REMEMBER THE CHARTER OF RIGHTS? VRAB "EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION "CLAUS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Supremedebater
You mention that nothing can be done by the Veterans Ombudsman etc but their is one new crowd on the street called the Canadian Veterans Advocacy of which I am a Charter member that is proactive and doing something.

I am also a 26 year veteran of the RCMP and I may not have been the best investigator in that crowd but I was not the lousiest and in fact was pretty good at investigating and putting my fair share of criminals in the slammer. I have a good ability to dig and find out the reasons why which are generally staring us in the face. I like to dig and get the big picture.

The violation of the Charter of Rights Section15 that "all Canadians have the right to the equal benefit of the the law is a fact and injured veterans who have been denied legitimate disability claims are being denied section 15 simply because when the Federal courts decide to defer a "Directed Verdict" (which I call option A) and decide to work with the VRAB Board by providing guidance in the form of a decision (option B) to the Quasi Judicial Patronage club called the VRAB.

This guidance is coming from competent qualified Federal Court Judges who have earned their legal stripes and are working with people with degrees in forestry, career Canadian Armed Forces Band expert, municipal managers etc , they don't have a veterinarian yet.

Supremedebater I do not agree with your your following statement it is difeatest;

"Do not waste your money on judicial reviews! And pay a paralegal or a lawyer to fight with them, because at best if you did win a review, the judge only orders the VRAB to open the application back up with a new panel ov VRAB members."

Never the less I do admire you for your effort in getting paralegal training and representing injured vets before the VRAB.

Question is how do you prove that Section 15 is in fact discriminating against injured Veterans by the VRAB in regards to this blatant ignoring and or avoidance in dealing with the guidance provided by the Federal Courts?

Considering the amount of Judicial Reviews going no where with the VRAB is very disturbing and they are piling up and is becoming a disturbing trend. I will explain this all in my new topic titled

" Wanted all Positive Judicial Reviews ignored by the VRAB for ammunition to prove the VRAB are not doing their Jobs as directed by the governing Act of Parliament called the Federal Court Act."

If you get a chance read it especially the sections that provide a remedy in dealing with the a federal board that is not doing its job. Their is another section in the VRAB Act that states the VRAB Board is governed by the Federal court Act. The Hammer is in the Federal Court Act (Option A , a Directed Verdict. All that is needed is to provide evidence that the VRAB board is not doing its job contrary to sections of the Federal Court Act.

As stated I am a Charter Member of the Canadian Advocacy and I am in charge of legal initiatives. The CVA is proactive and will push back on behalf of screwed injured Veterans by the VRAB. The CVA is growing and I have been in touch with a very experienced Lawyer in Ottawa and I ask all to read my post on this threat that goes into detail why the VRAB are getting away with ignoring the Federal Court guidance.

It also explains the legal approach the CVA want to take in regards to dealing with the VRAB through legal representation i.e. why we need all injured veterans be it Military or RCMP, that if they have a favorable Judicial Review by the Federal Courts to send a copy to me so I may compile them chronologically. , Its ammunition for the right case to be determined by the said lawyer.

The CVA which is starting a WAR Chest will pay for this best case to be filed by this lawyer with the federal courts that will open the door for change.

Supremedebater Like I said when you took the roll over and die approach to the same above noted article that I wrote on the topic Comments which by the way is up to 1400 plus views and growing. Your defeatist approach helps no one but the VRAB. In the Canadian Veterans Advocacy we never say die! You do not have to be a member to submit a favorable Federal Court decision.

Please all read my post titled;

" Wanted all Positive Judicial Reviews ignored by the VRAB for ammunition to prove the VRAB are not doing their Jobs as directed by the governing Act of Parliament called the Federal Court Act."

Enough of option B we need option A, a Directed Verdict from the Federal Courts a.k.a the hammer clause

Eric Rebiere (Former Cst. RCMP 37515)
NO LONGER SUPPORTING THE CANADIAN VETERANS ADVOCACY

Ok, here goes, I'm a Veteran of the Forces, and also a Paralegal student almost finished my 2 year course and writing the Paralegal exam in feb 2012. I have had 6 hearing with the VRAB, and lost all of them until I started the paralegal course. When anyone were to speak to VRAB and mentioned my name everyone would know me! Lol. Ok, you do have valid points but one must remember that unless an entity is setup to be able to spank VRAB for there inconsistencies, they will continue to violate Veterans. It's like the Veterans bill of rights, which entity does one contact if the rights have been violated? Lol, no one is there! The Ombudsman is not a entity that can handle complaints with regards to a violation of the VBOR, and are only mediators at best and offer resolution only.

As for the human rights, yes s.15 sets out equality rights for equal benefit of the law. But if you bring a charter violation up in a hearing they will shut the hearing down, because violations of the charter are to be addressed by the Attorney General, therefore the VRAB do not have jurisdiction to make decisions regarding a trump legislation. The charter does somewhat wake the VRAB up when it arises, but that is when they throw the case aside as they must do till the A.G addresses the charter section brought up. One can also throw the charter at them with regards to a disabilitatiing condition, because a doctor has provided a diagnosis and your rights as a disabled person also come into affect. To be totally honest, and through the system many times... Unless you get an approval at the early stages through Vac, your chances diminish by 80% of being able to get an approval through the appeal process. Do not waste your money on judicial reviews! And pay a paralegal or a lawyer to fight with them, because at best if you did win a review, the judge only orders the VRAB to open the application back up with a new panel ov VRAB members. And I will tell you this, the panel members stick together regarding decisions and also uphold previous rulings. Sad yes but that is the way it is. Fight as much as you like, but remember that the chances of success, unless you use your own lawyer who is not paid by Vac, you will lose... Regardless, remember the BPA is paid regardless of winning or not and are paid by the very entity you are fighting....if thats not a conflict of interest, I don't know what is! I hate giving bad news, but that is the reality

REMEMBER THE CHARTER OF RIGHTS?

I had just recently received by email a number of Federal Court rulings for several disabled veterans. The Federal Courts ruled that these disabled veterans claims should have been approved by the Veterans Review and Appeal Board. These rulings could not be any clearer.

What I continue to ask myself is why does the Veteran's Review and Appeal Board have so much power over so many injured serving members and veterans of the Armed Forces and the RCMP?

Another interesting development was recently brought out into the open by the CBC National that the Veterans Review and Appeal Board jobs are all patronage appointments.

The VRAB seems to have total immunity from any consequences from their actions. The horror stories continue to pile up. If you have not read my post about the comparison between the Ontario Workman’s Compensation Board and the VRAB it’s a real eye opener.

None of these people that sit on the VRAB have the medical qualifications to interpret medical issues, injuries, reports, diagnosis etc that are contained within our medical files. I don’t think that having a VRAB board member with a degree in forestry or an expert in municipal management who has states they have “carefully” reviewed my application and my medical file really sits right with me. If I were a pine tree I would certainly be in good shape.

This is just the tip of the iceberg ladies and gents.

If a job on this patronage appointment club called the Veterans Review and Appeal Board is based on gratitude for some political loyally i.e. towing whose ever party line, how can these VRAB members be at arms length from outside influence? I applied to the RCMP like every other candidate and was hired on my acceptability and qualities to do police work not by doing some political type a favor. This just reeks of conflict of interest and is not in any disabled veterans interest.

The current political bean counters want to save money and balance the books so the VRAB club tows the rope and denies a lot of claims that should have been granted in the first place. The Federal Courts ruling against the denied VRAB decisions is a very good indication of this. I checked the Veteran’s Review and Appeal Board Act and section 18 “REVIEW” and Section 26 “APPEALS” have at the very beginning of the Section the two words “EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION”. What is so significant about the Exclusive Jurisdiction clause as a lawyer I spoke to said it gives the VRAB power absolute which means ignoring the Federal Courts Ruling.

The reason is quite clear, it gives Veteran’s Affairs the power to save money by denying disabled Veteran’s claims because the Harper Government wants to balance the federal budget of the backs of hurting disabled veterans who suffer with disabilities at their own expense.

A case in point. Remember the leaked document stating that Veteran’s Affairs goal was to reduce its spending by 40 million a year i.e. Who ever wrote the VRAB Act sure wanted to have the option of screwing disabled Veterans out of claims they are entitled to. The following is a news article about the Veterans Affairs 40 million cost savings initiative. Who ever leaked the document leaked it because this is wrong and wanted to make it public.

OTTAWA A trove of leaked internal Veterans Affairs documents suggests bureaucrats knew from the beginning that a new system of benefits would mean less cash for injured soldiers with one analysis projecting savings of up to $40 million per year.
Another analysis, contained among 3,500 pages obtained by The Canadian Press, raised concerns that some disabled veterans might be forced back to work or to take up part-time jobs to supplement their income.
Now how can the VRAB be at arms length from any outside influence if they are on a cost savings initiative for Veterans Affairs whose intentions are obviously now public knowledge. Save MONEY BY DENING DISABLED VETERNS THEIR CLAIMS. Is this not an obvious conflict of interest for the VRAB patronage club who still does not have a qualified Doctor on the Board? The VRAB feel qualified to not accept medical reports/diagnosis by qualified medical doctors. The following Federal Court decision is an example of what I am talking about;



Federal Court
Date: 20101217
Docket: T-969-10
Citation: 2010 FC 1300
Ottawa, Ontario, December 17, 2010
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Barnes
BETWEEN:
TIMOTHY GILBERT Applicant
and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent

[7] I agree with the Respondent that the standard of review for the issue raised on this
application is reasonableness and I adopt the following statement to that effect from the decision by Justice Michel Beaudry in Beauchene v Canada (AG), 2010 FC 980 at para 21:
This Court has held that the interpretation of medical evidence and
the assessment of an applicant’s disability are determinations that fall
within the Board’s specialised jurisdiction and should be approached with deference (Yates v. Canada (Attorney General), 2003 FCT 749
(CanLII), 2003 FCT 749, 237 F.T.R. 300). Such issues are questions
of fact or mixed fact and law and subject to review on the standard of
reasonableness (Dunsmuir, at para. 51).

[10] I am guided by the previous jurisprudence of this Court which has held that the Board has no inherent jurisdiction to independently resolve medical questions. In drawing medical conclusions it can rely only upon the medical evidence placed before it or it may solicit independent medical evidence under s 38 of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act, S.C. 1995, c. 18: see Rivard v Canada,[2001] FCJ No 1072.

[13] In the absence of any reasoning by the Board as to why it rejected Dr. Henderson’s 2010 diagnosis of ankylosis, I am left to speculate about how that evidence was assessed, if at all. One would ordinarily assume that Dr. Henderson had some clinical evidence to back up his diagnosis and, in fact, he did note that Mr. Gilbert’s condition had continued to deteriorate and that he exhibited “poor motion”. This is in marked contrast to the evidence from the 2009 report that the Board ultimately relied upon. If, as it appears, the assessment of a patient’s range of motion is the critical determining factor in such a diagnosis, the Board had a duty to take this differing evidence
into account and to explain how it reached its conclusion that Mr. Gilbert was not suffering from ankylosis.

[14] As noted above, the Board had no authority to independently substitute its opinion for that of Dr. Henderson. It could reject his evidence if there was a rational evidentiary basis and a stated rationale for doing so. The failure here, however, to provide intelligible reasons for rejecting Dr. Henderson’s opinion apparently in favour of older and presumably less reliable accounts is a reviewable error: see King v Canada (AG), [2000] FCJ No. 196182 FTR 226 at paras 20 to 22.

[15] Indeed, if the Board was alert to its obligation under s 39 of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act, it would have either resolved any uncertainty about the basis of Dr. Henderson’s diagnosis of ankylosis in favour of Mr. Gilbert or sought out medical clarification. If it had a sound basis for its conclusion that Mr. Gilbert was not suffering from ankylosis, it had a duty to explain it so that Mr. Gilbert could understand.

Notice the comment about the VRAB not getting clarification on a medical issue. Well the VRAB Act says the following option is within the Boards responsibilities which in the above case did not happen.

Case in point the Veteran’s Review and Appeal Board Act. Section 38.1 titled “Medical Opinion” reads as follows;

Medical opinion

38. (1) The Board may obtain independent medical advice for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act and may require an applicant or appellant to undergo any medical examination that the Board my direct.

Notice that it states “The Board may obtain independent medical advise” The question I have is are they??? I hope to ask this question when my case comes up. I think a lot of disabled veterans should be asking this question. Still they do not have a medical doctor on the Board or on staff. Costs to much?

This Federal court ruling says it all about who is reviewing our medical files and questions the VRAB competency with medical issues.

How can you not think about what happened to the late disabled veteran Brian Dyck who died of ALS while fighting a loosing battle with VAC and his health while pushing a rock up a hill.

It has always bugged me why these special people at the VRAB just plainly have the final word in this great country of ours. Canada’s freedom is paved by the sacrifice of a lot of veterans, past and present who have bled in one way or another so that Canadians can enjoy the freedom they have today.

The present Government and their soulless political bean counters just don’t get it, neither does the VRAB that enjoys the freedom of their huge salaries and the immunity from the hurtful reality of their QUASI judicial cost saving decisions. Does the VRAB get bonuses for saving VAC money as an incentive? A fair question to ask the Patronage Club?

Well having been a cop for a good may years I recall this piece of legislation called THE CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS. So its been awhile so I downloaded a copy and went over the rights and freedoms this charter guarantees all Canadians even the VRAB members and their fat salaries.

What came to light for me was the question why does the VRAB have in their legislation the option to accept or decline the Federal Courts Rulings that favor the disabled Veteran? I know of no other Federal institution that has the power to decline a ruling by the Federal Courts. I know for sure the RCMP and the Canadian Armed Forces does not have the power of legislation to do this. The only action available is to file an appeal with the Court of Appeals.




So why does the VRAB have this absolute power in their legislation? In reviewing the Charter of Rights under Section 15 which reads;


Equality Rights
15. (1) Every individual is equal before the and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability.

(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability.(5)


It is apparent to me that the option for the VARB to refuse the direction of the Federal courts is unconstitutional because the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the last word and the VRAB are in fact denying disabled Veterans “the equal protection and equal benefit of the law.” The question here is what law?

Well I spoke to law firm and they referred me to an articling student lawyer about this and this was the answer I got. Firstly the VRAB has the “EXCLISIVE JURISDICTION” clause as it was put to me, which means exactly that, they can sit back and do what they want. Sorry your out of luck because they have the “EXCLISIVE JURISDICTION”. Can’t this be changed???

The point of view from this articling lawyer in regards to disabled Veterans being denied the benefit of the law from the Federal Courts was that there is no discrimination.

This is because we have the right to get a lawyer and go to the Federal Courts and get a favorable decision stating the VRAB erred in Law i.e. the VRAB decision should be overturned and the VRAB can just ignore it?Huh

It does not matter if you go to the Federal Courts or not its all the same thing a waste of time and unfortunately for some disabled veterans a waste of money. I can not understand why its not hard to see that the “EXCCLUSIVE JURSDICTION” clause makes a disabled Veterans right to seek a remedy from the Federal Courts totally benign and a waste of time. More pushing a rock up a hill.

What is the point of a Charter of Rights and Freedoms that is supposed to protect everyone when the Quasi Judicial VRAB can simply ignore the competent decision of a Federal Judge because of what I feel is an unconstitutional clause called “EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION”. Where is the equal protection and equal benefit of the law when the EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION clause is more powerful then a Federal Court Ruling or the Charter of Rights?

Board members with degrees in forestry who are reviewing disabled Veterans medical files really bothers me. If I was a pine tree I would be in good shape. For the patronage club called the VRAB to have total jurisdiction over the well being of a suffering disabled veteran be it military or RCMP who has bled one way or another for this country is not acceptable.

The “EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION” clause is simply unconstitutional and is a useful cost savings tool that discriminates against disabled veterans. As far as I am concerned this infringes on disabled veteran’s Charter of Rights i.e. Section 15(1) by ignoring a ruling by the Federal courts. The waste of time and money going to the Federal Courts so far is nothing more the collateral damage on the side of the disabled Veteran. How many Federal Court rulings have the VRAB accepted?

I have a lawyer looking into my long fought battle over a disability claim with the VRAB which I feel I have proven under the VRAB rules of evidence. I will go to court get a favorable decision and judging by the VRAB track record on my case my Federal Court ruling will be ignored. Waste of time and the favorable Federal Court Decisions seem to keep piling up. Here are 3 more Federal Court decisions.





Federal Court
Date: 20100128
Docket: T-944-09
Citation: 2010 FC 98
Ottawa, Ontario, January 28, 2010
PRESENT: The Honourable Madam Justice Tremblay-Lamer
BETWEEN:
ALAIN LEBRASSEUR Applicant
and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent

[21] Pursuant to paragraph 21(2)(a) of the Pension Act, when a member of the RCMP “suffers disability resulting from an injury or disease or an aggravation thereof that arose out of or was directly connected with [his] service, a pension shall, on application, be awarded to or in respect of the member.” (My emphasis.)

[22] The terms “arose out of” are understood as not requiring a direct causal link. In a case turning on the interpretation of a regulation providing insurance coverage for injuries arising “out of” the use of a motor vehicle, the Supreme Court has cautioned against “a technical construction that defeats the object and insuring intent of the legislation providing coverage.” (Amos v. InsuranceCorp. of British Columbia, [1995] 3 S.C.R. 405 at par. 17, 127 D.L.R. (4th) 618.) The words “arose out of” therefore only require “some nexus or causal relationship (not necessarily a direct or proximate causal relationship)” (ibid; emphasis in the original).

[23] In my view, this interpretation of the terms “arose out of” is well-suited to the Pension Act. I note that Parliament, in its wisdom, has seen it fit to make clear the Pension Act “shall be liberally construed and interpreted to the end that the recognized obligation of the people and Government of Canada to provide compensation to those members of the forces who have been disabled … as a result of … service … may be fulfilled.”

[27] While the Respondent is right that the Board is entitled to make credibility findings and need not accept all of the evidence tendered to it, its calling in question of the medical reports submitted by the Applicant on the basis that he was the source of the health professionals’ conclusions is unjustified. It is not enough to say that the reports in question are based on a story told by the Applicant because that does not make them any less credible if that story is true. The Board did not make any findings as to the applicant’s credibility; yet it disregarded the favourable credibility finding made by the Panel. Thus, it failed to justify its decision to discount the medical reports.

Federal Court
Date: 20101223
Docket: T-1259-09
Citation: 2010 FC 1331
Ottawa, Ontario, December 23, 2010
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Mandamin
BETWEEN:
ROGER ACREMAN Applicant
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent

[29] However, I am not convinced that the Board weighed the medical evidence before it in a manner that was reasonable, considering the direction provided by sections 3 and 39 of the Act.

[30] I note that Dr. Henderson had physically examined and worked with the Applicant since 1988, and yet the Board preferred the opinion of Dr. Verma, who had not done so. It would seem to me that the opinion of a medical specialist, a rheumatologist, especially one who has examined a patient, should be carefully considered.

[34] The Board did not accept Dr. Henderson’s opinion, noting that he did not provide any medical literature for his opinion. On the other hand, the Board also rejected the medical articles submitted by the Applicant, finding that they were not sufficiently credible medical sources to conclude that stress played a role in the onset and continuance of the condition. One of the medical articles was from the Annals of Oncology (which appears to be a reputable publication by Oxford), focusing on the topic of stress and scleroderma.

[35] The Board shows very little appreciation or consideration for any of the submitted articles nor does it offer an adequate explanation for its credibility findings for rejecting the medical articles. It is difficult to follow the Board’s reasoning in rejecting the evidence of the medical articles.

[36] Given that section 3 of the Act requires the provisions be “liberally construed and
interpreted” and section 39 requires the Board draw every reasonable inference in favour of the Applicant, accept any uncontradicted evidence presented to it by the Applicant that it considers credible in the circumstances, and resolve in favour of the Applicant any doubt, in weighing of evidence, the Board has to properly scrutinize the credibility of the journal articles and provide cogent reason for rejecting the medical literature.


Federal Court
Date: 20101116
Docket: T-1853-09
Citation: 2010 FC 1148
Toronto, Ontario, November 16, 2010
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Hughes
BETWEEN:
ROGER LADOUCEUR Applicant
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent

[17] There are two errors made by the Board as set out in this passage of the Reasons. The first is that the Board has stated that it relied on the opinion of an unnamed “Medical Advisor” given at some undisclosed time, that Table 17.12 was the appropriate table. Second, the Board stated that it wanted to be consistent with some undisclosed assessments made in respect of other undisclosed Appellants with presumably the same disabilities.

[23] I find the decision of Nadon J (as he then was) in King v. Canada (Veterans Review and Appeal Board) 2001 FCT 535 to be instructive in respect of the issue here. He wrote at paragraphs 59 to 63:
59 In my view, the VRAB did not apply the proper test and, as a
result, its decision cannot stand. Furthermore, I agree entirely with
the applicant that the VRAB erred in seeking and in considering
the opinion of the OJAG. In my view, contrary to the VRAB's
belief, section 14 of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act
does not allow the Board to search for evidence and to seek
opinions with regard to the evidence and the issues before it in a
given case. That position would nullify a number of provisions in
that Act and, more particularly, section 39 thereof, which provides
that the Board shall draw from the evidence before it every
reasonable inference in favour of an applicant and that the Board
is to accept any uncontradicted evidence before it that it considers
credible in the circumstances.




Disabled Veterans need help in getting rid of the “EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION” clause from the VRAB Act so that we as injured Soldiers, RCMP officers and veterans of both can enjoy the same protection under the courts as everyone else and not have our rights stepped on from a fair binding judicial process. I ask simply



IS THEIR A LAWYER OUT THERE THAT AGREES THAT THE “EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION” CLAUSE IS WRONG AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

IS THEIR A LAWYER OUT THER WILLING TO STEP UP AND CHALLENGE THIS OBVIOUS INJUSTICE ON BEHALF OF A LOT OF SUFFERING INJURED SOLDIERS, RCMP AND VETERANS THAT HAVE AND WILL SACRIFICE FOR THIS COUNTRY?

Eric Rebiere (Former Cst. RCMP 37515)