Federal Court of Appeal Decisions

Decision Information

Decision Content

Date: 20020627

Docket: A-516-01

Neutral citation: 2002 FCA 280

CORAM:        LÉTOURNEAU J.A.

ROTHSTEIN J.A.

SHARLOW J.A.

BETWEEN:

                         THE MINISTER OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

                                                                                                                                                       Applicant

                                                                                 and

                                                                 JAMES R. DOYLE

                                                                                                                                                   Respondent

                                     Heard at Vancouver, British Columbia, on June 27, 2002

             Judgment delivered from the Bench at Vancouver, British Columbia, on June 27, 2002

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY:                                                                                                             

SHARLOW J.A.


Date: 20020627

Docket: A-516-01

Neutral citation: 2002 FCA 280

CORAM:        LÉTOURNEAU J.A.

ROTHSTEIN J.A.

SHARLOW J.A.

BETWEEN:

                         THE MINISTER OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

                                                                                                                                                       Applicant

                                                                                 and

                                                                 JAMES R. DOYLE

                                                                                                                                                   Respondent

                                                        REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

                               (Delivered from the Bench at Vancouver, British Columbia

                                                                     on June 27, 2002)

SHARLOW J.A.

[1]                 We are all of the view that this application for judicial review should be allowed on the basis that the Pension Appeals Board failed to consider all the evidence. There was some medical evidence in the record which the Pension Appeals Board did not refer to in its reasons. We infer that this evidence was ignored, because the Pension Appeals Board said there was no medical evidence.


[2]                 We do not consider it necessary to express an opinion on the other issues raised by the applicant.

[3]                 This application for judicial review will be allowed and the decision of the Pension Appeals Board set aside. The matter will be remitted to a differently constituted panel of the Pension Appeals Board for rehearing.

                                                (Sgd.) Karen R. Sharlow"

                                                          J.A.


                                                    FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

                              NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

    

DOCKET:                                             A-516-01

STYLE OF CAUSE:                           MHRD v. James R. Doyle

PLACE OF HEARING:                     Vancouver, BC

  

DATE OF HEARING:                       June 27, 2002

  

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT : SHARLOW J.A.

  

DATED:                                                June 27, 2002

   

APPEARANCES:

Adrian Joseph                                                                               FOR THE APPLICANT

James R. Doyle                                                                              FOR THE RESPONDENT

  

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Morris Rosenberg                                                                           FOR THE APPLICANT

Deputy Attorney General of Canada

James R. Doyle                                                                              FOR THE RESPONDENT

Mission, B.C.

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.