Halvorsen v. Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development)

Halvorsen v. Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2004-11-03
Neutral citation
2004 FCA 377
File numbers
A-610-03
Decision Content
Date: 20041103
Docket: A-610-03
Citation: 2004 FCA 377
CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A.
NADON J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
BETWEEN:
ROY M.J. HALVORSEN
Applicant
and
MINISTER OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Respondent
Heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on November 3, 2004.
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario, on November 3, 2004.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: NADON J.A.
Date: 20041103
Docket: A-610-03
Citation: 2004 FCA 377
CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A.
NADON J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
BETWEEN:
ROY M.J. HALVORSEN
Applicant
and
MINISTER OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario, on November 3, 2004)
NADON J.A.
[1] We are all agreed that this application for judicial review should be allowed.
[2] At paragraph 8 of its Reasons, the Board excluded from its consideration the question as to whether the applicant was severely disabled by reason of lower back problems. The Board's reasons for so concluding are as follows:
[8] While at Confederation College and thereafter, the Appellant testified that his back and neck pain was steadily increasing as was his ingestion of pain medication. If the Appellant is to succeed it must be because of his neck problems. The problem with his lower back problem cannot be said to be disabling. Indeed, his back problems are deemed by the Workers' Compensation Board to be non-compensable.
[3] The Board appears to have reached its conclusion primarily on the ground that the Ontario Workers' Compensation Board, in a totally different context, held that the applicant's back problems were not compensable, i.e. because not work related.
[4] Whether or not the applicant's back problems were compensable under the relevant Ontario legislation was of no relevance to the issue before the Board, since the Canada Pension Plan does not make it a condition that the disability be work-related.
[5] The Board was bound to consider all of the relevant evidence, including that which pertained to the applicant's back problems, so as to determine whether these problems, on their own or in conjunction with his neck problems, were such as to render his disability "severe and prolonged" as that expression is defined at paragraph 42(2)(a) of the Canada Pension Plan.
[6] We are satisfied that the Board's failure to consider this evidence renders its decision patently unreasonable. Consequently, this judicial review application will be allowed with costs, the Board's decision dated September 10, 2003, will be set aside and the matter will be returned to the Board for reconsideration, on the basis of the evidence in the record and any other evidence which the Board may wish to consider, by a differently constituted panel.
"M. Nadon"
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-610-03
STYLE OF CAUSE: Halvorsen v. M.H.R.D.
PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: November 3, 2004
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: Desjardins, Nadon, Pelletier JJ.A.
DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: Nadon J.A.
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Paul Champ
FOR THE APPLICANT
Mr. Bahaa I. Sunallah
FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Raven, Allen, Cameron, Ballantyne & Yazbeck LLP
Ottawa, Ontario
FOR THE APPLICANT
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General fo Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
FOR THE RESPONDENT