A-212-96
| CORAM: STRAYER, J.A. |
ROBERTSON, J.A.
McDONALD, J.A.
B E T W E E N:
CONSTANTINE XINOS
Applicant
-and-
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA and
THE MINISTER OF EMPLOYMENT AND IMMIGRATION
Respondents
HEARD at Toronto, Ontario, on Wednesday, March 19, 1997.
JUDGMENT delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on Wednesday, March 19, 1997.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: STRAYER, J.A.
A-212-96
| CORAM: STRAYER, J.A. |
ROBERTSON, J.A.
McDONALD, J.A.
B E T W E E N:
CONSTANTINE XINOS
Applicant
-and-
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA and
THE MINISTER OF EMPLOYMENT AND IMMIGRATION
Respondents
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered from the Bench at Toronto,
Ontario, on Wednesday, March 19, 1997)
STRAYER J.A.:
We have concluded, notwithstanding the careful submission of counsel for the applicant, that this application for judicial review of a decision of the Pension Appeals Board must be dismissed.
The essential submission of the applicant is that, because the Canada Pension Plan requires, for eligibility for disability benefits, that the claimant must have made contributions in the recent years prior to his claim, there is a denial of equal benefit or equal protection of the law as prescribed by section 15 of the Charter.
Like the Pension Appeals Board, we do not consider that there is any discrimination within the meaning of subsection 15(1) of the Charter just because a "recency" test is applied to disabled claimants but not to other claimants under the Plan. Equal benefit and equal protection of the law do not require that every beneficiary under an income replacement scheme under the Canada Pension Plan be entitled to identical benefits or identical conditions of eligibility. Disability benefits differ from pensions, for example, in that they can be claimed and can commence at any age after 18 and before 65, and are not entirely based on the amount of previous contributions. It is not surprising that a scheme designed to replace loss of employment income due to disability requires some evidence of recent employment even if, arguably, such a condition is not the only conceivable method for allocating such benefits.
If the correct interpretation of recent Supreme Court jurisprudence is that, in such circumstances, discrimination must nevertheless be found and then justified, if at all, under section 1 of the Charter, we are unable to say that the Board erred in finding such a justification under section 1. The objective of maintaining a viable income replacement program is legitimate and there was a basis upon which the Board could conclude that the eligibility requirements in question are reasonably related to that objective. We assume that the Board, like this Court, was conscious of the frequent observation in the Supreme Court of Canada that courts and tribunals should not be quick to second-guess the judgments of Parliament (and in this case, the majority of provincial governments) as to the proper criteria for various benefits under social programs.
The application must therefore be dismissed.
"B.L. Strayer"
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Names of Counsel and Solicitors of Record
COURT NO: A-212-96
| STYLE OF CAUSE: CONSTANTINE XINOS |
- and -
| THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA |
| and THE MINISTER OF EMPLOYMENT AND IMMIGRATION |
DATE OF HEARING: MARCH 19, 1997
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: STRAYER, J.A.
Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario
on Wednesday, March 19, 1997
APPEARANCES:
Mr. John B. McKinnon
For the Applicant
Ms. Kathy Doolan
For the Respondents
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
John B. McKinnon
Injured Workers' Consultants
307-815 Danforth Avenue
Toronto, Ontario
M4J 1L2
For the Applicant
George Thomson
Deputy Attorney General
of Canada
For the Respondents
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
Court No.: A-212-96
Between:
| CONSTANTINE XINOS |
Applicant
- and -
| THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA |
| and THE MINISTER OF EMPLOYMENT AND IMMIGRATION |
Respondents
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT