Date: 19991214
Docket: T-715-99
T-716-99
BETWEEN:
Applicant
| THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA |
Respondent
REASONS FOR ORDER
REED, J.: (an edited version of reasons delivered orally)
[1] I have been persuaded that the decision under review must be set aside. The Board made, at least, two highly significant errors. It treated the medical reports of Dr. Stroud and Dr. Arnett as contradictory, when they are not. It treated the "tax relief letter" as inadequate, despite the fact that that letter demonstrates the R.C.M.P.'s acceptance of the applicant's back injury as work-related.
[2] Only Dr. Stroud's letter gives an opinion as to whether the applicant's knee injury was aggravated by the applicant's employment. Dr. Stroud asserted that it had been. Dr. Arnett's opinion, which opinion had been requested by Dr. Stroud and was appended to his opinion, did not address that issue. The two letters are not contradictory.
[3] The Board's treatment of the "tax relief" letter as inadequate because it contained no details of the injuries, but was merely an "administrative mechanism,... part of the RCMP procedures which would entitle Mr. Roberts to the allowable tax exemption claims as a result of a duty-related illness/injury", is unreasonable. The letter states that the applicant was on sick leave due to a duty-related illness/injury, and that he was therefore entitled to deduct from income "an amount equal to that which would have been received from the Worker's Compensation Board/Commission".
[4] The applicant's medical records relating to the time in question (July 12 - August 9, 1993, and September 14 - October 12, 1993) describe the reason for his sick leave as being the injury to his back, which injury originated twelve years previously (letter dated July 16, 1993 from Dr. Wilson to Dr. Ness), and the surgery conducted (letter dated August 6, 1993 from Dr. Russell to Dr. Wilson; clinical report of Dr. Russell, dated September 14, 1993). The Board had before it details of the work-related injury to which the "tax - relief" letter of February 26, 1994, referred. The letter cannot be dismissed as inadequate on the ground that it did not contain details of the injury in question.
[5] These errors are significant enough for the decision under review to attract the characterization "patently unreasonable".
[6] I must note, in addition, that I found a statement in the departmental medical consultation quite shocking. The medical officer states: "I had not been [sic] to convince myself of there being ever any injury to the back during the service or related to service activities" (emphasis added). In support of his claim for a pension, the applicant had described an incident in 1979, in Laird, N.W.T., which he considered to be an aggravating event that contributed significantly to his subsequent back problems (in the course of making an arrest, a fight ensued and he fell on the corner of a table hitting his lower back). The R.C.M.P. file concerning that incident had been destroyed - an event for which the applicant should not be penalized.
[7] There is, however, in the medical documentation, reference to the 1979 event. Dr. Singh's letter of December 12, 1979 refers to there having been a fight. In 1988, the back problems are described in an R.C.M.P. Clinical Report as related to an "original injury 8 years ago at work, required back surgery". In 1992, in a medical summary, the applicant's back pain is described as having come on "initially after he was in a fight" and it notes the back surgery in 1980. I do not know how much of the file was before the medical officer when he made the above statement in his consultation report, but the statement quoted above is tantamount to calling the applicant a liar, and certainly conflicts with the reports of other medical officers who treated the applicant closer to the event. The credibility of the applicant's assertion that the incident in 1979, in Laird, N.W.T., occurred, as he described it, deserves to be considered by the Board in the light of all the evidence.
[8] For the reasons given the application is allowed and the decision in question is set aside.
"B. Reed"
Judge
EDMONTON, Alberta
December 14, 1999.
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
TRIAL DIVISION
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT FILE NO.: T-715-99 and
T-716-99
STYLE OF CAUSE: Brian William Roberts
v. The Attorney General
of Canada
REASONS FOR ORDER: Reed, J.
APPEARANCES:
Marilena Carminati for the Applicant
Ken Manning for the Respondent
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
G. Brent Gawne & Associates for the Applicant
Edmonton, Alberta
Morris A. Rosenberg
Deputy Attorney General of Canada for the Respondent
Email this Content