|
| |
Justice
Information in this section
is based exclusively on my own personal experience and should not be taken as
representative of the CF overall. My knowledge of policy making and
process as practiced at the command level is limited only to what is available
on-line either through the internal DND Intranet or through the DND internet
site
http://www.forces.gc.ca
07 December 2008 - I have tried
the route to Judicial Review to secure the damages I still feel I am owed by the
Crown for all that they have done wrong. I have, in the course of those
efforts, been promised a long and costly battle before I will ever see success.
So I abandoned the request for judicial review and will instead take my claim
directly to the Directorate for Civil Claims and Liability (DCCL). I anticipate
yet another run around there, but must make every step in the process before I
can take my case back to the courts. They have acknowledged significant
wrongdoing yet seem to be of the belief that they are above the laws of Canada
in terms of accountability. As a commissioned Officer I cannot let this
slide by.
11 July 2008 - The long awaited
letter from the grievance authority arrived 09 July and it was good news.
I have been confirmed for immediate reassignment to Public Affairs with
promotion and back pay coming in to place as soon as I complete the 6 month
training program. Vindication feels remarkable. Meanwhile the
madness at the local level has escalated again. As soon as it was apparent
that the latest criteria for medical release could not be substantiated, they
changed the criteria yet again. The third set of criteria still won't hold
but I am being compelled to take time and energy diffusing the situation yet
again. All with vindication in reach. It is so petty, mean spirited
and just plain wrong.
9 July 2008 - The CF, specifically
the local formation has found a way to sabotage my long awaited vindication.
Incomplete medical information was submitted almost a year ago that calls in to
question my medical fitness to remain in the military. Sadly the
information, though available in March of this year, was not made available to
me until late June once it was known that a final positive decision on my
grievance was on its
way. When I was able to produce the missing documentation and successfully
challenged their claims of medical unfitness on 7 July, they changed the basis
for medical review with the introduction of new unrelated and still erroneous
information. It is my understanding that there is a due process by which
they are obliged to introduce new medical information for preliminary review by
D Med Pol. This is not being followed. It is frustrating as I have
been repeatedly admonished to follow my chain of command, even when that is not
clearly identified and changes without notice. Yet the medical community
here at the base is now requiring me to allow them to add their new information
to my own representation to the Directorate of Medical Policy (D Med Pol).
This amounts to an order to volunteer unsolicited medical information that is
totally unrelated to the issues presented in the disclosure. I am also obliged
to compile a substantiated defence on this new allegation of medical unfitness.
No doubt D Med Pol will be puzzled as to why I am presenting medical information
unrelated to the issues they have disclosed. There is no difficulty in
challenging the latest round of erroneous and misinformation, but this is all so
very wrong. There is a profound inequity of power here, even in issues
pertaining to control of my own health. By virtue of their authority,
however, they will be able to go forward with this action and compel my
assistance without fear of consequence. I wish I could access public
health care and arrange for my own doctor, but I do not have this liberty.
14 June 2008 - apparently the
adjudication process on the grievance is finally complete and I can expect a
letter in the next couple of weeks. The Findings and Recommendations were
delivered in March and were favourable to my case. It is my understanding
that the CDS seldom decides counter to the Findings and Recomendations so it
will be interesting to learn the outcome. I confess I have lost all faith
in the CF so am not sure what I hope for anymore. The biggest relief will
be to finally have my life and career out of the almost 6 year limbo that has
paralyzed almost all but the day to day personal choices.
16 January 2008 - it is just over
2 years since I first filed my grievance with my chain of command on the
administering of my application for reassignment to Public Affairs. I
received my disclosure package from the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) Grievance
Analyst 27 December 2007 and sent it back unchallenged the same day. I am
not to discuss or share the information, but I confess I am moderately pleased
with the summary and the options being recommended by the analyst.
Once again, however, I must wait for the system to move slowly forward.
There is no time limit on a final decision once a grievance is in the hands of
the CDS. The possibility of a degree of vindication is in the wind, but I
have come to learn with this organization that things all too often are not what
they may seem. I have seen decisions reversed and contradicted, even after
they were issued in writing as orders. I have been confronted with
conflicting orders from separate sources. I have been made empty promises
as often as I have been threatened with empty threats. And so I continue
to wait for justice.
08 March 2007 - I received a
letter from the Human Rights Commission (images/CHRC
Letter March 2007.pdf)
informing me that my case has been closed because I did not exhaust the
grievance process within the CF. This in spite of the fact that I showed
them where the CF had failed to register several past grievance submissions on
the same issues. I also had an interview with the NIS indicating that
while there is evidence of document destruction and tampering, there is no solid
evidence of criminality so they cannot intervene. They will be
recommending an Administrative Investigation, but like all other aspects of this
mess, it will take time. It will be years before I am likely to see any kind of
internal resolution. Then, and only then, when all these internal
processes have been beaten to death and found inadequate, may I turn to the
courts again. This is justice?
25 February 2007 - Well I finally had my day in court, such as it was. I
was ultimately obliged to hire a lawyer in the eleventh hour so to speak. A
good and capable man, but with little
knowledge or understanding of the military. It took a while to get to
court too. Perhaps I am naive as to how justice is practiced in Canada,
but the counsel for the Crown certainly appeared to play fast and
loose with the law in terms of trying to get my case to court when they knew I
would be away, turning back documents on one detail after another yet delaying
on their own submissions. It has been most frustrating at the same time as
enlightening in a bleak sort of way. When I finally had my day in
court I was not even permitted to speak. The merits of my case,
(Court
File No A
and Court
File No B)
furthermore were prohibited from consideration. I was defeated on
procedure alone with the same being used to obscure the
facts. So, at this juncture I have been directed by the courts
(images/Judges
Decision.pdf) to exhaust
the grievance process, then use the judicial review process before I am
permitted to return to the courts for civil resolution on matters to do with
well documented instances of discrimination and defamation.
This is interesting in a bitter and bleak way. I have used the grievance
process in 2002, 2004 and 2006. Yet there is only a record of my single
grievance in 2006. This alone tells me much about the effectiveness of the
CF internal grievance process. It is lacking in accountability and the
chain of command, if it is the source of the grievable matter, can easily bury a
grievance so that it either never sees the light of day or so that it is stalled
and delayed for years. In my own case the grievances were never
formally filed in my primary personnel file in Ottawa and all evidence of them
has been deleted from my unit personnel file. There is even documented
confirmation of all this happily but unwittingly provided by the counsel for the
Crown. So I am to initiate the process all over again.
The second level for a grievance, when one is unhappy with the decision of the
initiating authority, is with the Chief of Defence Staff and when you arrive at
this level (which can take over a year if you agree to a 6 month extension)
there is no time limit for a decision. Finally, and only when you are unhappy with the
decision of the CDS, you may take a grievance to judicial review.
Ironically, there are no regulations that I have found, outside of challenging
the decision of a court martial, identifying the process whereby a serving
member may request or initiate a judicial review. The sum of all that I
have found, and of my personal experience to date, tells me that the grievance
process is profoundly flawed. It tells me, furthermore, that a serving
member is denied the rights and freedoms for which they stand prepared to fight.
I am saddened to report that
circumstances pertaining to my professional life as an officer with the Canadian
Forces have led to a situation where I found myself compelled to turn to the
Federal Courts for justice. Difficulties first arose at the end of 2002
and things have gone down hill from there. Claims based on tangible
evidence were initiated against the Crown last summer on discrimination and
defamation. The Federal Courts, thus far, have been so busy trying to
block and obstruct on procedure and nit picky details that they have yet to
touch on the merits of the case. I find this both frustrating and
offensive. I knew the cases would take a long time to unfold, which
precluded hiring a lawyer. At this time, if I had gone that route, I would
now be out of pocket to the tune of about $15,000 and I would only just have
managed to get the lawyer to understand how the military justice system works,
The courts, however, and the defence, seem to feel this is either an opportunity
to attempt intimidation or to demoralize through a fuzzy kind of double speak.
It would appear that justice in Canada is not universally accessible. It
is the tool of the affluent. I will not give up but will post events as
they unfold at this site. Thanks for listening.
|