Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Applicant Paul Stephen Borg sought judicial review of the Minister's decision that no "erroneous advice or administrative error" under subsection 66(4) of the Canada Pension Plan had occurred regarding his disability benefits appeal rights.

• Central to the dispute was whether the Applicant received a reconsideration denial letter mailed on August 24, 2020, which contained information about his right to appeal to the Social Security Tribunal.

• Service Canada's records confirmed the letter was mailed to the correct address on file, no mail was returned, and proper procedures were followed, supporting the Minister's finding.

• The Applicant alleged breaches of his section 7 Charter right to liberty and security of the person, claiming psychological harm and financial hardship resulting from the Decision.

• No factual foundation was presented to engage section 7 of the Charter, and the Court found that damages are generally unavailable in an application for judicial review.

• Applying the reasonableness standard from Canada v. Vavilov, the Federal Court dismissed the application and awarded no costs.

Background and the Applicant's medical condition

Paul Stephen Borg was diagnosed with Guillain-Barré Syndrome on July 18, 2018, which rendered him unable to work. On November 18, 2019, he applied for disability benefits under the Canada Pension Plan (the "Act"). His application was denied on March 30, 2022, and he requested reconsideration on May 25, 2020. A letter dated August 24, 2020, advised the Applicant that his reconsideration request had been denied and referred to the availability of an appeal to the General Division, Social Security Tribunal. Mr. Borg claimed he never received this letter, which became the central factual dispute in the case.

The second application and retroactive benefits

After the alleged non-receipt of the August 24, 2020 letter, Mr. Borg re-applied for disability benefits on August 25, 2022. That application was also initially denied on September 8, 2022, but after requesting reconsideration on October 3, 2022, he was ultimately granted benefits on February 8, 2023, with a beginning date in September 2021. This represented the maximum period of retroactivity allowed pursuant to paragraph 42(2)(b) of the Act, and he received a retroactive payment in the amount of $23,576.66. Mr. Borg, however, believed he was entitled to retroactive CPP Disability Benefits for the period of February 2018 to August 2021, a period he referred to as the "Missing Entitlement."

The subsection 66(4) application and the Minister's investigation

On March 13, 2024, Mr. Borg applied to the Minister for relief pursuant to subsection 66(4) of the Act, which empowers the Minister to take remedial action where a person has been denied a benefit due to erroneous advice or administrative error. An investigation was conducted, during which the Applicant was given the opportunity to make submissions, including a letter dated April 21, 2024, written jointly with his social worker. The Investigation Report concluded, on the balance of probabilities, that the Minister was not satisfied that an administrative error had occurred or that erroneous advice had been given. The Decision, issued on September 9, 2024, confirmed that the reconsideration denial letter had been mailed to the correct address on file, a copy was kept on file, the address had not changed since the CPPD file was created in November 2019, and no returned or undeliverable mail had been received.

The judicial review proceedings

Mr. Borg commenced an application for judicial review on October 8, 2024, seeking a wide range of relief including declarations that the Decision was unreasonable, retroactive CPP Disability Benefits for the period of February 2018 to August 2021, $20,000 in damages for irreparable harm to his physical and psychological health, and $10,000 for breach of his section 7 Charter right to liberty and security of the person. He was granted leave by Order issued on November 12, 2024, to amend his notice of application to name only the Attorney General of Canada as the Respondent, and an amended notice of application was filed on November 22, 2024. The hearing took place in Toronto, Ontario on November 26, 2025, before the Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan.

The standard of review and the Court's analysis

The Court applied the reasonableness standard of review, as established by the Supreme Court of Canada in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, [2019] 4 S.C.R. 653, which requires a decision to bear the hallmarks of justification, transparency, and intelligibility. Relying on Bartlett v. Canada, 2012 FCA 230, the Court acknowledged that the Minister can discharge the burden of showing a letter was sent by demonstrating it was mailed to the address to which prior correspondence had been successfully delivered. The evidence showed that Service Canada used the same mailing address supplied by Mr. Borg for all correspondence, that no returned mail had been received, and that no sustained interruption of postal services in Ontario in August 2020 had been demonstrated. Referring to King v. Canada (Attorney General), 2010 FCA 122 (CanLII), the Court also noted that for subsection 66(4) to apply, the alleged administrative error must have resulted in the denial of a benefit the applicant was entitled to, requiring a factual foundation for the allegation.

The Charter claim and damages

Regarding Mr. Borg's section 7 Charter claim, the Court agreed with the position of the Respondent that section 7 was not engaged. Citing MacKay v. Manitoba, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 357, the Court emphasized that Charter decisions must not be made in a factual vacuum. Citing New Brunswick (Minister of Health and Community Services) v. G. (J.), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 46, the Court noted that the right to security of the person does not protect the individual from the ordinary stresses and anxieties that a person of reasonable sensibility would suffer as a result of government action. Additionally, the Court observed that damages are generally not available upon an application for judicial review, as set out in Canada (A.G.) v. Telezone Inc., [2010] 3 S.C.R. 585, and that the Applicant had brought an application for judicial review, not an action for damages.

The ruling and outcome

The Federal Court dismissed Mr. Borg's application for judicial review, finding that the Decision of the Minister met the applicable standard of review, that is reasonableness, and that there was no evidence to support a claim for a breach of section 7 of the Charter. The Court concluded there was no basis for judicial intervention. All of the Applicant's claims — including retroactive CPP Disability Benefits for the period of February 2018 to August 2021, interest on the Missing Entitlement, $20,000 in damages for irreparable harm to his physical and psychological health, and $10,000 for breach of his section 7 Charter right — were denied. The Attorney General of Canada, as the successful party, did not seek costs, and accordingly no costs were awarded.