Romita v. Canada (Attorney General)

Romita v. Canada (Attorney General)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2008-09-22
Neutral citation
2008 FCA 277
File numbers
A-91-08
Decision Content
Date: 20080922
Docket: A-91-08
Citation: 2008 FCA 277
CORAM: NADON J.A.
SEXTON J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
BETWEEN:
MARIA ROMITA
Applicant
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on September 18, 2008.
Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on September 22, 2008.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: SEXTON J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: NADON J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
Date: 20080922
Docket: A-91-08
Citation: 2008 FCA 277
CORAM: NADON J.A.
SEXTON J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
BETWEEN:
MARIA ROMITA
Applicant
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
SEXTON J.A.
[1] The applicant applied for a disability pension in April 2003. She claimed to have many disabling conditions with the main one being irritable bowel syndrome. The applicant stopped working on February 1, 2002, due to her medical condition. Her application for disability benefits was denied by the Commission.
[2] The applicant appealed the respondent’s decision to the Office of the Commissioner of Canada Pension Plan Review Tribunals. In a decision the Review Tribunal held that the applicant did not meet the definitions of severe and prolonged disability as provided in the Plan.
[3] The applicant sought and was granted leave to appeal the decision of the Review Tribunal to the Pension Appeals Board which held that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the applicant was suffering from a severe and prolonged disability and hence was not eligible to receive a disability pension.
[4] This is an application to set aside the decision of the Pension Appeals Board (“Board”) dated January 18, 2008.
[5] The issue before this Court is whether the Board committed a reviewable error in finding that the applicant was not suffering from a severe and prolonged disability. The standard of review of the decision of the Board is one of reasonableness.
[6] I am of the view that the Board, having reviewed the evidence, correctly identified the issue to be determined and applied the correct legal test, that is, whether the applicant had a severe and prolonged disability such as to render her incapable, regularly, of pursuing any substantially gainful occupation.
[7] As a result, I am unable to conclude that the decision of the Board was unreasonable.
[8] The application for judicial review should therefore be dismissed without costs.
“J. Edgar Sexton”
J.A.
“I agree
M. Nadon J.A.”
“I agree
J.D. Denis Pelletier J.A.”
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-91-08
(APPEAL FROM A JUDICIAL REVIEW OF PENSION APPEALS BOARD’S DECISION DATED JANUARY 18, 2008, FILE NO. CP24116.)
STYLE OF CAUSE: MARIA ROMITA v. ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF CANADA
PLACE OF HEARING: TORONTO, ONTARIO
DATE OF HEARING: SEPTEMBER 18, 2008
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: SEXTON J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: NADON J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
DATED: SEPTEMBER 22, 2008
APPEARANCES:
MARIA ROMITA
FOR THE APPLICANT (on her own behalf)
MARIE-JOSÉE BLAIS
FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
MARIA ROMITA
BOLTON, ONTARIO
FOR THE APPLICANT (on her own behalf)
JOHN H. SIMS, Q.C.
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
OTTAWA, ONTARIO
FOR THE RESPONDENT