PENSIONS |
Matusiak v. Canada (Attorney General)
T-1341-04
2005 FC 198, Teitelbaum J.
9/2/05
33 pp.
Judicial review of Veterans Review and Appeal Board decision applicant not eligible for military service disability pension for major depression--Applicant diagnosed with mild depression following promotion in 1996--In 1997, applicant assigned to new position at Canadian Forces School of Communications and Electronics (CFSCE)--Relationship with superior at CFSCE not good from very start--Applicant started seeing doctor for stress symptoms more regularly--In 1998, applicant advised would receive temporary promotion --That promotion cancelled following placing of applicant on recorded warning (RW) by supervisor--RW removed two weeks later, but applicant arguing damage to reputation, promotion already done--Applicant also stating became subject of more career-destroying rumours at this point-- Applicant filing grievance re: RW--Applicant by then suffering from major depression, having nervous breakdown following negative decision re: grievance--Applicant encoun-tering several other setbacks before RW, manner grievance handled found to be inappropriate by Canadian Forces Grievance Board (CFGB), which recommended compensation in form of disability pension--Applicant by then permanently discharged from Canadian Forces (CF) for medical reasons connected to major depression--Disability pension applica-tion for major depression refused by Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) in December 2000 on basis depression not connected to military service--That decision not disturbed by Board's Entitlement Review Panel nor by Board itself--"Military service" defined in Pension Act as "service as a member of the forces", i.e. someone who served in CF any time since World War I--Pursuant to Pension Act, ss. 2, 21(2), that definition to be construed broadly--Administrative interactions, operational decisions affecting applicant falling within definition--Patent unreasonableness standard re: whether medical evidence showing disability caused, aggravated by military service-- Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act (VRAB Act), s. 39(b) requiring Board to accept all credible uncontradicted evidence--Here, Board accepted doctors' diagnoses (if not reasons for them) showing progressive development of illness from mild depression in 1996 to major depression in 1998--Evidence showing aggravation of applicant's condition coinciding with first two negative grievance decisions--Board placing great reliance on one partially contradicting report, not indicating why that report outweighing rest of evidence--That approach patently unreasonable, not consistent with VRAB Act, s. 39(a) requiring every reasonable inference be drawn in favour of applicant, and s. 39(c), requiring doubts re: weighing of evidence be resolved in favour of applicant--As to causation, broader "arising out of" standard applicable, requiring causal connection, not proximate relationship--No requirement for sole causation--Board erring in law, not taking correct approach to causation, instead concentrating on case law re: thin-skulled plaintiffs, "egg-shell" personalities-- Application allowed--Pension Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. P-7, ss. 2, 3(1), "member of the forces" (as am. by S.C. 1999, c. 10, s. 4; 2000, c. 34, s. 20), "military service" (as am. by S.C. 1999, c. 10, s. 4), 21(3) (as am. by S.C. 2000, c. 34, s. 43)-- Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act, S.C. 1995, c. 18, s. 39(a),(b).