# Military, Veterans Affairs won’t pay for Air Force officer’s prosthetic leg



## Jarnhamar (12 Dec 2018)

*Military, Veterans Affairs won’t pay for Air Force officer’s prosthetic leg, leaving her with $34,000 bill* 

The Canadian Armed Forces says Capt. Kimberly Fawcett was on duty during an accident in which her son died and she lost her leg, but as Mercedes Stephenson reports, the government is refusing to pay for Fawcett's prosthetic limb


https://globalnews.ca/news/4753763/kimberly-fawcett-prosthetic-leg/?fbclid=IwAR0GsaLJcjG1lGsiPDY6zvkl82MtwOlPx0Uq3Aq4vbyPbgesYHzo3e7sjAk


----------



## Rocky Mountains (12 Dec 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> *Military, Veterans Affairs won’t pay for Air Force officer’s prosthetic leg, leaving her with $34,000 bill*
> 
> The Canadian Armed Forces says Capt. Kimberly Fawcett was on duty during an accident in which her son died and she lost her leg, but as Mercedes Stephenson reports, the government is refusing to pay for Fawcett's prosthetic limb



Isn't this a civil matter?  The truck that hit her must have had insurance.  Did she sue and recover from the truck driver's insurance?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (12 Dec 2018)

What an absolutely horrible story to read, in more ways than one.

My opinion;  please, GoC, CAF, VAC...someone pay for this Officers prosthetic leg.  If I had the money to spare, I'd do it myself.


----------



## AbdullahD (12 Dec 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> What an absolutely horrible story to read, in more ways than one.
> 
> My opinion;  please, GoC, CAF, VAC...someone pay for this Officers prosthetic leg.  *If I had the money to spare, I'd do it myself.
> *




I would help you.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (12 Dec 2018)

Hmmm.....much as I sympathize I don't see where her personal insurance shouldn't cover this.  Lots of working folks take thier kids to a babysitter if work calls.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (12 Dec 2018)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Hmmm.....much as I sympathize I don't see where her personal insurance shouldn't cover this.  Lots of working folks take thier kids to a babysitter if work calls.



The difference is the CAF policy on injury while on duty, duty status if recalled by your CO.

Would the member have been in the location of the accident, at the time of the accident, if not recalled?  Probably not.


----------



## Cloud Cover (12 Dec 2018)

There was a court decision on this matter where she was successful but then she lost on appeal by the military: https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/301640/index.do?r=AAAAAQAHZmF3Y2V0dAE

The legal costs on this matter are, by far, more than it will ever cost to provide this brave woman what she needs. By that i mean that even thought the court did not assign costs to any party, they spent more time and money fighting her than helping. 

This right here is the crux: 
[43]       The CDS did not err by concluding that Captain Fawcett sought and received permission to be _away from duty for family reasons_, whereas the _FCP only governs absences from family for duty reasons._


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (12 Dec 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> The difference is the CAF policy on injury while on duty, duty status if recalled by your CO.
> 
> Would the member have been in the location of the accident, at the time of the accident, if not recalled?  Probably not.



 Again,  so would lots of people in recallable jobs. 
 I'm not downplaying the agony  of losing your Son and the personal injury, but with all due respect,  would the Govt be on the hook for all of its employees taking thier kids to day care ??


----------



## Blackadder1916 (12 Dec 2018)

I will probably be vilified for this, but as having been, in a former life, one of the bean counters that paid the bills for things like this, there are probably a few details missing from the story.  In the twelve and a half years (Feb. 21, 2006 - date given in article) since the horrific accident that changed Captain Fawcett's life forever it is likely (certainly, if I hazard a guess) that she has been fitted and received (at government expense) with at least one prosthetic limb and more than likely one or two subsequent replacements/upgrades.  As a serving Regular Force member (and thus covered for medical care by the CF) it would not have mattered what her duty status was at the time of the accident, she would have received the medical services needed (including prosthetics).  The same coverage and provision of services would also apply as she continued her career.  Duty status and whether the injury was "due to military service" is really only a factor in care received from Veterans Affairs.

While Capt Fawcett may be eligible to have the cost of her prosthetic covered by the CF, it is not an open chequebook, there are some limitations as indicated in the Spectrum of Care.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/caf-community-health-services-benefits-drug-coverage/supplemental-health-care-coverage.page#prosthesis-implants


> Prosthesis and Implants: (see Dental Section for dental implants),
> 1.  breast prostheses following mastectomy, and replacement, but not within 24 months of the last purchase for the same side;
> 2.  temporary artificial limbs; and
> 3.  permanent artificial limbs and replacement thereof, but not within:
> ...



So the missing information in the story is "when did the government last pay for a leg".


----------



## PMedMoe (12 Dec 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> The difference is the CAF policy on injury while on duty, duty status if recalled by your CO.
> 
> Would the member have been in the location of the accident, at the time of the accident, if not recalled?  Probably not.



She hadn't been recalled.  Her unit was next in line for activation.  She was preparing for the fact that she _might_ be recalled.

Do I think her prosthetic leg should be paid for?  Yes.  However, I don't agree that she was on duty at the time of the accident.


----------



## Navy_Pete (12 Dec 2018)

This is ridiculous.  They have fought for ten years, gone through a number of investigations, and gone to court and appealed this, for $39k?

The bean counters may want to include the cost of personnel spent on this; sure it's probably north of seven figures by now.  Also, if she deployed with it, it's the same as providing prescription glasses needed to do the job, so why are we spending so much time and effort on being complete dicks?


----------



## garb811 (12 Dec 2018)

For reference, an almost verbatim article from June:  She lost her child and her leg in a horrific car crash. Now, an air force officer is fighting her military bosses

At the heart of this is the complete and utter failure to fully understand what is considered "on duty" and "off duty" across the CAF as a whole.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (12 Dec 2018)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> She hadn't been recalled.  Her unit was next in line for activation.  She was preparing for the fact that she _might_ be recalled.
> 
> Do I think her prosthetic leg should be paid for?  Yes.  However, I don't agree that she was on duty at the time of the accident.



I am only able to go off the info in the story, but:



> On the morning of Feb. 21, 2006, it looked like a double deployment could be in the works. Fawcett’s husband Curtis was called to the base for workup training to deploy to Africa and her unit was next in line for activation.
> 
> Fawcett executed the Family Care Plan with the approval of her commanding officer, donning her uniform and putting her son in the car to drop him at his grandparents’ house.
> 
> ...



Some important details are absent...but assuming the CO was aware and recalled the member, would not QR & 0, Vol 1, Ch 16, Art 16.01(2) and 16.01 (3) apply?

16.01 - WITHHOLDING OF AND RECALL FROM LEAVE

(1) Leave may be withheld from an officer or non-commissioned member only when there is a military requirement to do so.

(2) An officer or non-commissioned member on leave may be recalled to duty only:
a.because of imperative military requirements; and
b.when the member's commanding officer personally directs the member's return to duty.

(3) An officer or non-commissioned member recalled to duty under paragraph (2) ceases to be on leave and is on duty during the period of the journey from the place from which he is recalled to his place of duty and during the period of the return journey if he resumes leave immediately after completion of the duty for which he was recalled.

* the story makes it sound like it wasn't her CO at the time of the accident, but one later on in her career, that decided against the recommendations of the SI.


----------



## Cloud Cover (12 Dec 2018)

According to the court decision, she had a conversation with her CO. They agreed that she should find alternate care for the child and she acted on that, even if she wasn't ordered or activated, something was afoot that was reasonably foreseeable to both of them.  This was the conclusion of General Semianiw. It was the decision of the advisors to the CDS that prompted the denial of documentation required by VAC to assist her. Unlike other public service pension acts, the plan that applies to Canadian Forces members is not to be construed as liberally when evaluating workplace accidents or work related injuries and more deference is given to the decisions of the CDS than is given to other institutions. 

The CDS decision makes her decision to "ready up" look like an irrational or rash decision, which it probably was not. 

16.01 did not appear anywhere in the considerations that are online.


----------



## PMedMoe (12 Dec 2018)

EITS, military members are required to have a FCP regardless of deployment status.  See here (note the word "mandatory").

You don't "execute" a FCP but you must have one.

DAOD 5004-1, see para 5.


----------



## JesseWZ (12 Dec 2018)

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> According to the court decision, she had a conversation with her CO. They agreed that she should find alternate care for the child and she acted on that, even if she wasn't ordered or activated, something was afoot that was reasonably foreseeable to both of them...
> The CDS decision makes her decision to "ready up" look like an irrational or rash decision, which it probably was not.
> 
> 16.01 did not appear anywhere in the considerations that are online.



I've been in situations where I've rightly anticipated a call out and made preparations so that the call out was smooth and I was available with minimal energy and wasted time on the part of the chain of command. 
It's incredibly disappointing that her decision made with full intention to support the CAF and give her CoC the flexibility needed to make sound and timely decisions should things truly be afoot come back to punish her this harshly. It's also a stark reminder to the rest of us... Is our collective operational efficiency worth this? 

I guess she was asking for more than the government could give right now. 

_Edited as I have more thoughts on this..._

The collective "we" of the CAF often ask our members to do a lot of what could properly be characterized as "work" or "activities to support work" outside of regular duty hours or ones regular work week. I can foresee this decision causing some to start "nickel and diming" their time to make sure its properly accounted for and characterized and maybe that's what we need. 

As Garb puts it:



			
				garb811 said:
			
		

> At the heart of this is the complete and utter failure to fully understand what is considered "on duty" and "off duty" across the CAF as a whole.



At what point does the CAF responsibility to its members stop? If I'm mandated to have a family care plan per the DAODs, would it not be for the purposes of executing that plan when the time arose? It seems like the collective "we" are punishing a member for following the DAODs and having the foresight expected of an officer to make sound and timely decisions when the balloon goes up. What a shite decision.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (12 Dec 2018)

As some mention the court decision in their posts it may be worthwhile to see what it actually says.

https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/301640/index.do?r=AAAAAQAHRmF3Y2V0dAE



> JUDGMENT AND REASONS
> 
> [1]           On February 21, 2006, Captain Kimberly Fawcett, a member of the Canadian Forces [CF] was involved in a tragic motor vehicle accident while taking her son to daycare on the way to work. The accident resulted in the death of her son and Captain Fawcett losing her right leg above the knee. She seeks judicial review of the November 7, 2016 decision of the Chief of Defence Staff [CDS] concluding that she was not on duty at the time of the accident and that the injuries sustained were not attributable to military service. Captain Fawcett argues that because she and her husband were serving in high readiness units, and because she was taking her son to daycare pursuant to a CF Family Care Plan [FCP], she was on duty and acting pursuant to a CF order at the time of the accident.
> 
> [2]           For the reasons that follow, I conclude that Captain Fawcett’s unique circumstances were reasonably considered by the CDS but were not found to support her argument that she was engaged in military service at the time of the accident. Considering the deference owed to the CDS decision, this is a reasonable conclusion and therefore this judicial review is dismissed. I decline to award costs.



And the initial (2012) Federal Court decision
https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/61231/index.do?r=AAAAAQAHRmF3Y2V0dAE

And the Redress of Grievance decision
https://www.canada.ca/en/military-grievances-external-review/services/case-summaries/case-2014-093.html


----------



## Cloud Cover (12 Dec 2018)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> As some mention the court decision in their posts it may be worthwhile to see what it actually says.
> 
> https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/301640/index.do?r=AAAAAQAHRmF3Y2V0dAE
> 
> ...


In my comment above where I quoted and referenced the CDS, it would appear that what advisors to the CDS* consider as a reasonable decision was not what Fawcet and her CO thought was reasonable, and the 2 star general who reviewed the matter supported her.  That should have been the end of it, but no, of course not. 


* ( we all know he signs off but does not write these reports)


----------



## Rifleman62 (12 Dec 2018)

Morally?


----------



## Cloud Cover (12 Dec 2018)

It’s the Canadian Forces. The people are decent, the institution not so much.


----------



## Navy_Pete (12 Dec 2018)

Saddens me that it got this far.  This will be all over a bunch of peoples BBs right now, and odds are good someone will just say this is crap, and sort this out.

She had something awful happen in her life, fought her way back to FULLY DEPLOYABLE after being critically injured, and went into theatre with a prosthetic (that they seem to be refusing to pay for).  This is the kind of story that should be in the news as an example of the CAF supporting it's people and not because some arseclown didn't like a line item charge.

This is a complete loss; brutal treatment of a CAF member, yet another PR disaster, and also completely financially irresponsible. The staff work to reject the SI finding alone must have cost more than the prosthetic, let alone all the follow on. Mind is just blown here.

This should be some kind of case study in what not to do in staff college. And the big giant heads wonder why there is cynical laughter at the talking points of 'people are the top priority'.


----------



## Cloud Cover (12 Dec 2018)

Just so we’re all in common agreement, the CF paid for everything while she was in rehab and still in the mob. This is a pension benefit issue that arose under the circumstances of her release from the military. Just because she retired or released doesn’t mean the need for new prosthetics, adjustments, upkeep and spares goes away.


----------



## PMedMoe (12 Dec 2018)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> So the missing information in the story is "when did the government last pay for a leg".



I'm also curious as to whether a special or different prosthetic is required for her various athletic activities.


----------



## ontheedge (13 Dec 2018)

Wow I’m amazed she did all the legal work herself and self represented.


----------



## Jarnhamar (13 Dec 2018)

The CAF couldn't meet the government's direction to deploy X % of female members to the force in Mali.

Does a story like this paint the CAF like a good employer and make women want to join?  Doubt it. 

If we want to debate counting bullets and beans we should take a look at the money we waste every March.


----------



## PMedMoe (13 Dec 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> The CAF couldn't meet the government's direction to deploy X % of female members to the force in Mali.
> 
> Does a story like this paint the CAF like a good employer and make women want to join?  Doubt it.
> 
> If we want to debate counting bullets and beans we should take a look at the money we waste every March.



As stated by Cloud Cover, the CF did cover her costs while she was still in.  Now we're talking about VAC but yes, the optics don't look good either way.


----------



## dapaterson (13 Dec 2018)

ontheedge said:
			
		

> Wow I’m amazed she did all the legal work herself and self represented.



I have seen nothing stating that she is self represented and did all the legal work herself.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (13 Dec 2018)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> EITS, military members are required to have a FCP regardless of deployment status.  See here (note the word "mandatory").
> 
> You don't "execute" a FCP but you must have one.
> 
> DAOD 5004-1, see para 5.



I think we're debating different aspects, actually.  I was more looking at the 'was she on duty' at the time.  Going only off the story info, I thought "it seems so".

However, BlackAdder's post with the links to the court decision and the grievance add some clarity.  As a mbr who has dealt with a grievance that went to the Military Grievances External Review Committee, I trust that their analysis was very thorough and unbiased.  From the grievance committee F & R (Findings and Recommendations):



> The Committee had to determine whether the grievor was on duty at the time of her motor vehicle accident and whether her injuries were attributable to military service.
> 
> The Committee acknowledged that the grievor and her service spouse were serving in high readiness units and had chosen to use their FCPs not only to prepare for unexpected duty absences, but also to address normal daily childcare requirements. The Committee noted that it was open to the grievor to design and use her FCP in the manner best fitting her needs, and that this was her personal choice. The Committee explained that the grievor's claim to have been on duty relied not on how she designed and used her FCP but on whether she was ordered by military authorities to use it on the day of her accident. In this regard the Committee noted that there was no evidence to suggest that she was ever ordered to activate her FCP.



Thanks, BlackAdder, for finding and providing the links.


----------



## Rifleman62 (13 Dec 2018)

Trend - Equitas lawsuit appeal denied by Supreme Court, the PM's comment in Edm, etc.

It would be interesting to see what would happen if a Cabinet Minister or an MP had an similar accident on their way to "work".


----------



## PMedMoe (13 Dec 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I think we're debating different aspects, actually.  I was more looking at the 'was she on duty' at the time.  Going only off the story info, I thought "it seems so".



Actually, we were debating the same thing.  She wasn't on duty. She may have been in a high readiness unit that was next to go, but she wasn't deployed nor had she been recalled from leave.  She was taking her child to daycare. The article was, of course, biased in her favour.



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> However, BlackAdder's post with the links to the court decision and the grievance add some clarity.  As a mbr who has dealt with a grievance that went to the Military Grievances External Review Committee, I trust that their analysis was very thorough and unbiased.  From the grievance committee F & R (Findings and Recommendations):
> 
> Thanks, BlackAdder, for finding and proving the links.



Yes, thanks.


----------



## Jarnhamar (13 Dec 2018)

So she actually wasn't on duty at the time of the accident as the article states?



> The Canadian Armed Forces says Capt. Kimberly Fawcett was on duty during an accident in which her son died and she lost her leg, but as Mercedes Stephenson reports, the government is refusing to pay for Fawcett's prosthetic limb


----------



## Eye In The Sky (13 Dec 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> So she actually wasn't on duty at the time of the accident as the article states?



Not according to Finding and Recommendations detailed in the Case Summary.  Have a read of the Grievance Committee's F & R / Case Summary.  It has some key details.

https://army.ca/forums/threads/129529/post-1556304.html#msg1556304

Additionally, although the article says:



> That position was directly disputed in a review by one of Canada’s top generals at the time, Major General Walter Semianiw who was the Chief of Military Personnel. In a review Major General Semianiw determining Fawcett was on duty and following military orders at the time of her accident, concluding “The execution of the Family Care Plan, is in fact, a military order.”



The Grievance case summary states:



> The Initial Authority, the Chief of Military Personnel, denied the grievance, finding that the grievor's request to report to work late on that day was a routine circumstance which did not require invoking her FCP.



 :dunno:


----------



## Jarnhamar (13 Dec 2018)

Thanks.

I wonder if the CAF/VAC ultimately feels like it was worth the 10 year battle and subsequent PR that comes with the story.


----------



## Remius (13 Dec 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Thanks.
> 
> I wonder if the CAF/VAC ultimately feels like it was worth the 10 year battle and subsequent PR that comes with the story.



If it avoids a precedent then I suppose so.


----------



## PMedMoe (13 Dec 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> So she actually wasn't on duty at the time of the accident as the article states?



And as escort to bereaved families, she also didn't serve "during the height of the Afghanistan war in Kandahar" either.



			
				Remius said:
			
		

> If it avoids a precedent then I suppose so.



This is my thought too.  I can see it now, someone will get in an accident going to get Kiwi polish and state they were on duty because it's a military order to have their boots polished.

I see now there's an update to the article.  Looks like she'll get some help.



> Late on Dec. 12, officials from the Canadian Armed Forces told Global News they are willing to immediately sit down with Captain Kimberly Fawcett and examine any outstanding costs for her prosthetic. Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan also says he is looking into the file and the military adds Fawcett is receiving support through multiple military programs. Also, since Global News posted Fawcett’s story, a veteran’s charity has stepped up and is offering to pay some of her bills to alleviate the financial strain.


----------



## Jarnhamar (13 Dec 2018)

Remius said:
			
		

> If it avoids a precedent then I suppose so.


Plus it might help people forget about the whole VAC paying for that police murderers medical/rehab bills. 


[quote author=PMedMoe] 

This is my thought too.  I can see it now, someone will get in an accident going to get Kiwi polish and state they were on duty because it's a military order to have their boots polished.[/QUOTE] 

What if they were on their way to work and deviated from the quickest route to work in order to get some kiwi polish and got in an accident? 

I'm fine with being wrong but a $30'000 leg hardly seems worth while battle for the CAF, monitairily, resource wise or morally. 



> I see now there's an update to the article.  Looks like she'll get some help.



I expected as much (and glad to hear).


----------



## PMedMoe (13 Dec 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> What if they were on their way to work and deviated from the quickest route to work in order to get some kiwi polish and got in an accident?



I think that unless you've be recalled from leave (or something similar), you're not on duty when you're driving to work.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (13 Dec 2018)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> I think that unless you've be recalled from leave (or something similar), you're not on duty when you're driving to work.



Recalled while on standby/duty, AFAIK, also falls under the "on duty" side from the moment you get the call.  I'd have to find the ref, but this was a topic once at the unit because there are "Ready" air and ground crews at home after Sqn Duty normal duty hours, 24/7/365.


----------



## PMedMoe (13 Dec 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Recalled while on standby/duty, AFAIK, also falls under the "on duty" side from the moment you get the call.



And that would fall into the "something similar".   

But just driving to work on a regular work day?  Not "on duty".



			
				garb811 said:
			
		

> For reference, an almost verbatim article from June:  She lost her child and her leg in a horrific car crash. Now, an air force officer is fighting her military bosses



Idle curiosity made me look this up.  The National Post is owned by CanWest Global Communications Corp, who also owns Global News.  So, not terribly shocking.


----------



## Rifleman62 (13 Dec 2018)

Global News is the news and current affairs division of the Global Television Network in Canada, itself owned by Corus Entertainment which was formed in 1999 as a spin-off from Shaw Communications.


----------



## TCM621 (13 Dec 2018)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Idle curiosity made me look this up.  The National Post is owned by CanWest Global Communications Corp, who also owns Global News.  So, not terribly shocking.



The National Post is owned by Postmedia Network which owns the publications listed in the link below:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmedia_Network

Global was sold to Shaw circa 2010.


----------



## garb811 (13 Dec 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> I'm fine with being wrong but a $30'000 leg hardly seems worth while battle for the CAF, monitairily, resource wise or morally.
> 
> ...


Well, as mentioned previously, there is a danger of precedent here.

If she was deemed to be on duty while driving her kid across town, what about if she had been driving to Ottawa for the same purpose? What about a single parent who has to fly to another city to get their child to a grandparent?  

If executing your FCP is now a military duty, then by extension it is the same as any other on duty travel.  Are you now entitled to mileage? Plane tickets? Meals and accommodation?

Or is the reality simply that the FCP is an administrative tool we use to ensure our members actually give the problem some thought in order to have a plan in place with the actual execution of that plan being a parental responsibility, just like any other parent?


----------



## PMedMoe (13 Dec 2018)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> The National Post is owned by Postmedia Network which owns the publications listed in the link below:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmedia_Network
> 
> Global was sold to Shaw circa 2010.



I stand corrected.  I still wouldn't be surprised if there were some collaborating between companies.



			
				garb811 said:
			
		

> Or is the reality simply that the FCP is an administrative tool we use to ensure our members actually give the problem some thought in order to have a plan in place with the actual execution of that plan being a parental responsibility, just like any other parent?



^This^


----------



## Eye In The Sky (13 Dec 2018)

garb811 said:
			
		

> If executing your FCP is now a military duty, then by extension it is the same as any other on duty travel.  Are you now entitled to mileage? Plane tickets? Meals and accommodation?



In some cases, it could and would be.   And you'd be entitled to some expenses...


----------



## JesseWZ (13 Dec 2018)

garb811 said:
			
		

> Or is the reality simply that the FCP is an administrative tool order we use to ensure our members actually give the problem some thought in order to have a plan in place with the actual execution of that plan being a parental responsibility, just like any other parent?



I fixed that for you. 

While taking the argument to it's extremes with the Kiwi polish, the line between duty and not duty seems to be more and more blurry. 
On one hand, units are *supposed* to publish regular working hours. On the other, what happens if a member makes the decision to work late in order to catch up on work? 
Are they still "on duty"? What happens if they're asked to work late by their immediate supervisor? Does this amendment to the regular working hours put them on duty? What happens to personnel where there is a cultural expectation to monitor their blackberry and respond to emails and phone calls outside of the units regularly published working hours? Are they on duty while typing those emails? 

I have a personal stake in this decision (as I feel all serving members do) as I work a considerable amount of time outside of regular published business hours depending on the speed flow and direction of an investigation. There is a cultural expectation crystalized in our SOPs that while I'm on duty (or on call to avoid blurring the meaning of the word further) that I be sober, reachable by Blackberry and able to get to work quickly to assume an investigation. These "on call periods" take up roughly one out of every two weeks.

Once you throw in the wrinkle that regular force members and certain classes of reservist are subject to the Code of Service Discipline 24 and 7 and all applicable orders and directions even when on leave - it implies they at the least have a "duty" to follow those orders and directions. When actively following those orders and directions, are they not on duty? I feel like the argument is similar to the CAF having their cake and eating it too. They can control all aspects of the members life even when not "on duty" - but when those shitty life things happen, they'll disavow responsibility to the member.


----------



## PMedMoe (13 Dec 2018)

FCP notwithstanding, I still don't think someone taking their child to daycare is on duty _unless_ they were recalled into their unit for deployment (or for some other military requirement) and dropping their child off was for the purpose of being able to perform their military duty.

Another thing that arose from this incident (besides the on/off duty argument) was whether or not her injuries were attributable to military service.  From the court decision of Nov 2017:



> The CDS acknowledged that there are two concepts within this definition, namely: “directly connected with military service” and “arose out of military service.” In both instances he concluded *that the meaning cannot be stretched to capture the concept of parental responsibilities equating military service*.



Edit to add:  In one of the court transcripts, it was said that her husband normally dropped their child off but he had been recalled to his unit for deployment training.  If he had been dropping the child off and the same accident occurred to him, then in that scenario he would have been considered on duty because he was subject to a unit recall.  In her case, she was not.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (13 Dec 2018)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I'm fine with being wrong but a $30'000 leg hardly seems worth while battle for the CAF, monitairily, resource wise or morally.



If you actually read the Federal Court decisions and the grievance summary you may note that there is no mention anywhere in any of those documents of "prosthetic leg costs" or "Spectrum of Care" or anything else about being reimbursed for expenses related to her accident.  So, the 10 year battle has nothing to do about what is, in essence, a relatively minor cost.  "Relatively minor" in the grand scale of things from a military medical viewpoint (obviously a major chunk of change for Capt Fawcett) but also not a surprizing amount considering the research and technology that has gone into prosthetics in recent years (one of the follow-on benefits from war, but one that the beneficiaries probably wish could have been avoided).  The sole thing that Capt Fawcett sought was to have the injuries resulting from her accident be declared as having occurred on duty and attributable to military service.  It really does not make any difference (or should not) to have such a ruling as long as she remained in the CF.  Her medical costs, subject to the limitations I mentioned in a previous post, would (or should) have been covered.  The importance of having the injuries attributable to military service comes into play only when making a claim to VAC.  While there is the obvious financial benefit of a Disability Award, once she retires from the CF she will continue to have costs associated with maintaining and/or replacing her prosthesis.  While some of those costs can be covered by provincial health insurance and PSHCP (which uses the exact same wording a the CF Spectrum of Care to define the benefit, though they have that nasty 80% clause), it would be beneficial to have the government being responsible for those costs as one ages (and the costs get significantly greater).

From the 2012 Federal Court decision.


> [6]               The applicant applied to the Department of Veterans Affairs for disability benefits in June 2006, and that application was denied on October 6, 2006.  The applicant received a copy of the Summary Investigation into her accident which was accompanied by a cover letter from Commander CFJSG, Colonel C.C. Thurrott (Commander Thurrott).  The Summary Investigation found that the applicant was on duty at the time of the accident but Commander Thurrott disagreed with that finding.  The applicant states that she chose not to pursue this matter further at the time, but rather to focus on her rehabilitation.
> 
> [7]               After learning from a colleague, and from her Pension Advocate, that significant weight is placed on the Summary Investigation in determining duty status, the applicant decided to file a grievance regarding the Summary Investigation.  The applicant submitted her grievance on June 2, 2009.


----------



## Jarnhamar (13 Dec 2018)

Thanks Blackadder you're right.


----------



## SupersonicMax (13 Dec 2018)

Typical case of “doing things right” (process driven) vs “doing the right thing” (effect/morality driven).

In its typical fashion, the Government does things right and only incidently the right thing (when both happen to be the same).


----------



## Cloud Cover (18 Dec 2018)

garb811 said:
			
		

> If executing your FCP is now a military duty, then by extension it is the same as any other on duty travel.  Are you now entitled to mileage? Plane tickets? Meals and accommodation?
> 
> Or is the reality simply that the FCP is an administrative tool we use to ensure our members actually give the problem some thought in order to have a plan in place with the actual execution of that plan being a parental responsibility, just like any other parent?



I have to say it again . She had a communication with her superior. There was a meeting if the minds. Not everything has to be an order in a case like this. She lost her blood and soul for the mob - I can think of two others on these forums who gave all (not their life but their children, and that IS everything)  so this country can be served, somehow. 
She lost her leg.She  rucked up and held it together. You better believe that for GOFO and PS equivalent, who have the opportunity to be covered for something like this, they would be. The Federal court judge even wrote “narrowly construed” for CF members vice “broad and liberal” for PS Pension Act.  I’d trade in a company strength worth of Ottawa’s generals pensions  just to make this persons life one minute better.


----------



## kratz (24 Apr 2019)

CBC.ca

She lost her court challenge today.



> Capt. Kimberly Fawcett has been embroiled in a prolonged battle with the Canadian Armed Forces, which denied her compensation and reimbursement for a prosthetic limb. The CAF determined she was not on duty at the time of the accident and that her injuries were not attributable to her military service.
> 
> A series of grievances, internal reviews and legal actions led up to this week's Federal Court of Appeal ruling that sided with the CAF and the Attorney General of Canada.



More at the link above.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (24 Apr 2019)

The FCA decision.

https://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/fca-caf/decisions/en/item/400337/index.do


----------



## Navy_Pete (24 Apr 2019)

Glad that the MND and other Liberal MPs that pledged to sit down with her and sort it out kept the court case running.

Yes, this is a complicated case, but aside from the direct costs of the 10 year legal saga and all the previous staff work, do the big giant heads not think the PR form this will be really bad for their push to get women in uniform?  They'll happily throw millions for commercials for that though.  Way to be pennywise, pound foolish.  :not-again: Way to turn a potentially good news story into a giant kick in the crotch.  All over what, a limited VAC settlement, and ongoing physio and similar support? 

Even if there is no legal requirement, they could have settled it out of court, called it a 'special circumstance' and sorted it out for her.  Every admin case is decided on a 'case by case' basis, so this seems like such a massive waste of time and money to avoid a non-issue. Brutal.


----------



## MJP (24 Apr 2019)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Glad that the MND and other Liberal MPs that pledged to sit down with her and sort it out kept the court case running.
> 
> Yes, this is a complicated case, but aside from the direct costs of the 10 year legal saga and all the previous staff work, do the big giant heads not think the PR form this will be really bad for their push to get women in uniform?  They'll happily throw millions for commercials for that though.  Way to be pennywise, pound foolish.  :not-again: Way to turn a potentially good news story into a giant kick in the crotch.  All over what, a limited VAC settlement, and ongoing physio and similar support?
> 
> Even if there is no legal requirement, they could have settled it out of court, called it a 'special circumstance' and sorted it out for her.  Every admin case is decided on a 'case by case' basis, so this seems like such a massive waste of time and money to avoid a non-issue. Brutal.



I wonder if the government took the stand they did to prevent "slippery slope" precedent. 

FWIW I don't think her case had a leg to stand on, it is pretty clear to me that was a separation of on/off duty.  We aren't special because we have to go to or from work, like every other Canadian.


----------



## RCDtpr (24 Apr 2019)

The CAF likely spent more fighting it than the prosthetic would have cost.  While I agree she wasn’t on duty and therefore isn’t necessarily entitled to it.......on top of the legal fees the government accrued, what would the monetary cost of the terrible PR be?  Likely pretty high.

Pretty sad


----------



## Navy_Pete (24 Apr 2019)

Precedents are for court cases; every admin issue is looked at in a case-by-case basis. There isn't a big CAF database of admin decisions you can reference when working on something, so aside from your personal experience from previous things you've worked on, you go with what happened and the set of policies and rules in place at the time. Also, this is an incredibly specific and unique circumstance, so odds of a reoccurence are pretty astronomical.

This has a bunch of direct staff and lawyer costs to DND, even more indirect costs, really bad PR, and the pension wouldn't even be a DND line item!  Don't need to be a bean counter to see the really poor cost-benefit here.


----------



## OceanBonfire (1 May 2019)

> *'I am prepared to fight': After losing bid for compensation, air force captain takes on Bill Blair*
> 
> Capt. Kimberly Fawcett lost a legal bid for disability benefits following accident that killed her infant son
> 
> ...



https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/kimberly-fawcett-bill-blair-air-force-disability-compensation-1.5117176


----------



## TCM621 (1 May 2019)

ExRCDcpl said:
			
		

> The CAF likely spent more fighting it than the prosthetic would have cost.  While I agree she wasn’t on duty and therefore isn’t necessarily entitled to it.......on top of the legal fees the government accrued, what would the monetary cost of the terrible PR be?  Likely pretty high.
> 
> Pretty sad



 The government doesn't care about cost. I have seen way too many decisions where the more expensive route was taken because the book didn't say you could do it the cheaper way. They also can't bend to PR just because. I feel for the Capt and I would gladly donate to a go fund me for a new running blade but you have to draw the line somewhere and actually working is a good line. 

DAOD 5044-1 actually states :



> 5.9 While an FCP is the responsibility of the member and is not approved by the unit, the member may seek the advice of unit authorities on the preparation of the FCP and the completion of the form, Family Care Plan Declaration. The form submitted by the member may be reviewed by unit authorities for completeness only.



It is pretty cut and dried. In addition, she isn't hobbling along on a peg leg, she has a prosthetic and wants VAC to pay for a running blade. The press on this seems to be ignoring that fact, either deliberately or otherwise.


----------



## Navy_Pete (1 May 2019)

On the flip side, the CAF deployed her with a prosthetic, and requires all members to be physically fit. Does it not make sense if you are going to continue to employ someone for a decade, you would pay for something to let them participate in a common PT activity like running if they are able to?  :dunno:

And they do stuff for PR that costs far more time and money all the time, so why not pony up and tie it with their running news stories about supporting injured members and all the other things they've been selling over the last few years. This directly undermines all of that effort, so once again, the Big Giant Heads come across as words, not deeds (which would be a pretty funny April fools prank to set up as a upper level command slogan).


----------



## TCM621 (2 May 2019)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> On the flip side, the CAF deployed her with a prosthetic, and requires all members to be physically fit. Does it not make sense if you are going to continue to employ someone for a decade, you would pay for something to let them participate in a common PT activity like running if they are able to?  :dunno:
> 
> And they do stuff for PR that costs far more time and money all the time, so why not pony up and tie it with their running news stories about supporting injured members and all the other things they've been selling over the last few years. This directly undermines all of that effort, so once again, the Big Giant Heads come across as words, not deeds (which would be a pretty funny April fools prank to set up as a upper level command slogan).



My understanding is DND did pay while she was in uniform. The issue is now with VAC who are not all that concerned with PR apparently.


----------



## Cloud Cover (2 May 2019)

She didn't just lose her leg. Her infant child was killed on the side of the highway in an accident that occurred after she made arrangements to be ready to activate the FCP, in accordance with a conversation she had with her superior just minutes before. She lost a limb and a life, recovered, and continued to serve in an inspiring and meaningful way. Those are facts that make this whole issue unconscionable, stupid and comparatively petty, regardless of the type of prosthetic or reason why she wants it.


----------



## TCM621 (3 May 2019)

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> She didn't just lose her leg. Her infant child was killed on the side of the highway in an accident that occurred after she made arrangements to be ready to activate the FCP, in accordance with a conversation she had with her superior just minutes before. She lost a limb and a life, recovered, and continued to serve in an inspiring and meaningful way. Those are facts that make this whole issue unconscionable, stupid and comparatively petty, regardless of the type of prosthetic or reason why she wants it.



The fact that her child died is horrible and nothing will ever make up for it. However, it has no bearing on the situation. The FCP isn't something you activate it is merely an administrative tool to ensure members have a plan. To see how there is no liability from the forces, turn it around. If she had been at fault and the other driver injured, would the CAF  have been liable? No because she was taking her kids to daycare not working. 

Here are the relevant facts:

Was driving her children to daycare because husband, who normally does it, had to prep for deployment. 
Calls her boss and says she is "activating her FCP", (Boss likely replied, "Uh....Ok?")
On the way to daycare, get in a terrible accident loses her leg.
Military pays for all her health care costs, including prostetics.
She retires, wants a new running blade, tries to get VAC to pay. VAC refuses because she was not on duty. 

Everything else is fluff and spin in order to gain sympathy and to get politicians to override VAC.


----------



## PMedMoe (3 May 2019)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> The fact that her child died is horrible and nothing will ever make up for it. However, it has no bearing on the situation. The FCP isn't something you activate it is merely an administrative tool to ensure members have a plan. To see how there is no liability from the forces, turn it around. If she had been at fault and the other driver injured, would the CAF  have been liable? No because she was taking her kids to daycare not working.
> 
> Here are the relevant facts:
> 
> ...



 :goodpost:


----------



## PuckChaser (3 May 2019)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> She retires, wants a new running blade, tries to get VAC to pay. VAC refuses because she was not on duty.
> 
> Everything else is fluff and spin in order to gain sympathy and to get politicians to override VAC.



Politicians write VACs rules. They're not some omnipotent organization above the will or Parliament.

She didn't like what the rules were, tried to get enough public pressure to have them changed. The current government doesn't care, so shes running for office to get it changed from the inside. Probably exactly what someone should do? At least she put her money where her mouth is and stepped up to run herself.


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 May 2019)

By 2014 Veterans Affairs returned over  $1,000,000,000 dollars that went unused.

2018-"Trudeau Liberals leave $372, 000,000 meant to help veterans unspent since taking office.


Veterans Affairs should have just bought her a new running leg.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (3 May 2019)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> *Everything else is fluff and spin in order to gain sympathy and to get politicians to override VAC*.



Agreed.  No amount of what-aboutism will change that


----------



## TCM621 (4 May 2019)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Politicians write VACs rules. They're not some omnipotent organization above the will or Parliament.
> 
> She didn't like what the rules were, tried to get enough public pressure to have them changed. The current government doesn't care, so shes running for office to get it changed from the inside. Probably exactly what someone should do? At least she put her money where her mouth is and stepped up to run herself.



That Is exactly what she should do and I wish her all the best. While I disagree with her argument here, hopefully she will be able to affect positive change at VAC, which clearly needs it.


----------



## TCM621 (4 May 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> By 2014 Veterans Affairs returned over  $1,000,000,000 dollars that went unused.
> 
> 2018-"Trudeau Liberals leave $372, 000,000 meant to help veterans unspent since taking office.
> 
> ...



Or... You know... Spend that money so we can pay out to people who have legitimate claims in a timely manner. We have entered a time where 1-2 years is a pretty normal waiting time. Based on the information, I'm getting from VAC it will be at least 16 months (probably closer to 20) until I get a decision on my latest application.

I hope she gets what she needs and if anyone has a link to a GoFundMe or something I would love to donate some cash to help but this is just one of those times when no matter how much it might suck, she just isn't entitled.


----------



## brihard (1 Jun 2021)

She won at VRAB. No ‘fluff and spin’, no political interference- but rather the administrative tribunal overseeing VAC looked at the totality of the circumstances and returned a legally sound decision that the events arose out of service requirements. Good on her. It shouldn’t be such a fight to look after our own.









						Soldier who lost her baby and a leg in horrific crash on duty wins 15-year battle with military
					

'The chain of events that occurred on the day of the accident,' the veteran’s board said in its ruling on Kimberly Fawcett's case, were directly due to…




					nationalpost.com


----------



## CBH99 (1 Jun 2021)

Jarnhamar said:


> By 2014 Veterans Affairs returned over  $1,000,000,000 dollars that went unused.
> 
> 2018-"Trudeau Liberals leave $372, 000,000 meant to help veterans unspent since taking office.
> 
> ...


While those numbers may be outdated, I doubt they have changed drastically since then.  

If they are returning to treasury $372M in 2018 alone because they are ‘unable to spend it’ - they absolutely could have just bought her a new leg.  I know VAC isn’t known for flexibility in paperwork, but sometimes some common sense & ‘get it done’ attitude would go a long way.

Her circumstances were horrible, I am glad she won.  Anybody remember that guy who had to prove he was still missing a leg, ever single year?  


If VAC is returning that much money because they are unable to spend it, could they not use a tiny fraction of it to streamline their processes?


----------



## daftandbarmy (1 Jun 2021)

brihard said:


> She won at VRAB. No ‘fluff and spin’, no political interference- but rather the administrative tribunal overseeing VAC looked at the totality of the circumstances and returned a legally sound decision that the events arose out of service requirements. Good on her. It shouldn’t be such a fight to look after our own.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And this is a great example of why good personal injury lawyers do so well


----------



## Maxman1 (1 Jun 2021)

The chain of events that occurred on the day of the accident,' the veteran’s board said in its ruling on Kimberly Fawcett's case, were directly due to military orders

Adrian Humphreys
June 1, 2021






For 15 years, Captain Kim Fawcett has battled with the Canadian Forces to pay for prosthetics she needed after a horrific car crash that also killed her son. PHOTO BY PETER J. THOMPSON/NATIONAL POST/FILE

Air Force Captain Kimberly Fawcett, who lost her leg and her only child in a horrific car crash while preparing for her deployment to Afghanistan, has won her long-running battle with the military over disability compensation.

After 15 years of Canadian Forces officers denying on-duty disability compensation for the 24-year service veteran — arguing her activation of the military’s pre-deployment childcare plan for her nine-month-old son in 2006 was not a part of military duty — the Veterans Review and Appeal Board Canada overruled it.

“The chain of events that occurred on the day of the accident,” the veteran’s board said in its ruling, were directly due to military orders and with her commanding officer’s approval, meaning the tragic outcome was “attributable to military service.”

The decision was greeted with relief and tears.

“This has been such a long, hard-fought ordeal,” said David Levangie, Fawcett’s lawyer through years of appeals and grievances.

“She should never have had to have this fight because this was an institution that her poor family basically devoted their lives to. I think she felt a bit betrayed by the institution, and I think she fought as long and hard as she did because, not only did she need the financial compensation, but she felt there really was an injustice here,” he said.

Fawcett said the way her case was treated by the Canadian Forces reflects an ingrained gender discrimination in the military being exposed by recent sexual misconduct allegations.

“This comes down to gender bias,” Fawcett said, and the military’s attitude of women’s place and role in the armed forces. “This is 100 per cent, pure unadulterated gender discrimination and gender bias.”





Captain Kimberly Fawcett Smith.
National Post detailed Fawcett’s tragic loss and determined fight in 2018.

Fawcett, now 57, was gearing up for her second deployment in Canada’s war in Afghanistan. Fawcett and her husband were both posted to Canadian Forces high-readiness units; military directives required the couple to map out a Family Care Plan so they would always be prepared for childcare in case of urgent deployment.

When her husband was ordered onto base to prepare for an imminent overseas mission and her unit was expected to follow shortly after, they activated their care plan, which was to take their son, Keiran, to her husband’s parents.

She phoned her commanding officer and received approval to trigger the care plan, dressed in her uniform, and set off to drop her son off before heading to Canadian Forces Base Kingston. It was Feb. 21, 2006. At the on-ramp onto Highway 401, her Jeep spun on ice and into the concrete median.

She took Keiran out of his car seat to carry him to a safer place but as she moved him, a truck slid by.

“I stepped down” she previously told the Post, “we were hit broadside right out of nowhere.”

Keiran was killed. Fawcett was badly injured, including her right leg being torn off.

Over time, she adapted to life as an above-knee amputee. She returned to work and completed a tour of duty in Afghanistan, the first female soldier to serve in a war zone with a prosthetic leg.

Through it all, she fought for full military benefits and disability benefits to cover her treatments and prosthetics.

As the veteran’s board noted, there was “diverging views within the Canadian Forces in respect to whether the Veteran was on duty at the time of the accident.”

Her on-duty compensation was at first approved by a major, then rescinded by a colonel and reinstated by a major general, who wrote: “The execution of the Family Care Plan is in fact, a military order. The Canadian Forces has a duty to uphold its commitment and support of military families.”

That didn’t end it. Her claim went to an internal grievance board, which denied it, saying she was not on duty at the time of the injury. Fawcett challenged the decision in the Federal Court, where a judge set the negative decision aside and ordered a fresh review.

That second review also dismissed Fawcett’s claim, writing: “There was no military imperative associated with your actions that would establish a nexus to a military order or duty.” The denial was also appealed to the Federal Court. This time, a judge accepted the military’s decision, in 2019.

She next took her issue to the Veterans Review and Appeal Board Canada, a government agency that is independent from the Canadian Forces and reports to parliament through the minister of veterans affairs.





Captain Kimberly Fawcett Smith and her son Keiran.
The board said the circumstances of Fawcett’s case were unique.

“On the day of the accident, given that the Veteran’s husband was required to attend first aid training to prepare for an imminent deployment, they needed to alter the regular plans for their child and therefore the (Family Care Plan) FCP needed to be implemented. The Veteran requested and obtained permission from her boss,” says the board’s decision, released Thursday.

“The Veteran should have been at her office at an intelligence briefing but due to the military requirement that her husband attend the first aid course, she was transporting their son to daycare.

“The Review Panel is satisfied that that there is an element of military control in the initiation of the FCP. She was in uniform and had her work belongings with her at the time.”

An on-duty injury increases the amount of pain and suffering compensation she is eligible for. Her compensation is retroactive only to April 2019, because of the rules of the board.

Fawcett was the Conservative candidate in the Toronto riding of Scarborough Southwest in the 2019 federal election, losing to Liberal cabinet minister Bill Blair.

Soldier who lost her baby and a leg in horrific crash on duty wins 15-year battle with military


----------



## TCM621 (1 Jun 2021)

brihard said:


> She won at VRAB. No ‘fluff and spin’, no political interference- but rather the administrative tribunal overseeing VAC looked at the totality of the circumstances and returned a legally sound decision that the events arose out of service requirements. Good on her. It shouldn’t be such a fight to look after our own.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I am a little surprised. It seemed pretty cut and dry that dropping your kids of at day care isn't military service.  I wonder what the far reaching effects of this will be. I you drop the kids of at day care before work, because you need child care to perform your military duties, are you entitled to VAC compensation if you get in an accident? What if you don't have kids but just need to drive to work to accomplish your military duties?

I am kind of glad the FCP actually benefited the member in this case but I still don't understand how dealing with your children can be seen, in any way, to be considered part of military service.


----------



## MilEME09 (1 Jun 2021)

TCM621 said:


> I am a little surprised. It seemed pretty cut and dry that dropping your kids of at day care isn't military service.  I wonder what the far reaching effects of this will be. I you drop the kids of at day care before work, because you need child care to perform your military duties, are you entitled to VAC compensation if you get in an accident? What if you don't have kids but just need to drive to work to accomplish your military duties?
> 
> I am kind of glad the FCP actually benefited the member in this case but I still don't understand how dealing with your children can be seen, in any way, to be considered part of military service.


By being required to have a family care plan the military made it part of their domain in my opinion. We can probably go back and forth on this for a long time, but at the end of the day the tribunal has set the precedent that if you are injured to or from your place of duty it could be service related.


----------



## Loachman (1 Jun 2021)

Seeing this gross injustice finally corrected, even partially and far too late, gives me joy.

Her fight should never have been necessary in the first place.

I am not sure what gender had to do with it, though - wrong is wrong, and her mistreatment was almost as wrong and inhumane as anything could possibly have been.


----------



## Weinie (1 Jun 2021)

Loachman said:


> Seeing this gross injustice finally corrected, even partially and far too late, gives me joy.
> 
> Her fight should never have been necessary in the first place.
> 
> I am not sure what gender had to do with it, though - wrong is wrong, and her mistreatment was almost as wrong and inhumane as anything could possibly have been.


Bureaucracy at its' worst, most asinine and rigid. A pox on their houses.


----------



## Haggis (1 Jun 2021)

Let's see if there is an appeal filed by the CAF/DND. She may be asking for more than the government can give.


----------



## brihard (1 Jun 2021)

Haggis said:


> Let's see if there is an appeal filed by the CAF/DND. She may be asking for more than the government can give.


It’s a VAC problem, not DND/CAF.


----------



## Haggis (1 Jun 2021)

Good point.

Note to self: read slower bedore replying when on nights.


----------



## brihard (1 Jun 2021)

TCM621 said:


> I am a little surprised. It seemed pretty cut and dry that dropping your kids of at day care isn't military service.  I wonder what the far reaching effects of this will be. I you drop the kids of at day care before work, because you need child care to perform your military duties, are you entitled to VAC compensation if you get in an accident? What if you don't have kids but just need to drive to work to accomplish your military duties?
> 
> I am kind of glad the FCP actually benefited the member in this case but I still don't understand how dealing with your children can be seen, in any way, to be considered part of military service.


I’m waiting for the decision to be published, but the day in question wasn’t ‘business as usual’ with their regular day to day child care arrangements in place. The exigencies of duty, tied to an upcoming deployment, necessitated something outside of the norm. But for those military requirements - the nexus to service - she would not have been in the time and place for the collision to happed. Therefore it arises out of service. I suspect the case’s reasoning will track similarly to that.


----------

