BETWEEN:
and
Heard at Fredericton, New Brunswick, on May 28, 2007.
Judgment delivered from the Bench at Fredericton, New Brunswick, on May 28, 2007.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
Docket: A-491-06
Citation: 2007 FCA 208
CORAM: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
NADON J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
BETWEEN:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Applicant
and
PETER MCGEE
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered from the Bench at Fredericton, New Brunswick, on May 28, 2007)
[1] The Minister of Social Development Canada (now the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development) (Minister) applied for leave to appeal a decision of a Review Tribunal and sought an extension of time to file the application for leave as the 90-day period for doing so had expired.
[2] The extension of time and leave to appeal were granted on February 27, 2003 by a designated member of the Pension Appeals Board (Board). After the adjournment of a scheduled hearing on consent of the parties, the appeal was rescheduled for hearing on September 21, 2006.
[3] Prior to that date, the respondent had filed a motion to strike the Order extending the time for the Minister to seek leave to appeal. On the day of the hearing of the merits of the appeal, the Board entertained the respondent’s motion to strike and granted it. Consequently, it dismissed the Minister’s appeal.
[4] The Board’s decision granting the respondent’s motion is puzzling. In answer to questions from the Board with respect to the respondent’s motion, a representative of the Minister explained to the Board that the 90-day period for filing an application for leave to appeal was missed because the legal branch of the Ministry did not have the authority to file an appeal unless and until this step is approved by the “Litigation Committee”. This Committee is composed of some 30 to 40 people drawn from all branches of the Ministry. Most of the delay occurred at that level and resulted in the need to seek an extension of time.
[5] That the Board did not like the process in place curtailing the powers of the legal branch is evident from paragraphs 3 and 4 of their two-page decision:
[3] It was agreed that the test for upholding a leave order to extend time is reasonableness. When we heard the exact details of the delays herein, we all conclude that the delay here was unreasonable.
[4] The filing of a Notice of Appeal, in our view, is the sort of thing that a litigator would normally do to protect the rights of a client, pending the receipt of instructions. The prohibition here against Crown counsel filing a Notice of Appeal without the approval of the Litigation Committee is also unreasonable. In this case, it compounded the unreasonable delays of that Committee in giving instructions until after the appeal time and run out. (sic)
However, that misses the point in issue.
[6] As previously mentioned, the extension of time was granted by a designated member of the Board. That decision was not challenged by way of judicial review: thus it became final and binding: see Martin v. Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development) (1999), 252 N.R. 141 (F.C.A.); Oliveira v. Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development), 2004 FCA 136; Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development) v. Dawdy, 2006 FC 429; Calihoo v. Canada (Attorney General) (2000), 190 F.T.R. 114 (F.C.T.D.); and Kerth v. Canada (1999), 173 F.T.R. 102 (F.C.T.D.) as to the appropriate procedure for challenging a member’s decision to grant leave to appeal, including an extension of time.
[7] The Board’s jurisdiction is statutory and, as it acknowledged it in Meseyton and Minister of Social Development, Appeal CP 21108, April 1, 2004, at paragraph 10, it derives “all of its powers, solely, from the statute that created it, namely, the Canada Pension Plan Act” (Act). Section 83 of the Act defines its powers as follows:
|
Appeal to Pension Appeals Board
83. (1) A party or, subject to the regulations, any person on behalf thereof, or the Minister, if dissatisfied with a decision of a Review Tribunal made under section 82, other than a decision made in respect of an appeal referred to in subsection 28(1) of the Old Age Security Act, or under subsection 84(2), may, within ninety days after the day on which that decision was communicated to the party or Minister, or within such longer period as the Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the Pension Appeals Board may either before or after the expiration of those ninety days allow, apply in writing to the Chairman or Vice-Chairman for leave to appeal that decision to the Pension Appeals Board.
Decision of Chairman or Vice-Chairman
(2) The Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the Pension Appeals Board shall, forthwith after receiving an application for leave to appeal to the Pension Appeals Board, either grant or refuse that leave.
Designation
(2.1) The Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the Pension Appeals Board may designate any member or temporary member of the Pension Appeals Board to exercise the powers or perform the duties referred to in subsection (1) or (2).
Where leave refused
(3) Where leave to appeal is refused, written reasons must be given by the person who refused the leave.
Where leave granted
(4) Where leave to appeal is granted, the application for leave to appeal thereupon becomes the notice of appeal, and shall be deemed to have been filed at the time the application for leave to appeal was filed.
…
Powers of Pension Appeals Board
(11) The Pension Appeals Board may confirm or vary a decision of a Review Tribunal under section 82 or subsection 84(2) and may take any action in relation thereto that might have been taken by the Review Tribunal under section 82 or subsection 84(2), and shall thereupon notify in writing the parties to the appeal of its decision and of its reasons therefor.
|
Appel à la Commission d’appel des pensions
83. (1) La personne qui se croit lésée par une décision du tribunal de révision rendue en application de l’article 82 — autre qu’une décision portant sur l’appel prévu au paragraphe 28(1) de la Loi sur la sécurité de la vieillesse — ou du paragraphe 84(2), ou, sous réserve des règlements, quiconque de sa part, de même que le ministre, peuvent présenter, soit dans les quatre-vingt-dix jours suivant le jour où la décision du tribunal de révision est transmise à la personne ou au ministre, soit dans tel délai plus long qu’autorise le président ou le vice-président de la Commission d’appel des pensions avant ou après l’expiration de ces quatre-vingt-dix jours, une demande écrite au président ou au vice-président de la Commission d’appel des pensions, afin d’obtenir la permission d’interjeter un appel de la décision du tribunal de révision auprès de la Commission.
Décision du président et du vice-président
(2) Sans délai suivant la réception d’une demande d’interjeter un appel auprès de la Commission d’appel des pensions, le président ou le vice-président de la Commission doit soit accorder, soit refuser cette permission.
Désignation
(2.1) Le président ou le vice-président de la Commission d’appel des pensions peut désigner un membre ou membre suppléant de celle-ci pour l’exercice des pouvoirs et fonctions visés aux paragraphes (1) ou (2).
Permission refusée
(3) La personne qui refuse l’autorisation d’interjeter appel en donne par écrit les motifs.
Permission accordée
(4) Dans les cas où l’autorisation d’interjeter appel est accordée, la demande d’autorisation d’interjeter appel est assimilée à un avis d’appel et celui-ci est réputé avoir été déposé au moment où la demande d’autorisation a été déposée.
[…]
Pouvoirs de la Commission d’appel des pensions
(11) La Commission d’appel des pensions peut confirmer ou modifier une décision d’un tribunal de révision prise en vertu de l’article 82 ou du paragraphe 84(2) et elle peut, à cet égard, prendre toute mesure que le tribunal de révision aurait pu prendre en application de ces dispositions et en outre, elle doit aussitôt donner un avis écrit de sa décision et des motifs la justifiant à toutes les parties à cet appel.
|
[Emphasis added]
[8] As it appears from subsection 83(11), the Board’s jurisdiction is over decisions of a Review Tribunal. Nowhere in the Act can it be found that it possesses the statutory power to sit on appeal or to review a final and binding decision rendered by one of its members.
[9] For these reasons, the application for judicial review will be allowed, the decision of the Board dated October 5, 2006 will be set aside and the matter remitted to the Board for a hearing on the merits of the applicant’s appeal by a differently constituted panel.
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: A-491-06
STYLE OF CAUSE: ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
v. PETER MCGEE
PLACE OF HEARING: Fredericton, New Brunswick
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
PELLETIER J.A.
DELIVERED FROM THE BENCH BY: LÉTOURNEAU J.A.
APPEARANCES:
|
FOR THE APPLICANT
|
|
Deputy Attorney General of Canada |
FOR THE APPLICANT
|