Office of the Auditor General report 2014. VRAB and VAC still not listening,.

The RCMP is decades behind DND when it comes to disabilities incurred while on duty especially PTSD. I don't think they know the meaning of it. I now some members who are going through some tough times right now. The dinosaurs they work for are saying suck it up get back to work. Work will keep your mind off things. So I think the change has to come from within. They have to start realizing it's the 21st century and it's time to get rid of their IBM typewriters. If the force would come to terms with this very serious issue they then could put pressure on the GOC. The one thing you guys have going for yourselves is that you are not included in the 2006 NVC where a lump sum payment is made. Your CBA voted against it but the military just got it shoved up their asses. As you have stated, members are entitled to the same benefits regardless of who served where. Like the military, you are not subject to workers compo so this is how we are dealt with at the end of our careers. The only thing I can suggest is keep fighting the fight and don't give up. I know from experience that all the documentation that is submitted has to be worded in such a way that there is no doubt that the applicant has become disabled.

This was my email to the Auditor General's office in regards to his recent 2014 report. VRAB still not paying attention to past decisions??? The Auditor General


To the office of the Auditor General of Canada. I wish to express my disappointment with your office in neglecting the RCMP and the needs of the RCMP disabled veterans who are also under VAC. Under the Department of Veterans Affairs Act Section 4a defines a veteran as follows;



POWERS, DUTIES AND FUNCTIONS OF THE MINISTER

4. The powers, duties and functions of the Minister extend and apply to
• (a) the administration of such Acts of Parliament, and of such orders of the Governor in Council, as are not by law assigned to any other department of the Government of Canada or any Minister thereof, relating to
o (i) the care, treatment or re-establishment in civil life of any person who served in the Canadian Forces or merchant navy or in the naval, army or air forces or merchant navies of Her Majesty, of any person who has otherwise engaged in pursuits relating to war, and of any other person designated by the Governor in Council, and
o (ii) the care of the dependants or survivors of any person referred to in subparagraph (i); and
• (b) all such other matters and such boards and other bodies, subjects, services and properties of the Crown as may be designated, or assigned to the Minister, by the Governor in Council.
• R.S., 1985, c. V-1, s. 4;
• 2000, c. 34, s. 11.



Regulations

• 5. The Governor in Council may make regulations
o (a) specifying the persons or classes of persons, from within those referred to in subparagraphs 4(a)(i) and (ii), who are entitled to any or all of the care, treatment or other benefits authorized by regulations made under this section, and respecting the circumstances in which a person may receive any such care, treatment or other benefit;
o (b) for the control and management of any hospital, home or other institution used by Her Majesty for the care or treatment of persons referred to in subparagraph 4(a)(i) or (ii), including regulations setting out the grounds on which the Minister may discharge a person from such a hospital, home or other institution;
o (c) respecting the care, treatment or other benefits to be provided or that the Minister will pay for in whole or in part, the circumstances in which the Minister will pay in whole or in part and the circumstances in which the Minister may cease to pay in whole or in part;
o (c.1) respecting
(i) the circumstances in which a person is required to make payments in respect of all or part of the cost of accommodation and meals in a hospital, home or institution, whether or not it is one described in paragraph (b),
(ii) the calculation of the payments referred to in subparagraph (i), and
(iii) the method and arrangement for making the payments referred to in subparagraph (i);

I sent the attached complaint to your office some time ago which fell on deaf ears and since then how many RCMP and disabled RCMP veterans have died as a result of suicide the most recent being Cpl Francis who was in the news media smoking medical marijuana in uniform while dealing with a sever case of PTSD. This sir was a cry for help that was not there in the way of peer support which could have been provided by OSISS if the Harper Government would have provided the increased budbget funding to integrate the RCMP members and veterans into the OSISS program which has been established nationally.

I have been advocating for the implementation of the Occupational Injury Social Support Program since well before 2006. The RCMP Occupational Health and Safety Branch recommended OSISS in 2006 and 2010 only to be thrown on the side of the road by then Minister of public Safety Vic Toews. How many PTSD related suicides have occurred since 2006 within the RCMP and within the RCMP disabled veterans community? I asked then Minister of Veterans Affairs Mr. Blaney during his visit to Kingston and he did not have a clue.

Getting back to the issue of who is a veteran I wish to state that their exists Canadian Military members who in their career have never been deployed overseas in a special duty area but when they retire they are veterans. The RCMP is a paramilitary organization with a Regimental Guidon (Battle Flagt) with battle honours from the numerous military conflicts the RCMP and predecessors have been involved with at the request of the Canadian Government. The present s Government wishes to let the RCMP fade away from its distinction as a paramilitary organization the latest example of military service to Canada are the RCMP officers actively involved in the Afghan combat mission working with the Canadian Military Police which the Royal North West Mounted Police created in 1917 during the First World War.

I find the that the office of the Auditor General somewhat discriminatory in the fact that it did not bother to look at the problem of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder which is rampant throughout the RCMP ranks. It is plain negligence to not address the problem of PTSD related suicides within the RCMP veterans community as well as within the RCMP itself and make only deal with recommendations for the Canadian Military and their veterans. What are the statistics of PTSD related suicides within the RCMP veterans communities and if their are no statistics why has Veterans Affairs not taken the time to do so? No statistics no problem to report on.

When I talk about discrimination between the Canadian Military and the paramilitary RCMP I mean contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Like the military the RCMP has served with the Canadian Military in numerous wars and UN conflicts (recall section 4a of the DVA Act?) and like those Canadian Military members who have not served overseas during their service and becoming veterans upon leaving the military the same applies to the RCMP members who never served overseas but could have been asked to volunteer like so many have over the years myself being one of them.

The Auditor General of Canada sees fit to deal with the shortcomings of Veterans Affairs Canada and the VRAB in regards to only the Military but turns a blind eye towards the RCMP a National Symbol of this country that is imploding due to the huge long time unresolved problem of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. The Office of the Auditor General is being either discriminatory and or negligent for not looking into this.

I will be posting this on my Facebook Page RCMP Are Veterans and other sites. This has gone on long enough meanwhile the preventable suicides of RCMP members and veterans continue. I ask you to please make issue of this because it needs to be addressed not ignored by your office when I sent the attached complaint.

In regards to the Veterans Review and Appeal Board the office of the Veterans Ombudsman hired a law firm to analyse the VRAB Federal Court Judicial Reviews in 2012 which I also did on my own accord unknowingly. The Veterans Ombudsman Mr. Parent knows through the stated research of the Judicial Reviews, mine as well which I sent to his office and outlines the continued errors the VRAB was making in regards to the Federal Court Judges decisions which still continue to repeat over and over again. This was approx 2 years ago in 2012. Was this information like the direction of the Federal Court Judges to the VRAB board members ignored as well and are still being ignored. If errors in adjudication by the VRAB continue it is obvious that they ignore not just the Federal Court case law but the office of the Veterans Ombudsman as well. Your office seemed to have missed this. Are the Federal Court Judges being made aware of the VRAB decisions after being sent directions as a result of a veteran having to hire a lawyer and get a Federal Court Judicial Review? Right now these Judges are never aware of the VRAB ruling after a Federal Court Judicial Review and it seems these Federal Court Judges only become aware when a real pissed off disabled Vet has to hire a lawyer for a second time for yet another Federal Court Judicial Review.

The following are the Federal Court rulings on the quashed VRAB decisions separated into separate categories. This information has been available to VAC for some years yet the VRAB continues to play hard ball with disabled Veterans both Military and RCMP. This is unconscionable and unacceptable and is nothing short of willfull blindness for VAC and VRAB to continue this callus abuse of disabled veterans seeking help for disability. The Auditor General's report only confirms this willfull blindness on the part of VAC and VRAB. Goes to show you what happens when a cement head is put in charge.

Eric Rebiere (Former Cst. RCMP 37515 LSGC and Military Vetertan)

Submitted to Office of the Veterans Ombudsman April 2012 (Its now one month short of 2015)

ISSUE 1)
The Veterans Review and Appeal Board disregarded evidence and formed contrary Opinion not based on the evidence in the record.
King v. Canada (Veterans Review and Appeal Board) Date: November 7, 1997
Ewing c. Canada (Veterans Review and Appeal Board) Date: October 15, 1997
Wood v. Canada (Attorney General) Date: January 19, 2001
Nelson v. Canada (Attorney General) 2006 FC 225
Date: March 15, 2006
MacDonald v. Canada (Attorney General) 2007 FC 809 Date: August 1, 2007
Dunn v. Canada (Attorney General) 2007 FC 492 Date: May 4, 2007
MacDonald v. Canada (Attorney General) 2008 FC 796 Date: June 24, 2008
McLean v. Canada (Attorney General) 2009 FC 626 Date: June 10, 2009
Ladouceur v. Canada (Attorney General) 2010 FC 1148 Date: November 16, 2010


ISSUE 2)
THE VETERANS REVIEW AND APPEAL BOARD DID NOT ACCEPT EVIDENCE FROM QUALIFIED MEDICAL DOCTORS AND DID NOT PROVIDE REASON WHY THIS WAS DONE.

Mackay v. Canada (Attorney General) Date: April 24, 1997
Teubert v. Canada (Attorney General) Date: September 18, 2000
Schott v. Canada (Attorney General) Date: January 25, 2001
Rivard v. Canada (Attorney General) 2001 FCT 704 Date: June 26, 2001
Macdonald v. Canada (Attorney General) 2001 FCT 678
Bradley v. Canada (Attorney General) 2001 FCT 793 Date: July 13, 2001
Teubert v. Canada (Attorney General) 2002 FCT 634 Date: June 4, 2002
Saumure v. Canada (Attorney General) 2002 FCT 998 Date: September 23, 2002
Kozak v. Canada (Attorney General) 2002 FCT 169 Date: February 14, 2002
Léonelli v. Canada (Attorney General) 2003 FC 1374 Date: November 21, 2003
Martel v. Canada (Attorney General) 2004 FC 1287 Date: September 21, 2004
John Doe v. Canada (Attorney General) 2004 FC 451 Date: March 26, 2004
De Quoy v. Canada (Attorney General) 2004 FC 654 Date: May 4, 2004
Boucher v. Canada (Attorney General) 2004 FC 616 Date: April 26, 2004
Comeau v. Canada (Attorney General) 2004 FC 1091 Date: August 9, 2004
Powell v. Canada (Attorney General) 2005 FC 433 Date: March 31, 2005
Youden v. Canada (Attorney General) 2005 FC 1696 Date: December 15, 2005
Ladouceur v. Canada (Attorney General) 2006 FC 1438 Date: November 28, 2006
Gannon v. Canada (Attorney General) 2006 FC 600 Date: May 15, 2006
Cormier v. Canada (Attorney General) 2006 FC 118 Date: February 2, 2006
Bremner v. Canada (Attorney General) 2006 FC 96 Date: January 30, 2006
Acreman v. Canada (Attorney General) 2010 FC 1331 Date:December 23,2010
McLean v. Canada (Attorney General) 2011 FC 453 Date: April 13, 2011
Thériault v. Canada (Attorney General) 2006 FC 1070Date: September 8, 2006
Zielke v. Canada (Attorney General) 2009 FC 1183 Date: November 18, 2009
Patterson v. Canada (Attorney General) 2009 FC 801 Date: August 5, 2009
Boisvert v. Canada (Attorney General) 2009 FC 735 Date: July 20, 2009
Johnston v. Canada (Attorney General) 2010 FC 348 Date: March 30, 2010
Gilbert v. Canada (Attorney General) 2010 FC 1300 Date: December 17, 2010
McLean v. Canada (Attorney General) 2011 FC 453 Date: April 13, 2011

ISSUE 3)
THE FEDERAL COURT DECISIONS REMIND THE VETERANS REVIEW AND APPEAL BOARD TO ALWAYS BEAR IN MIND THE DICTATES OF SECTION 3 AND SECTION 39 OF THE VRAB ACT.

Mackay v. Canada (Attorney General) Date: April 24, 1997
Ewing c. Canada (Veterans Review and Appeal Board) Date: October 15, 1997
King v. Canada (Veterans Review and Appeal Board) Date: November 7, 1997
Trainor v. Canada (Attorney General) Date: April 18, 2000
Cundell v. Canada (Attorney General) Date: January 13, 2000
Bradley v. Canada (Attorney General) Date: January 27, 1999
Cundell v. Canada (Attorney General) Date: January 13, 2000
Stuber v. Canada (Attorney General) 2003 FCT 768 Date: June 20, 2003
Thériault v. Canada (Attorney General) 2006 FC 1070 Date: September 8, 2006
Dugré v. Canada (Attorney General) 2008 FC 682 Date: May 28, 2008
Murray v. Canada (Attorney General) 2009 FC 884 Date: September 9, 2009
Gillis v. Canada (Attorney General) 2009 FC 504 Date: May 20, 2009
Acreman v. Canada (Attorney General) 2010 FC 1331 Date: December 23, 2010
Brychka v. Canada (Attorney General) Date: February 2, 1998
Wood v. Canada (Attorney General) Date: January 19,001
Yates v. Canada (Attorney General) 2002 FCT 111 Date: January 29, 2002
Matusiak v. Canada (Attorney General) 2005 FC 198 Date: February 9, 2005
MacDonald v. Canada (Attorney General) 2008 FC 796 Date: June 24, 2008
Dugré v. Canada (Attorney General) 2008 FC 682 Date: May 28, 2008
Lebrasseur v. Canada (Attorney General) 2010 FC 98 Date: January 28, 2010

ISSUE 4)
THE VETERANS REVIEW AND APPEAL BOARD FAILD TO DEAL EXPRESSLY IN THE RECORD EVIDENCE FOUND BY THE BOARD TO BE NOT CREDIBLE FROM WHICH A FAVOURABLE INFERENCE COULD BE MADE TO THE APPLICANT.
Brychka v. Canada (Attorney General) Date: February 2, 1998
Wood v. Canada (Attorney General) Date: January 19, 2001
Yates v. Canada (Attorney General) 2002 FCT 111 Date: January 29, 2002
Matusiak v. Canada (Attorney General) 2005 FC 198 Date: February 9, 2005
MacDonald v. Canada (Attorney General) 2008 FC 796 Date: June 24, 2008
Dugré v. Canada (Attorney General) 2008 FC 682 Date: May 28, 2008
Lebrasseur v. Canada (Attorney General) 2010 FC 98 Date: January 28, 2010

ISSUE 5
THE VETERANS REVIEW AND APPEAL BOARD ARE NOT RESPECTING THE DIRECTION OF BEING CONSISTANT IN WHAT THE VRAB ACT WAS INTENDED.
“consistency is clearly desirable as it enhances equality before the law and reduces arbitrariness.” Howard I. Wetston Judge 1999
Matchee v. Canada (Attorney General) Date: January 5, 1999

ISSUE 6)
THE VETERANS REVIEW AND APPEAL BOARD ARE NOT ACCEPTING FAVOURABLE EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD AND NEW EVIDENCE THAT IS ALSO FAVOURABLE TO THE APPLICANT.
Macdonald v. Canada (Attorney General) Date: March 11, 1999
Metcalfe v. Canada Date: January 6, 1999
Teubert v. Canada (Attorney General) Date: September 18, 2000
Doe v. Canada (Attorney General) 2002 FCT 106 Date: January 28, 2002
Boucher v. Canada (Attorney General) 2004 FC 616 Date: April 26, 2004
Matusiak v. Canada (Attorney General) 2006 FC 646 Date: May 29, 2006
Thériault v. Canada (Attorney General) 2006 FC 1070 Date: September 8, 2006
Reed v. Canada (Attorney General) 2007 FC 1237 Date: November 23, 2007
Murphy v. Canada (Attorney General) 2007 FC 905 Date: September 12, 2007
Lenzen v. Canada (Attorney General) 2008 FC 520 Date: April 22, 2008
McLean v. Canada (Attorney General) 2009 FC 626 Date: June 10, 2009
Cossette v. Canada (Attorney General) 2011 FC 416 Date: April 14, 2011
Chaytor v. Canada (Attorney General) 2011 FC 501 Date: April 29, 2011

ISSUE 7)
APPLICANT HAD TO UNNECESSARILY APPLY FOR A SECOND JUDICIAL REVIEW AS A RESULT IN SOME CASE EXAMPLES OF THE VRAB BOARD NOT FOLLOWING THE DIRECTION OF THE JUDGE IN THE FIRST JUDICIAL REVIEW.

King v. Canada (Attorney General)Date: February 11, 2000
John Doe v. Canada (Attorney General) 2004 FC 451 Date: March 26, 2004
Matusiak v. Canada (Attorney General) 2006 FC 646 Date: May 29, 2006
MacDonald v. Canada (Attorney General) 2007 FC 809 Date: August 1, 2007
Zielke v. Canada (Attorney General) 2009 FC 1183 Date: November 18, 2009

ISSUE 8
THE VETERANS REVIEW AND APPEAL BOARD HAVE BEEN NOTED BY THE FEDERAL COURT JUDGES i.e. IN THEIR DECISIONS THAT THE BOARD IS DEMANDING THE MOST STRINGENT BURDON OF PROOF CONTRARY TO SECTION 39 OF THE VRAB ACT.
Smith v. Canada (Attorney General) 2001 FCT 857 Date: August 7, 2001
Cundell v. Canada (Attorney General) Date: January 13, 2000
Trainor v. Canada (Attorney General) 2002 FCT 117 Date: January 30, 2002
Saumure v. Canada (Attorney General) 2002 FCT 998 Date: September 23, 2002

ISSUE 9)
THE VETERANS REVIEW AND APPEAL BOARD HAVE BEEN TAKING A SUPERFICIAL APPROACH TO THE ASSESSMENT OF EVIDENCE AND PROVIDE A LACK OF REASONS AS TO WHY THE BOARD DISCOUNTS EVIDENCE.
Desloges v. Canada (Attorney General) 2001 FCT 506 Date: May 18, 2001
Whitehead v. Canada (Attorney General) 2003 FCT 75 Date: January 24, 2003
Ladouceur v. Canada (Attorney General) 2006 FC 1438 Date: November 28, 2006
Grant v. Canada (Veterans Review and Appeal Board) 2006 FC 1456 Date: November 30, 2006
Gannon v. Canada (Attorney General) 2006 FC 600 Date: May 15, 2006
Bremner v. Canada (Attorney General) 2006 FC 96 Date: January 30, 2006

ISSUE 10
THE VETERANS REVIEW AND APPEAL BOARD DO NOT HAVE ANY MEDICAL EXPETISE AND ARE NOT EXERCISING THE USE OF SECTION 38 OF THE VRAB ACT IN REGARDS TO CONSULTING QUALIFIED MEDICAL DOCTORS ON MEDICAL ISSUES.
Macdonald v. Canada (Attorney General of Canada) 2003 FC 1263 Date: October 30, 2003
Léonelli v. Canada (Attorney General) 2003 FC 1374 Date: November 21, 2003
Theriault v. Canada (Attorney General) 2004 FC 978 Date: July 12, 2004
Boucher v. Canada (Attorney General) 2004 FC 616 Date: April 26, 2004
Ladouceur v. Canada (Attorney General) 2006 FC 1438 Date: November 28, 2006
Thériault v. Canada (Attorney General) 2006 FC 1070 Date: September 8, 2006
MacDonald v. Canada (Attorney General) 2007 FC 809 Date: August 1, 2007
Lenzen v. Canada (Attorney General) 2008 FC 520 Date: April 22, 2008
Zielke v. Canada (Attorney General) 2009 FC 1183 Date: November 18, 2009
Ladouceur v. Canada (Attorney General) 2010 FC 1148 Date: November 16, 2010
Gilbert v. Canada (Attorney General) 2010 FC 1300 Date: December 17, 2010
Armstrong v. Canada (Attorney General) 2010 FC 91 Date: January 27, 2010

ISSUE 11)

THE VETERANS REVIEW AND APPEAL BOARD DENYING APPLICANTS THE OPPORTUNITY TO PERSONALLY PRESENT ARGUMENTS BEFORE THE BOARD I.E SECTION 3 VRAB REGUATIONS.
Gagné v. Canada (Attorney General) 2002 FCT 711 Date: June 25, 2002
Lenzen v. Canada (Attorney General) 2008 FC 520 Date: April 22, 2008

ISSUE 12)

THE VETERANS REVIEW AND APPEAL BOARD FAILED TO MAKE THE CASUAL CONECTION BETWEEN INJURY/DEATH WITH SERVICE WHILE ON DUTY.
Frye v. Canada (Attorney General) 2004 FC 986 Date: July 14, 2004
Teubert v. Canada (Attorney General) Date: September 18, 2000
Teubert v. Canada (Attorney General) 2002 FCT 634 Date: June 4, 2002
Saumure v. Canada (Attorney General) 2002 FCT 998 Date: September 23, 2002
Comeau v. Canada (Attorney General) 2004 FC 1091 Date: August 9, 2004
Powell v. Canada (Attorney General) 2005 FC 433 Date: March 31, 2005
Reed v. Canada (Attorney General) 2007 FC 1237 Date: November 23, 2007
Murphy v. Canada (Attorney General) 2007 FC 905 Date: September 12, 2007
Wannamaker v. Canada (Attorney General) 2006 FC 400 Date: March 30, 2006
Thériault v. Canada (Attorney General) 2006 FC 1070 Date: September 8, 2006
Lenzen v. Canada (Attorney General) 2008 FC 520 Date: April 22, 2008
Murray v. Canada (Attorney General) 2009 FC 884 Date: September 9, 2009
Armstrong v. Canada (Attorney General) 2010 FC 91 Date: January 27, 2010
Bradley v. Canada (Attorney General) 2011 FC 309 Date: March 15, 2011

ISSUE 13)

THE VETERANS REVIEW AND APPEAL BOARD WILFULLY TRYING TO REDUCE INJURED VETERANS PENSION ENTITLEMENTS.
Matusiak v. Canada (Attorney General) 2006 FC 646 Date: May 29, 2006
Ladouceur v. Canada (Attorney General) 2006 FC 1438 Date: November 28, 2006

ISSUE 14)

THE VETERANS REVIEW AND APPEAL BOARD IS PRESUMED TO HAVE CONSIDERED ALL MATERIAL EVIDENCE BEFORE IT.

Whitehead v. Canada (Attorney General) 2003 FCT 75 Date: January 24, 2003
Murphy v. Canada (Attorney General) 2007 FC 905 Date: September 12, 2007
MacDonald v. Canada (Attorney General) 2008 FC 796 Date: June 24, 2008

ISSUE 15)

THE VETERANS REVIEW AND APPEAL BOARD PLAYING HARD BALL WITH THE SURVIVING SPOUSES OF DECEASED INJURED VETERANS.

MacKenzie v. Canada (Attorney General) 2007 FC 481 Date: May Date: May 3, 2007
Arial v. Canada (Attorney General) 2010 FC 184 Date: February 19, 2010
Arial v. Canada (Attorney General) 2011 FC 848 Date: July 8, 2011

ISSUE 16)

THE VETERANS REVIEW AND APPEAL BOARD NOT RESPECTING SECTION 27.(1) AND 27.(2) OF THE VRAB ACT UNDER THE HEADING OF “Appeal Panel” “Prohibition” respectively and the direction of the Federal Courts.
Teubert v. Canada (Attorney General) Date: September 18, 2000
Teubert v. Canada (Attorney General) 2002 FCT 634 Date: June 4, 2002