Federal court | Crown
ARMED FORCES
Certain documents suggested veteran could have been exposed to Agent Orange
Application by veteran for judicial review of decision of Veteran’s Review and Appeal Board refusing to reconsider prior decision upholding denial of entitlement to pension. Veteran had served in Canadian Armed Forces from December 30, 1954 to January 1, 1975. Veteran had spent much of this time working at base at which Agent Orange had been sprayed in 1966 and 1967. Veteran was diagnosed with prostate cancer in 1994 at age of 62. In 2005, veteran unsuccessfully applied to Department of Veterans Affairs for disability benefits. Department cited lack of evidence establishing veteran’s exposure to Agent Orange. Veteran unsuccessfully appealed to board and unsuccessfully applied for reconsideration. Veteran unsuccessfully applied for another reconsideration on basis of new evidence from witnesses indicating veteran had been exposed to Agent Orange. Application granted; matter remitted for re-determination. Board had erred in finding proposed new evidence was not credible because of apparent contradiction with report claiming no possibility of direct exposure to Agent Orange. Report itself had not been in record before board. Other documents before board did not refer to report’s claim of no possibility of direct exposure to Agent Orange. Certain documents actually suggested veteran could have been directly exposed to Agent Orange. Proposed new evidence was relevant and, if believed, could reasonably have been expected to have affected result.
McAllister v. Canada (Attorney General) (Jun. 19, 2013, F.C., Cecily Y. Strickland J., File No. T-1421-12) 229 A.C.W.S. (3d) 430.
Certain documents suggested veteran could have been exposed to Agent Orange
Application by veteran for judicial review of decision of Veteran’s Review and Appeal Board refusing to reconsider prior decision upholding denial of entitlement to pension. Veteran had served in Canadian Armed Forces from December 30, 1954 to January 1, 1975. Veteran had spent much of this time working at base at which Agent Orange had been sprayed in 1966 and 1967. Veteran was diagnosed with prostate cancer in 1994 at age of 62. In 2005, veteran unsuccessfully applied to Department of Veterans Affairs for disability benefits. Department cited lack of evidence establishing veteran’s exposure to Agent Orange. Veteran unsuccessfully appealed to board and unsuccessfully applied for reconsideration. Veteran unsuccessfully applied for another reconsideration on basis of new evidence from witnesses indicating veteran had been exposed to Agent Orange. Application granted; matter remitted for re-determination. Board had erred in finding proposed new evidence was not credible because of apparent contradiction with report claiming no possibility of direct exposure to Agent Orange. Report itself had not been in record before board. Other documents before board did not refer to report’s claim of no possibility of direct exposure to Agent Orange. Certain documents actually suggested veteran could have been directly exposed to Agent Orange. Proposed new evidence was relevant and, if believed, could reasonably have been expected to have affected result.
McAllister v. Canada (Attorney General) (Jun. 19, 2013, F.C., Cecily Y. Strickland J., File No. T-1421-12) 229 A.C.W.S. (3d) 430.
