BETWEEN:
and
MINISTER OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT (formerly Minister
of Human Resources Development)
Heard at St. John's, Newfoundland, on June 29, 2006.
Judgment delivered from the Bench at St. John's, Newfoundland, on June 29, 2006.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
Docket: A-22-05
Citation: 2006 FCA 250
CORAM: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
SEXTON J.A.
MALONE J.A.
BETWEEN:
MARY E. ELLIS
Applicant
and
MINISTER OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT (formerly Minister
of Human Resources Development)
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at St. John's, Newfoundland, on June 29, 2006)
[1] The applicant challenges a decision of the Pension Appeals Board (Board) primarily on the ground that the Board failed to provide adequate reasons or analysis for overturning a decision of a review tribunal.
[2] Alternatively, the applicant alleges that the Board failed to consider the fact that her second application for disability benefits disclosed additional and new grounds for disability. At the oral hearing before us, the applicant did not address that issue which in any event has no merit.
[3] In paragraph 17 of its reasons, the Board clearly and properly set out the issue on the appeal before it: had the respondent provided new facts which would allow the review tribunal to amend its original decision dated September 29, 1999? It also stated the test to be applied when considering whether the facts submitted are new of not. The applicant does not challenge the test applied by the Board in this case.
[4] The Board then explained that it had reviewed the various medical reports filed from the report of June 20, 1998 to the last report of April 2, 2002 and found that they added nothing new to the evidence already on the record.
[5] It also indicated that it had reviewed the medical reports which allegedly disclosed new facts. It concluded from that review that these new facts relate to the applicant's condition, but to her condition after the minimum qualifying period.
[6] Notwithstanding the able arguments of counsel for the applicant, we have not been satisfied that the reasons provided by the Board are insufficient in the circumstances.
[7] It was possible for the applicant to challenge the merit of the decision of the Board simply by demonstrating that, contrary to what the Board found, some or all of the facts newly filed were indeed new. The applicant failed to point to a single piece of "new evidence" which she claims would evidence error on the part of the Board.
[8] In our view, the reasons given by the Board were sufficient to enable the applicant to determine whether it had grounds of appeal or judicial review and to efficiently proceed to exercise that right to a subsequent review.
[9] For these reasons, the application for judicial review will be dismissed without costs as the respondent did not seek them.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-22-05
STYLE OF CAUSE: MARY E. ELLIS v. MINISTER OF SOCIAL
DEVELOPMENT (formerly Minister of Human
Resources Development)
PLACE OF HEARING: St. John's, Newfoundland
DATE OF HEARING: June 29, 2006
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
MALONE J.A.
DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
APPEARANCES:
| FOR THE APPLICANT
|
|
| FOR THE RESPONDENT
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
|
St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador
|
FOR THE APPLICANT
|
|
Deputy Attorney General of Canada |
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|