PENSIONS |
Scheuneman v. Canada (Human Resources Development)
A-485-04
2005 FCA 254, Sharlow J.A.
7/7/05
21 pp.
Disability benefits terminated because of administrative error--Reinstated with retroactive effect as remedy under Canada Pension Plan, s. 66(4)--S. 66(4) giving Minister authority to take such remedial action as considers appropriate to place person in position would have been in had error not been made--Federal Court dismissing claim for damages in so far as based on Charter, s. 7 because actions of Canada Pension Plan authorities not interfering with fundamental life choices or causing psychological stress to degree that s. 7 engaged--Also finding no duty of care because existence of alternative remedy in Canada Pension Plan, s. 66(4) for kind of administrative error made herein sufficient public policy ground for excluding tort claim in respect of same error-- When benefits reinstated, plaintiff (appellant) achieving principal goal of action--Federal Court correctly dismissing claim for damages in negligence--Federal Court of Appeal not having jurisdiction to compel Minister to reconsider remedy--Still open to appellant to ask Minister to reconsider remedy--Minister's position not taking into account Whitton v. Canada (Attorney General), [2002] 4 F.C. 126 (C.A.) which suggests remedial provisions like s. 66(4) contemplating broader range of remedies--Appeal dismissed --Canada Pension Plan, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-8, s. 66(4) (as am. by S.C. 1995, c. 33, s. 31)--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. 7.