[1] We are all of the view that the Motions Judge was correct to conclude that the Crown provided insufficient evidence in support of its summary judgment motion to establish that the basis on which the Respondent was awarded a pension under the Pension Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-6, is in respect of the same injury, damage or loss as the basis for her claims. We express no opinion on the Motions Judge's interpretation of section 9 of the Crown Liability and Proceeding Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-50, which was completed without the benefit of the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Sarvanis v. Her Majesty the Queen, 2002 SCC 28.

[2] This appeal will be dismissed with costs.

"K. Sharlow"

J.A.

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

(Appeal from an Order of the Trial Division dated February 28, 2002, T-2333-00)

DOCKET: A-134-02

STYLE OF CAUSE: Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada (Ministry of National Defence) and Marie-Catherine Marsot

PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, Ontario

DATE OF HEARING: MARCH 19, 2003

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

OF THE COURT : LÉTOURNEAU, SEXTON, SHARLOW J.J.A.

RENDERED FROM THE BENCH BY: SHARLOW J.A.

DATED: MARCH 19, 2003

APPEARANCES:

Mr. Christopher Rupar FOR THE DEFENDANT/APPELLANT

Ms. Monika Lozinska

Mr. Alan Riddell FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Morris Rosenberg

Deputy Attorney General of Canada FOR THE DEFENDANT/APPELLANT

Soloway, Wright LLP FOR THE PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT

Barristers & Solicitors

Ottawa, Ontario

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