Canada (Attorney General) v. Jones

Canada (Attorney General) v. Jones
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2007-09-20
Neutral citation
2007 FCA 299
File numbers
A-566-06
Decision Content
Date: 20070920
Docket: A-566-06
Citation: 2007 FCA 299
CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A.
DÉCARY J.A.
RYER J.A.
BETWEEN:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Appellant
and
DOUGLAS JONES
Respondent
Heard at Vancouver, British Columbia, on September 20, 2007.
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Vancouver, British Columbia, on September 20, 2007.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: RYER J.A.
Date: 20070920
Docket: A-566-06
Citation: 2007 FCA 299
CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A.
DÉCARY J.A.
RYER J.A.
BETWEEN:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Appellant
and
DOUGLAS JONES
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Delivered from the Bench at Vancouver, British Columbia, on September 20, 2007)
RYER J.A.
[1] This is an appeal from a decision of Russell J. of the Federal Court (2006 FC 1366), dated November 10, 2006, granting an application for judicial review of a decision of a review tribunal (the Review Tribunal), constituted pursuant to section 82 of the Canada Pension Plan, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-8 (the Act), dated November 8, 2005. In its decision, the Review Tribunal refused to re-open a decision of another review tribunal, dated September 17, 1996, pursuant to subsection 84(2) of the Act, on new facts.
[2] In his decision, Russell J. concluded that the findings of the Review Tribunal with respect to the discoverability and materiality aspects of the test for the determination of whether there are new facts, for the purpose of subsection 84(2) of the Act, were patently unreasonable. Having considered the submissions of Counsel for the Attorney General of Canada, we have not been persuaded that the conclusion of Russell J. has been shown to contain any palpable and overriding error. Accordingly, that conclusion cannot be overturned.
[3] With respect to the second issue that was argued before us, in our view, Russell J. improperly formulated his order. Accordingly, the appeal will be allowed for the sole purpose of substituting the following order for the one that he made:
ORDER
1. The application for judicial review is allowed. The decision of the Review Tribunal is set aside. The application under subsection 84(2) of the Canada Pension Plan is referred back to the Review Tribunal to be determined taking into account the new facts and the existing record.
2. The parties are at liberty to address the Court on the issue of costs.
[4] The Respondent will be entitled to costs on this appeal.
"C. Michael Ryer"
J.A..
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-566-06
STYLE OF CAUSE: AGC v. Douglas Jones
PLACE OF HEARING: Vancouver, British Columbia
DATE OF HEARING: September 20, 2007
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: DESJARDINS J.A.
DÉCARY J.A.
RYER J.A.
DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: RYER J.A.
DATED: September 20, 2007
APPEARANCES:
Tania Nolet FOR THE APPELLANT
William J. Andrews FOR THE RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Ottawa, Ontario
FOR THE APPELLANT
William J. Andrews
Barrister & Solicitor
Nanaimo, B.C.
FOR THE RESPONDENT