PENSIONS |
Leskiw v. Canada (Attorney General)
A-192-03
2004 FCA 177, Strayer J.A.
3/5/04
5 pp.
Appeal from dismissal of application for judicial review ((2003), 233 F.T.R. 182 (F.C.T.D.)) of decision of officer of Income Security Program Branch of Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC)--Appellant turning 60 in 1997, but not applying for Canada Pension Plan (CPP) benefits until 2000, when applied for retroactive payment of benefits for one year--Retroactive benefits refused under CPP, s. 67(2)(a),(b)--On appeal, applicant stated told on at least two occasions by CPP officer that could at any time request payment be made retroactive to 60th birthday--Officer exercising Minister's authority under s. 66(4) to remedy erroneous advice--Concluding applicant had not received erroneous advice--On judicial review before Federal Court appellant arguing officer had no jurisdiction to deal with s. 66(4) remedy, since had not specifically asked Minister to do so in letter of appeal, which said was directed to his entitlement under CPP, s. 67(2)--Also contended denied fair hearing because not given chance to make submissions to HRDC on "erroneous advice" issue--S. 66(4) provides authority for Minister or officer to correct loss of benefits due to erroneous advice, but prescribes no procedures--It simply requires Minister be "satisfied" such advice resulted in loss of benefits--Requiring separate and special communication to HRDC for s. 66(4) consideration could be seen as excessively formalistic and "bureaucratic red tape"--Based on sworn testimony of officer that she had advised appellant if he had any further information about alleged erroneous advice he should send it in and officer would reconsider and on lack of contradictory sworn evidence, open to applications judge to conclude process fair--Appeal dismissed--Canada Pension Plan, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-8, ss. 66(4) (as am. by S.C. 1995, c. 33, s. 31), 67(2) (as enacted by R.S.C., 1985 (3rd Supp.), c. 30, s. 36).