McKerrow v. Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development)

McKerrow v. Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2002-11-06
Neutral citation
2002 FCA 433
File numbers
A-598-01
Decision Content
Date: 20021106
Docket: A-598-01
Neutral citation: 2002 FCA 433
CORAM: DÉCARY J.A.
NADON J.A.
EVANS J.A.
BETWEEN:
RICHARD McKERROW
Applicant
and
MINISTER OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Respondent
Heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on November 6, 2002.
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario, on November 6, 2002.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: EVANS J.A.
Date: 20021106
Docket: A-598-01
Neutral citation: 2002 FCA 433
CORAM: DÉCARY J.A.
NADON J.A.
EVANS J.A.
BETWEEN:
RICHARD McKERROW
Applicant
and
MINISTER OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Ottawa, Ontario
on November 6, 2002.)
EVANS J.A.
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Pensions Appeals Board, dated August 31, 2001, in which the Board dismissed an appeal by Richard McKerrow against the denial of his claim for disability benefits under the Canada Pension Plan, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-8.
[2] We are not persuaded that the Board made any error of law in identifying or applying the correct legal test defining a claimant's eligibility for disability benefits. Rather, counsel's submissions related essentially to the Board's findings of fact, and the adequacy of its reasons.
[3] In our view, the Board's findings cannot be characterized as patently unreasonable or made without regard to the material before it.
[4] We are also of the view that the Board's reasons fairly summarized the principal evidence submitted to it. It was not required to refer to each and every piece of documentary evidence. The Board's conclusion that, when considered in the context of the evidence as a whole, Mr. McKerrow's oral evidence was insufficient to discharge the burden of proof was not a finding of non-credibility, the basis of which the Board was obliged to explain specifically.
[5] For these reasons, the application for judicial review will be dismissed, without costs.
"John M. Evans"
J.A.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-598-01
STYLE OF CAUSE: RICHARD McKERROW v. MINISTER
OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
PLACE OF HEARING: OTTAWA, ONTARIO
DATE OF HEARING: NOVEMBER 6, 2002
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(DÉCARY, NADON AND EVANS JJ.A)
RENDERED FROM THE BENCH BY EVANS J.A.
APPEARANCES:
MR. GLEN R. AGAR FOR THE APPLICANT
MS. MARY TOBIN OATES FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
CLINIQUE JURIDIQUE GRAND-NORD FOR THE APPLICANT
LEGAL CLINIC
Kapuskasing, Ontario
MORRIS ROSENBERG FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario