Date: 20041123
Docket: T-800-04
OTTAWA, Ontario, November 23rd, 2004
Present: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KELEN
BETWEEN:
MINISTER OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Applicant
and
RONALD BAKER
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision by a panel member of the Pension Appeals Board (the "Board") dated March 12, 2004, granting leave to the applicant to appeal to the Board.
FACTS
[2] The respondent, Ronald Baker, is 61 years-old and worked as a seaman for much of his life. In 1995, he stopped working as a result of an injury he incurred while on duty. He states that he suffers from a back injury as well as arthritis in his joints.
[3] The respondent made his first application for disability benefits under the Canada Pension Plan, R.S.C 1985, c. C-8 in October 1996. The Minister of Human Resources Development Canada (the "Minister") denied the application and the respondent did not appeal the decision.
[4] The respondent made a second application in December 1998, which the Minister denied. In October 1999, the respondent appealed the decision to the Review Tribunal. In June 2000, the Review Tribunal concluded that the respondent was not disabled within the meaning of the Canada Pension Plan on or before December 31, 1999. This date is relevant because, based on the respondent's earnings and contributions, this was the last day on which he qualified for benefits.
[5] The respondent applied to the Board for leave to appeal the Review Tribunal's decision. Leave was denied in October 2000. The respondent did not seek judicial review of that decision.
[6] The respondent made a third application for disability benefits in January 2001, which the Minister denied. That decision was appealed to a Review Tribunal. On June 2, 2003, a Review Tribunal concluded that the matter before it was res judicata and that it was bound by the results of the previous application. Accordingly, it dismissed the appeal.
[7] In November 2003, the respondent requested leave to appeal the decision of the Review Tribunal to the Board. A designated member of the Board granted leave on March 12, 2004.
ISSUE
[8] The applicant states that the issue is whether the designated member of the Pension Appeals Board erred in granting leave to the respondent to appeal the decision of the Review Tribunal?
RELEVANT LEGISLATION
[9] The following are the relevant sections of the Canadian Pension Plan:
| 81. (1) Where [...]
(b) an applicant is dissatisfied with any decision made under section 60,
[...]the dissatisfied party or, subject to the regulations, any person on behalf thereof may, within ninety days after the day on which the dissatisfied party was notified in the prescribed manner of the decision or determination, or within such longer period as the Minister may either before or after the expiration of those ninety days allow, make a request to the Minister in the prescribed form and manner for a reconsideration of that decision or determination.
[...]
82. (1) A party who is dissatisfied with a decision of the Minister made under section 81 or subsection 84(2), or a person who is dissatisfied with a decision of the Minister made under subsection 27.1(2) of the Old Age Security Act, or, subject to the regulations, any person on their behalf, may appeal the decision to a Review Tribunal in writing within 90 days, or any longer period that the Commissioner of Review Tribunals may, either before or after the expiration of those 90 days, allow, after the day on which the party was notified in the prescribed manner of the decision or the person was notified in writing of the Minister's decision and of the reasons for it.
[...]
83. (1) A party or, subject to the regulations, any person on behalf thereof, or the Minister, if dissatisfied with a decision of a Review Tribunal made under section 82, other than a decision made in respect of an appeal referred to in subsection 28(1) of the Old Age Security Act, or under subsection 84(2), may, within ninety days after the day on which that decision was communicated to the party or Minister, or within such longer period as the Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the Pension Appeals Board may either before or after the expiration of those ninety days allow, apply in writing to the Chairman or Vice-Chairman for leave to appeal that decision to the Pension Appeals Board.
[...]
84. (1) A Review Tribunal and the Pension Appeals Board have authority to determine any question of law or fact as to (a) whether any benefit is payable to a person, (b) the amount of any such benefit, (c) whether any person is eligible for a division of unadjusted pensionable earnings, (d) the amount of that division, (e) whether any person is eligible for an assignment of a contributor's retirement pension, or (f) the amount of that assignment, and the decision of a Review Tribunal, except as provided in this Act, or the decision of the Pension Appeals Board, except for judicial review under the Federal Courts Act, as the case may be, is final and binding for all purposes of this Act.
(2) The Minister, a Review Tribunal or the Pension Appeals Board may, notwithstanding subsection (1), on new facts, rescind or amend a decision under this Act given by him, the Tribunal or the Board, as the case may be. |
|
81. (1) Dans les cas où_: [...] b) un requérant n'est pas satisfait d'une décision rendue en application de l'article 60,
[...] ceux-ci peuvent, ou, sous réserve des règlements, quiconque de leur part, peut, dans les quatre-vingt-dix jours suivant le jour où ils sont, de la manière prescrite, avisés de la décision ou de l'arrêt, ou dans tel délai plus long qu'autorise le ministre avant ou après l'expiration de ces quatre-vingt-dix jours, demander par écrit à celui-ci, selon les modalités prescrites, de réviser la décision ou l'arrêt.
[...]
82. (1) La personne qui se croit lésée par une décision du ministre rendue en application de l'article 81 ou du paragraphe 84(2) ou celle qui se croit lésée par une décision du ministre rendue en application du paragraphe 27.1(2) de la Loi sur la sécurité de la vieillesse ou, sous réserve des règlements, quiconque de sa part, peut interjeter appel par écrit auprès d'un tribunal de révision de la décision du ministre soit dans les quatre-vingt-dix jours suivant le jour où la première personne est, de la manière prescrite, avisée de cette décision, ou, selon le cas, suivant le jour où le ministre notifie à la deuxième personne sa décision et ses motifs, soit dans le délai plus long autorisé par le commissaire des tribunaux de révision avant ou après l'expiration des quatre-vingt-dix jours.
[...]
83. (1) La personne qui se croit lésée par une décision du tribunal de révision rendue en application de l'article 82 - autre qu'une décision portant sur l'appel prévu au paragraphe 28(1) de la Loi sur la sécurité de la vieillesse - ou du paragraphe 84(2), ou, sous réserve des règlements, quiconque de sa part, de même que le ministre, peuvent présenter, soit dans les quatre-vingt-dix jours suivant le jour où la décision du tribunal de révision est transmise à la personne ou au ministre, soit dans tel délai plus long qu'autorise le président ou le vice-président de la Commission d'appel des pensions avant ou après l'expiration de ces quatre-vingt-dix jours, une demande écrite au président ou au vice-président de la Commission d'appel des pensions, afin d'obtenir la permission d'interjeter un appel de la décision du tribunal de révision auprès de la Commission.
[...]
84. (1) Un tribunal de révision et la Commission d'appel des pensions ont autorité pour décider des questions de droit ou de fait concernant_: a) la question de savoir si une prestation est payable à une personne; b) le montant de cette prestation; c) la question de savoir si une personne est admissible à un partage des gains non ajustés ouvrant droit à pension; d) le montant de ce partage; e) la question de savoir si une personne est admissible à bénéficier de la cession de la pension de retraite d'un cotisant; f) le montant de cette cession. La décision du tribunal de révision, sauf disposition contraire de la présente loi, ou celle de la Commission d'appel des pensions, sauf contrôle judiciaire dont elle peut faire l'objet aux termes de la Loi sur les Cours fédérales, est définitive et obligatoire pour l'application de la présente loi. (2) Indépendamment du paragraphe (1), le ministre, un tribunal de révision ou la Commission d'appel des pensions peut, en se fondant sur des faits nouveaux, annuler ou modifier une décision qu'il a lui-même rendue ou qu'elle a elle-même rendue conformément à la présente loi.
|
|
|
|
|
ANALYSIS
[10] In order for leave to be granted, the designated member of the Board must conclude that the party seeking leave has presented an arguable case. See Martin v. Minister of Human Resources Development (1999), 252 N.R. 141 (F.C.A.). The applicant submits that, in the present instance, the respondent did not have an arguable case and that the Board erred in law by granting leave.
Res Judicata
[11] The applicant argues that the Review Tribunal and the Board are bound by the decision in the earlier application on account of res judicata. It also submits that the Board is unable to re-open the earlier application pursuant to subsection 84(2) on the basis that the respondent has submitted "new facts", since only the Review Tribunal can re-open its earlier decision. In the applicant's view, the Board has no power in the present circumstances to effect a change, and as such, it erred in holding that there was an arguable case.
[12] The respondent made no submissions, and did not appear.
[13] The Court of Appeal recently dealt with a situation similar to the one at bar. In Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development) v. Fleming, [2004] FCA 288, Mr. Fleming made two unsuccessful claims for benefits under the Canada Pension Plan. The first application went to a Review Tribunal, however, Mr. Flemming did not seek leave to appeal to the Board. The second application was dismissed by the Minister and a Review Tribunal on account of res judicata. The Review Tribunal also concluded that there were no new facts that would warrant re-opening its earlier decision and possibly rescinding or amending that decision. Mr. Flemming sought and was granted leave to appeal to the Board.
[14] Prior to the hearing, the Minister made a motion to dismiss the appeal on the grounds that the Board lacked jurisdiction to hear it. The Court of Appeal concluded that the motion to dismiss should have been granted. It found that the decision of the Review Tribunal in the first application precluded the Minister and the Review Tribunal from considering the second application on its merits. Accordingly, an appeal of the second application was bound to fail because the doctrine of res judicata applied to the second application. See also Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development) v. MacDonald (2002), 291 N.R. 399 (F.C.A.).
[15] The Court of Appeal also stated that even if the Board was of the opinion that the second Review Tribunal erred in determining that there were no "new facts" that would warrant re-opening its earlier decision, the Board could not interfere. The Board had no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from a determination of the Review Tribunal that there were no new facts. Rather, such a determination was only reviewable by the Federal Court. See also Oliveira v. Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development) (2004), 320 N.R. 168 (F.C.A).
[16] In light of the Court of Appeal's decision in Fleming, supra, it is clear that the Board member erred in granting leave to the respondent. The application commenced by the respondent in January 2001 was res judicata.
New Facts
[17] Mr. Baker's third application for a disability pension was not based on "new facts" about his condition before December 1999, the date when he last qualified for a disability pension. If it were, the proper procedure under the Canada Pension Plan is to request the Minister, a Review Tribunal or the Pension Appeals Board under subsection 84(2) of the Canada Pension Plan to rescind or amend its previous decision. Mr. Baker did not do this, and can do this at any time in the future. Such an application is not res judicata.
[18] The pertinent subsections of the Canada Pension Plan are technical and complex. For this reason, the Minister, the Review Tribunal and the Board ought ensure that Mr. Baker and other applicants, understand that they can request amendment of a previous decision denying them a disability pension if they present "new facts" about their condition during the qualifying period which would show that they were disabled during this period. The "new facts" would be facts which were not "discoverable" at the time of their original application. The Minister's representative ought review the new medical reports submitted by Mr. Baker to determine whether they may constitute "new facts", and if they do, ensure that Mr. Baker frames his application appropriately.
Discretion to grant judicial review not appropriate when decision is not final
[19] At the outset of the hearing, I questioned the applicant about the propriety of bringing this application for judicial review because the decision granting leave is not a final decision. The Board has the mandate under the Canada Pension Plan to hear an appeal from this decision. Accordingly, it is not appropriate for the Federal Court to exercise its discretion to judicially review a non-final decision that does not go to jurisdiction. The doctrine of an adequate alternative remedy applies, as
I discussed in AgustaWestland International Limited v. Minister of Public Works and Government Services et al., 2004 FC 1545 at paragraphs 39 to 45. Since the Board did not have jurisdiction due to res judicata, this matter is properly subject to judicial review.
[20] For these reasons, this application will be allowed, and the matter referred back to the Chairman of the Board for redetermination.
ORDER
THIS COURT ORDERS THAT:
This application for judicial review is allowed, the decision of the panel member of the Board set aside, and the matter referred back to the Chairman of the Board for redetermination.
"Michael A. Kelen"
JUDGE
FEDERAL COURT
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-800-04
STYLE OF CAUSE: Minister of Human Resources Development v. Ronald Baker
PLACE OF HEARING: Halifax, Nova Scotia
DATE OF HEARING: November 18, 2004
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER BY: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KELEN
APPEARANCES:
Arielle Elbaz FOR APPLICANT
Michel Mathieu
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Deputy Attorney General of Canada FOR APPLICANT
Ottawa, ON
FEDERAL COURT
Date: 20041123
Docket: T-800-04
BETWEEN:
MINISTER OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Applicant
and
RONALD BAKER
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
AND ORDER