BETWEEN:
Applicant
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
Heard at Edmonton, Alberta, on April 21, 2008.
Judgment delivered at Edmonton, Alberta, on April 21, 2008.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: SEXTON J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: RICHARD C.J.
EVANS J.A.
Date: 20080421
Docket: A-564-06
Citation: 2008 FCA 150
CORAM: RICHARD C.J.
SEXTON J.A.
EVANS J.A.
BETWEEN:
GILBERT JANZEN
Applicant
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
SEXTON J.A.:
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Pension Appeals Board made on November 1, 2006, wherein the issue before the Board was whether the Applicant was disabled within the meaning of the Canada Pension Plan. The Board held that the Applicant did not meet the definition of disability under the Plan because it was not persuaded that the Applicant’s disability was “severe” within the meaning of section 42(2)(a) of the Plan.
[2] The Applicant in his Memorandum of Fact and Law, argued that he suffered such severe back pain that it is impossible for him to have a regular job. He said that four years have passed with little improvement and he sees no prospect of improvement in his condition.
[3] The Board accepted medical evidence tendered to it, to the effect that, while the Applicant could not return to his old job of operating off-road truck and heavy equipment, he should seek re-training for a position requiring light or sedentary work. The Board further found that the Applicant had made no effort to re-train or seek a job which could accommodate his “mild to moderate degree of physical impairment”.
[4] The function of this Court on judicial review of a decision of the Pension Appeals Board is not reweigh the factors considered by the Board, nor to review the decision on the merits. Indeed, the consideration and weight attributed by the Board to the evidence before it and whether or not the evidence supports, on a balance of probabilities, the finding that the Applicant did not suffer from a disability which is severe and prolonged thus rendering him incapable of regularly pursuing any substantially gainful occupation, merits a high degree of deference.
[5] Keeping this in mind, I am unable to conclude that the Board erred in law or that its decision was unreasonable having regard to the evidence which was before it.
[6] The application should be dismissed without costs.
“J. Edgar Sexton”
___________________________ J.A.
“I agree”. “J. Richard”
C.J.
“I agree” “John M. Evans”
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-564-06
STYLE OF CAUSE: Gilbert Janzen v.
Attorney General of Canada
PLACE OF HEARING: Edmonton, AB
DATE OF HEARING: April 21, 2008
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: Sexton, J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: Richard, C.J., Evans, J.A.
APPEARANCES:
|
FOR THE APPLICANT, SELF REPRESENTED
|
|
|
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
|
Edmonton, AB
|
FOR THE APPLICANT, SELF REPRESENTED
|
|
Deputy Attorney General of Canada Ottawa, ON |
FOR THE RESPONDENT
|