Whiteley v. Canada (Minister of Social Development)

Whiteley v. Canada (Minister of Social Development)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2006-02-13
Neutral citation
2006 FCA 72
File numbers
A-362-05
Decision Content
Date: 20060213
Docket: A-362-05
Citation: 2006 FCA 72
CORAM: DÉCARY J.A.
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
SEXTON J.A.
BETWEEN:
SUSAN WHITELEY
Applicant
and
MINISTER OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
(Formerly MINISTER OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT)
Respondent
Heard at Halifax, Nova Scotia, on February 13, 2006.
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Halifax, Nova Scotia, on February 13, 2006.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: DÉCARY J.A.
Date: 20060213
Docket: A-362-05
Citation: 2006 FCA 72
CORAM: DÉCARY J.A.
LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
SEXTON J.A.
BETWEEN:
SUSAN WHITELEY
Applicant
and
MINISTER OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
(Formerly MINISTER OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT)
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Halifax, Nova Scotia, on February 13, 2006)
DÉCARY J.A.
[1] The reasons for decisions of the Pension Appeal Board are, in our view, totally inadequate.
[2] The Board has a statutory duty to provide the parties with reasons for its decision (see subsection 83(11) of the Canada Pension Plan). The analysis of the evidence must be such as to enable the parties and, on judicial review, the Court to understand how the Board reached its decision. Furthermore, the Court must be in a position to determine whether the Board understood the state of the law and whether it applied it to the facts of the case.
[3] In the case at bar, the reasons describe the evidence in a summary way for some twenty paragraphs and go on as follows, in the last paragraph:
[24] In my view, the Appellant has not discharged the onus upon her to prove on a balance of probabilities that her disability was severe and prolonged as contemplated by the Canada Pension Plan on or before December 31, 2002.
[4] The Board, clearly, did not analyse the law nor the evidence in any meaningful way. It is not enough to relate the evidence and then immediately conclude that the onus had not been met. The Board's failure to provide adequate reasons breached the duty of procedural fairness owed to the applicant. This Court has no other choice but to set aside the Board's decision and refer the matter to a differently constituted panel of the Board for redetermination. The applicant will be allowed her costs in this Court.
"Robert Décary"
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-362-05
STYLE OF CAUSE: SUSAN WHITELEY v. MINISTER OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT (Formerly MINISTER OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT)
PLACE OF HEARING: HALIFAX, NOVA SCOTIA
DATE OF HEARING: FEBRUARY 13, 2006
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: DÉCARY, LÉTOURNEAU, SEXTON JJ.A.
DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: DÉCARY J.A.
APPEARANCES:
Glenn E. Jones
FOR THE APPLICANT
Laura Dalloo
FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Pressé & Mason Law Office
Bedford, Nova Scotia
FOR THE APPLICANT
John H. Sims Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
FOR THE RESPONDENT