Marrone v. Canada (Attorney General)

Marrone v. Canada (Attorney General)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2008-06-18
Neutral citation
2008 FCA 216
File numbers
A-402-07
Decision Content
Date: 20080618
Docket: A-402-07
Citation: 2008 FCA 216
CORAM: NADON J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
RYER J.A.
BETWEEN:
EMILIA MARRONE
Applicant
and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on June 18, 2008.
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on June 18, 2008.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: RYER J.A.
Date: 20080618
Docket: A-402-07
Citation: 2008 FCA 216
CORAM: NADON J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
RYER J.A.
BETWEEN:
EMILIA MARRONE
Applicant
and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on June 18, 2008)
RYER J.A.
[1] We are of the view that the reasons provided by the majority of the Pension Appeals Board (the “Board”) for their decision to dismiss Ms. Marrone’s appeal are insufficient to enable us to understand the basis for that decision.
[2] In their reasons, the majority of the Board recites some of the evidence that was presented and states:
15 The Board has reviewed the testimony and evidence provided by the parties. The Board has some concerns about the quality and quantity of paper and reports that were submitted for the members’ consideration.
16. The Board finds that the Appellant has failed to substantiate her claim for a pension under the governing statute. The appeal is dismissed.
[3] These paragraphs do not contain any meaningful analysis of the applicable law or of the evidence. As such, the majority of the Board has not met the requirement contained in subsection 83(11) of the Canada Pension Plan, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-8, that the parties to the appeal are to be provided with written notification of the decision of the Board and with reasons that provide an explanation for the decision.
[4] Accordingly, this application for judicial review is allowed, the decision of the Board is set aside and the matter is referred back to a differently constituted panel of the Board for redetermination. Because the adequacy of the reasons of the Board was not raised by the Applicant, no costs will be awarded.
“C. Michael Ryer”
Judge
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-402-07
(APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW IN RESPECT OF A DECISION OF THE CANADA PENSION APPEAL BOARD MADE ON MAY 4TH 2006, PAB FILE NO. CP23129).
STYLE OF CAUSE: EMILIA MARRONE v. THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
DATE OF HEARING: JUNE 18, 2008
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
OF THE COURT BY: (NADON, PELLETIER, RYER JJ.A.)
DELIVERED FROM
THE BENCH BY: RYER J.A.
APPEARANCES:
Hossein Niroomand
FOR THE APPELLANT
James Gray
FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Hossein Niroomand
Barrister & Solicitor
Toronto, Ontario
FOR THE APPELLANT
John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Toronto, Ontario
FOR THE RESPONDENT