General Division’s hearing notice did not adequately explain applicant’s right to call witnesses

Pensions - Federal and Provincial Pension Plans - Federal Pension Plans

Both applicant, who had resided with deceased for years prior to his death, and C claimed entitlement to his Canada Pension Plan survivor benefit. After hearing attended by C but not by applicant, Social Security Tribunal General Division (General Division) determined that C was entitled to survivor benefit and applicant’s appeal to Social Security Tribunal Appeal Division (Appeal Division) was dismissed. Applicant applied for judicial review. Application granted. Applicant’s additional documents intended to show that she was deceased’s common law spouse were not admissible as they did not fall into exceptions from rule of deciding judicial review applications based on record before administrative decision-making. Applicant’s affidavit detailing her interaction with General Division staff was admissible as evidence supporting claimed denial of natural justice . While it was not role of Tribunal staff to provide legal advice and to explain importance of attending hearing to applicant, it was not open to staff member to provide incomplete or misleading information to her. Statements made by staff member as detailed in applicant’s affidavit were misleading, because they could be understand as inaccurately indicating that applicant’s interests would be defended by Minister of Employment and Social Development at hearing. Only other evidence about this crucial conversation, brief note in file that applicant was advised that her attendance was not mandatory, was not inconsistent with her sworn evidence. General Division’s hearing notice did not adequately explain applicant’s right to call witnesses at hearing or consequences of non-attendance. Appeal Division made reviewable error in concluding there had been no denial of natural justice. Matter would be remitted back to Appeal Division for re-hearing, with parties permitted to file additional evidence at that hearing.

Moreau v. Canada (Attorney General) (2019), 2019 CarswellNat 4906, 2019 FCA 237, Stratas J.A., Rennie J.A., and Mary J.L. Gleason 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

Free newsletter

Our newsletter is FREE and keeps you up to date on all the developments in the Ontario legal community. Please enter your email address below to subscribe.

Recent articles & video

Creating law that recognizes Sri Lankan genocide a 'valid exercise of Ontario's powers', OCA rules

New OBA President Kathryn Manning pinpoints ‘polarization’ as priority issue

Merits of COVID-19 benefit programs justify breach of discrimination rules, OCA rules

Ontario Superior Court judges appointed: Bhavneet Bhangu, Jasminka Kalajdzic, Jane Dietrich

Ontario Court of Appeal sets prejudgment interest rates at 8.46 percent in personal injury case

Ontario Superior Court rejects $5-million claim in forest management dispute

Most Read Articles

Ontario Court of Appeal admits event data recorder evidence in car accident case

Ontario Superior Court refuses to grant extraordinary remedies in endangered species case

Merits of COVID-19 benefit programs justify breach of discrimination rules, OCA rules

Ontario Superior Court judges appointed: Bhavneet Bhangu, Jasminka Kalajdzic, Jane Dietrich