Date: 20060213

Docket: A-362-05

Citation: 2006 FCA 72

CORAM:       DÉCARY J.A.

                        LÉTOURNEAU J.A.

                        SEXTON J.A.

BETWEEN:

SUSAN WHITELEY

Applicant

and

MINISTER OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

(Formerly MINISTER OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT)

Respondent

Heard at Halifax, Nova Scotia, on February 13, 2006.

Judgment delivered from the Bench at Halifax, Nova Scotia, on February 13, 2006.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BY: DÉCARY J.A.

Date: 20060213

Docket: A-362-05

Citation: 2006 FCA 72

CORAM:       DÉCARY J.A.

                        LÉTOURNEAU J.A.

                        SEXTON J.A.

BETWEEN:

SUSAN WHITELEY

Applicant

and

MINISTER OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

(Formerly MINISTER OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT)

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Delivered from the Bench at Halifax, Nova Scotia, on February 13, 2006)

DÉCARY J.A.

[1] The reasons for decisions of the Pension Appeal Board are, in our view, totally inadequate.

[2] The Board has a statutory duty to provide the parties with reasons for its decision (see subsection 83(11) of the Canada Pension Plan). The analysis of the evidence must be such as to enable the parties and, on judicial review, the Court to understand how the Board reached its decision. Furthermore, the Court must be in a position to determine whether the Board understood the state of the law and whether it applied it to the facts of the case.

[3] In the case at bar, the reasons describe the evidence in a summary way for some twenty paragraphs and go on as follows, in the last paragraph:

[24]          In my view, the Appellant has not discharged the onus upon her to prove on a balance of probabilities that her disability was severe and prolonged as contemplated by the Canada Pension Plan on or before December 31, 2002.

[4] The Board, clearly, did not analyse the law nor the evidence in any meaningful way. It is not enough to relate the evidence and then immediately conclude that the onus had not been met. The Board's failure to provide adequate reasons breached the duty of procedural fairness owed to the applicant. This Court has no other choice but to set aside the Board's decision and refer the matter to a differently constituted panel of the Board for redetermination. The applicant will be allowed her costs in this Court.

"Robert Décary"

Glenn E. Jones	FOR THE APPLICANT
Laura Dalloo	FOR THE RESPONDENT

SOLICITORS OF RECORD:

Pressé & Mason Law Office Bedford, Nova Scotia	FOR THE APPLICANT
John H. Sims Q.C. Deputy Attorney General of Canada	FOR THE RESPONDENT