Dubé v. Lepage
T-1369-96
Teitelbaum J.
16/5/97
18 pp.
Application for judicial review of decision by Director of Superannuation Directorate dismissing applicant's objection, on ground would not be just, to application for division filed by respondent under Pension Benefits Division Act, s. 7(3)(a)-Divorce judgment dated 1991 ordering division of pension benefits accruing to applicant under pension plan for federal public service employees-Director's initial decision dismissing objection to division overturned (Dubé v. Canada (Superannuation Directorate) (1996), 117 F.T.R. 161 (F.C.T.D.))-Application dismissed-Number of aspects of decision in Dubé approved and applied-On Director's jurisdiction to render decision under s. 7(3)(e)-Because of scope of administrative duties, Minister may subdelegate power to any competent official-No doubt advisory officer, supervised by Director, has appropriate capacity to act in Minister's place-Official job description of advisory officer of Department implies senior counsellors provide advisory services because task of advisory officer to assist them-On lack of guidelines or directives relating to exercise of discretionary authority under s. 7(3)(e)-According to French version, discretion to decide whether division unjust seems to be conferred on Minister, while according to English version, preferable to French, Minister must instead consider whether approval of decision would not be just-Necessary to take note of relatively limited nature of Minister's discretion under s. 7(3)(e), expanded scope of implied delegation at ministerial level and failure of courts to address this specific issue-Given these factors, lack of guidelines to which Director can refer in deciding whether or not to approve division of pension benefits not rendering decision illegal-On failure to consider certain important aspects of evidence, including fact if applicant forced to leave Dominican Republic and return to Canada to try to get job, will encounter immigration problems in respect of his wife-Evidence shows Director considered all important aspects of evidence-Argument of indirect refusal to apply s. 7(3)(e) groundless-However, Superannuation Directorate should revise brochure for pension plan participants-Although Director writing division will be refused only in rare circumstances and this criterion not appearing in s. 7(3)(e), error quite modest and can have no effect on result-Thus, judicial review unwarranted in case at bar-Pension Benefits Division Act, S.C. 1992, c. 46, Sch. II, s. 7(3)(e).