Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development) v. MacDonald

Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development) v. MacDonald
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2002-01-30
Neutral citation
2002 FCA 48
File numbers
A-521-00
Decision Content
Date: 20020130
Docket: A-521-00
Neutral citation: 2002 FCA 48
CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A.
ROTHSTEIN J.A.
NOËL J.A.
BETWEEN:
MINISTER OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT CANADA
Applicant
and
MAUREEN MACDONALD
Respondent
Heard at Halifax, Nova Scotia, on January 30, 2002.
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Halifax, Nova Scotia, on January 30, 2002.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: ROTHSTEIN J.A.
Date: 20020130
Docket: A-521-00
Neutral citation: 2002 FCA 48
CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A.
ROTHSTEIN J.A.
NOËL J.A.
BETWEEN:
MINISTER OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT CANADA
Applicant
and
MAUREEN MACDONALD
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Halifax, Nova Scotia
on January 30, 2002)
ROTHSTEIN J.A.
[1] In spite of the able argument of counsel for the Minister, we are of the view that the judicial review should be dismissed.
[2] We agree with the Minister that the doctrine of res judicata applies to decisions of the Minister, Review Tribunal and Pension Appeals Board under the Canada Pension Plan subject to statutory provisions to the contrary, including subsection 84(2) of the Act providing for reconsideration based on new facts. The new facts must not have been previously discoverable with reasonable diligence, and must be material.
[3] In the present case, the respondent, through a series of procedural errors on her part and on the part of the Minister, ended up where she should have been - before the Review Tribunal a second time. In the second proceeding before the Review Tribunal, the decision of the Tribunal indicates that the Minister's position was that there were no new facts justifying the respondent's entitlement to a pension. The Review Tribunal continued to deny the respondent's application and the respondent appealed to the Pension Appeals Board.
[4] In its reasons, the Pension Appeals Board made a number of references to Dr. Mendez, a neurosurgeon, who operated four times on the respondent for her rare condition. His reports were both dated after the date of the first Review Tribunal proceedings. The reports were also subsequent to the four operations that Dr. Mendez performed on the respondent. It appears that the Pension Appeals Board treated the Mendez reports as new facts.
[5] The Pension Appeals Boards was moved, largely by the Mendez reports, to reverse the Review Tribunal and allow the respondent's application. In our view, it was open to the Pension Appeals Board to come to the conclusion that it did on the basis of the new facts before it.
[6] The application will be dismissed with costs.
"Marshall Rothstein"
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-521-00
STYLE OF CAUSE: MINISTER OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT CANADA v. MAUREEN MACDONALD
PLACE OF HEARING: Halifax, Nova Scotia
DATE OF HEARING: January 30, 2002
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: Desjardins J.A. Rothstein J. A. Noel J.A.
APPEARANCES
Ms. Isabelle Chartier FOR APPLICANT
Ms. Jean McKenna FOR RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Mr. Morris Rosenberg FOR APPLICANT Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
Huesstis Ritch FOR RESPONDENT Halifax, Nova Scotia