Labrecque v. Canada (Attorney General)

Labrecque v. Canada (Attorney General)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2007-10-31
Neutral citation
2007 FCA 347
File numbers
A-475-06
Decision Content
Date: 20071031
Docket: A-475-06
Citation: 2007 FCA 347
CORAM: RICHARD C.J.
NADON J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
BETWEEN:
DONALD LABRECQUE
Applicant
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
Heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on October 30, 2007.
Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on October 31, 2007.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: NADON J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: RICHARD C.J.
PELLETIER J.A.
Date: 20071031
Docket: A-475-06
Citation: 2007 FCA 347
CORAM: RICHARD C.J.
NADON J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
BETWEEN:
DONALD LABRECQUE
Applicant
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
NADON J.A.
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Pension Appeals Board (the “Board”) dated July 31, 2006 (PAB File No. CP23117).
[2] In dismissing the applicant’s appeal from a decision of a Review Tribunal dated July 30, 2003, the Board concluded that the applicant’s disability, i.e. mid-thoracic back pain, was not “severe” as required by paragraph 42(2)(a) of the Canada Pension Plan (the “Plan”) and that, as a result, he was not incapable of regularly pursuing any substantially gainful occupation. Thus, in the Board’s view, the applicant was not entitled to a disability pension under the Plan.
[3] In so concluding, the Board considered the applicant’s personal characteristics, his medical condition and the fact that he had elected to stop physiotherapy treatment and not attempted to retrain or obtain employment since leaving the workforce.
[4] In our view, on the evidence before it, it was unquestionably open to the Board to conclude as it did. Further, we are satisfied that the Board reached its conclusion only after a careful review of both the evidence and the relevant case law.
[5] Consequently, we have not been persuaded that in reaching its ultimate conclusion, the Board made any error, either of fact or of law, which would allow us to intervene. The application will therefore be dismissed.
[6] As the respondent is not seeking costs, no such order will be made.
“M. Nadon”
J.A.
“I agree.
J. Richard C.J.”
“I agree.
J.D. Denis Pelletier J.A.”
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-475-06
STYLE OF CAUSE: DONALD LABRECQUE v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, ON
DATE OF HEARING: October 30, 2007
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: NADON J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: RICHARD C.J.
PELLETIER J.A.
DATED: October 31, 2007
APPEARANCES:
Donald Labrecque
THE APPLICANT ON HIS OWN BEHALF
Jennifer Hockey
FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
FOR THE RESPONDENT