The BC Court of Appeal has struck 鈥渋n its entirety鈥� a claim that sought to restore compensation for injured servicemen and women to pre-New Veterans Charter levels.
In rendering the decision 鈥� which stemmed from court action launched by White Rock-based Equitas Society in 2012 鈥� appeal-court judges emphasized it was not a determination on 鈥渨hether the government is providing adequate compensation to members of the armed forces who are injured in the course of their duties.鈥�
Noting 鈥渃onsiderable sympathy鈥� for the plaintiffs, the decision 鈥� announced Monday morning 鈥� is also 鈥渘ot directed to the wisdom of legislation,鈥� the judgment states.
鈥淲e have tremendous respect and admiration for the plaintiffs. All right-thinking Canadians would agree that they should be provided with adequate disability benefits. If that is not occurring, it is a national embarrassment. Again, however, that is not the issue the court is deciding. Rather, the question before the court is whether an arguable case can be advanced that the Canadian Parliament lacks authority to enact legislation fixing and limiting compensation.鈥�
Equitas Society brought a challenging the New Veterans Charter forward in 2012. Created in 2006, the charter replaced veterans鈥� lifelong pensions with lump-sum settlements 鈥� a change that resulted in a 40 per cent reduction in financial compensation, Mark Campbell, a retired major, told a news conference held at the Vancouver office of Miller Thomson Law Monday afternoon.
In this week鈥檚 decision, appeal court judges concluded 鈥淐anada has constitutional authority to enact and administer the compensation scheme.鈥�
However, judges disagreed with arguments that the plaintiffs were 鈥渁n analogous group for the purposes of this lawsuit,鈥� and that Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms serves generally 鈥渢o impose positive obligations on governments.鈥�
Equitas president Marc Burchell told Peace Arch News following the news conference that he was initially 鈥渧ery surprised鈥� by the decision, but now 鈥淚 understand where they鈥檙e coming from.鈥�
鈥淭hey made a decision based on what is existing law,鈥� Burchell said. 鈥淭he court really puts it back into the hands of parliamentarians (to) actually pass law.鈥�
Don Sorocan, lead counsel for Equitas, said no decisions on next steps have been made 鈥� including whether to seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Such an appeal 鈥渋s not something that should be decided on a moment鈥檚 notice,鈥� he told the news conference.
However, the case does illustrate issues of national importance, he said. Those include a determination on whether the 鈥渉onour of the Crown鈥� should apply outside of any aboriginal context.
鈥淐rown鈥檚 lawyers argued there is no such thing as a social covenant,鈥� Sorocan said. 鈥淭he court of appeal has accepted that.鈥�
The fight to reinstate the compensation was , whose son, Dan, was injured during his second tour of duty in Afghanistan, during a training session with claymore mines in February 2010. He lost his spleen, a kidney and suffered a collapsed lung.
According to court documents filed in 2012, the soldier received a lump-sum payment of $41,411.96.
Equitas held a in October to raise awareness of the issue, and Burchell said such steps will continue.
鈥淥ur role as advocates and lobbyists simply escalates,鈥� he told PAN.
鈥淚t鈥檚 far from over. It鈥檚 actually the beginning of the next chapter.鈥�
