[2013] 4 F.C.R. D-8
Public Service
Pensions
Judicial review of Public Works and Government Services Canada Public Service Pension Centre (Pension Centre) decision apportioning survivor allowance between applicant, mise-en-cause, based on their respective years of cohabitation with deceased contributor (Myers), in accordance with Public Service Superannuation Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. P-36 (PSSA)—Despite having separated many years earlier, mise-en-cause, Myers remaining legally married until latter’s death in 2009—Applicant, Myers married in 2002 believing divorce between Myers, mise-en-cause finalized earlier that year—Applicant’s marriage to Myers declared null by Superior Court of Québec in 2010—Applicant filing motion for putative effects pursuant to Civil Code of Québec, art. 382—That motion granted by Superior Court of Québec but Court also ordering that survivor benefits under Quebec Pension Plan (Régime des rentes du Québec) be paid exclusively to mise-en-cause—Court of Appeal reaffirming applicant marrying Myers in good faith, entitled to both putative effects of marriage, liquidation of patrimonial rights—Applicant, mise-en-cause applying to Pension Centre for survivor allowance under PSSA—That application giving rise to decision under review herein—Issues whether Pension Centre erring in apportioning survivor allowance between applicant, mise-en-cause; whether PSSA, ss. 3(1), 25(4),(4.1),(10),(11) violating Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, being Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, Schedule B, Canada Act 1982, 1982, c. 11 (U.K.) [R.S.C., 1985, Appendix II, No. 44], s. 15—Pension Centre’s decision to apportion survivor allowance reasonable—Fact applicant receiving judgment granting her putative effects of marriage not altering mise-en-cause’s legal status—Pension Centre correctly applying its legislation to facts—As to Charter argument, impugned provisions not discriminatory—While exclusion of putative spouses from notion of survivor under PSSA raising serious Charter, s. 15(1) validity issue, applicant not directly affected by under-inclusiveness—Applicant thus lacking standing to bring s. 15(1) challenge to impugned provisions—In any event, applicant’s claim could not succeed as putative spouses not comprising historically disadvantaged group—Application dismissed.
Nash v. Canada (Attorney General) (T-1999-11, 2013 FC 683, Scott J., reasons for judgment dated June 18, 2013, 23 pp.)