Grad v. Canada (Attorney General)

Grad v. Canada (Attorney General)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2006-04-24
Neutral citation
2006 FCA 148
File numbers
A-258-05
Decision Content
Date: 20060424
Docket: A-258-05
Citation: 2006 FCA 148
CORAM: NADON J.A.
SEXTON J.A.
EVANS J.A.
BETWEEN:
EVA GRAD
Applicant
and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
and CHRISTINE TROCKI
Respondents
Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on April 24, 2006.
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on April 24, 2006.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: NADON J.A.
Date: 20060424
Docket: A-258-05
Citation: 2006 FCA 148
CORAM: NADON J.A.
SEXTON J.A.
EVANS J.A.
BETWEEN:
EVA GRAD
Applicant
and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
and CHRISTINE TROCKI
Respondents
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on April 24, 2006)
NADON J.A.
[1] By her judicial review application, the Applicant seeks to set aside a decision of the Pension Appeals Board dated April 27, 2005.
[2] The issue before the Board was whether, at the time of the death of Earl Grad on September 13, 1999 the Respondent, Christine Trocki was his "spouse" within the meaning of sub-paragraph 2(1)(a)(ii) of the Canada Pension Plan and thus entitled to a survivor's pension pursuant to paragraph 44(1)(d) of the Plan..
[3] The Board answered that question by a yes. Specifically, the Board found that Mr. Grad and Miss Trocki, at the time of Mr. Grad's death, had been cohabiting in a conjugal relationship for a period of at least six years.
[4] We are satisfied that, on the evidence before it, it was open to the Board to conclude as it did. As it clearly cannot be said that the Board's decision is patently unreasonable, we therefore see no basis on which we could interfere with its decision.
[5] What the Applicant is, in reality, asking us is to re-weigh the evidence in a different manner. This, in the context of a judicial review application, we simply cannot do.
[6] Accordingly, the judicial review application will be dismissed. As the Attorney General is not seeking costs, they will be awarded only to the Respondent, Christine Trocki.
"M. Nadon"
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-258-05
(APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE PENSION APPEALS BOARD DATED APRIL 27, 2005)
STYLE OF CAUSE: EVA GRAD v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA and CHRISTINE TROCKI
PLACE OF HEARING: Toronto, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: April 24, 2006
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
OF THE COURT BY: (NADON , SEXTON & EVANS JJ.A.)
DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH: NADON J.A.
APPEARANCES:
Eva Grad
Allison Gowling
For the Applicant
Stuart Herbert
Kirk MacPherson
For the Respondent, Attorney General of Canada
For the Respondent, Christine Trocki
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Eva Grad
Hamilton, ON
For the Applicant
John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
SULLIVAN, FESTERYGA, LAWLOR & ARRELL
Barristers & Solicitors
Hamilton, ON
For the Respondent, Attorney General of Canada
For the Respondent, Christine Trocki