Enquist v. Canada (Attorney General)

Enquist v. Canada (Attorney General)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2006-02-03
Neutral citation
2006 FCA 47
File numbers
A-259-05
Decision Content
Date: 20060203
Docket: A-259-05
Citation: 2006 FCA 47
CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A.
DÉCARY J.A.
SEXTON J.A.
BETWEEN:
ANGELA ENQUIST
Appellant
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
Heard at Vancouver, British Columbia, on February 1, 2006.
Judgment delivered at Vancouver, British Columbia, on February 3, 2006.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: DÉCARY J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: DESJARDINS, SEXTON JJ.A.
Date: 20060203
Docket: A-259-05
Citation: 2006 FCA 47
CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A.
DÉCARY J.A.
SEXTON J.A.
BETWEEN:
ANGELA ENQUIST
Appellant
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
DÉCARY J.A.
[1] Ms. Enquist made an application for Canada Pension Plan disability benefits based primarily on her claim that she suffers from mental illness. The application was dismissed by the Minister of Human Resources Development (Minister) on the basis that the evidence demonstrated that she was able to work in December 1993, the end of her minimum qualifying period. Ms. Enquist appealed the Minister's decision to the Review Tribunal, which also denied her application for benefits. She then sought leave to appeal to the Pension Appeals Board (the Board). A member of the Board denied her application for leave to appeal, on the basis that she had "not provided reports that support her application in the relevant time frame" (the Leave decision).
[2] Ms. Enquist then brought an application for judicial review of the Leave decision. The application was dismissed by Madam Justice Heneghan (2005 FC 687). Heneghan J. stated that the Leave decision was a discretionary one in which the member of the Board had to determine whether the application for leave raised an arguable case. She concluded that the member of the Board had applied the correct test and, having regard to the evidence, he had reached the reasonable conclusion that Ms. Enquist had not raised an arguable case.
[3] I have not been persuaded that Heneghan J. made any reviewable error. Given the paucity of evidence in general, and the complete lack of evidence to support a claim of disability before or on December 31, 1993, the Review Tribunal had no alternative but to find that Ms. Enquist had not met her onus. The member of the Board was faced with the same dilemma, as none of the medical reports submitted to him by Ms. Enquist provided any comment on her medical condition in 1993 or any comment on her capacity to work.
[4] I would dismiss the appeal. No costs were sought.
(Sgd.) "Robert Décary"
J.A.
"I agree" (Sgd.) "Alice Desjardins"
J.A.
"I agree" (Sgd.) "J. Edgar Sexton"
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-259-05
(APPEAL FROM A DECISION OF MADAM JUSTICE HENEGHAN DATED MAY 12TH 2005) (T-224-05)
STYLE OF CAUSE: Angela Enquist v
The Attorney General of Canada
PLACE OF HEARING: Vancouver BC
DATE OF HEARING: February 1st 2006
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT: Décary J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: Desjardins, Sexton JJ.A.
DATED: February 3rd 2006
APPEARANCES:
Angela Enquist
FOR THE APPELLANT
Adrian Joseph
FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
FOR THE RESPONDENT