PRACTICE |
Mootness |
Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development) v. Harmer
A-52-02
2002 FCA 321, Sharlow J.A.
12/9/02
9 pp.
Judicial review of Pension Appeals Board's decision respondent met statutory requirements for disability pension-- On reaching age 60 in 1997 respondent granted reduced retirement pension under Canada Pension Plan--In 1998 applied for disability pension, based on pain suffered as result of fall in November 1996--Canada Pension Plan providing cannot receive retirement, disability pension at same time--Quit work in November 1997 when could no longer bear pain--Some evidence might have been able to undertake sedentary work despite injury, but no such work available in area where lived--Generally, entitled to disability pension if meet certain statutory conditions, one of which existence of "severe and prolonged disability"--Citing Villani v. Canada (Attorney General), [2002] 1 F.C. 130 (C.A.), leading case on meaning of "severe and prolonged disability", Pension Appeals Board considering age, past work, life experience, employment efforts, employment possibilities--Respondent received retroactive disability payment--Minister's application for judicial review alleging Board erred in taking into account socio-economic conditions as relevant considerations for determining disability under Canada Pension Plan--Respondent since turning 65, when disability pension ceased and again entitled to retirement pension-- Minister undertaking not to seek repayment of disability benefits--Respondent having no further interest in litigation --No live controversy--Application for judicial review moot --But Court having discretion to permit proceeding to continue despite mootness if circumstances so warrant--No adversarial context herein as respondent no longer entitled to disability pension, Minister undertaking not to seek repayment of benefits--As to judicial economy, Pension Appeals Board would be required to conduct new hearing on matter having no practical consequences for parties--Issue likely to arise in context of future cases--Minister directed to Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development) v. Rice (2002), 288 N.R. 34 (F.C.A.), holding socio-economic factors irrelevant in determination of whether individual disabled pursuant to Canada Pension Plan, s. 42(2)--Canada Pension Plan, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-8, s. 42(2) (as am. by R.S.C., 1985 (2nd Supp.) c. 30, s. 12).