Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development) v. Richard

Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development) v. Richard
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2004-11-08
Neutral citation
2004 FCA 378
File numbers
A-558-03
Notes
Digest
Decision Content
Date: 20041108
Docket: A-558-03
Citation: 2004 FCA 378
CORAM: LINDEN J.A.
SHARLOW J.A.
MALONE J.A.
BETWEEN:
MINISTER OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Applicant
and
BARBARA ANN RICHARD
Respondent
Heard at Halifax, Nova Scotia on November 8, 2004.
Judgment delivered from the bench at Halifax, Nova Scotia, on November 8, 2004.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: MALONE J.A.
Date: 20041108
Docket: A-558-03
Citation: 2004 FCA 378
CORAM: LINDEN J.A.
SHARLOW J.A.
MALONE J.A.
BETWEEN:
MINISTER OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Applicant
and
BARBARA ANN RICHARD
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Halifax, Nova Scotia, on November 8, 2004)
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
MALONE J.A.
[1] The issue in this application for judicial review is whether a Pension Appeals Board (the Board) decision dated September 18, 2003 is in error. In that decision the majority of the Board decided that it had jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a decision of a Review Tribunal, which
had refused to reconsider its earlier decision because it determined that certain new information submitted by the respondent did not qualify as new facts pursuant to subsection 84(2) of the Canada Pension Plan, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-8.
[2] Subsequent to that decision, this Court in the case of Oliveira v. Canada (Minister of Human Resources and Development), (2004) 320 N.R. 168, 2004 FCA 136 came to the opposite conclusion, namely, the Board had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a Review Tribunal's refusal to reconsider one of its own decisions because the complainant had advanced no new facts. We are bound by the Oliveira decision. (See Miller v. Canada (Attorney General) (2002), 220 D.L.R. 4th 149, 2002 FCA 370.)
[3] The respondent's remedy is to now seek judicial review in the Federal Court of the Review Tribunal's refusal to reconsider its earlier decision.
[4] We would allow this application for judicial review without costs, set aside the decision of the Pension Appeals Board dated September 18, 2003 and remit the matter to the Pension Appeals Board for redetermination on the basis that the Minister's Notice of Motion to quash the appeal should have been granted.
Brian D. Malone
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-558-03
STYLE OF CAUSE: MINISTER OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT v. BARBARA ANN RICHARD
PLACE OF HEARING: Halifax
DATE OF HEARING: November 8, 2004
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: Linden J.A., Sharlow J.A., Malone J.A.
DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: Malone J.A.
APPEARANCES:
Stephan Bertrand
FOR THE APPLICANT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Morris Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
FOR THE APPLICANT