Vogt v. Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development)

Vogt v. Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2002-02-05
Neutral citation
2002 FCA 52
File numbers
A-244-01
Decision Content
Date: 20020205
Docket: A-244-01
Neutral citation: 2002 FCA 52
CORAM: ROTHSTEIN J.A.
SEXTON J.A.
SHARLOW J.A.
BETWEEN:
GERRY VOGT
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Respondent
Heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on February 5, 2002.
Judgment delivered from the bench at Ottawa, Ontario, on February 5, 2002.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: SEXTON J.A.
Date: 20020205
Docket: A-244-01
Neutral citation: 2002 FCA 52
CORAM: ROTHSTEIN J.A.
SEXTON J.A.
SHARLOW J.A.
BETWEEN:
GERRY VOGT
Applicant
and
THE MINISTER OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
SEXTON J.A.
[1] The applicant, a well-educated person who held a number of important managerial positions with several companies, upon being laid off in 1989, decided not to seek further work. He was 43 years of age at the time. In 1992, he developed a number of medical problems which he alleged made it impossible for him to work.
[2] His application for a disability pension was rejected by the Minister, a Review Tribunal and the Pension Appeals Board. On this application for judicial review of the decision of the Pension Appeals Board, the applicant argued that the Pension Appeals Board had applied the wrong legal test for "disability" as enunciated in the case of Villani v. Attorney General of Canada, (August 3, 2001) A-245-00 (F.C.A.). We do not agree. The reasons in their entirety made it clear that the proper test was applied.
[3] The applicant also argued that the Pension Appeals Board had failed to give reasons for not believing the applicant and had a duty to do so. In our view the Board's reasons were sufficiently comprehensive to demonstrate the reasoning on which its conclusions were based. The Pension Appeals Board reviewed the substantive evidence and concluded that there was no reliable objective evidence to support a finding that the applicant suffered from a disability such as to prevent him from regularly pursuing a substantially gainful occupation.
[4] We are not able to find that this was a patently unreasonable conclusion. For these reasons, the application will be dismissed.
"J.Edgar Sexton"
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-244-01
STYLE OF CAUSE:
GERRY VOGT v. MINISTER OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
PLACE OF HEARING: OTTAWA, ONTARIO
DATE OF HEARING: FEBRUARY 5, 2002
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: ROTHSTEIN J.A.
SEXTON J.A.
SHARLOW J.A.
DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH: FEBRUARY 5, 2002
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Jacques Chartrand FOR THE APPLICANT
Mr. John Vaissi Nagy FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
West End Legal Services
Ottawa, Ontario FOR THE APPLICANT
Mr. Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario FOR THE RESPONDENT