Federal Appeal


Federal and provincial pension plans

Federal pension plans

Appeal Division reasonably refusing to rescind leave decision in absence of new material fact
Applicant unsuccessfully applied for disability benefits under Canada Pension Plan. Applicant’s appeal was dismissed by General Division of Social Security Tribunal. Applicant was denied leave to appeal by Appeal Division of Tribunal. Applicant’s application to rescind or amend leave decision, supported by affidavit of his daughter and letter from family physician, was refused by Appeal Division. Applicant applied for judicial review. Application dismissed. Appeal Division reasonably determined that applicant’s additional evidence did not present new material fact. Daughter’s evidence detailing applicant’s current condition did not relate to his condition as of his minimum qualifying period which was date on which applicant had to establish that he suffered from severe and prolonged disability. Physician’s letter was virtually identical to earlier report that had been considered by General Division in dismissing appeal. Appeal Division reasonably refused to rescind or amend leave decision as applicant had failed to satisfy test set out in s. 66(1)(b) of Department of Employment and Social Development Act. Applicant’s alternative request for extension of time to file application for judicial review of actual leave decision was not properly before court, as it had to be brought before Federal Court. It was inappropriate to transfer such request to Federal Court as requests for extensions of time were properly made in separate motion rather than by way of alternative remedy in application for judicial review.
Gholipour v. Canada (Attorney General) (2017), 2017 CarswellNat 2171, 2017 FCA 99, J.D. Denis Pelletier J.A., Wyman W. Webb J.A., and David G. Near J.A. (F.C.A.).
cover image


Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll

A Law Society of Ontario tribunal has ruled that a lawyer charged with offences related to child pornography should not be subject to an interlocutory suspension. Do you agree with this decision?