EXPOSICIÓN INTERNA | PROCEDIMIENTOS DE EMERGENCIA

In addition to oral and written testimony, it is a good idea to look into the case law that may help your case. Using case law in a written submission to the Review Tribunal can be a powerful tool.

Try to find cases that show how previous claimants in a situation similar to yours have succeeded in getting Cpp-D. In your written submission, refer to these cases and ex-

plain how your case is similar.

Review Tribunals will only pay attention to certain types of decisions.

• Previous review Tribunal decisions are not binding on the Review Tribunal and have little, if any, persuasive value.

• While pension Appeals board decisions are not binding on the Review Tribunal, the Review Tribunal is often influenced by them. The Tribunal Book of Authorities contains many PAB decisions. It is a very good idea to refer to any Pension Appeals Board decisions that support your case.

• Federal Court decisions regarding CPP issues are binding on the Review Tribunal.

Again, it is a very good idea to refer to any court decisions that support your case. If you choose to refer to case law in your written submission, always provide a citation for each decision that you use. For Pension Appeals Board decisions, the citation should be formatted in this way: Tasse v. MSD (PAB CP24087, November 27, 2006).

The Tribunal’s CPP Book of Authorities has a link to all the leading CPP cases at the Pen- sion Appeals Board and Federal Court levels. This is a valuable resource put together by the OCRT legal department for use by Tribunal members. Scan the index to see if there are cases that refer to your type of disability or relate to other issues in your appeal. The Pension Appeals Board also publishes all of its decisions, including ones that are not in the Tribunal’s Book of Authorities. See Appendix A for more information about how to access this information. Appendix D lists some decisions of interest.

If you are using cases from the CPP Book of Authorities, you do not have to provide the Review Tribunal with a copy of those cases. However, you should send the Review Tri- bunal a copy of any cases you are relying on that are not in the CPP Book of Authorities.

Case Examples

Stella has obtained a number of letters of support from health professionals in support of her case. However, none of these people are available to testify as witnesses at the Review Tribunal hearing. Stella is considering asking her husband, Antonio, to be a wit- ness at the hearing.

Questions

1 Because Stella’s husband is not a health professional, is it worthwhile for her hus- band to testify at her hearing? If so, what sort of issues can he address?

2 Will Antonio be questioned by other people at the hearing?

3 If Stella has information that does not appear supportive of her claim, is she re- quired to submit it to the OCRT?

Answers

1 There are several good reasons for Stella’s husband to testify at her hearing. Al- though he is not able to offer a medical opinion, his observations about changes in his wife’s condition over a period of time, and how her health limitations restrict her day-to-day activities, can be valuable information for the Review Tribunal to hear. Antonio can also verify what his wife says about her disability.

2 Antonio or any other witness can be questioned by the panel members or by the HRSDC representative at the hearing. Each witness must be prepared to clarify or expand upon anything he or she may say at the hearing.

3 Stella is not obliged to submit anything that is not supportive of her case. How- ever, it is not unusual for differing opinions about certain aspects of her case to be contained in the Hearing File. Stella can anticipate there might be some difficult questions that need to be answered. Prior to the hearing, Stella needs to be aware of both the positive and negative elements of her case. If there are issues that are difficult to explain, she should carefully consider how to approach these issues and may wish to seek advice.

Joyce

Joyce has successfully obtained a letter from her doctor stating she has never been able to work more than 10 hours per week since her MQP, as a direct result of her physical limitations. She is now wondering if there is any case law that will help her with the ar- gument that her medical condition prevents her from pursuing any substantially gainful occupation.

Question

1 After reviewing the case law examples in Appendix D, is there a case that Joyce can refer to that supports her claim that she was unable to engage in substantially gain- ful employment after her MQP?

Answer

1 In Tasse v. MSD (PAB CP24087, November 27, 2006), the Pension Appeal Board examined the issue of what constitutes gainful employment and entitlement to CPP disability benefits. There are a number of parallels between Ms. Tasse’s case and Joyce’s. For example, both Joyce and Ms. Tasse were incapable of working full-time as a direct result of disability (this was confirmed by the doctors involved) and their employment activity was not regular. Furthermore, Ms. Tasse’s earnings of approxi- mately $500 per month, which are similar to Joyce’s earnings, were recognized as being below the poverty line set by Statistics Canada and thus not “substantially gainful”.