VETERANS |
Rivard v. Attorney General
T-975-00
2001 FCT 704, Nadon J.
26/6/01
24 pp.
Application for judicial review of Veterans Review and Appeal Board decision (VRAB) refusing applicant pension entitlement--Applicant veteran who served in active forces in Second World War from June 24, 1943, to February 6, 1946--Complained of nervousness and other symptoms in November 1945--Since 1973, applicant periodically treated for chronic anxiety--In September 1994, Canadian Pension Commission decided applicant's chronic anxiety resulted from Second World War military service--Applicant entitled to pension under Pensions Act, s. 21(1)--In June 1997, Minister of Veterans Affairs refused applicant's application for pension because Minister believed heart disease not result of chronic anxiety and therefore did not entitle applicant to pension--VRAB affirming decision of review panel and Minister--Applicant submitted application for reconsideration of decision of January 28, 1998, under Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act, s. 32(1)--Whether Board committing error in decision of April 12, 2000, allowing Court to intervene--VRAB established by VRAA only review and appeal board for veterans' pensions--VRAA, s. 31 containing privative clause--Applicable standard of review patently unreasonable decision--Board duly considered applicant's evidence, i.e. medical report by Dr. François Sestier--Board gave no weight to Dr. Sestier's opinion since it did not believe opinion represented medical consensus on issue--Board determined that chronic anxiety did not accelerate onset of applicant's heart disease--Board committing error justifying Court's intervention--All medical evidence adduced aimed at establishing link between chronic anxiety and coronary disease and supporting that theory--Board not identifying literature that was basis for rejection of Dr. Sestier's conclusion, where literature found, when published, manner obtained--Not specifically referring to any study or medical text supporting its conclusion--That VRAA, s. 38 allowing Board to obtain expert advice on any medical issue suggests Board has no particular medical expertise--Board could not reject Dr. Sestier's opinion since no contradictory evidence adduced--By rejecting Dr. Sestier's opinion, Board not properly applying s. 39 of VRAA and breaching obligations therein--Jurisdictional error nullifying entire decision--Application allowed--Pensions Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. P-6, s. 21 (as am. by R.S.C., 1985 (lst Supp.), c. 16, s. 2; idem, (3rd Supp.), c. 20, s. 28; S.C. 1990, c. 43, s. 8--Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act, S.C. 1995, c. 18, ss. 31, 32, 38, 39.