Client #1

GV diagnoses include MCS , FMS , CFS and Osteoporisis. She applied for disability benefits from CPP and was subsequently denied in August 1994, August 1995 and August 1996 respectively. A hearing was finally held before a Review Tribunal in March 1998. It must be noted that neither the appellant nor her Representative were made aware of or offered teleconferencing services at this time.

The medical reports submitted consistently characterize a disability.

In February 1996, Dr. H. noted that her condition is expected to remain stable with possible exacerbations.

In February 1996, Dr. B. reported that she was severely limited in her physical and mental capacity to perform even basic activities. He concluded that as long as she did not improve, she was disabled from work.

In March 1996 Dr. S. noted continued problems with fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, cognitive difficulties and thermal dysregulation.

In May 1996, Dr. G. concluded that she had a severe and prolonged disability that prevented her from working.

In January 1998, Dr.B noted that the Appellant had tried every possible treatment. He concluded that until such time as her condition substantially improved, she would remain disabled and not be able to return to work.

The Adjudicators consistently misrepresent submissions.

"&.any time Ms. GV exits her home she may, become disabled. She has a sensitivity to chemicals in the air which cases pain, mental confusion upon exposure and a complete inability to function. At home she does what she is able to do e.g. wash dishes, housework etc., however, it is hard to predict on a day to day basis what she will be able to do. She does drive a car [however, Ms. Balmer was unable to advise the Tribunal how often she drive or how often she exits her home]. She is able to use (and does use) the telephone, fax machine and computer."

The Adjudicators methodology is to abstract, cut-and-paste some of the facts to disjoin medical and physical characteristics, and selectively insert false and misleading information. This means that we must also cut-and-paste in order to make some sense of the Appellant's position. For example, contrary to the Adjudicators statement that any time Ms. GV exits her home she may, become disabled. the fact is that GV s disability is not part-time.

GV has a permanent full time disability that is exacerbated by leaving her home and varies in severity according to exposure. The Adjudicators minimized view of just sensitivity fails to distinguish a difference with the medically reported HYPER-sensitivity and thereby leads the reader to conclusions not consistent with actual medical reports or the medical condition.

The extent, duration and intensity of toxic exposures varies and therefore is difficult to predict. The relation between episodes of exposure to what she will be able to do is disjoined. GV does not create a hard to predict scenario. Instead, the Tribunal obscures the relation between hard to predict exposures and GVs disability.

Although the Adjudicator knows or ought to know that GV cannot use a computer because of her disability, they clearly state that she is able to use a computer. The subtle manipulation of fact to disjoin the actual medical and physical characteristics in combination with misleading conjecture and false information is not apparent to a third party reader without reading the medical reports and sitting in on the hearing.

The analysis of this one paragraph compares an Advocates view with an Adjudicators view of an Appellants actual circumstances. The Appellants case is strengthened when the medical evidence is applied to the proper test of disability. Obvious to the experienced Adjudicator, but not the inexperienced Appellant, is that if the medical evidence is improperly characterized, then it does not show the Appellant to be disabled within the meaning of the Act.

The Appellant relies on the Adjudicator to explain where in fact the medical reports fail the test. Instead the panel refers to a prior decision that states: "there must be objective medical evidence to support a finding that an Appellant is disabled"

The Adjudicator cannot support a finding that an Appellant is disabled because it is contrary to the effort shown above spent to disjoin and misrepresent the medical and physical facts. The problem is, that although the law in many cases recognizes unseen or hidden disabilities, and that specialists and doctors that are licensed to practice can diagnose and treat such illness and disability, the disingenuous Adjudicator will demand objective evidence knowing full well the test for what is objective is also ambiguous, left to them to arbitrarily decide, without explanation, and thereby preclude any medical evidence submitted by the Appellant.

Without appropriate explanation of how medical reports fail the test and the arbitrary creation of ambiguity from any combination of disjoined medical reports, false information, and/or demands for objective evidence where none is available, or even required to know the condition, the complex and effective modus operandi of disingenuous Adjudication starts to appear as a real and present danger to both disabled persons and society.

The possibility of error in any case is in part the purpose of the appeals process. However, if the error is present in many cases, or every case of a particular group, then a pattern begins to emerge as the overt and covert prevarication of law.

The economic ramifications of a government that sanctions use of error to rely on an appeal process to decide which of the disabled classes qualifies to benefit, creates a huge demand for non-productive, anti-social, bureaucratic entanglement whereby the principal beneficiaries are not disabled appellants, but bureaucrats whose stated purpose and actual purpose significantly differ.

Thus, the first indicator of disingenuous acts, or failure to act, occurs when the Adjudication process can be shown to consistently dissect and reassemble evidence to construct reasons to deny a benefit. The second indicator is evasion of fact by ambiguity as well as avoiding or failing to explain how medical reports fail the test. Understandably, the now diametrically opposed views are sent on to appeal.

Regardless of whose arguments are more compelling, the applicant must live with the illness, diagnosis, treatment, and disability, whether assistance is granted or not. The faults discovered in any one decision may arguably be an exception for any number of real or perceived reasons. However, if the same or similar methods can be identified in other cases, then a different kind of adjudication is at work and that work is better described as prevarication, the act of turning aside from the truth; lie.

A prevaricators success in part relies on a protracted process. In this case, the Tribunal upheld the decision to deny disability benefits, May 29, 1998. The Appellant requested Leave to Appeal in June 1998. A year later, in June 1999, leave was refused.

"The decision of the Review Tribunal was that the Appellant had not shown that she was disabled within the meaning of the Canada Pension Plan. The Appellant and her representative, Hilary Balmer vociferously reject the findings of the Review Tribunal. They say that the Review Tribunal was in error in its findings and that the Appellant should be granted a pension. I have read and agree with the findings of the Review Tribunal as I am sure would any panel of the Pension Appeals Board. For this reason, leave to appeal is refused [K.E. Meredith June 21, 1999]

Merediths decision relies on the Review Tribunals findings and continues to summarily exclude any possibility of error on the part of the Tribunal. The refusal to investigate what is meant by error in its findings now becomes another indicator that the summary exclusion of one particular legal direction for another used to deny a benefit, supports the claim of extreme prejudice and collusion to deliberately circumvent and obscure one part of the CPP Act in favour of another. The prevaricators art of obscurantism pervades the system of checks and balances in a way that now includes Meredith, knowingly or not, by default. The implications of knowingly manipulating such systemic dysfunction clearly subverts the spirit of law and the meaning of social.

By October 1999, after several fruitless attempts to take this case to the Federal Court of Appeal, bureaucrats finally clarified that one must either "self-represent" or hire a lawyer to represent an Appellant. This caused several problems. GV could not possibly have done this herself because of her disability, financial resources to hire an attorney were not available, and by this point, the time limit had expired.

However, one last attempt to access the Federal Court was made on behalf of GV. RAINET wrote to Chief Justice John Richards. RAINET informed him that according to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, when a legitimate need arises, it was within his authority to waive the requirement under the Federal Court rules that only a lawyer can provide presentation. RAINET asked to be considered as an "assistive device." No response was ever received.

In January 2001, GV re-applied for CPP and was subsequently denied. RAINET requested a hearing before a Review Tribunal via teleconference. A huge battle ensued. The Office of the Commissioner of Review Tribunals insisted that the hearing be held at a location suitable for the Tribunal without regard or intent to accommodate the special needs of the appellant.

November 2001 RAINET wrote to the Commissioner's office and informed them that provided each of the panel members agreed to comply with very strict requirements, a hearing could be held at GV' s home. However, finally, the Commissioner's office agreed to a teleconference.

March 2002, a hearing was held before a Review Tribunal in Toronto, with GV participating via teleconference. Senator Sparrow attended as an observer.

In this case, Section 84(2) of the CPP Act applies and the Appellant must satisfy the Review Tribunal that he/she has New Facts The new facts provided were found in the written response of Dr. J. M. MacDonald, Senior Medical Advisor to the HRDC dated February 24, 1999.

"As a medical advisor, who has appeared regularly before the PAB for 10 years, it would be my opinion that she has already made her case

The file containing this memo was obtained under the Access to Information and Privacy Act. It should also be noted that numerous letters had been sent to and received from the Minister's office concerning this matter and the response that Dr. MacDonald gave was in response to an inquiry from the Ministerial Inquiries Unit. So it appears that the Ministry ignored the advice of its own senior medical advisor and continue to deny GV her benefits!

June 14, 2002 In its decision, the Review Tribunal stated:

"..when a person believes that a Tribunal has made an incorrect decision, it is not appropriate simply to file a new application. Rather, the person should gather new facts, usually of a medical nature which s/he believes would compel a different decision, and then make application under Subsection 84(2) for a rescission or an amendment of the original decision.

All along the way, adjudicators are proceeding from the assumption that the first analysis of the case is thorough and correct. The fact is, that thorough does not include appropriate explanations for findings in direct opposition to the medical advice being followed. Correct does not include interpretations of the Act that are in direct opposition to direction from a Federal Court of Appeal.

Each level of this costly, protracted, appeal, continues to place the onus of submitting more proof of the same order that has already been disingenuously misrepresented back squarely upon the sick and suffering and disabled Appellant. Could this conduct indicate another taxpayer rip-off, paying some fiend to lie, act above the law, collude to increase the purse of special interest legal and medical groups, and add insult to injury by treating a sick, suffering, disabled person in such a cruel and unusual way? May be if a pattern can be shown.

Return to CIRF HomePage