Federal court | Crown
ARMED FORCES
Applicant given instruction on how to access medical records and failed to do so
Applicant began training as artillery officer. Applicant was accused of lying and demonstrating conduct in conflict with CF ethos. Applicant was deemed to have failed training. Applicant was released after completion of obligatory service. Grievances were allowed. Applicant suffered depression. Doctor found applicant’s chronic medical conditions were consequence of conflicts with military over career. Medical employment limitations were imposed on applicant. Applicant was compulsorily released on medical grounds. CDS dismissed grievances. Application for judicial review was dismissed. There was no breach of procedural fairness. Applicant was given specific instruction on how to access medical records and failed to do so. By time of CDS review in 2010 applicant had possession of all relevant documents. Applicant had time to consult independent physician and provide new medical evidence. There was no reason to interfere with decision on merits.
McBride v. Canada (Minister of National Defence) (Aug. 25, 2011, F.C., Martineau J., File No. T-83-11) 206 A.C.W.S. (3d) 73 (12 pp.).
Applicant given instruction on how to access medical records and failed to do so
Applicant began training as artillery officer. Applicant was accused of lying and demonstrating conduct in conflict with CF ethos. Applicant was deemed to have failed training. Applicant was released after completion of obligatory service. Grievances were allowed. Applicant suffered depression. Doctor found applicant’s chronic medical conditions were consequence of conflicts with military over career. Medical employment limitations were imposed on applicant. Applicant was compulsorily released on medical grounds. CDS dismissed grievances. Application for judicial review was dismissed. There was no breach of procedural fairness. Applicant was given specific instruction on how to access medical records and failed to do so. By time of CDS review in 2010 applicant had possession of all relevant documents. Applicant had time to consult independent physician and provide new medical evidence. There was no reason to interfere with decision on merits.
McBride v. Canada (Minister of National Defence) (Aug. 25, 2011, F.C., Martineau J., File No. T-83-11) 206 A.C.W.S. (3d) 73 (12 pp.).
