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.