Veterans' mental health cases get clearer guidance thanks to court ruling

sue the members of the board themselves with your initial lawsuit . punish them punish them punish them .

propat

The article in question speaks of a Veteran who's main objection was to go outside of VRAB to seek support in obtaining approval for a disability benefit which was rejected by VRAB.

The Federal court of appeal has ruled in favor for this Veteran.

In this case the Veterans mission was successfully accomplished , and should be looked at by Veterans who are now fighting for their approval of disability benefits
( at the very least ) a positive sign and or step forward in perhaps seeing some changes for those Veterans seeking benefit approvals in raising the issue of being given the benefit of doubt.

Yes there will be some who will say we heard this all before , and that is for certain understandable as it is of no secret among us all that dealing with VRAB is difficult an stressful , an the benefit of doubt does not exist within VRAB.
But you all now have a new avenue to take in your fight for benefits , I would suggest following the same exact steps as this Veteran , Anne Cole.
If changes are not brought forward an implemented towards given the Veteran the benefit of doubt , this avenue of Anne Cole will be the only real way to succeed , and you can use her case as an example for yours.

just wanted to put this out there im not sure but I think there may be some confusion out there after all this hard to digest stuff about the definition of malice .

there is a common definition and a legal definition the one I was referring to in my recent posts was the legal one hope I didn't confuse to many people .

Malice

The intentional commission of a wrongful act, absent justification, with the intent to cause harm to others; conscious violation of the law that injures another individual; a mental state indicating a disposition in disregard of social duty and a tendency toward malfeasance.

In its legal application, the term malice is comprehensive and applies to any legal act that is committed intentionally without Just Cause or excuse. It does not necessarily imply personal hatred or ill feelings, but rather, it focuses on the mental state that is in reckless disregard of the law in general and of the legal rights of others. An example of a malicious act would be committing the tort of slander by labeling a nondrinker an alcoholic in front of his or her employees.


propat

sue them quasi judicial members have been sued before .

eg ; harris v the law society of Alberta the suit was allowed the actions of the society were corrected but since they were acting in good faith they thought they had adopted the report they used form the proper committee but in fact did not and used a different committees report by mistake hence no malice . so no punitive damages to the members .

id like to see the VRAB members argue that they thought they were following the PA or NVC rules but were using the rules of some other act by mistake . im willing to bet that would not fly.

and of course labor relations board v future ins bret (future inns ) received compensation over the actions of darby (chair of the labor relations board) and of course had the boards ruling set aside.

no correlation to what a VRAB case against a member might look like but it can be done is my point .

propat

Right not in good faith, corruption both the same description.

VRAB was created by the Liberals in the early/mid 1990's and they acted just like the Liberals acted when they were in power for so long....arrogant to the tenth degree!

It was VRAB's aggrogance is what pissed me off, pissed my lawyer off and pissed off the Federal Court Judge who heard my case.

I know it's going to be a tough long road to get rid of VRAB but the wheel has been pushed by the OVO by doing reports on VRAB's weakness'. Like they say how do you get rid of a bureaucratic department? You fight them with bureaucratic reports that show they are not following the bureaucratic rules!

Yeah I know really stupid process but it's a process that has to be done.

actually teen yes you can but if you don't like malice use not in good faith there are others as well that can be used against members of a quasi-judicial court . its all to show they went outside there mandate . these can and have been used against superior court judges as well but since there immunity IS ABSOLUTE it cant be done by the supreme court but needs to be recommended by the Canadian judicial council.

propat

Libel was the wrong word for me to use sorry.

But you definitely cannot charge VRAB with malice. You have to name a person of VRAB to bring charges of malice.

The "institution" called VRAB is, for lack of a better word, is a 'thing'. So sueing a thing for malice would not be the way to go.

You would have to sue the thing (VRAB) for corruption as it continually denies claims by not using the Benefit of the Doubt, proper medical reports, documented injuries with the DND.

That is basically the objective of the OVO reports...VRAB is wrong 60% of the time and VRAB either shapes up or it can be legally shipped out as it is corrupt.

No court system is 100% correct but to have a 60% failure rate????? If VRAB remains arrogant in their ways they will do all the work for us to show they are corrupt and are not willing to change so they will and can be disbanned.

I went this whole route for my condition. I know first hand how narcassistic (arrogant) they are even when their OWN doctors told them drop this lawsuit as the member is correct and you (3 VRAB judges) did not interpret my doctors report properly. They were absolutely stubborn as a pack mule to deny my application on a single word....epidimiology.

teen when did I say they were not a quasi-judicial court???? of course they are but they are not judges and that is exactly what I have said . judges have been punished in various manners up to and including outright dismissal from the bench . that's just a FACT !!!!!!

as shown in many cases members of a quasi-judicial court are NOT JUDGES yes they have SOME of the immunity privileges BUT THEY ARE NOT ABSALUTE and can be held accountable for there actions if they show malice among other things .

actually i think I have here'd of charges of libel against a judge but not sure where you are going with that lible would sure not be a way of framing a case neither would murder or rape that is just not what we are talking about at all.

wheel pick the decision was not made in good faith as to the fact that the members knowingly ignored all of the medical evidence and failed to apply benefit of the doubt even though it is strictly in their MANDATE to do so . (going outside there mandate can also be conceded an act of malice )

so you can throw in malice and others I suppose get it dressed up by someone who can wright and spell properly and your off to the races . but libel yaaaaa don't think that fits.

my apologies for the use of the word overturned you are right on that point what i should have said was remanded couldn't find the right word at the time so i throw overturned in instead but im sure most got what i was saying .

the thing is you would not be suing the members themselves for the decision as per say but in effect going clearly outside there mandate to come to the decision . that is what you tag onto your suit against the board for its decision .

clear as mud????

sue the board for the decision and board members for malice/not in good faith or whatnot .

sue these crooked frackers. punish them because the GOC Shure will not.

always question authority

propat

Rex that is what I said the Federal Court cannot overturn a VRAB decision.  

They do what you said...point out error of interpretation of PA or NVC by VRAB.  Make a recommendation and give a friendly nudge in the right direction.

And yes when my Federal Court Decision in my favor was sent back to VRAB they reversed their decision on my health condition and I got my PA for my illness.

If you go to the OVO site you can find reports they have done over the last couple of years on how 6 out of 10 VRAB denials that went to Federal Court did not need to go to Federal Court.  Here's the Link

http://www.ombudsman-veterans.gc.ca/eng/reports/reports-reviews

And Teen, I do not think that the courts can overrule a decision by VRAB, they can only send it back to them for reconsideration, pointing out any errors in fact and law. But all that does is put your file back in front of the same people who denied the appeal in the first place. The same people, with the same prejudices and preconceived notions, and thus, the same decision. I have yet to hear of a single case where VRAB has completely reversed their decision, after a file comes back from the federal courts.

I'm not surprised that the Tories are not appealing the decision, but that does not mean that they will actually do anything to address the issue. VRAB denials saves them money, and if they hadn't denied or shortchanged Veterans, I doubt the Tories would have been able to balance the budget as promised. But even if they disagreed with the decision, they would not appeal at this time. They do not want to be fighting yet another lawsuit from a veteran during the election, especially since Equitas had already given them a free pass for the year. Sure VRAB has been forced to be more transparent by publishing how many appeals are successful at each level, but I think they need to publish just how successful they were. It doesn't matter if they state that over 70% are positive decisions, if the vast majority of them are only given a 1or 2/5th entitlement.

Besides, once they call the election, does anyone really think that O'Toole is going to be acting as MVA in any real capacity. He is going to be out trying to get re-elected, and the only Veterans he will end up smoozing will be those that live in his riding. Because with Harper trailing in the polls, he isn't stupid enough to assume his position as MVA is safe, so he is going to do everything in his power just to keep his job as an MP, even if it's in opposition.

Propat VRAB is a quasi-judicial court. How do I know this? When you take your case to Federal Court and the court sides in your favor you have not won. Your case goes back to VRAB with "quidance/recommendations" to consider from the Federal Court Judge. VRAB can, and have, ignored a Federal Court ruling and deny your application. It is still the same as it was in 2000 when I went to the Federal Court for my denial of sarcoidosis.

So if a Federal Court cannot overturn a VRAB decision outright then VRAB is a quasi-judicial court system.

I have never heard of anyone in Canada laying libel charges against a judge which would include VRAB. I may be wrong.

As for how does one become a VRAB member....they are appointed by a sitting MP then they go thru a written and oral test, interviews, etc. But it all starts with a nomination from an MP. The MVA makes the official introduction of the member.

pinger clear guidance not work for VRAB ya fracking got that right buds .

clear laws don't work never have what the frack is guidance going to do ?????

unless any new words come with teeth ie; clear and significant punishments written in the act or regulations themselves they are just fracking useless .

we need punishments plain and simple .

sue the frackers plain and simple yup quasi something they sure are . what I have no idea ???

sure they are protected by immunity IN GENERAL but they are not above the law as no one is in Canada and their immunity is NOT ABSOLUTE under Canadian law .

let me count the ways.

1.malice

2.non discretionary in nature

3.not in good faith

and I can go in .

in these cases your darn right they can be sued and fracking well should be .

if it has happened only once 2 and 3 fit but would be a hard fight and probably a loss .

twice a hard fight but a likely win .

three times its a win and you can add number 1 now malice .

but ignoring there own rules of there own judiciary when it comes to medical evidence and benefit of the doubt CONSISTANTLY even when reminded CONSISTANTLY about this by overturned decisions throughout the various courts .

yes they can be sued under Canadian law as quasi judicial boards have been in the past under far less egregious circumstances .

punish these frackers !!!!!!

buds not the MVA but the gov general on advice from the cabinet witch he takes every time WITHOUT exception so ya in the end you are correct its harper .

political appointment that's right they are all con,s in more ways that one and should be treated as such .

always question authority

propat

JMO,
   When it comes to the Federal Court of Appeal, their clearer guidance won't work for vrab. Nope.
But it could make for another great pr press release for harper prior to October.
" We will endeavour to do bla bla bla, sincerely persevering to do.... bla "

 To me, the FCA needs to flex it's muscle with a very big stick of persuasion for all to see and feel to the GoC and vrab. Not for a onesy or twosy over years either.

 Yes teen, vrab is supposed to be a quasi-judicial court. But it fails. You know this and we all do. But vrab ain't quasi-squat, it is a pseudo-judicial court and that's giving them a lot of grace from me.
 Are not vrab people appointed by the MVA? (Can't remember anyone else?) Who in turn is appointed by the PM? That said, How in blazes can the vrab be arms-length from the GoC as they are supposed to be? Where's the disconnect? Sort of reminds me of the VAC and BPA's arms-length.
Their all inbred oops!... I meant in bed with each other.

The title of this thread is veterans mental health cases get clearer guidance thanks to court ruling.
Enough said. But I hope any vet troubled with mental health issues in or out of this forum does have guidance this evening. A loved one, sibling, mom, dad, or good friend.
pinger.

Here is a link to the Federal Appeal courts decision

http://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/fca-caf/decisions/en/item/110797/index.do

and a editorial regarding past implementation of court decisions.............

http://thechronicleherald.ca/editorials/1300569-editorial-disability-victory-for-vets



Cheer's