Federal Court of Appeal Decisions

Date: 20060220

Docket: A-333-05

Citation: 2006 FCA 80

CORAM:        ROTHSTEINJ.A.

                        SHARLOW J.A.                    

                        MALONE J.A.

BETWEEN:

STEPHANIE MARKLE

Applicant

and

MINISTER OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

(formerly Minister of Human Resources Development)

Respondent

Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on February 20, 2006.

Judgment delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario, on February 20, 2006.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY:                                                  MALONE J.A.

Date: 20060220

Docket: A-333-05

Citation: 2006 FCA 80

CORAM:        ROTHSTEINJ.A.

                        SHARLOW J.A.                    

                        MALONE J.A.

BETWEEN:

STEPHANIE MARKLE

Applicant

and

MINISTER OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

(formerly Minister of Human Resources Development)

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Delivered from the Bench at Toronto, Ontario on February 20, 2006)

MALONE J.A.

[1]                The applicant seeks judicial review of a decision of the Pension Appeals Board (the Board) dated April 20, 2005.

[2]                The issue before the Board was whether Ms. Markle was disabled within the meaning of the Canada Pension Plan (the Plan) on or before December 31, 1993 which was her minimum qualifying period. The onus was on the applicant to satisfy the Board that she suffered from a severe and prolonged disability as at that date.

[3]                The Board reviewed evidence concluding that the applicant was not disabled under the Plan. In so doing, the Board reviewed how the test for determining disability under the Plan applied in the context of Ms. Markle's personal circumstances, her medical history and the fact that she had worked beyond December 31, 1993.

[4]                The Board found that the medical evidence on file failed to support Ms. Markle's assertions that she was disabled as at that date and in fact suggested that as late as 2002 returning to work would be of personal benefit in terms of both her physical and mental health.

[5]                Based on the record before the Board we see nothing patently unreasonable in its decision nor are there errors of law or procedural fairness that would warrant our intervention. In particular, we are satisfied that the Board's reasons for its decision are adequate to explain the result.

[6]                While we would acknowledge the able argument of counsel, the application for judicial review should be dismissed. The respondent is not seeking costs.

"B. Malone"

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD

DOCKET:                                           A-333-05

STYLE OF CAUSE:                           STEPHANIE MARKLE

Applicant

and

MINISTER OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

(formerly Minister of Human Resources Development)

Respondent

PLACE OF HEARING:                     TORONTO, ONTARIO

DATE OF HEARING:                       FEBRUARY 20, 2006

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF

THE COURT BY:                               (ROTHSTEIN, SHARLOW, MALONE JJ.A.)

DELIVERED FROM

THE BENCH BY:                               MALONE J.A.

APPEARANCES:

Hugo Lorenson	FOR THE APPLICANT
Marcus Davies	FOR THE RESPONDENT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Staff Lawyer Durham Community Legal Clinic Oshawa, Ontario	FOR THE APPLICANT
John H. Sims, Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada Ottawa, Ontario	FOR THE RESPONDENT