Grenier v. Canada (Human Resources Development)

Grenier v. Canada (Human Resources Development)
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2008-04-07
Neutral citation
2008 FCA 130
File numbers
A-409-07
Decision Content
Date: 20080407
Docket: A-409-07
Citation: 2008 FCA 130
CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A.
NOËL J.A.
NADON J.A.
BETWEEN:
CLAUDE GRENIER
Appellant
and
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN
RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Respondent
Hearing held at Montréal, Quebec, on April 7, 2008.
Judgment delivered at Montréal, Quebec, on April 7, 2008.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: DESJARDINS J.A.
Date: 20080407
Docket: A-409-07
Citation: 2008 FCA 130
CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A.
NOËL J.A.
NADON J.A.
BETWEEN:
CLAUDE GRENIER
Appellant
and
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN
RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the bench at Montréal, Quebec, on April 7, 2008)
DESJARDINS J.A.
[1] Mr. Grenier is appealing a judgment of the Tax Court of Canada which upheld a decision of the Department of Human Resources Development concerning a $110 overpayment made to him in 2005 as a guaranteed income supplement under the Old Age Security Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. O-9 (the Act).
[2] Mr. Grenier applied for a guaranteed income supplement in April 2005, making a statement of income of $20,617 for the 2004 reference year. Mr. Grenier subsequently realised that under section 14 of the Act, he choose to use 2005 as the reference year, rather than 2004, the advantage being that he did not have any employment income for 2005, whereas he had earned $7,065 in employment income in 2004. He estimated his income for 2005 to be $11,892 (($579 + $412) x 12).
[3] When he submitted his annual application for the renewal of the guaranteed income supplement in 2006, he reported income of $16,722 for 2005. This figure corresponded to the income in his income tax return for 2005.
[4] The Department Minister invoked section 18 of the Act, which reads as follows:
18. Where it is determined that the income for a base calendar year (in this section referred to as the “actual income”) of an applicant for a supplement does not accord with the income of the applicant (in this section referred to as the “shown income”) calculated on the basis of a statement or an estimate made under section 14, the following adjustments shall be made:
18. Lorsqu’il est établi que le revenu du demandeur d’un supplément pour l’année de référence, appelé « revenu réel » au présent article, ne coïncide pas avec le revenu, appelé « revenu déclaré » au présent article, calculé sur la base d’une déclaration ou d’une estimation établie aux termes de l’article 14, les rectifications suivantes doivent être apportées :
(a) if the actual income exceeds the shown income, any amount by which the supplement paid to the applicant for months in the payment period exceeds the supplement that would have been paid to the applicant for those months if the shown income had been equal to the actual income shall be deducted and retained out of any subsequent payments of supplement or pension made to the applicant, in any manner that may be prescribed; and
a) si le revenu réel dépasse le revenu déclaré, le trop-payé fait l’objet, selon les modalités réglementaires, d’une retenue opérée sur les paiements ultérieurs de supplément ou de pension;
(b) if the shown income exceeds the actual income, there shall be paid to the applicant any amount by which the supplement that would have been paid to the applicant for months in the payment period if the actual income had been equal to the shown income exceeds the supplement paid to the applicant for those months.
[Emphasis added.]
b) si le revenu déclaré dépasse le revenu réel, le moins-perçu est versé au demandeur.
[Je souligne.]
[5] Because there was a difference between the “actual income” ($16,722) earned in 2005, the reference year chosen by Mr. Grenier under section 14 of the Act, and the “shown income” for Mr. Grenier ($11,892), an adjustment had to be made under section 18 of the Act. As a result, an overpayment of $110 was calculated as having been made to Mr. Grenier.
[6] The trial judge concluded that the Department had not made any mistake in doing so. We also come to the same conclusion.
[7] The appeal will be dismissed with costs.
“Alice Desjardins”
J.A.
Certified true translation
Michael Palles
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-409-07
APPEAL FROM A JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIERRE ARCHAMBAULT DATED AUGUST 27, 2007, DOCKET NO. 2007-1631 (OAS).
STYLE OF CAUSE: CLAUDE GRENIER v. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: April 7, 2008
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: DESJARDINS J.A.
NOËL J.A.
NADON J.A.
DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: DESJARDINS J.A.
APPEARANCES:
Claude Grenier
Saint-Félix-de-Kinsey, Quebec
FOR THE APPELLANT
(for himself)
Marie-Claude Landry
FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITOR OF RECORD:
John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
FOR THE RESPONDENT