On this page
Decision
[1] The appeal is dismissed.
Introduction
[2] The Appellant applied for a Canada Pension Plan disability pension. She claimed that she was disabled by physical and psychiatric conditions that resulted from a motor vehicle accident. The Respondent denied her application initially and after reconsideration. The Appellant appealed to the Office of the Commissioner of Review Tribunals. Pursuant to the Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act the matter was transferred to the General Division of the Social Security Tribunal. After a hearing, the General Division dismissed the Appellant’s claim.
[3] The Appellant was granted leave to appeal to the Appeal Division of the Tribunal on January 15, 2015. Leave to appeal was granted on the basis that the Appellant raised a ground of appeal that had a reasonable chance of success regarding whether the General Division had considered the Appellant’s physical limitations together with her psychiatric condition when determining if she was disabled under the Canada Pension Plan (CPP).
[4] The Appellant submitted that she was not capable of returning to her prior physically demanding job, that her lack of English fluency precluded her from being able to work in a sedentary position, that her chronic pain and depression prevented her from gaining sufficient English skills to be able to work in a sedentary job, and that the combination of pain and depression rendered her disabled. She did not specify what remedy she sought on the appeal.
[5] The Respondent argued that the standard of review to be applied in this case was that of reasonableness. Further, the General Division decision analyzed the Appellant’s physical and mental health together when it determined that her disability was not severe under the CPP. Finally, the Respondent argued that the reasons and the result should not be analyzed separately, and when viewed in a holistic manner the decision was reasonable. The appeal should therefore be dismissed.
Standard of review
[6] The Appellant made no submissions regarding what standard of review should be applied to the General Division decision. The Respondent made lengthy submissions, and argued that the standard of review is that of reasonableness. The leading case on this is Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick 2008 SCC 9. In that case, the Supreme Court of Canada concluded that when reviewing a decision on questions of fact, mixed law and fact, and questions of law related to the tribunal’s own statute, the standard of review is reasonableness; that is, whether the decision of the tribunal is within the range of possible, acceptable outcomes which are defensible on the facts and the law. This was adopted by the Federal Court of Appeal in Atkinson v. Canada (Attorney General) 2014 FCA 187 when it reviewed a decision of the Appeal Division of this Tribunal.
[7] The matter at issue in this appeal is a question of mixed fact and law. Therefore, I must decide if the General Division decision was reasonable.
Analysis
[8] Leave to appeal was granted on the basis that the Appellant had presented a ground of appeal that had a reasonable chance of success, being that the General Division did not consider the Appellant’s physical limitations and her mental illness together in determining that the Appellant was not disabled. In Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses’ Union v. Newfoundland and Labrador (Treasury Board) 2011 SCC 62 the Supreme Court of Canada concluded that reasons for a decision must be read together with the outcome and serve the purpose of showing whether the result falls within the range of possible outcomes. While reasons may not include all of the arguments and other details that a reviewing decision maker might have preferred, that does not impugn the validity of the reasons or the result under a reasonableness analysis. In other words, if the reasons allow the reviewing decision maker to understand why the General Division made its decision and permit it to determine whether the conclusion is within the range of acceptable outcomes, the legal criteria are met.
[9] In this case, the General Division decision sets out the decision that it reached. The reasons also set out why it made this decision – because it was not satisfied on the basis of all of the evidence that the Appellant had a severe disability under the CPP. The General Division considered the Appellant’s physical and mental limitations in coming to this conclusion. It weighed the evidence of the Appellant with the medical evidence to reach this decision. The Appellant’s arguments made on appeal were the same as those presented at the General Division hearing. The repetition of these arguments did not satisfy me that that General Division erred in its application of the facts to the law, or that the General Division decision was unreasonable.
[10] The Respondent’s submissions pointed to specific portions of the General Division decision where the Appellant’s condition in totality was considered by the General Division to reach the decision it did. I accept this argument.
[11] On a review of the General Division decision in its entirety I am satisfied that the General Division considered all of the Appellant’s disabilities alone and in combination. It is clear from the decision why the General Division determined that the Appellant was not disabled. The decision reached was in the range of possible outcomes, and is defensible on the law and the facts. It is reasonable.
Conclusion
[12] The Appeal is dismissed for these reasons.