It was not role of court or of Appeal Division to re-weigh evidence

Applicant’s application for survivor’s pension as common-law partner of deceased contributor was initially granted while H’s application for pension as his wife was denied. H appealed to General Division of Social Security Tribunal, for which hearing she and applicant submitted new evidence. In decision based on documents and submissions, General Division allowed H’s appeal and granted her survivor’s benefits instead of applicant. Applicant’s appeal to Appeal Division of Tribunal was dismissed. Applicant applied for judicial review. Application dismissed. Applicant’s new evidence, which went to merits of case and could have been submitted before General Division, did not fall within any of exceptions to rule against new evidence and so was inadmissible. Applicant was able to effectively correspond with Tribunal and provide written submissions, and was given opportunity to provide further submissions after being advised of decision to proceed in writing, including to express desire for oral hearing. Applicant was afforded sufficient procedural fairness. It was not role of court or of Appeal Division to re-weigh evidence that was before General Division. There was no reviewable error in Appeal Division’s decision, which satisfied criteria of transparency, justification, and intelligibility.

Perez v. Hull (2019), 2019 CarswellNat 4956, 2019 FCA 238, Donald J. Rennie J.A., Judith Woods J.A., and J.B. Laskin 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