Thursday, March 14, 2013

something called justice


The attached is intended to both: 1) give you a brief history of this veteran's claims with the Veterans Review and Appeal Board (VRAB); and
2) assist in your appreciation of how the unjust decisions of the VRAB have left this veteran continuing to seek something resembling justice in our Canadian legal systems.

Please contact me directly in the event that you require further details and / or clarification of these facts concerning the manner in which successive Canadian governments continue to dishonestly ignore the promises they have made to Canadian veterans over the past 95 years.

encl. 3 pages

...... so that the associated decisions of Canadian courts of law and their inherent professionals do not continue to remain being nothing more than an hypocrisy to the actual service of justice.......

How Much Do We Really Pay?
 .....  & OTHER INJUSTICES ('click on' the Internet hyperlinks provided below) 

The following revised history of this veteran's claims with Veterans Affairs is due solely to both the exceptional and outstanding "temerity" of Canadian Senator T. Banks, along with his persistent patience with this veteran.  All of which prompts the belated expression of this veteran's gratitude for such a diligent Senator.  Thank you very much Senator T. Banks.


My name is Brian C. Bradley.  I am a Veteran of the Canadian Forces.

In 1966 I completed my army reserve basic training.  In 1989 I completed my army reserve officer training, and began nearly five years of service in the Canadian Navy training as a Combat Systems Engineer (CSE, or 044A in Canadian military classifications).  This same 'five years of service' began with basic officer training at Chilliwack, B.C., continued with second-language training at St. Jean-sur-Richelieu, Quebec, and a year in Esquimalt, followed by just under three years of service in Halifax, NS.

While training in Esquimalt, I was billeted to the HMCS Qu'Apelle, where I suffered a fall in the shower onboard that warship, injuring my spinal cord at three levels. 

Because the accident occurred while the HMCS Qu'Appelle was away from her home port, I was confined to my rack, and provided with painkillers until returning to Esquimalt five days later.  On arriving there, I was rushed by ambulance to the base hospital. 

Other than being supplied with additional pain killers and 3 or 4 brief sessions of physiotherapy, my real injuries were not treated at that base hospital, nor at the base hospital in Halifax, where I was sent about two months later as part of the next phase of training. 

Upon release from the Canadian Navy in 1993 I was assessed by a civilian general practitioner in Lower Sackville, NS, who immediately identified a C5/C6 radiculopathy (upper spinal cord condition), along with indications of other potential spinal cord level involvement, that had resulted from the accident onboard the HMCS Qu'Appelle. 

This same GP initially referred me for assessment to a diagnostic service in Halifax (i.e., spinal cord MRI), an orthopaedic surgeon, and an internal medicine specialist.  All of these physicians agreed that the three levels of spinal cord injuries (i.e., C5/C6; T11/T12 & L2/L3) were most likely the result of the accident that had occurred while I was serving onboard HMCS Qu'Appelle.

In March 1996 I applied to the Veterans' Review and Appeal Board (VRAB; a division of Veterans Affairs) for a disability pension.  On three separate occasions within the first year of application (refer to Table 'A' on next page) the VRAB ruled against my application for a disability pension.  I then obtained a ruling from the Trial Division of the Federal Court (Fed. Ct.) that the matter be referred back to a differently-constituted panel of the VRAB  board (Fed. Ct. case T-157-98).  

In the next year, the allegedly differently-constituted VRAB panel ruled twice more against my claim.  The matter was once again brought before the Trial Division which ruled that the matter be referred back to a differently-constituted panel and awarded me costs (Fed. Ct. case T-2137-99). 

Because this next allegedly differently-constituted VRAB panel failed to provide a decision within the next year, I filed a motion of Contempt of Court with the Trial Division.  While the Trial Division (i.e., the Hon. Mr. Justice Martineau) would not grant this motion by citing the VRAB in contempt, it did again award me costs, even though none were requested, and supplied a step-by-step procedure to obtain justice in my case. 

With no legal training, I attempted to bring the VRAB before the Trial Division again, after being once again denied a disability pension by the VRAB's next (and sixth) decision.   I lost this decision despite having provided professional testimony from a neurosurgeon, an orthopaedic surgeon and a general practitioner with more than 35 years of experience.  

None of these submissions by physicians were contradicted by testimony from similar professionals on behalf of the VRAB, yet the Trial Division of the Fed. Ct. ruled against my claims. 

I was encouraged to re-approach the Trial Division based upon the experience of a lady who won her case in the Appeal Division in Ontario using my first two cases (i.e., T-157-98 & T-2137-99) as precedents. 

To render such a re-approach at such a late stage in the events, I was encouraged to concentrate on my lower back injuries .... thereby, allegedly attesting to settlement for the upper back injuries .... with neither of these settlements ever occurring! 

Not more than four years ago, The Trial Division ruled again in my favour (T-401-05) and referred the matter back again to a differently-constituted panel of the VRAB  board.  That same board ruled on four more separate occasions against my application for a disability pension, forcing the matter back to the Trial Division for ultimate resolution (T-617-09). 

The VRAB fully exhausted the total number of decisions to which they were entitled in my application, recognizing that an award to me of a disability pension would mean financial ruin and subsequent political suicide for the government 'in charge' at the time of such a decision, given the tens of thousands of other veterans who remained deprived of such benefits.

The Hon. Mr. Justice Phelan (T-617-09) decided: "THIS COURT'S JUDGMENT is that the application for judicial review is granted and the Appeal Board's decision is quashed."  Unfortunately, such a ruling does nothing more than refer the same matter back to the Respondent (e.g., Veterans' Affairs), thus prolonging the history of my claims and thereby moving the VA's actions from the ridiculous to the sublime.

While Canadian governments over the past 80+ years have continued to disregard their legislated obligations to veterans of the CF and Mounted Police, how do you think these same governments are treating(?) the remainder of Canadian citizens? 

On top of all of this, I have had to represent myself in the Trial Division of the Fed. Ct. on several separate occasions with at least 6 of these applying to my claims with the VRAB [refer to case numbers:                        T-157-98, Bradley v. Canada (Attorney General), 1999 CanLII 7476 (F.C.) or http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/1999/1999canlii7476/1999canlii7476.html
                                                T-2137-99, Bradley v. Canada (Attorney General), 2001 FCT 793 or http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2001/2001fct793/2001fct793.html
                                                T-2137-99, Bradley v. Canada (Attorney General), 2003 FCT 12 (CanLII) or http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2003/2003fct12/2003fct12.html
                                                T-67-03, Bradley v. Canada (Attorney General), 2004 FC 996 or http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2004/2004fc996/2004fc996.html                                                                                                               
                                                T-401-05, Bradley v. Canada (Attorney General), 2005 FC 1470 or http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2005/2005fc1470/2005fc1470.html; and                                                                                                                            T-617-09, Bradley v. Canada (Attorney General), 2011 FC 309 or http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc309/2011fc309.html]. 

In all of these decisions (including the latter two), the Hon. Justices supported my claims and rejected the VRAB's decisions.  The greater weight of factual evidence by specialists in the fields of medicine applicable to my spinal cord injuries supported my claims, as did the greater majority of the above-listed decisions. 

Who but a politician who allegedly represents his electorate but didn't see 'adequate votes' in seriously supporting this applicant's claims, would ignore these facts and not attempt to ensure this applicant receive something resembling the actual service of justice .... not to mention the adherence to legislated laws by a Fed. government dept. (i.e., VRAB)?

The last decision of the VRAB (dated February 27, 2013) continued to deny this veteran of his claims for a disability pension.

Peace be with you & yours,

Brian Bradley
#33 - 9520 Bonaventure Dr., S.E.
Calgary, AB  T2J 0E5
Phone: (403) 455 - 9353


Given the hundreds and thousands of above-referenced contradictions between government promises to Canadian veterans (of both the CF and Mounted Police) and the governments' unscrupulous treatment of these same veterans over the past 100 years, what different treatment can all Canadian citizens expect from these same governments?

"Albert Einstein famously said that if we knew what we were doiing, it wouldn't be called research." (Wilson, David Sloan, 2011. The Neighborhood Project, NY: Little, Brown & Co., ISBN: 978-0-316-03767-9, p.25; 432pp.)

"The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was overwhelmingly adopted in September 2007, but significantly, not by Canada, New Zealand and the United States." (p.34, Sustainable World Sourcebook) Why not Canada? Ask you MPs.
  

No comments: