Guide as to what to look for in your denied VRAB decision(s) with relating issues and Federal Court Decisions.

Actually, you cannot even use something they themselves said in a previous decision. When they denied my back claim, they said that they accepted my account of an accident on board HMCS Toronto, and that I had completed a CF98 at the time, which did not make it into my docs, but it was their opinion that I didn't suffer from a disability from mechanical lower back pain at the time. So when I was diagnosed with severe degenerative disk disease, spinal stenosis, and 2 major disc herniation with nerve root impairment, in both X-rays and a CT scan, in less than 4 years after their denial, I was told that I would have to prove that the accident occurred again, since their acceptance of it in 2008 doesn't count.

Yes, I know each and every case. Case Law is an important factor with regards to judicial reviews but in my experience, it has 0 effect with Vrab. Case law and the use of previous court decisions is and have only been affective if one uses it at a judicial review in the federal court. One can use case law against the Vrab, but it has no "strong arm" with them. Each and every panel member on the board know every case thoroughly that has been tried at the federal level. I personally have used Jurisprudence to the Vrab, it's like I said before, unless there is an entity to slap Vrab's hands, we're fighting a losing battle. Case law is powerful but only at the judicial level of appeal. Good work!!

Thanks idea is to use these Federal Judicial cases which are known as Case Law within the courts. By identifying the issues within the denied VRAB decisions a veteran can use these Judicial Reviews which the VRAB are responsible to keep up to date on. Never the less they continue to ignore these Judicial Reviews even the Supreme court who has stated in two cases the Boards must give reasons. This is ammunition to confront the VRAB and force them to make the right decisions based on the case law i.e. Judicial Reviews. Have you read the complete analysis/Complaint? Regards E.

I totally agree, but whats the next step? Judicial review that demands VRAB re-hear the case with new panel members that deny again? Until an entity is established or the person has alot of money to file suit, it truly is a case of taking ones head and beating it against the wall. Good job with the research!

Anyone who reads this should be able to look at your VRAB reviews,appeals and reconsideration hearings by the VRAB. They have been making mistakes. With the 16 issues I have identified you will be able to see the mistakes the VRAB have made in denying your legitimate claim. The Federal Court decisions that support these issues stating the mistakes made by the VRAB which resulted in the VRAB decisions being quashed and sent back. Pay special attention to which VRAB Board members sat on your first review hearing that had been denied and if they sat on any of your appeal or reconsideration hearings. This is a big no no to be sit on both and contrary to the VRAB Act. and Regulations.

If you feel you have fallen victim to biased adjudication by the VRAB state the examples with reference to the issues and corresponding Federal court decisions and make a complaint to the office of the Veterans Ombudsman who is still investigating the VRAB. The Fact that it is taking longer is good which means a lot to look at. Time to Push back and you have the following ammunition to do that with.

Eric Rebiere (Former Cst. RCMP 37515)


“Our Freedom’s Worth is Only As Much As We Are All Willing To Pay”
Mark Collie Country singer.


This effort is dedicated to the memory of Brian Dyck, First Gulf War Veteran and Ottawa City Police Service Officer, whose own effort to speak out about injustice in his last days left me the motivation to carry the torch and continue the fight.
A true hero. God Speed Brian.

Eric Rebiere (Former Cst. RCMP 37515)
Charter Member Canadian Veterans Advocacy

SUMMERY OF COMPLAINT BY THE CANADIAN VETERANS ADVOCACY TO THE OFFICE OF THE VETERANS OMBUDSMAN

BY ERIC REBIERE (FORMER CST. RCMP 37515)
CHARTER MEMBER CANADIAN VETERANS ADVOCACY


This is a message to all injured Veterans from the Canadian Military and the RCMP who have not gone to the Federal Courts for a Judicial Review but feel they have been unfairly denied a legitimate injury claim. These 81 granted Judicial Reviews from 1997 to 2011 are just the tip of the iceberg .

This is your opportunity to make a comparison to see if your denied claim was unfairly dealt with. You must be the judge of that conclusion.

Three issues that I have identified you need to be mindful of. One involves the VRAB not using Section 38(1) of the VRAB Act which states

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 may direct..

If they did not use this section and disregarded medical evidence without providing qualified medical reasons and particularly not using Section 38(1) early in the appeal process there is an issue especially if they dismissed qualified medical evidence without reasons. Stating the Board feels that a medical report from a qualified doctor lacks credibility does not constitute a reason.

It is in the VRAB legislation that the VRAB have the power to do this and why not use this section early in the game preventing unnecessary future appeals if it can satisfy a medically related issue submitted by the injured Veteran again preventing unnecessary future appeals.

The second and third issues involves Section 7 of the VRAB Regulations which state;

DECISIONS
7. Every decision of the Board shall
(a) state the issue on review, reconsideration or appeal, or the question of interpretation;
(b) state the reasons for the decision;
(c) state the names of the members who took part in the decision;
(d) include the signature of at least one of the members who took part in the decision;

If the VRAB denies your injury claim and disregards qualified medical evidence from qualified medical doctors without stating qualified medical reasons why this medical evidence was refused is contrary to Section 7(b) of the VRAB Regulations and is an issue. A number of Federal Court decisions with respect to Judicial Reviews state that the VRAB must state their reasons for dismissing evidence.

If their were Board members on a Review or an appeal panel that did not list their name on a decision they were involved with this is contrary to Section 7(c) where all board members involved must state their names on the decision.

The third issue is to check to make sure a board member that sat on your VRAB Review panel has not sat on your VRAB Appeal panel because this is contrary to Section 27(2) of the VRAB Act which states;

Prohibition
Appeal panel
27. (1) An appeal shall be heard, determined and dealt with by an appeal panel consisting of not fewer than three members designated by the Chairperson.

(2) A member of a review panel may not sit on an appeal panel that has been established to hear an appeal of a decision made by that review panel.

You must look at all your VRAB decisions starting with who sat on the review panel and cross reference the names of the VRAB Board members that have been on your appeal panels. If this is the case and a Board member sat on both who should not have, you have an issue.

Their is one case mentioned in this complaint to the Veterans Ombudsman’s Office where this allegedly took place i.e. not only did a VRAB panel member not put their name on the decision but sat on both review and appeal panels of the same injured veteran. This is alleged and is of course subject to confirmation by the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman’s office.

In regards to the other issues mentioned go over them, then go over your denied VRAB decisions starting at day one and see if any of them apply to you.

To go over the decisions mentioned go to the Federal Court web site at

http://cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/portal/page/portal/fc_cf_en/Index

If the link does not work just google Federal Courts.

Choose “Decisions” and once their enter Veterans Review and Appeal Board into the box stating “containing these words”. Make sure the box Federal Court is checked. You will have 215 Federal court decision of which the 81 decisions I found were located.

Now press down on the Control key and then the F key and a search box will come up.

Cut and paste the surname listed in the case you are searching in the search box. The search function will go to the case name and pay attention to the year because some vets have been to the Federal Courts for Judicial Review more than once.

Click on the case name and the Judicial Review will come up. The first part states what the applicant is claiming then the following are the applicant and respondent arguments.

You can go over this but most importantly go to the end of the Federal Court decision and read the analysis and conclusion of the Judge which will end in the judgment stating the VRAB decision is set aside or quashed and will be sent back to the VRAB for Reconsideration. The judge will state and is the case in all these 81 Judicial Reviews that the VRAB are to convene a new board constituted with new members of the Board. This is a Judges order which the VRAB has to comply with and is one of the issues.

If you have identified issues from the decisions of the Federal Court Judges that apply to your Review Hearing and subsequent denied Appeal by the VRAB you can make an online complaint to the Office of the Veterans Ombudsman. If you feel you have been wronged by the VRAB which is a determination you must make, make the complaint.

Now that we have these 81 Judicial Review to work with it is important in this next phase to reach out to all injured Vets who have been denied legitimate claims by the VRAB and submit a complaint to the Veterans Ombudsman.

This is more ammunition for the Ombudsman’s office which will provide them the bigger picture of how the VRAB have dealt with thousands of denied claims and provide statistics of the inconsistencies of the how the VRAB adjudicate injured Veterans Claims. All you need to do is google the office of the Veterans Omudsman and follow the instructions on how to submit a complaint..

Most importantly for those injured vets that are bilingual reach out to our French Canadian injured Vets and let them know about this. The Decisions on the Federal Court site are also in French. We can not forget our French Canadian injured Vets so if anyone out there can help with this. There are two cases involving spouses of deceased inured vets one who had to spend money on a Judicial Review two times. If you know surviving spouses of deceased injured vets who feel they have been wronged by the VRAB let them know as well.

I apologize to our French Canadian injured vets for not being able to have this transcribed in French. I have brought up the issue with Mike Blais the President of the Canadian Veterans Advocacy in regards to doing this.

Remember the motto;

ITS TIME TO PUSH BACK !
Eric Rebiere (Former Cst. RCMP 37515)
Charter Member Canadian Veterans Advocacy

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