The Federal Court of Appeal reinforced that absurd results must be avoided when interpreting legislation

19. April 2022 0
Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – Workers Compensation Boards – Compliance with legislation [Interpretation] – Judicial review – Appeals and leave to appeal – Standard of review – Reasonableness – Workers compensation – Pensions – Eligibility Canada (Attorney General) v. Burke, [2022] F.C.J. No. 321, 2022 FCA 44, Federal Court of Appeal, March 15, 2022, ...

Federal Court agrees with veteran pension applicant that it was unreasonable for the pension appeal panel to consider his supporting physician’s opinion linking his injury to his armed forces services to be speculative and thus not credible. Panel’s decision was set aside and returned to a differently constituted panel for redetermination.

19. March 2019 0
Administrative law – Decisions reviewed – Veterans Review and Appeal Board – Pension Appeals Board – Disability – Eligibility – Judicial review – Appeals – Evidence – Standard of review – Reasonableness Crummey v. Canada (Attorney General), [2019] F.C.J. No. 54, 2019 FC 73, Federal Court (Halifax, Nova Scotia), January 18, 2019, R.F. Southcott J. The ...

The Court held that a rehearing and decision rendered by a final authority in a Canadian Forces grievance did not rectify the error committed by the initial authority and therefore the grievor was denied procedural fairness. The applicant was severely injured while driving to activate her Family Care Plan which she had been requested to prepare by the Canadian Forces. She applied for disability benefits which were denied by the Department of Veterans Affairs. The applicant filed a grievance which was referred to the Director General, Personnel and Family Support in error. The applicant then chose to have the matter referred to the final authority which upheld the dismissal. The Court held that the decision was not fully informed, and that the board failed to consider all the appropriate circumstances and precedents in reaching its decision.

25. September 2012 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Military Committees – Grievances – Government – Pensions – Eligibility – Employment law – Government employees – Benefits – Policies – In and out of the course of employment – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Procedural requirements and fairness – Natural justice Fawcett v. Canada (Attorney ...

A decision by the Chief of the Defence Staff dismissing a grievance pursuant to s. 29 of the National Defence Act is quashed

Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Military Committees – Military – Promotions – Eligibility – Labour – Grievances – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Procedural requirements and fairness – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Zimmerman v. Canada (Attorney General), [2011] F.C.J. No. 163, 2011 FCA 43, Federal Court of Appeal, ...

The Court granted an application for judicial review of a decision of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, which had declined, on reconsideration, not to re-open an appeal decision in respect of the Applicant’s application for a disability pension. The Court found that there were no facts to support the Board’s finding that the Applicant’s disability was connected to an old hockey injury, and that a finding that there was no “new evidence” was unreasonable.

Administrative Law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Veterans Review and Appeal Board – Disability – Pensions – Eligibility – Judicial review – Evidence – Fresh evidence – admissibility – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Armstrong v. Canada (Attorney General), [2010] F.C.J. No. 104, 2010 FC 91, Federal Court, January 27, 2010, Harrington J. ...

While the Assistance Appeal Board applied an erroneous analysis of a provision allowing an income support recipient to spend assets for specified purposes, the Court declined to set aside the Assistance Appeal Board’s decision finding, on a standard of review of correctness, that the Board’s conclusion was correct

28. July 2009 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Assistance Appeal Board – Ministerial orders – Benefits – Income assistance – Eligibilty – Basic need – definition – Judicial review – Interpretation of  legislation – Jurisdiction – Standard of review – Correctness Savary v. Nova Scotia (Community Services), [2009] N.S.J. No. 234, 2009 NSSC 123, Nova ...

The Petitioner, Asquini, brought a judicial review application in respect of the decision made by the Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal (WCAT). The WCAT had denied the Petitioner’s appeal of the Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) decision to deny him a loss of earnings pension. The Petitioner argued that the WCAT decision should be quashed for several reasons, including an argument that the vice chair in the WCAT was biased and there were errors in interpreting WCB policies. The Petition was dismissed.

Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Workers Compensation Boards – Benefits – Pensions – Eligibility – Legislation – Constitutional issues – Ultra vires – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Bias Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Asquini v. British Columbia (Workers’ Compensation Appeal Tribunal), [2009] B.C.J. No. 89, British Columbia Supreme ...

The Court considered a challenge to the Labour and Employment Board’s decision that the Superintendent of Pensions possessed an implied power to decide an employment status issue, an implied power that was necessarily incidental to the express power to classify employees of a particular employer. The Court held that this decision had a rational basis and was reasonable.

Administrative law – Employment law – Classification – Labour law – Pensions – Eligibility – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Labour and Employment Boards – Employee classification – Judicial review – Jurisdiction – Compliance with legislation – Privative clauses – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter – Correctness Saint John (City) Pension Board v. New Brunswick ...

A World War II veteran who fell twice from a Bren gun carrier during active service (“Bremner”), succeeded on his application for judicial review of a decision of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board (the “Board”) which had determined that his degenerative disc disease and lower back pain was not attributable to his war service, and that he was not entitled to a pension in respect of that injury

28. March 2006 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Veterans Review and Appeal Board – Pensions – Eligibility – Judicial review – Jurisdiction – Evidence – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Reasonableness simpliciter Bremner v. Canada (Attorney General), [2006] F.C.J. No 122, Federal Court, January 30, 2006, Strayer D.J. When Bremner enlisted, he reported no ...