Melvin v. Canada (Attorney General)

Melvin v. Canada (Attorney General)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2010-02-24
Neutral citation
2010 FCA 64
File numbers
A-236-09
Decision Content
Date: 20100224
Docket: A-236-09
Citation: 2010 FCA 64
CORAM: PELLETIER J.A.
TRUDEL J.A.
STRATAS J.A.
BETWEEN:
KAREN MELVIN
Applicant
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
Heard at Halifax, Nova Scotia, on February 24, 2010.
Judgment delivered at Halifax, Nova Scotia, on February 24, 2010.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: TRUDEL J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: PELLETIER J.A.
STRATAS J.A.
Date: 20100224
Docket: A-236-09
Citation: 2010 FCA 64
CORAM: PELLETIER J.A.
TRUDEL J.A.
STRATAS J.A.
BETWEEN:
KAREN MELVIN
Applicant
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
TRUDEL J.A.
[1] This is an application for judicial review concerning a decision of the Pension Appeals Board (the Board) dated May 12, 2009 (Appeal CP26065), which denied the applicant’s appeal from a decision of the Review Tribunal and dismissed her application for a disability pension as she had failed to show that she was disabled within the meaning of subsection 42(2) of the Canada Pension Plan, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-8 (the Plan) on or prior to her minimum qualifying period (MQP) of December 31, 2006.
[2] The issue before this Court is whether the Board committed a reviewable error in finding that the applicant was not suffering from a severe and prolonged disability on or prior to her MQP.
[3] Ms. Melvin, a self-represented litigant before this Court, applied for disability benefits on November 8, 2006, on the basis of upper back and neck pain, anxiety and depression and irritable bowel syndrome (Review Tribunal’s decision at paragraph 1).
[4] Having examined the applicant’s medical evidence and record of earnings, the Board, as the Review Tribunal had done before it, found that Ms. Melvin was not entitled to a pension. The Board stated that there was no psychiatric diagnosis of bipolar mood disorder. It also concluded that the applicant was not "incapable regularly of pursuing any substantially gainful occupation" (paragraph 42(2)(a) of the Plan). As a matter of fact, the applicant was working at the time of the hearing in front of the Board and intended to increase her part-time work to 30 hours per week. The evidentiary record supports the Board’s findings. Its conclusions fall within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes that are defensible in respect of the facts and the law.
[5] Therefore, this application for judicial review will be dismissed.
"Johanne Trudel"
J.A.
"I agree
J.D. Denis Pelletier"
"I agree
David Stratas"
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-236-09
(APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE PENSION APPEALS BOARD DATED MAY 12, 2009)
STYLE OF CAUSE: Karen Melvin v.
Attorney General of Canada
PLACE OF HEARING: Halifax, Nova Scotia
DATE OF HEARING: February 24, 2010
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: TRUDEL J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: PELLETIER J.A.
STRATAS J.A.
DATED: February 24, 2010
APPEARANCES:
Karen Melvin
ON HIS OWN BEHALF
Jennifer Hockey
FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
FOR THE RESPONDENT