Court on judicial review can only consider evidence that was before administrative decision-maker

Social Security Tribunal - Appeal Division dismissed applicant’s appeal from decision of Social Security Tribunal – General Division. Applicant applied to quash decision. Application dismissed. Case was about applying incapacity provisions of Canada Pension Plan. Court was constrained by rules set out in laws passed by Parliament and was required to give Appeal Division deference. Applicant had not persuaded that Appeal Division made legal error or was not fair to her in its process. There was no breach of procedural fairness by either Appeal Division or General Division. Decision of Appeal Division was substantively reasonable and was defensible on facts and law. Decision that was reasonable in sense of being defensible on facts and law must be upheld. No reviewable error was seen in Appeal Division refusing to receive fresh evidence. Certain new evidence filed by applicant was not considered as general legal rule was that court on judicial review can only consider evidence that was before administrative decision-maker. Proper respondent was Attorney General of Canada and style of cause was amended to reflect this.

Gittens v. Canada (Attorney General) (2019), 2019 CarswellNat 5582, 2019 FCA 256, David Stratas J.A., J.B. Laskin J.A., and Anne L. Mactavish J.A. (F.C.A.).

Case Law is a weekly summary of notable civil and criminal court decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Canada and all Ontario courts. These cases may be found online in WestlawNext Canada. To subscribe, please visit store.thomsonreuters.ca