Date: 20041108
Docket: T-1550-03
Citation: 2004 FC 1567
Ottawa, Ontario, this 8th day of November, 2004
PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN A. O'KEEFE
BETWEEN:
MINISTER OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
Applicant
- and -
PATRICIA ESLER
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
O'KEEFE J.
[1] This is an application for judicial review of a decision of the Canada Pension Plan - Old Age Security Review Tribunal (the "Review Tribunal") dated July 23, 2003, wherein it was decided that the respondent was entitled to pension benefits retroactive to April 22, 1995, notwithstanding that she did not apply for benefits until March 2001.
[2] The applicant requests an order setting aside the decision of the Review Tribunal and referring the matter back to a different panel for redetermination.
Background
[3] Patricia Esler (the "respondent") was born on April 22, 1930 and turned 65 years of age in April 1995, thereby reaching the age of eligibility for benefits under the Old Age Security Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. O-9 (the "Act").
[4] The respondent, however, did not submit an application for benefits until March 22, 2001, which was received by Human Resources Development Canada ("HRDC") on March 28, 2001.
[5] In response to a letter from the income security programs department of HRDC asking why she applied late for her old age security pension, the respondent wrote the following:
(1) my own carelessness . . .
(2) misunderstood information from my supervisor before I retired
(3) oversight of my accountant who assumed I was getting it & calculated my tax according [sic].
[6] HRDC paid the respondent one year of retroactive benefits totalling $5,547.35 for the period April 2000 to April 2001.
[7] In a letter dated July 16, 2001, the respondent requested that HRDC reconsider its decision and requested to be paid benefits retroactively to her 65th birthday.
[8] In a letter dated July 24, 2001, HRDC confirmed its decision to only pay one year retroactive benefits from when the respondent's application was received.
[9] On October 26, 2001, the respondent filed a notice of appeal of HRDC's decision.
[10] The respondent's case was heard before a panel of the Review Tribunal in Winnipeg, Manitoba on April 22, 2003.
[11] In its decision dated July 23, 2003, the Review Tribunal allowed the respondent's appeal and held that she was entitled to benefits effective April 22, 1995, the date of her 65th birthday.
Reasons of the Review Tribunal
[12] In its decision, the Review Tribunal recognized that the provision of the Act governing the granting of retroactive benefits was amended as of November 1, 1995 to reduce the maximum retroactive benefit payment from five years to one year. This change was applied to applications received after November 1, 1995, which would include that of the respondent.
[13] Furthermore, the Review Tribunal recognized that even though receipt of benefits is a right, the Act places the onus on a recipient to apply for the benefits once they are eligible.
[14] Having reviewed the respondent's income tax returns for the years 1996 to 1999 inclusive, the Review Tribunal noted that the respondent had mistakenly reported Old Age Security pension income in each of those years, since she and her accountant were under the mistaken impression that her Canada Pension Plan cheque also included an amount for Old Age Security.
[15] The Review Tribunal also noted that section 32 of the Act deals with erroneous advice or administrative error and allows the Minister to take remedial action where appropriate.
[16] The last paragraph of the Review Tribunal's decision, which contains the crux of its reasoning, reads as follows (at page 5):
While the Tribunal finds there is no erroneous advice by Human Resources Development Canada as, in this case, there was no advice at all given, the Tribunal finds that accepting a declaration of the amount to which the Appellant would have been entitled as Old Age Security income under the pension entitlement by Canada Customs and Revenue Agency constitutes an unfairness to her and as a result, on the principle of fairness, the appeal is allowed and the Minister's decision is varied accordingly effective April 22, 1995, the date of her sixty-fifth birthday.
[17] This proceeding is the judicial review of the Review Tribunal's decision.
Applicant's Submissions
[18] The applicant submitted that the standard of review of the Review Tribunal's findings on questions of law is correctness, and findings of fact is patent unreasonableness. In support, the applicant cites Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development) v. Angheloni, [2003] F.C.J. No. 473 (QL), 2003 FCA 140, a Pension Appeals Board case. The applicant further submitted that the standard of review of the Pension Appeals Board and the Review Tribunal is the same, as the two bodies exercise the same powers.
[19] The applicant argued that the standard of correctness should be applied, since the respondent's eligibility for benefits is a matter of law.
[20] The applicant submitted that as a statutory tribunal, the Review Tribunal has no inherent jurisdiction and can only exercise those powers given to it under statute. The applicant argued that the Review Tribunal has no equitable jurisdiction and has no power to base its decision on a "principle of fairness".
[21] The applicant stated that the Review Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction and erred in law by extending the period of retroactivity beyond the maximum proscribed by statute.
[22] The applicant pointed out that pursuant to subsection 5(1) of the Act, an application must be made and approved by the Minister before a pension can be paid. Further, subsection 8(2) provides that where a recipient is over the age of 65 when they apply for benefits, the application can be approved effective as of an earlier day, but not before the later of a day one year before the application was received and the day on which the applicant became 65 years of age.
[23] Since the respondent's application was received in March 2001, the applicant submitted that there is no statutory authority for benefits to be paid retroactively beyond April 2000.
[24] In the alternative, the applicant submitted that if the respondent was to be paid benefits retroactively from her 65th birthday, payments would commence the month after she turned 65, that is, May 1995, and not April 1995 as decided by the Review Tribunal.
Respondent's Submissions
[25] The respondent did not file a respondent's record, but did make oral submissions at the hearing of this matter.
Issue
[26] Should the Review Tribunal's decision be set aside?
Relevant Statutory Provisions
[27] The Old Age Security Act, supra, states:
|
8. (1) Payment of pension to any person shall commence in the first month after the application therefor has been approved, but where an application is approved after the last day of the month in which it was received, the approval may be effective as of such earlier date, not prior to the day on which the application was received, as may be prescribed by regulation.
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), where a person who has applied to receive a pension attained the age of sixty-five years before the day on which the application was received, the approval of the application may be effective as of such earlier day, not before the later of
(a) a day one year before the day on which the application was received, and
(b) the day on which the applicant attained the age of sixty-five years,
as may be prescribed by regulation. |
8. (1) Le premier versement de la pension se fait au cours du mois qui suit l'agrément de la demande présentée à cette fin; si celle-ci est agréée après le dernier jour du mois de sa réception, l'effet de l'agrément peut être rétroactif au jour - non antérieur à celui de la réception de la demande - fixé par règlement.
(2) Toutefois, si le demandeur a déjà atteint l'âge de soixante-cinq ans au moment de la réception de la demande, l'effet de l'agrément peut être rétroactif à la date fixée par règlement, celle-ci ne pouvant être antérieure au soixante-cinquième anniversaire de naissance ni précéder de plus d'un an le jour de réception de la demande.
(3) Sous réserve des autres dispositions de la présente loi, la pension est viagère, le dernier versement en étant effectué pour le mois du décès. |
[28] Sections 27.1 and 28 of the Act deal with requests for reconsideration by the Minister and appeals to the Review Tribunal as follows:
|
27.1 (1) A person who is dissatisfied with a decision or determination made under this Act that no benefit may be paid to that person, or respecting the amount of any benefit that may be paid to that person, may, within ninety days after the day on which the person is notified in the prescribed manner of the decision or determination, or within such longer period as the Minister may either before or after the expiration of those ninety days allow, make a request to the Minister in the prescribed form and manner for a reconsideration of that decision or determination.
(2) The Minister shall, without delay after receiving a request referred to in subsection (1), reconsider the decision or determination, as the case may be, and may confirm or vary it and may approve payment of a benefit, determine the amount of a benefit or determine that no benefit is payable and shall without delay notify the person who made the request in writing of the Minister's decision and of the reasons for the decision.
28. (1) A person who makes a request under subsection 27.1(1) and who is dissatisfied with the decision of the Minister in respect of the request, or, subject to the regulations, any person on their behalf, may appeal the decision to a Review Tribunal under subsection 82(1) of the Canada Pension Plan. |
27.1 (1) La personne qui se croit lésée par une décision de refus ou de liquidation de la prestation prise en application de la présente loi peut, dans les quatre-vingt-dix jours suivant la notification de la décision, selon les modalités réglementaires, ou dans le délai plus long que le ministre peut accorder avant ou après l'expiration du délai de quatre-vingt-dix jours, demander au ministre, selon les modalités réglementaires, de réviser sa décision.
(2) Le ministre étudie les demandes dès leur réception; il peut confirmer ou modifier sa décision soit en agréant le versement de la prestation ou en la liquidant, soit en décidant qu'il n'y a pas lieu de verser la prestation. Sans délai, il notifie sa décision et ses motifs.
28. (1) L'auteur de la demande prévue au paragraphe 27.1(1) qui se croit lésé par la décision révisée du ministre - ou, sous réserve des règlements, quiconque pour son compte - peut appeler de la décision devant un tribunal de révision constitué en application du paragraphe 82(1) du Régime de pensions du Canada. |
[29] The Review Tribunal is established pursuant to section 82 of the Canada Pension Plan, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-8 and its powers set out in subsection 82(11) and section 84 as follows:
|
82. (1) A party who is dissatisfied with a decision of the Minister made under section 81 or subsection 84(2), or a person who is dissatisfied with a decision of the Minister made under subsection 27.1(2) of the Old Age Security Act, or, subject to the regulations, any person on their behalf, may appeal the decision to a Review Tribunal in writing within 90 days, or any longer period that the Commissioner of Review Tribunals may, either before or after the expiration of those 90 days, allow, after the day on which the party was notified in the prescribed manner of the decision or the person was notified in writing of the Minister's decision and of the reasons for it.
. . .
(11) A Review Tribunal may confirm or vary a decision of the Minister made under section 81 or subsection 84(2) or under subsection 27.1(2) of the Old Age Security Act and may take any action in relation to any of those decisions that might have been taken by the Minister under that section or either of those subsections, and the Commissioner of Review Tribunals shall thereupon notify the Minister and the other parties to the appeal of the Review Tribunal's decision and of the reasons for its decision.
84. (1) A Review Tribunal and the Pension Appeals Board have authority to determine any question of law or fact as to |
82. (1) La personne qui se croit lésée par une décision du ministre rendue en application de l'article 81 ou du paragraphe 84(2) ou celle qui se croit lésée par une décision du ministre rendue en application du paragraphe 27.1(2) de la Loi sur la sécurité de la vieillesse ou, sous réserve des règlements, quiconque de sa part, peut interjeter appel par écrit auprès d'un tribunal de révision de la décision du ministre soit dans les quatre-vingt-dix jours suivant le jour où la première personne est, de la manière prescrite, avisée de cette décision, ou, selon le cas, suivant le jour où le ministre notifie à la deuxième personne sa décision et ses motifs, soit dans le délai plus long autorisé par le commissaire des tribunaux de révision avant ou après l'expiration des quatre-vingt-dix jours.
. . .
(11) Un tribunal de révision peut confirmer ou modifier une décision du ministre prise en vertu de l'article 81 ou du paragraphe 84(2) ou en vertu du paragraphe 27.1(2) de la Loi sur la sécurité de la vieillesse et il peut, à cet égard, prendre toute mesure que le ministre aurait pu prendre en application de ces dispositions; le commissaire des tribunaux de révision doit aussitôt donner un avis écrit de la décision du tribunal et des motifs la justifiant au ministre ainsi qu'aux parties à l'appel.
84. (1) Un tribunal de révision et la Commission d'appel des pensions ont autorité pour décider des questions de droit ou de fait concernant: |
|
(a) whether any benefit is payable to a person,
(b) the amount of any such benefit,
. . .
and the decision of a Review Tribunal, except as provided in this Act, or the decision of the Pension Appeals Board, except for judicial review under the Federal Courts Act, as the case may be, is final and binding for all purposes of this Act. |
a) la question de savoir si une prestation est payable à une personne;
b) le montant de cette prestation;
. . .
La décision du tribunal de révision, sauf disposition contraire de la présente loi, ou celle de la Commission d'appel des pensions, sauf contrôle judiciaire dont elle peut faire l'objet aux termes de la Loi sur les Cours fédérales, est définitive et obligatoire pour l'application de la présente loi. |
Analysis and Decision
[30] There is no disagreement that the respondent was late in applying for her Old Age Security pension benefits. She turned 65 in April 1995, but did not apply for benefits until March 2001. HRDC paid the respondent one year of retroactive benefits and the respondent sought further back payment by applying for ministerial reconsideration of HRDC's decision pursuant to subsection 27.1(1) of the Act. This was denied and the respondent appealed to the Review Tribunal, pursuant to subsection 28(1) of the Act.
[31] The Review Tribunal allowed the respondent's appeal of the Minister's decision and granted the respondent pension benefits retroactive to April 22, 1995, the date of the respondent's 65th birthday. The retroactive pension benefits were granted on the basis of the "principle of fairness".
[32] The issue to be determined in this case is whether the Review Tribunal could grant benefits retroactive to the respondent's 65th birthday, on the basis of the principle of fairness, when subsection 8(2) of the Act specifically states that retroactive benefits are limited to a date one year prior to the date an application for benefits is received.
[33] The Review Tribunal is a pure creature of statute and as such, has no inherent equitable jurisdiction which would allow it to ignore the clear legislative provision contained in subsection 8(2) of the Act and use the principle of fairness to grant retroactive benefits in excess of the statutory limit.
[34] I am of the view that the Review Tribunal acted beyond its statutory jurisdiction in granting retroactive pension benefits in excess of the statutory limit contained in subsection 8(2) of the Act.
[35] The application for judicial review is therefore allowed and the matter is referred back to a different panel for redetermination.
[36] There shall be no order as to costs.
ORDER
[37] IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The application for judicial review is allowed and the matter is referred back to a different panel for redetermination.
2. There shall be no order as to costs.
"John A. O'Keefe"
J.F.C.
Ottawa, Ontario
November 8, 2004
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET: T-1550-03
STYLE OF CAUSE: MINISTER OF HUMAN RESOURCES
DEVELOPMENT
- and -
PATRICIA ESLER
PLACE OF HEARING: Winnipeg, Manitoba
DATE OF HEARING: July 13, 2004
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER OF O'KEEFE J.
APPEARANCES:
Florence Clancy
FOR APPLICANT
Patricia Esler
On her own behalf
FOR RESPONDENT
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Morris Rosenberg, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
FOR APPLICANT
Patricia Esler
La Rivière, Manitoba
On her own behalf
FOR RESPONDENT