Federal Court


Federal and provincial pension plans

Federal pension plans

Application for disability pension dismissed

Disability pension applicant claimed he was no longer able to work as mason after motor vehicle accident in 2008. Applicant provided some administrative services to his company until company went bankrupt in 2011 and performed some work in 2012. Applicant’s application for disability pension under Canada Pension Plan was dismissed. Social Security Tribunal-General Division (SST-GD) dismissed applicant’s appeal on basis that he did not establish that he suffered from severe disability because he had capacity to work. Social Security Tribunal-Appeal Division (SST-AD) dismissed applicant’s application for leave to appeal. Applicant brought application for judicial review. Application dismissed. Evidence established that applicant suffered injuries in 2008 motor vehicle accident and injuries impacted his work capacity in physically demanding occupation. SST-GD reasonably concluded that applicant possessed transferable work skills, retained capacity to work, had continued to work until 2012 in modified role, and ceased to work because he was not offered more work. SST-GD had no duty to request further medical information from applicant. It was not unreasonable for SST-AD to conclude that there was no reasonable chance of success on appeal and that arguments repeated submissions made before SST-GD. SST-AD did not err in refusing to consider new evidence in support of application for leave. Bald allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel could not succeed. Recognizing strong presumption in favour of adequate representation and requirement to establish actual prejudice, applicant failed to demonstrate any basis justifying intervention.

Glover v. Canada (Attorney General) (2017), 2017 CarswellNat 1890, 2017 FC 363, Patrick Gleeson J. (F.C.).

cover image


Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll

Law Times reports that there is no explicit rule that lawyers in Ontario must be competent in the use of technology. Do you think there should be explicit rules spelling out the expectations of lawyers’ in terms of tech use in their practice?