What is the impact of delay on pension entitlements?

The argument that the commissioners took too long and acted in a piecemeal fashion harkens back to the decision in Testa v. W.C.B. (B.C.), supra. The key dates are that the review board decision was dated 16th April 1985, that the petitioner was told the matter would be reconsidered by letter dated 24th June 1985, and the commissioners handed down their decision on 27th February 1987. The reconsideration took 22 months. On behalf of the board, the delay is explained by reference to its shortage of staff, including commissioners, during that period and the volume of work confronting it. The delay is most regrettable. The petitioner's claim for his bilateral trigger thumbs was eventually accepted by the commissioners, and the board's policy provides that his pension and expenses, unpaid during the reconsideration, shall be reimbursed to him with interest so his loss by delay has been made up there. His cervical spondylosis claim has been rejected, so he has lost nothing there by the delay. Although I do not say that there may not be cases of delay which do amount to the denial of natural justice, I cannot say that the delay of 22 months was so gross as to give grounds for quashing the commissioners' decision in this case. The delay while the medical literature was researched might, on another occasion, benefit a claimant. Although the petitioner's pension entitlement was in limbo for a substantial time, I do not think the effects of that delay are to be compared to a complaint under s. 11 (b) of the Charter of Rights where a person charged with an offence is left in a state of penal uncertainty for an inordinate time.