Pensions
Preliminary Question of Law—Whether initial decision denying applicant’s entitlement to benefits, subsequently overturned on appeal, based on “erroneous advice” so as to trigger Minister’s authority under Canada Pension Plan, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-8, s. 66(4) to take remedial action—Plan, s. 66(4) remedial in nature, designed to place applicant where would have been but for erroneous advice—“Erroneous advice” should not be interpreted narrowly—If erroneous advice from department causes loss, falls within scope of s. 66(4) whether communicated directly to citizen or acted upon within department—Whitton v. Canada (Attorney General), [2002] 4 F.C. 126 (C.A.) applied—Minister denying applicant pension benefits based on erroneous advice—Preliminary question answered in affirmative.
King v. Canada (Minister of Human Resources and Social Development) (T-1361-07, 2008 FC 777, Phelan J., judgment dated June 20, 2008, 15 pp.)