Federal Court of Appeal Decisions

Date: 20060424

Docket: A-258-05

Citation: 2006 FCA 148

CORAM:        NADON J.A.

                        SEXTON J.A.

                        EVANS J.A.

BETWEEN:

EVA GRAD

Applicant

and

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

and CHRISTINE TROCKI

Respondents

Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on April 24, 2006.

Judgment delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on April 24, 2006.

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

Date: 20060424

Docket: A-258-05

Citation: 2006 FCA 148

CORAM:        NADON J.A.

                        SEXTON J.A.

                        EVANS J.A.

BETWEEN:

EVA GRAD

Applicant

and

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA

and CHRISTINE TROCKI

Respondents

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on April 24, 2006)

NADON J.A.

[1]                By her judicial review application, the Applicant seeks to set aside a decision of the Pension Appeals Board dated April 27, 2005.

[2]                The issue before the Board was whether, at the time of the death of Earl Grad on September 13, 1999 the Respondent, Christine Trocki was his "spouse" within the meaning of sub-paragraph 2(1)(a)(ii) of the Canada Pension Plan and thus entitled to a survivor's pension pursuant to paragraph 44(1)(d) of the Plan..

[3]                The Board answered that question by a yes. Specifically, the Board found that Mr. Grad and Miss Trocki, at the time of Mr. Grad's death, had been cohabiting in a conjugal relationship for a period of at least six years.

[4]                We are satisfied that, on the evidence before it, it was open to the Board to conclude as it did. As it clearly cannot be said that the Board's decision is patently unreasonable, we therefore see no basis on which we could interfere with its decision.

[5]                What the Applicant is, in reality, asking us is to re-weigh the evidence in a different manner. This, in the context of a judicial review application, we simply cannot do.

[6]                Accordingly, the judicial review application will be dismissed. As the Attorney General is not seeking costs, they will be awarded only to the Respondent, Christine Trocki.

"M. Nadon"

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                                                                   A-258-05

(APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE PENSION APPEALS BOARD DATED APRIL 27, 2005)

STYLE OF CAUSE:                                                   EVA GRAD v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA and CHRISTINE TROCKI

PLACE OF HEARING:                                             Toronto, Ontario

DATE OF HEARING:                                               April 24, 2006

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

OF THE COURT BY:                                                (NADON , SEXTON & EVANS JJ.A.)

DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH:                       NADON J.A.

APPEARANCES:

Eva Grad Allison Gowling	For the Applicant
Stuart Herbert Kirk MacPherson	For the Respondent, Attorney General of Canada For the Respondent, Christine Trocki

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Eva Grad Hamilton, ON	For the Applicant
John H. Sims, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada SULLIVAN, FESTERYGA, LAWLOR & ARRELL Barristers & Solicitors Hamilton, ON	For the Respondent, Attorney General of Canada For the Respondent, Christine Trocki