Dubé v. Canada ( Superannuation Directorate )
T-1216-95
Nadon J.
18/3/96
19 pp.
Application for judicial review of decision by Advisory Services Officer of Superannuation Directorate-In decision, officer dismissed applicant's objection to application for division submitted by respondent under Pension Benefits Division Act-Michaud J. of Superior Court of Quebec rendering judgment granting divorce between applicant and individual respondent, awarding respondent half value of credit accruing to applicant between April 16, 1966 and June 13, 1990 under pension plan for federal public service employees-On November 4, 1994, respondent filing application with Directorate for division pursuant to Act, requesting division of applicant's credit under pension plan-On April 4, 1995, applicant sending, by registered mail, notice of objection to respondent's application for division-On May 24, 1995, officer writing applicant to inform him objection dismissed, respondent's application for division accordingly valid-Applicant challenging decision on ground officer failed to exercise discretion under Act, s. 7(5)-Although s. 7(5) uses word "may", confers no discretion on Minister-Minister must approve division even though application based on order made before day Act came into force-Verb "may" often imperative-Power conferred on Minister under s. 7(5) can be delegated to any employee appointed to serve in Department in capacity appropriate to exercise thereof-Minister in case at bar not required to deal personally with applicant's application-Minister not required to divide pension benefits but to approve division ordered by Canadian court of competent jurisdiction or resulting from written agreement between parties-Parliament's intention to authorize Minister to refuse to approve such division if approving it unjust in circumstances-Minister or officer must consider whether unjust in circumstances to allow Michaud J.'s order to be enforced-Officer refused to consider applicant's evidence on ground evidence "that it would not be just to approve the division" inadmissible because irrelevant to grounds for objection in s. 6(2)-Erred in refusing to consider evidence submitted by applicant under s. 7(3)(e)-Issue whether Michaud J.'s judgment enforceable-Minister must refuse to approve division if satisfied not just to approve division-Minister in case at bar not required personally to consider evidence submitted by applicant under Act, s. 7(3)(e)-Application allowed-Pension Benefits Division Act, S.C. 1992, c. 46, Sch. II, ss. 6, 7(3),(5).