PENSIONS |
Grenier v. Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development)
T-1510-00
2001 FCT 1059, O'Keefe J.
27/9/01
11 pp.
Application for judicial review of Pensions Appeals Board (PAB) member designate's decision refusing applicant leave to appeal to PAB--Applicant applied for disability benefits due to "degenerative arthritis, cervical and lumbar spine"--However, application for benefits indicating stopped working in 1994 because laid off due to shortage of work--Application for benefits denied as applicant considered able to do some form of light work, suitable to his condition and limitations, on regular basis; disability not considered severe and prolonged--Review Tribunal dismissed applicant's appeal on basis neither specialist nor family doctor stated applicant disabled from doing all work and x-ray reports not showing degeneration so severe as to keep appellant from working--Also, no objective medical evidence with respect to intervening psychotic episode or that existed before October 1999, therefore outside minimum qualifying period--Leave to appeal Review Tribunal decision refused by member designate of PAB in July 2000--Issue whether member designate committed reviewable error in refusing applicant's application for leave to appeal--Application allowed--Hurdle to be overcome by applicant on leave to appeal application lower than on hearing of merits of appeal--However, member designate stated that in order to grant leave to appeal, demonstrated error on part of Review Tribunal or additional evidence that may lead to different conclusion on appeal required--Member designate thereby made error by applying incorrect test when determining whether or not to grant leave--Question then becomes whether or not application raising arguable case or issue--Question as to whether or not review panel erred raising arguable case--Also arguable review panel may have erred in determining disability by relying on medical evidence only, disregarding oral evidence from applicant and his sister.