Docket:
T-946-13
Citation: 2014 FC 305
Ottawa, Ontario, March 31, 2014
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice O'Reilly
|
BETWEEN:
|
|
FRED HAWRYLUK
|
|
Applicant
|
|
and
|
|
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA AND
VETERAN AFFAIRS AND APPEAL BOARD
|
|
Respondents
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT
I. Overview
[1]
Mr Fred Hawryluk maintains that he began serving
in the Canadian Merchant Navy in 1946 and, accordingly, that he is eligible to
receive a disability pension for hearing loss that, he says, was caused by his
service. Official records show that Mr Hawryluk began his service in August
1947, too late to be entitled to benefits. However, he states that the
government’s records are unreliable and that he should be given the benefit of
the doubt.
[2]
To receive benefits, Mr Hawryluk had to
establish that he served before April 1, 1947. Veterans Affairs Canada found
that there was no evidence showing that he was on board a vessel prior to
August 15, 1947. On reconsideration, a representative of the Minister of
Veterans Affairs confirmed the original decision. That decision was upheld by
the Entitlement Review Panel, the Entitlement Appeal Panel, and the Veteran’s
Review and Appeal Board (VRAB).
[3]
A key issue in the proceedings was whether there
was an error in documents recording when Mr Hawryluk began his service. The
VRAB found that the documentary evidence showed that Mr Hawryluk commenced his
service too late to be entitled to benefits.
[4]
The sole issue is whether the VRAB’s decision
was unreasonable.
[5]
I have reviewed all of the evidence before the
VRAB and have found that there are, indeed, some errors in the government’s
documents. However, even so, I can find nothing that would render the VRAB’s
decision unreasonable. There is simply nothing in the documentary record that
supports Mr Hawryluk’s claim that he began his service in 1946.
II. The Evidence before the VRAB
[6]
Mr Hawryluk tendered evidence before the VRAB
that showed that he served on two different ships soon after the end of World
War II, but those documents did not indicate the year of service. He suggested
that he served on one ship during 1946 and on the other during 1947.
[7]
By contrast, government records show that Mr
Hawryluk served on both ships in 1947, having begun his service on August 15,
1947. Mr Hawryluk points to errors in other records and maintains that, as a
whole, they cannot be relied on.
[8]
I have reviewed the records Mr Hawryluk says are
unreliable and acknowledge that some contain obvious errors. For example, the
record indicates that the ship Grand Hermine was delivered to Lunenburg in January 1950 but was received there
in January 1949. Obviously, one of these dates is incorrect. Elsewhere, the
documentation states that the ship commenced its voyage in Montreal in August
1949 and ended it in January 1950, so it is likely that the reference to
January 1949 is wrong.
[9]
Another document indicates that Mr Hawryluk
served on the Simcoe from November 12, 1947 until December 15, 1945. The latter
date is obviously incorrect; the correct date is December 15, 1947, according
to the original documentation.
[10]
One document has the Federal Mariner leaving St
John, New Brunswick on January 22, 1949, while another shows the date of
departure as being January 27, 1949.
III. Was the VRAB’s decision unreasonable?
[11]
Mr Hawryluk rightly points out that the
government’s records are clearly fallible. Errors were made.
[12]
However, I am not convinced that the records are
so unreliable that the VRAB was unreasonable in its reliance on them. The
critical question was the start date of Mr Hawryluk’s period of service. The
documentary evidence on that question is clear. He began in August 1947. Errors
relating to other periods of time and other ships seemed obviously to be
clerical in nature.
[13]
But I can find no comparable, obvious error in
the documentation showing when Mr Hawryluk commenced his service. In
particular, the official log book for the Liscomb Park shows that it was
delivered to Sydney, Nova Scotia on December 13, 1947. Similarly, the log book
for the SS Simcoe shows that it was delivered to Windsor, Ontario on December
15, 1947. Both identify Mr Hawryluk as a crew member. In the latter case, the
crew list also indicates that he last served on the Liscomb Park. There is no simply no documentary evidence showing that Mr Hawryluk served prior to
August 1947.
[14]
Therefore, I cannot conclude that the VRAB’s finding
that Mr Hawryluk was ineligible for benefits was unreasonable in the
circumstances.
IV. Conclusion and Disposition
[15]
The VRAB’s conclusion that Mr Hawryluk had not
established that he served during a period of time that would have qualified
him to receive benefits for his hearing loss was not unreasonable on the
evidence.
[16]
I must, therefore, dismiss this application for
judicial review. There is no order as to costs.
Email this Content