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?
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.
