Attn: Veterans/survivors of veterans

[3rd Horseman]

After reading the long thread. I think this boils down to an issue of "What is the spirit of the legislation and what was the intention of its creation" not how can I find a loop hole to exploit it.

IMHO VAC and its benefits is there for the wounded and sick and injured due to service. It is not there for spouse after death of a VET and it is not there for the last min claim after a life time of living just to get some coin for the old boy on his death bed "however noble that could sound" If a vet served his country for a few years and 40 years later has some issues one has to look very carfully at the relevance. Now all I have said is heresy and the new charter has changed all these views but the bases of the Spirit of the legislation is Paramount. Sometimes one has to just walk away and say well I could get this but is it right.

 

[the 48th regulator]

After reading the long thread. I think this boils down to an issue of "What is the spirit of the legislation and what was the intention of its creation" not how can I find a loop hole to exploit it.

IMHO VAC and its benefits is there for the wounded and sick and injured due to service. It is not there for spouse after death of a VET and it is not there for the last min claim after a life time of living just to get some coin for the old boy on his death bed "however noble that could sound" If a vet served his country for a few years and 40 years later has some issues one has to look very carfully at the relevance. Now all I have said is heresy and the new charter has changed all these views but the bases of the Spirit of the legislation is Paramount. Sometimes one has to just walk away and say well I could get this but is it right.

Here here,

I agree with this post one hundred percent.

Well said Third, you have stated exactly all the feelings that I have had with this thread.

dileas

tess

 

[284_226]

After reading the long thread. I think this boils down to an issue of "What is the spirit of the legislation and what was the intention of its creation" not how can I find a loop hole to exploit it.

If the "spirit and intent" of the legislation was to not include those members who died prior to the implementation date of the NVC, then they failed miserably at trying to communicate that in the legislation. 

IMHO VAC and its benefits is there for the wounded and sick and injured due to service. It is not there for spouse after death of a VET and it is not there for the last min claim after a life time of living just to get some coin for the old boy on his death bed "however noble that could sound" If a vet served his country for a few years and 40 years later has some issues one has to look very carfully at the relevance. Now all I have said is heresy and the new charter has changed all these views but the bases of the Spirit of the legislation is Paramount. Sometimes one has to just walk away and say well I could get this but is it right.

I'll have to disagree with your interpretation of what VAC and their benefits are all about.  Their own mission statement says:

To provide exemplary, client-centred services and benefits that respond to the needs of veterans, our other clients and their families, in recognition of their services to Canada; and to keep the memory of their achievements and sacrifices alive for all Canadians.

In our particular case, my father died from asbestosis, which was well-documented by radiology reports after diagnosis.  It's pretty unlikely that he suffered exposure to asbestos while driving a police car for 17 years, or as a municipal law enforcement officer after that.  Exposure to asbestos, however, is well-documented and acknowledged by VAC as being commonplace during military service in the Navy during the 50's and 60's.  Until his brief but terminal illness, he was as healthy as a horse - walking three miles a day, occasionally guest lecturing at law enforcement conferences, and had a home that was the envy of the neighbourhood as a result of a borderline obsessive gardening disorder.  In four short months, he went from that - to needing oxygen to travel from room to room - to being unable to even leave his bed.  The pension application was primarily for him, although we suspected something was seriously wrong from the outset and that he'd likely never see the benefits of a VAC application.  However, we were rightfully concerned about what would happen to my mother, who relied on him for finanical support for the most part.

Military service took her husband from her at the age of 67, and with his loss went her financial security, health benefits, and companionship.  It's only right that the government ensures that she should not suffer financial or like hardship due to her spouse's death solely attributed to military service.  She should not have to pay $1000 for a $1400 hearing aid, when PSHCP would cover it.  She should not have to pay for a bone pain drug that is excluded from coverage under Ontario Drug Benefit, but is covered under PSHCP.  She should be able to have a private or semi-private room if she is hospitalized, and there is one available - which PSHCP would provide.

The legislation is clear.  The Health Benefits provisions of the NVC apply to all survivors (read: spouses) of veterans who died as a result of their military service, not just those who died after the implementation date of the NVC.  We're currently consulting with a lawyer, who also happens to agree that VAC is being very evasive about their legal reasoning behind their interpretation of the NVC.  The longer they stonewall, the fewer claimants they'll have to deal with, I guess.

 

[GAP]

I think this is the thread this goes in.....

Disabled veterans won't get day in Supreme Court
The Canadian Press January 17, 2008 at 2:04 PM EST
Article Link

OTTAWA — The country's top court has put the brakes on a multibillion-dollar damage claim by mentally disabled military veterans who say Ottawa mismanaged their pension benefits.

In a decision released without comment Thursday, the Supreme Court of Canada rejected a request by the vets for permission to argue their case one more time.

The high court had previously ruled, in 2003, that the federal government acted lawfully in passing a 1990 law that barred retroactive compensation to the veterans, most of whom served in the Second World War.

Their lawyers later persuaded an Ontario Superior Court judge that the ruling applied only to accumulated interest, not to other potential damages.

The judge awarded $4.6-billion in a class-action suit launched on behalf of thousands who suffered mental trauma during their wartime service.

But the Ontario Court of Appeal overturned the award last year in a judgment that left the vets empty-handed.

The latest decision by a three-judge Supreme Court panel may deal a fatal blow to any remaining hope of winning compensation through the courts.

David Greenaway, a lawyer for the veterans, said he'll consult his clients before reaching a final decision on whether any “remnants” of the lawsuit can be salvaged.

Failing that, he said, the door is still open to a political lobbying campaign aimed at the Conservative government.

“Even thought the case may have come to a conclusion, that doesn't mean the government still can't do the right thing,” said Mr. Greenaway.

“It's a political decision. It rests in the hands of the prime minister and his cabinet.”

The veterans floated the idea of an out-of-court settlement during the course of the lawsuit, said Greenaway, but the government never responded with a counter-offer.

Veterans Affairs Minister Greg Thompson was not immediately available for comment, though aides said they were trying to reach him.
More on link