approuver le paiement d’une prestation et en fixer le montant, de même qu’il peut arrêter qu’aucune prestation n’est payable et il doit dès lors aviser par écrit de sa décision motivée la personne qui a présenté la demande en vertu du paragraphe (1).

82. (1) A party who is dissatisfied with a decision of the Minister made under section 81 or subsection 84(2), or a person who is dissatisfied with a decision of the Minister made under subsection 27.1(2) of the Old Age Security Act, or, subject to the regulations, any person on their behalf, may appeal the decision to a Review Tribunal in writing within 90 days, or any longer period that the Commissioner of Review Tribunals may, either before or after the expiration of those 90 days, allow, after the day on which the party was notified in the prescribed manner of the decision or the person was notified in writing of the Minister’s decision and of the reasons for it.

(2) A Review Tribunal shall be constituted in accordance with this section.

(3) The Governor in Council shall appoint a panel of between one hundred and four hundred persons resident in Canada, in such a way that, at any given time,

(a) at least twenty-five per cent of the members of the panel are members of the bar of a province;

(b) at least twenty-five per cent of the members of the panel are persons qualified to practise medicine or a prescribed related profession in a province; and

(4) A person shall be appointed to the panel pursuant to subsection (3) for a term of at least two but not exceeding five years and is eligible for re-appointment on the expiration of his term.

(5) The Governor in Council shall appoint a Commissioner of Review Tribunals and a Deputy Commissioner of Review Tribunals, each for a term of at least two but not exceeding five years, and the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner are eligible for re-appointment on the expiration of their respective terms.

(6) In the event of the absence or incapacity of the Commissioner of Review Tribunals or if the office of Commissioner is vacant, the Deputy Commissioner of Review Tribunals has all the powers of the Commissioner.

(7) Each Review Tribunal shall consist of three persons chosen by the Commissioner from among the members of the panel referred to in subsection (3), subject to the following requirements:

(a) the Commissioner must designate a member of the bar of a province as the Chairman of the Review Tribunal; and

(b) where the appeal to be heard involves a disability benefit, at least one member of the Review Tribunal must be a person qualified to practise medicine or a prescribed related profession in a province.

(8) An appeal to a Review Tribunal shall be heard at such place in Canada as is fixed by the Commissioner, having regard to the convenience of the appellant, the Minister, and any other person added as a party to the appeal pursuant to subsection (10).

(9) The Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner and members of Review Tribunals shall be paid such reasonable remuneration and travel and living expenses in connection with the operation of Review Tribunals as are fixed by the Minister.

(9.1) An appellant shall be paid such reasonable travel and living expenses incurred in Canada in connection with the hearing of the appeal as are fixed by the Minister.

(9.2) Notwithstanding subsection (9.1), where an appellant is successful, the appellant shall be paid such reasonable travel and living expenses in connection with the hearing of the appeal as are fixed by the Minister.

(9.3) Any person added as a party to the appeal pursuant to subsection (10) shall be paid such reasonable travel and living expenses in connection with the hearing of the appeal as are fixed by the Minister.

(10) Where an appeal is made to a Review Tribunal in respect of

(a) a survivor’s pension payable to the survivor of a deceased contributor,

(b) a division of unadjusted pensionable earnings under section 55, 55.1 or 55.2, or

and in the Minister’s opinion a person in addition to the appellant may be directly affected by the decision of the Review Tribunal, the Minister shall notify the Commissioner of all such persons, and the Commissioner shall add as a party to the appeal any such person who is not already a party thereto.

(11) A Review Tribunal may confirm or vary a decision of the Minister made under section 81 or subsection 84(2) or under subsection 27.1(2) of the Old Age Security Act and may take any action in relation to any of those decisions that might have been taken by the Minister under that section or either of those subsections, and the Commissioner of Review Tribunals shall thereupon notify the Minister and the other parties to the appeal of the Review Tribunal’s decision and of the reasons for its decision.

(12) A decision of the majority of the members of a Review Tribunal is a decision of the Tribunal.

82. (1) La personne qui se croit lésée par une décision du ministre rendue en application de l’article 81 ou du paragraphe 84(2) ou celle qui se croit lésée par une décision du ministre rendue en application du paragraphe 27.1(2) de la Loi sur la sécurité de la vieillesse ou, sous réserve des règlements, quiconque de sa part, peut interjeter appel par écrit auprès d’un tribunal de révision de la décision du ministre soit dans les quatre-vingt-dix jours suivant le jour où la première personne est, de la manière prescrite, avisée de cette décision, ou, selon le cas, suivant le jour où le ministre notifie à la deuxième personne sa décision et ses motifs, soit dans le délai plus long autorisé par le commissaire des tribunaux de révision avant ou après l’expiration des quatre-vingt-dix jours.

(2) Un tribunal de révision est constitué conformément au présent article.

(3) Le gouverneur en conseil nomme de cent à quatre cents personnes qui, résidant au Canada, feront partie d’une liste qui doit en tout temps répondre aux critères suivants :

a) au moins vingt-cinq pour cent de ceux qui font partie de la liste doivent appartenir à un barreau provincial;

b) au moins vingt-cinq pour cent de ceux qui font partie de la liste doivent être des personnes habiles à pratiquer la médecine ou une profession connexe prescrite dans une province;

c) il y a, dans cette liste, des représentants de chacune des régions du Canada.

(4) Une personne faisant partie de la liste établie en application du paragraphe (3) y est nommée pour une période qui peut varier entre deux et cinq ans et elle peut y être nommée de nouveau après l’expiration de cette période.

(5) Le gouverneur en conseil nomme, pour un mandat qui peut varier entre deux et cinq ans, un commissaire et un commissaire-adjoint des tribunaux de révision et, après l’expiration de leur mandat respectif, ceux-ci peuvent être nommés à nouveau.

(6) En cas d’absence ou d’empêchement du commissaire des tribunaux de révision, ou de vacance de son poste, le commissaire-adjoint assume les responsabilités du commissaire.

(7) Un tribunal de révision se compose de trois personnes qui, provenant de la liste visée au paragraphe (3), sont choisies par le commissaire en fonction des exigences suivantes :

a) le commissaire doit désigner, comme président du tribunal, un membre du barreau d’une province;

b) dans les cas où l’appel concerne une question se rapportant à une prestation d’invalidité, au moins un membre du tribunal doit être une personne habile à pratiquer la médecine ou une profession connexe prescrite dans une province.

(8) Un appel auprès d’un tribunal de révision est entendu à l’endroit du Canada que fixe le commissaire, compte tenu de ce qui convient à l’appelant, au ministre et aux mis en cause en application du paragraphe (10).

(9) Le commissaire, le commissaire-adjoint et les membres des tribunaux de révision reçoivent, selon ce que fixe le ministre, la rémunération et les frais raisonnables de déplacement et de séjour qui se rapportent aux activités des tribunaux de révision.

(9.1) L’appelant est indemnisé des frais de déplacement et de séjour, fixés par le ministre, entraînés par l’audition de l’appel et faits au Canada.

(9.2) Malgré le paragraphe (9.1), dans le cas où l’appel est accueilli, l’appelant est indemnisé des frais de déplacement et de séjour, fixés par le ministre, entraînés par l’audition de l’appel.

(9.3) Toute personne mise en cause à un appel conformément au paragraphe (10) est indemnisée des frais de déplacement et de séjour, fixés par le ministre, entraînés par l’audition de l’appel.

(10) Dans les cas où un appel auprès du tribunal de révision se rapporte :

a) à une pension de survivant payable au survivant d’un cotisant décédé;

b) au partage des gains non ajustés ouvrant droit à pension en application de l’article 55, 55.1 ou 55.2;

c) à une cession de la pension de retraite d’un cotisant en application de l’article 65.1,

et que, de l’avis du ministre, une personne autre que l’appelant peut être directement touchée par la décision du tribunal de révision, le ministre donne au commissaire un avis mentionnant l’ensemble de ces personnes et le commissaire met alors en cause celles qui, parmi ces personnes, ne sont pas déjà parties aux procédures d’appel.

(11) Un tribunal de révision peut confirmer ou modifier une décision du ministre prise en vertu de l’article 81 ou du paragraphe 84(2) ou en vertu du paragraphe 27.1(2) de la Loi sur la sécurité de la vieillesse et il peut, à cet égard, prendre toute mesure que le ministre aurait pu prendre en application de ces dispositions; le commissaire des tribunaux de révision doit aussitôt donner un avis écrit de la décision du tribunal et des motifs la justifiant au ministre ainsi qu’aux parties à l’appel.

(12) Une décision de la majorité des membres d’un tribunal de révision emporte décision du tribunal.

84. (2) The Minister, a Review Tribunal or the Pension Appeals Board may, notwithstanding subsection (1), on new facts, rescind or amend a decision under this Act given by him, the Tribunal or the Board, as the case may be.

84. (2) Indépendamment du paragraphe (1), le ministre, un tribunal de révision ou la Commission d’appel des pensions peut, en se fondant sur des faits nouveaux, annuler ou modifier une décision qu’il a lui-même rendue ou qu’elle a elle-même rendue conformément à la présente loi.

FEDERAL COURT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET: T-1672-07

STYLE OF CAUSE: ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

and

YOUSRI EL BORAI

PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario

DATE OF HEARING: September 3, 2008

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

AND JUDGMENT: Phelan J.

DATED: September 8, 2008

APPEARANCES:

Mr. Allan Matte

FOR THE APPLICANT

Mr. Yousri El Borai

FOR THE RESPONDENT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

MR. JOHN H. SIMS, Q.C.

Deputy Attorney General of Canada

Ottawa, Ontario

FOR THE APPLICANT

SELF-REPRESENTED

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.

Do not display this message anymore