|
Statutory Interpretation - "Substantial". Ahsan v. Canada (Attorney General)
In Ahsan v. Canada (Attorney General) (Fed CA, 2025) the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed a JR, this from a finding of the Appeal Division of the Social Security Tribunal that the applicant's disability "was neither severe nor prolonged" under CPP-D legislation.
Here the court considers the meaning of the term "substantial", here in this CPP context:[22] The Appeal Division’s approach described above was anchored in the jurisprudence from the Pension Appeals Board (Poole v. Minister of Human Resources Development, 2003 CarswellNat 5516, 2003 C.E.B. & P.G.R. 8816 at paras. 19–20, citing Boles v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1994), C.E.B. & P.G.R. 8553 at 6036–38) on the meaning of "“substantial”". Villani [SS: Villani v. Canada (Attorney General), 2001 FCA 248 ] seemingly approved this jurisprudence. There, this Court agreed with an earlier decision of the Pension Appeals Board which said that the word "“substantial”" means "“having substance, actually existing, not illusory, of real importance or value, practical”": see Villani at paras. 37–39, citing Barlow v. Minister of Human Resources Development, 1999 CarswellNat 3667, C.E.B. & P.G.R. 8846 at para. 27.
|
