Gilroy v. Canada (Attorney General)

Gilroy v. Canada (Attorney General)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2008-04-01
Neutral citation
2008 FCA 116
File numbers
A-533-06
Decision Content
Date: 20080401
Docket: A-533-06
Citation: 2008 FCA 116
CORAM: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
EVANS J.A.
RYER J.A.
BETWEEN:
MARY J. GILROY
Applicant
and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
Heard at Halifax, Nova Scotia, on April 1, 2008.
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Halifax, Nova Scotia, on April 1, 2008.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: EVANS J.A.
Date: 20080401
Docket: A-533-06
Citation: 2008 FCA 116
CORAM: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
EVANS J.A.
RYER J.A.
BETWEEN:
MARY J. GILROY
Applicant
and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Halifax, Nova Scotia, on April 1, 2008)
EVANS J.A.
[1] This is an application for judicial review by Mary Gilroy to set aside a decision of the Pension Appeals Board, dated June 19, 2006. In that decision, the Board unanimously upheld the dismissal by the Minister of Social Development of Ms. Gilroy’s application for a disability pension under the Canada Pension Plan, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-8.
[2] In her oral submissions to the Court, Ms. Gilroy, who represented herself, explained that her medical condition had deteriorated since December 2004, when she last met the minimum qualifying period under the Plan, and that she is now in constant pain and is unable to work. However, as we explained to Ms. Gilroy, the Court has a limited function on an application for judicial review: to determine whether the Board made any reviewable error on the evidence before it concerning the severity of her disability at the end of December 2004. Accordingly, the Court refused to admit a medical report which “updated” her medical history subsequent to the Board’s decision.
[3] The Board carefully reviewed the various medical reports before it, and we are not persuaded that it committed any reviewable error when it concluded on the basis of the evidence that Ms. Gilroy’s disability was not “severe” within the meaning of paragraph 44(2)(a) of the Plan at the end of December 2004. Indeed, when the Court asked Ms. Gilroy whether she could point to any evidence before the Board indicating that she was unable to undertake any kind of employment at the end of 2004, she admitted that she could not.
[4] We would emphasise that, in reaching this decision we are very sympathetic to Ms. Gilroy’s medical problems and do not doubt that she is experiencing serious limitations on her quality of life. Unfortunately for her, as we explained, it is not the function of the Court in these proceedings to determine her eligibility for a disability pension on the basis of her current medical condition.
[5] For these reasons the application will be dismissed: costs were not requested and are not awarded.
"John M. Evans"
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-533-06
STYLE OF CAUSE: MARY J. GILROY v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
PLACE OF HEARING: Halifax, Nova Scotia
DATE OF HEARING: April 1, 2008
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
OF THE COURT BY: EVANS J.A.
RYER J.A.
DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: EVANS J.A.
APPEARANCES:
Mary J. Gilroy
FOR THE APPLICANT
Jacques-Michel Cyr
FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Mary J. Gilroy
Self-represented
FOR THE APPLICANT
John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
FOR THE RESPONDENT