|
Social Security Tribunal of Canada - General. McBride v. Canada (Attorney General)
In McBride v. Canada (Attorney General) (Fed CA, 2026) the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed a JR, this brought against the SST-Appeal Division finding that it "was not satisfied that she had a severe and prolonged disability" and that the applicant "did not qualify for a [SS: 'CPP'] disability pension".
Here the court notes the de novo nature of SST-AD proceedings:[14] Appeals to the Appeal Division are heard and determined as a new proceeding: Department of Employment and Social Development Act, s. 58.3; definition of Income Security appeal, Social Security Tribunal Rules of Procedure, s. 5. Thus, the Appeal Division may accept new evidence, evaluate all the evidence before it, and come to its own conclusions. . McBride v. Canada (Attorney General)
In McBride v. Canada (Attorney General) (Fed CA, 2026) the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed a JR, this brought against the SST-Appeal Division finding that it "was not satisfied that she had a severe and prolonged disability" and that the applicant "did not qualify for a [SS: 'CPP'] disability pension".
Here the court considers JR jurisdiction wrt SST-AD leave to appeal decisions (between the Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal):I. This Court has no jurisdiction to review the leave to appeal decision
[10] Although this Court has jurisdiction to judicially review decisions of the Appeal Division of the Social Security Tribunal, that jurisdiction does not extend to decisions to grant or refuse leave to appeal: Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7, s. 28(1)(g.1); Department of Employment and Social Development Act, S.C. 2005, c. 34, s. 58.2. The Federal Court has exclusive jurisdiction to judicially review the Tribunal’s decisions to grant or refuse to grant permission to appeal a General Division decision: Federal Courts Act, s. 18(1).
[11] Social Security Tribunal decisions granting leave to appeal have been found unreasonable following judicial review in the Federal Court: Canada (Attorney General) v. Angell, 2020 FC 1093; Canada (Attorney General) v. Dean, 2020 FC 206; Canada (Attorney General) v. Thériault, 2017 FC 405; Canada (Attorney General) v. Tsagbey, 2017 FC 356; Canada (Attorney General) v. Hines, 2016 FC 112; Canada (Attorney General) v. Hoffman, 2015 FC 1348.
[12] Therefore, to challenge the reasonableness of the Appeal Division’s decision granting the Minister permission to appeal, Ms. McBride was required to seek judicial review in the Federal Court.
[13] When Ms. McBride raised the issue on appeal, the Appeal Division member explained that the leave decision was interlocutory, the Tribunal’s practice is not to revisit interlocutory decisions on appeal, and the issue could be raised by way of judicial review of the leave decision in the Federal Court. The Appeal Division’s failure to explain this in its decision, despite stating it would, is unfortunate but does not amount to a breach of procedural fairness.
|
