Markle v. Canada (Minister of Social Development)

Markle v. Canada (Minister of Social Development)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2006-02-20
Neutral citation
2006 FCA 80
File numbers
A-333-05
Decision Content
Date: 20060220
Docket: A-333-05
Citation: 2006 FCA 80
CORAM: ROTHSTEINJ.A.
SHARLOW J.A.
MALONE J.A.
BETWEEN:
STEPHANIE MARKLE
Applicant
and
MINISTER OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
(formerly Minister of Human Resources Development)
Respondent
Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on February 20, 2006.
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on February 20, 2006.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: MALONE J.A.
Date: 20060220
Docket: A-333-05
Citation: 2006 FCA 80
CORAM: ROTHSTEINJ.A.
SHARLOW J.A.
MALONE J.A.
BETWEEN:
STEPHANIE MARKLE
Applicant
and
MINISTER OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
(formerly Minister of Human Resources Development)
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario on February 20, 2006)
MALONE J.A.
[1] The applicant seeks judicial review of a decision of the Pension Appeals Board (the Board) dated April 20, 2005.
[2] The issue before the Board was whether Ms. Markle was disabled within the meaning of the Canada Pension Plan (the Plan) on or before December 31, 1993 which was her minimum qualifying period. The onus was on the applicant to satisfy the Board that she suffered from a severe and prolonged disability as at that date.
[3] The Board reviewed evidence concluding that the applicant was not disabled under the Plan. In so doing, the Board reviewed how the test for determining disability under the Plan applied in the context of Ms. Markle's personal circumstances, her medical history and the fact that she had worked beyond December 31, 1993.
[4] The Board found that the medical evidence on file failed to support Ms. Markle's assertions that she was disabled as at that date and in fact suggested that as late as 2002 returning to work would be of personal benefit in terms of both her physical and mental health.
[5] Based on the record before the Board we see nothing patently unreasonable in its decision nor are there errors of law or procedural fairness that would warrant our intervention. In particular, we are satisfied that the Board's reasons for its decision are adequate to explain the result.
[6] While we would acknowledge the able argument of counsel, the application for judicial review should be dismissed. The respondent is not seeking costs.
"B. Malone"
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-333-05
STYLE OF CAUSE: STEPHANIE MARKLE
Applicant
and
MINISTER OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
(formerly Minister of Human Resources Development)
Respondent
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
DATE OF HEARING: FEBRUARY 20, 2006
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF
THE COURT BY: (ROTHSTEIN, SHARLOW, MALONE JJ.A.)
DELIVERED FROM
THE BENCH BY: MALONE J.A.
APPEARANCES:
Hugo Lorenson
FOR THE APPLICANT
Marcus Davies
FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Staff Lawyer
Durham Community Legal Clinic
Oshawa, Ontario
FOR THE APPLICANT
John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
FOR THE RESPONDENT