Claimant lived in Philippines for most of his life but was disabled as result of work accident after he moved to Canada. When claimant first applied for Canada Pension Plan (CPP) disability pension, he answered question of whether he had worked in another country in negative. Application was denied on basis of failure to meet contributory requirements as only Canadian contributions were taken into account. Delegate of Minister of Employment and Social Development concluded that claimant was not entitled to CPP disability pension from date of first application. Federal Court judge dismissed claimant’s application for judicial review. Judge found no evidence that claimant contacted Minister at time of first application to advise of his work in other country. Judge found claimant’s explanation for answering question of whether he had worked in another country in negative to be unreasonable. Claimant appealed. Appeal dismissed. It was not unreasonable for Minister’s delegate to conclude that there had been no administrative error with respect to his first application. Decision was not unintelligible and it did not fail to explain why first and second applications were treated differently. There was evidence that Minister’s officials were aware of claimant’s work history in Philippines at time second application was processed, but not at time of first application. Minister’s delegate did not unreasonably apply internal policy as to unsupported verbal allegations of administrative error. It was not unreasonable for Minister’s officials to conclude that residence in Philippines and statement that no work had been performed in that country did not require referral to International Operations.
Quiano v. Canada (Attorney General) (2018), 2018 CarswellNat 7100, 2018 FCA 216, J.D. Denis Pelletier J.A., Yves de Montigny J.A., and Mary J.L. Gleason J.A. (F.C.A.); affirmed (2017), 2017 CarswellNat 6052, 2017 CarswellNat 6799, 2017 FC 977, 2017 CF 977, Sandra J. Simpson J. (F.C.).