[2012] 4 F.C.R. D-6
VETERANS
Judicial review of Veterans Review and Appeal Board’s decision denying applicant’s application for reconsideration under Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act, S.C. 1995, c. 18, s. 32—Under Pension Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. P‑6, s. 34(3), Minister of Veterans Affairs may award pension to member of Forces in respect of dependent child—Pension Act, s. 3 defining “child” as including, inter alia, child of common‑law partner of Forces’ member—However, under Pension Act, s. 43, certain conditions must be satisfied—In particular, child must live with member or maintain or be maintained by member to extent, in Minister’s opinion, at least equal to amount of additional pension—In 2007, applicant applying for additional pension in respect of common‑law partner’s son, who at that time, lived with applicant about 114 days per year—Department of Veterans Affairs denying application on ground son residing primarily with father, not living full time with applicant—Denial upheld on ministerial review on ground son [translation] “would need to live with [the applicant] full‑time or [the applicant would have to] submit proof of [her] legal obligation to provide support on his behalf”—Both review panel, appeal panel deciding departmental refusal herein justified—Given deference owed to Board’s decisions, not appropriate to intervene, reconsideration appeal panel’s conclusion acceptable outcome in respect of facts and law—Board not imposing requirement not in s. 43, by finding only question to answer whether applicant provided sufficient evidence to establish applicant maintaining her partner’s child “on an ongoing, uninterrupted basis”—Pension Act, s. 43 expressly providing to be entitled to additional pension, applicant must establish dependent child “lives” with applicant or “maintains or is maintained by” applicant to extent at least equal to amount of additional pension under Pension Act, Schedule I—Also quite difficult for Board to presume costs incurred by applicant on annual basis at least equal to additional pension payable under Pension Act, Schedule I, in absence of invoices corroborating applicant’s statement—With regard to all evidence in record, reasonable for Board to find that applicant not responsible for paying for child’s basic needs, other than occasionally—Application dismissed.
Lapalme v. Canada (Attorney General) (T-1937-11, 2012 FC 820, Martineau J., judgment dated June 27, 2012, 16 pp.)