Grievance – adequacy of medical treatment

[schart28]

In a recent court case, Morphy, it was stated:

Insofar as the expertise of the Chief of Defence Staff is concerned, Justice Layden-Stevenson noted in Armstrong that as the most senior officer in the Canadian Forces, the Chief of Defence Staff is charged with control and administration of the Forces.  As such, he would be conversant with all facets of the military context, unlike the court, suggesting a high level of deference. That said, while the promotional procedures within the Canadian Forces at issue here would fall squarely within the expertise of the Chief of Defence Staff, to the extent that the grievance relates to the adequacy of the medical treatment received by Leading Seaman Morphy, this is a matter outside the expertise the Chief of Defence Staff.  This would suggest a less deferential standard of review should be applied to this aspect of the decision.

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2008/2008fc190/2008fc190.html

Has anyone got a response from the CDS concerning the adequacy of medical treatment past Feb 2008? If so, what conclusion did the CDS come up with?
If the CDS does not have the authority in respect to the adequacy of medical treatment, then to whom do we turn too? College of physician?

 

[PMedMoe]

My first guess would have been the Director General Health Services, however, according to your link, the DGHS might be "biased" so (IAW the link) the Director of Medical Policy, in consult with an outside specialist.

 

[schart28]

It goes beyond anyone in the CF. I think it says no one in CF can rule on the adequacy of medical treatment.....

 

[PMedMoe]

It goes beyond anyone in the CF. I think it says no one in CF can rule on the adequacy of medical treatment.....

Well that doesn't even make sense.  After all, couldn't the CDS also be biased about the actions of his personnel?  Yet, he has the final say in a grievance.

I read over the link, IMHO, I think they were right in denying the claim.

 

[schart28]

He does have final say except in:

Any decision of a Summary Trial, Court Martial, or the Court Martial Appeal Court;
A matter that must be addressed by another process, as stipulated under the terms of the National Defence Act;
A decision of any board, commission, court or tribunal not created under the National Defence Act (e.g. Canadian Human Rights Commission, Privacy Commission, Access to Information Commissioner and Official Languages Commissioner);
Decisions, acts or omissions made by the Government of Canada (because they are beyond the authority of the Chief of the Defence Staff).

The key in Morphy i believe relies on....Decisions, acts or omissions made by the Government of Canada (because they are beyond the authority of the Chief of the Defence Staff). They may have been right in denying it except that they did not totally justified its denying. It would be very interesting to see what will the new response and see what they will conclude concerning the adequacy of medical treatment.... Unfortunately we will probably never know unless we know this leading seamen....