Date: 20020625
Docket: T-1922-01
Neutral Citation: 2002 FCT 711
Ottawa, Ontario, June 25, 2002
Present: The Honourable Madam Justice Danièle Tremblay-Lamer
BETWEEN:
THÉRÈSE F. GAGNÉ
Applicant
- and -
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
- and -
THE VETERANS REVIEW AND APPEAL BOARD
Intervener
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision by the Veterans Review and Appeal Board (VRAB) dated July 4, 2001. By that decision, the VRAB refused to reconsider its decision dated June 27, 2000.
[2] The VRAB is an independent board established under section 4 of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act, S.C. 1995, c. 18 (the Act). It has the authority to review and amend the decisions made by the Minister of Veterans Affairs relating to pensions and social benefits of veterans, members of the Canadian Forces and Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and their dependents.
[3] The appeal process of the VRAB involves two steps. A person who is dissatisfied with a decision made by the Minister of Veterans Affairs based on the Pension Act, R.S.C., 1985,
c. P-6, may have it reviewed by the VRAB (section 18 of the Act). A person who is dissatisfied with the decision made at the outcome of the review may appeal the decision to the appeal panel of the VRAB (section 25 of the Act).
[4] The decision of the appeal panel of the VRAB is final and binding (section 31 of the Act). However, under sections 23, 32, and 111 of the Act, the VRAB may, under the terms and conditions described therein, reconsider any decision made by it, and a new hearing can then take place.
[5] On March 23, 1999, the Minister of Veterans Affairs decided that the applicant, Thérèse F. Gagné, was not entitled to receive a pension as the surviving spouse of a veteran.
[6] The applicant filed an application for review of that decision with the review panel of the VRAB. On February 1, 2000, the review panel affirmed that the applicant was not entitled to a pension.
[7] On June 27, 2000, the appeal panel of the VRAB heard the matter. Like the review panel, it affirmed that the applicant was not entitled to a pension.
[8] In a letter dated January 30, 2001, the applicant applied for reconsideration of the June 27, 2000, decision. In her letter, the applicant stated that she wished to proceed by way of a hearing in order to present oral arguments.
[9] In reply to the applicant's letter, John Brehaut, Director, Veterans Review and Appeal Board Professional Development & Advisory Services, indicated that under the VRAB's new policy, the applicant would be restricted, when applying for reconsideration, to presenting written arguments. If that application were granted, the applicant would then have an opportunity to present oral arguments.
[10] The new policy of the VRAB in connection with applications for reconsideration may be summarized as follows: during the first step, the appeal panel considers only written arguments. If it decides not to reconsider the case, a written decision is issued. If it decides to reconsider the case, a date is set for a hearing during which written and/or oral arguments may be presented.
[11] The applicant did not accept that response. She confirmed repeatedly that she wanted to proceed by making oral arguments before the appeal panel.
[12] Despite her repeated requests, the appeal panel made a preliminary examination of the application for reconsideration on July 4, 2001, without giving the applicant an opportunity to make oral arguments. Moreover, the applicant had been notified that the preliminary examination would be held on July 5, 2001, and not July 4. The panel decided that there was no reason to reconsider its decision dated June 27, 2000. The applicant received that decision on September 27, 2001. On October 25, 2001, she filed an application for judicial review of that decision with the Federal Court.
RELEVANT LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
[13] Section 3 of the Act states how its provisions must be construed:
| Construction
3. The provisions of this Act and of any other Act of Parliament or of any regulations made under this or any other Act of Parliament conferring or imposing jurisdiction, powers, duties or functions on the Board shall be liberally construed and interpreted to the end that the recognized obligation of the people and Government of Canada to those who have served their country so well and to their dependants may be fulfilled. |
|
Principe général
3. Les dispositions de la présente loi et de toute autre loi fédérale, ainsi que de leurs règlements, qui établissent la compétence du Tribunal ou lui confèrent des pouvoirs et fonctions doivent s'interpréter de façon large, compte tenu des obligations que le peuple et le gouvernement du Canada reconnaissent avoir à l'égard de ceux qui ont si bien servi leur pays et des personnes à leur charge. |
[14] Subsection 28(1) of the Act provides that in the course of an appeal before the appeal panel of the VRAB, an appellant may make a written submission to the appeal panel or may appear before it to present evidence and oral arguments:
| Written and oral submissions
28. (1) Subject to subsection (2), an appellant may make a written submission to the appeal panel or may appear before it, in person or by representative and at their own expense, to present evidence and oral arguments. |
|
Comparution
28. (1) Sous réserve du paragraphe (2), l'appelant peut soit adresser une déclaration écrite au comité d'appel, soit comparaître devant celui-ci, mais à ses frais, en personne ou par l'intermédiaire de son représentant, pour y présenter des éléments de preuve et ses arguments oraux. |
[15] A privative clause is found in Section 31 of the Act. It reads:
| Decision of majority
31. A decision of the majority of members of an appeal panel is a decision of the Board and is final and binding. |
|
Décision
31. La décision de la majorité des membres du comité d'appel vaut décision du Tribunal; elle est définitive et exécutoire. |
[16] Section 32 of the Act nonetheless provides that a decision made by the appeal panel of the VRAB may be reconsidered. An application for reconsideration is made in accordance with section 32 of the Act:
| Reconsideration of decisions
32. (1) Notwithstanding section 31, an appeal panel may, on its own motion, reconsider a decision made by it under subsection 29(1) or this section and may either confirm the decision or amend or rescind the decision if it determines that an error was made with respect to any finding of fact or the interpretation of any law, or may do so on application if the person making the application alleges that an error was made with respect to any finding of fact or the interpretation of any law or if new evidence is presented to the appeal panel.
Board may exercise powers
(2) The Board may exercise the powers of an appeal panel under subsection (1) if the members of the appeal panel have ceased to hold office as members.
Other sections applicable
(3) Sections 28 and 31 apply, with such modifications as the circumstances require, with respect to an application made under subsection (1). |
|
Nouvel examen
32. (1) Par dérogation à l'article 31, le comité d'appel peut, de son propre chef, réexaminer une décision rendue en vertu du paragraphe 29(1) ou du présent article et soit la confirmer, soit l'annuler ou la modifier s'il constate que les conclusions sur les faits ou l'interprétation du droit étaient erronées; il peut aussi le faire sur demande si l'auteur de la demande allègue que les conclusions sur les faits ou l'interprétation du droit étaient erronées ou si de nouveaux éléments de preuve lui sont présentés.
Cessation de fonctions
(2) Le Tribunal, dans les cas où les membres du comité ont cessé d'exercer leur charge, peut exercer les fonctions du comité visées au paragraphe (1).
Application d'articles
(3) Les articles 28 et 31 régissent, avec les adaptations de circonstance, les demandes adressées au Tribunal dans le cadre du paragraphe (1). |
[17] The Act provides that the proceedings before the VRAB should, as much as possible, be informal:
| Expeditious proceedings
40. All proceedings before the Board shall be dealt with as informally and expeditiously as the circumstances and considerations of fairness permit. |
|
Procédure
40. Dans la mesure où les circonstances et l'équité le permettent, le Tribunal fonctionne sans formalisme et en procédure expéditive. |
[18] The Act also provides that the VRAB may make rules governing its proceedings, practice and procedures:
| Rules
44. (1) The Board may make rules, not inconsistent with the regulations, governing the proceedings, practice and procedures of the Board.
Quorum
(2) A majority of permanent members in office constitutes a quorum for the purpose of making rules under subsection (1). |
Règles de procédure
44. (1) Sous réserve de leur compatibilité avec les règlements, le Tribunal peut établir des règles régissant sa procédure et ses travaux.
Quorum
(2) Le quorum requis pour établir ces règles est constitué par la majorité des membres titulaires en fonctions. |
|
|
|
|
|
RELEVANT REGULATORY PROVISIONS
[19] Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board Regulations, SOR/96-67 (the Regulations), are also relevant:
| APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OR RECONSIDERATION AND APPEALS
3. In any proceeding under the Act, other than an application for a compassionate award under subsection 34(1) of the Act, the applicant or appellant shall inform the Board whether they intend to proceed
(a) by written submission; (b) by appearing personally, with or without making a written submission; or (c) by having a representative appear, with or without making a written submission.
RECONSIDERATIONS
4. The review panel, appeal panel or Board, before convening a hearing to confirm, amend or rescind a decision, pursuant to subsection 23(1), 32(1) or 34(7) of the Act,
(a) shall inform the applicant or appellant of the facts and allegations in its possession; and (b) shall provide the applicant or appellant with an opportunity to respond.
NOTICE AND INFORMATION 5. (1) When the Board receives an application for review, an application for reconsideration referred to in subsection 32(1) or 34(7) of the Act, a notice of appeal or an application for a compassionate award under subsection 34(1) of the Act, or initiates a reconsideration pursuant to subsection 23(1), 32(1) or 34(7) of the Act, the Board shall
(a) notify the Minister; and (b) retrieve from the Department of Veterans Affairs' records (i) a copy of the decision, and (ii) any relevant material, including (A) all evidence submitted in the proceedings, and (B) any recording or transcript of the proceedings.
(2) The Board shall notify the applicant or appellant of
(a) its receipt of the material from the Department of Veterans Affairs' records; and (b) the date on which the review, reconsideration or appeal shall be heard.
|
|
DEMANDES DE RÉVISION OU DE RÉEXAMEN ET APPELS
3. Dans toute procédure visée par la Loi, autre qu'une demande d'allocation de commisération visée au paragraphe 34(1) de la Loi, le demandeur ou l'appelant indique au Tribunal son intention de présenter des arguments de l'une des façons suivantes :
a) dépôt d'un mémoire; b) comparution personnelle avec ou sans dépôt d'un mémoire; c) comparution d'un représentant avec ou sans dépôt d'un mémoire.
RÉEXAMEN
4. Avant de tenir une audition pour confirmer, annuler ou modifier une décision, conformément aux paragraphes 23(1), 32(1) ou 34(7) de la Loi, le comité de révision, le comité d'appel ou le Tribunal : a) informe le demandeur ou l'appelant des faits et allégations au dossier; b) lui donne la possibilité de répondre pour étayer ou contredire ces faits et allégations et de présenter des arguments par écrit.
AVIS ET DOCUMENTATION
5. (1) Lorsque le Tribunal reçoit une demande de révision, une demande de réexamen visée aux paragraphes 32(1) ou 34(7) de la Loi, un avis d'appel ou une demande d'allocation de commisération visée au paragraphe 34(1) de la Loi, ou lorsqu'il entreprend un réexamen en vertu des paragraphes 23(1), 32(1) ou 34(7) de la Loi, il : a) en avise le ministre; b) extrait des dossiers du ministère des Anciens combattants : (i) une copie de la décision en cause, (ii) tout document pertinent, notamment : (A) les éléments de preuve présentés au cours des procédures, (B) tout enregistrement ou transcription se rapportant aux procédures.
(2) Le Tribunal avise le demandeur ou l'appelant :
a) de la réception des documents extraits des dossiers du ministère des Anciens combattants; b) de la date à laquelle la révision, le réexamen ou l'appel sera entendu. |
ANALYSIS
[20] There is no doubt that the VRAB is a specialized tribunal and that its decisions deserve a great deal of deference. However, in this case, the issue is one of interpretation of the Act (i.e. does the term "in any proceeding" found in section 3 of the Regulations involve the first step of an application for reconsideration) and not of application of the Act. This is a question of law, which is not within the tribunal's area of expertise. That is why the correctness review is the applicable standard of review, as Mr. Justice Evans stated in McTague v. Canada (Attorney General), [2000] 1 F.C. 647, at para. 41 (T.D.):
That an issue falls towards the "interpretation" end of the spectrum is an indicator that correctness review is appropriate because of the precedential value of the decision and the relevance of judicial interpretative skills for reaching the "best" result. Conversely, an issue that has no or little significance beyond the facts of the particular case will tend to be characterized as one of application, and will attract judicial deference because its determination calls for an assessment of those facts, an exercise that is within the tribunal's area of expertise and does not require the expenditure of court resources for determining the "correct" answer.
[21] The applicant argued that the proceedings of the VRAB with regard to reconsideration are inconsistent with subsection 28(1) of the Act and, more specifically, with section 3 of the Regulations.
[22] Even though section 44 of the Act provides that the VRAB may make rules governing the proceedings, practice and procedures of the Board, and that it is reasonable for it to make rules aimed at alleviating its proceedings, those rules must be consistent with the Regulations. Section 3 of the Regulations provides that the applicant is entitled to make oral arguments in any proceeding under the Act. Does an application for reconsideration constitute a proceeding?
[23] Professor Driedger summarized concisely the principle of interpretation that is generally accepted today. He writes:
Today there is only one principle or approach, namely, the words of an Act are to be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament.
Elmer A. Driedger, Construction of Statutes, 2nd ed., Toronto, Butterworths, 1983, at p. 87.
[24] That passage has been cited a number of times by the courts and relatively recently by the Supreme Court of Canada in Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex, 2002 SCC 42, at para. 26.
[25] That interpretation approach, known as modern or teleological, is codified in section 12 of the Interpretation Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. I-21, which provides as follows:
| Enactments deemed remedial
12. Every enactment is deemed remedial, and shall be given such fair, large and liberal construction and interpretation as best ensures the attainment of its objects. |
|
Principe et interprétation
12. Tout texte est censé apporter une solution de droit et s'interprète de la manière la plus équitable et la plus large qui soit compatible avec la réalisation de son objet. |
[26] The word "proceeding" or "procédure" in French is not defined in the Act or the Regulations. In the absence of a definition, reference should be made to the definitions that are found in the specialized dictionaries.
[27] Black's Law Dictionnary, 7th ed., defines "proceeding" as follows:
1. The regular and orderly progression of a lawsuit, including all acts and events between the time of commencement and the entry of judgment. 2. Any procedural means for seeking redress from a tribunal or agency. 3. An act or step that is part of a larger action.
[28] "Proceedings" says The Dictionary of Canadian Law, 2nd ed. (quoting Thomson Newspapers Ltd. v. Canada (Director of Investigation & Research, Restrictive Trade Practices Commission) (1990), 29 C.P.R. (3d) 97, at p. 137):
... should be given a large and liberal interpretation so as to cover any kind of proceeding, whether adjudicative or investigative. This would be consistent with the principle of Charter interpretation that we construe rights guaranteed in the Charter so as to provide maximum protection to the citizen ....
[29] In my opinion, a large and liberal interpretation is consistent with the intention of Parliament, which states in section 3 of the Act that the provisions of this Act and the Regulations relating thereto conferring or imposing jurisdiction, powers, duties or functions on the Board shall be liberally construed and interpreted to the end that the recognized obligation of the people and Government of Canada to those who have served their country so well and to their dependants may be fulfilled.
[30] Moreover, Parliament took the trouble to state that section 3 does not apply to an application for a compassionate award under subsection 34(1) of the Act. That exception is found in a self-contained list. This implies that section 3 applies to any other proceeding under the Act.
[31] In light of the interpretation approach mentioned above and the examination of the Act and Regulations, I am of the opinion that when Parliament used the term "in any proceeding" in section 3 of the Regulations, its intention was to include the "screening process" prescribed by the Board in connection with an application for reconsideration. The applicant was entitled to present oral arguments before the VRAB made a decision affecting her rights.
[32] That interpretation is consistent with the interpretation given by my colleague, Mr. Justice Teitelbaum, who stated in George Edward MacKay v. Attorney General of Canada (1997), 129 F.T.R. 286:
... This restriction on the availability of an oral hearing flies in the face of Article 3 of the Regulations. Article 3 of the Regulations states that "in any proceeding under the Act" [my emphasis], it is at the applicant's choosing whether he or she proceeds by personal appearance and oral submissions.
... There is no suggestion in the Regulations that oral submissions are granted only after an initial screening for relevancy. Indeed, Subsection 28(1) of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act is to a similar effect and states, "Subject to subsection (2), an appellant may make a written submission to the appeal panel or may appear before it, in person or by representative and at their own expense, to present evidence and oral arguments".
MacKay, supra, at para 40. [emphasis in the original]
[33] The Board therefore erred in law by denying the applicant an opportunity to present her arguments in accordance with the broad interpretation that must be given to section 3 of the Regulations.
[34] As a result, the application for judicial review is allowed. The decision of the Board is set aside and the matter is referred back to a newly constituted review panel to be heard in
accordance with the reasons of this decision, without costs.
"Danièle Tremblay-Lamer"
Judge
Certified true translation
S. Debbané, LLB
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-1922-01
STYLE OF CAUSE: THÉRÈSE F. GAGNÉ
Applicant
- and -
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
- and -
THE VETERANS REVIEW AND APPEAL BOARD
Intervener
PLACE OF HEARING: Fredericton, New Brunswick
DATE OF HEARING: June 17, 2002
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER: THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE TREMBLAY-LAMER
DATE OF REASONS: June 25, 2002
APPEARANCES :
Charles C. Duguay FOR THE APPLICANT
No appearance FOR THE RESPONDENT
André G. Richard FOR THE INTERVENER
Rob Burnett
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Charles C. Duguay FOR THE APPLICANT
Charlottetown, P.E.I.
Morris Rosenberg FOR THE RESPONDENT
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Halifax, N.S.
Stewart McKelvey Stirling Scales FOR THE INTERVENER
Moncton, N.B.