# Veteran launches $20 million suit



## Occam (29 Nov 2013)

Original link

Veteran launches $20 million suit

November 29, 2013 - 7:36pm BY MICHAEL LIGHTSTONE STAF REPORTER

A Dartmouth-area soldier who was deployed in Afghanistan has submitted a $20-million statement of claim with the Federal Court.

Cpl. Thomas Robert Dixon’s claim, filed Friday in Halifax, alleges the Canadian military did not adequately address his post-traumatic stress disorder.

“The damages caused by the negligence of the co-defendants caused and continue to cause severe mental stress on the plaintiff in the form of PTSD,” the document says.

Defendants include military brass and senior federal government politicians. The allegations haven’t been proven in court.

Dixon’s uncle, Bill McFarlane of Cole Harbour, is representing him. He is not a lawyer and is a former navy sailor.

McFarlane acknowledged in an interview that there is “a shock factor” associated with the $20-million figure. He said it is meant to get the attention of those he and his nephew allege dropped the ball on Dixon’s file.

Asked what the $20 million would be used for if Dixon wins, McFarlane said one option would be to use some of it to provide for the plaintiff and his family and part of it to “help other vets and help other lawyers of other vets sue the government.”

He said Dixon, a married father of four who is in his 30s, has been in the regular Forces for 12 years, following a stint in the reserves, and is still in the military.

He said his nephew has made suicide threats, continues to be stressed out and has gone to the hospital seeking mental health help.

Dixon and other current members, or veterans, of the Canadian Forces haven’t received the assistance they deserve, McFarlane said.

Dixon did one tour of duty in Afghanistan years ago and since then has been experiencing a lack of support from the military, he alleged.

“The federal government isn’t taking this matter seriously,” McFarlane said. “It’s time the vets stood up and stuck it to the man.”

Ottawa has faced criticism in the past over its handling of veterans’ needs, but in March Veterans Affairs Canada told CBC News it is helping more than 16,200 vets who have mental health conditions.

A spokesman said the department’s case managers and clinical-care managers work with veterans with complex needs, including mental-health problems. The department, the CBC reported, also has a suicide-prevention framework and an addiction strategy.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (29 Nov 2013)

20 million.  Seriously.  

Taking money out of the pot does NOT help change the system.  My opinion.  I'll take a pile-on but this is NOT the way to make things better for vets.


----------



## Occam (29 Nov 2013)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> 20 million.  Seriously.
> 
> Taking money out of the pot does NOT help change the system.  My opinion.  I'll take a pile-on but this is NOT the way to make things better for vets.



I don't know.  I think Dennis Manuge et al might disagree with you.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (29 Nov 2013)

I don't see how the 2 relate, so unsure why the token post that is apples and oranges.

Anyways. I don't have much more to say about this other than it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.  Timing.


----------



## Occam (29 Nov 2013)

I guess it's just that both members resorted to the court of law to deal with an issue that should have been resolved without having to do that.  Nothing more.  If the member intends to donate some of the proceeds of the lawsuit (if any) to a fund for other members to do the same thing, I think that's an honorable use of the money.  It's sad that people are forced to do this to bring attention to the problem.


----------



## Towards_the_gap (29 Nov 2013)

I'm with you EITS.


It may just be the way the article is written but it seems the plaintiffs aren't the ones taking things seriously, and no matter how you look at it, they are taking resources, and potentially public good will, away from the serious fight (the NVC lawsuit).

Let's see: fellow does one tour, develops PTSD, threatens suicide, seeks medical help...Uncle, whose legal strategy seems to be 'stick it to the man', represents him in $20 million lawsuit.

Would I be completely out to lunch saying that there may be more to this story?


----------



## Kat Stevens (29 Nov 2013)

Is there no longer a clause in the terms of service that prohibits bringing suit against the crown while serving?  I seem to remember it.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (29 Nov 2013)

Not that I know of, there is one WRT grievances, etc that basically say if you have lodged a grievance and then proceed on legal ground, the grievance will be paused until the legal stuff is settled.  Word to that effect.  QR & O, Vol 1, Ch 7 IIRC.


----------



## 25hz (15 Jan 2014)

Well, it's all well and good to criticize the guys for trying to do a money grab, but in this case, fight fire with fire.   Regardless of what anyone claims, or would like to believe, or what any useless bureaucrat or politician says, it's all about the money.  Period.  that is obvious with the way the military processes injured members, with the way the gov't sets policies and with the way VA operates.  the system gets to play a big 'ol game of Risk with real people, and the intent is to cut them loose with as little financial strings attached as possible.  If all the chair jockeys care about is money, then hit them in the money.  Whether it's genuine or frivolous, hit them in the money.  that's all they care about.

Claiming that such a lawsuit would cause the public to lose faith in "genuine" grievances is pretty naive.  There  are a few shock headlines, and it might garner some momentary notice from the public, but that's it.  I don't know what the  ratio is in here for serving and non-serving/retired, but many people seem to be out of touch with reality.  The reality is, the general public has more than enough problems of their own to deal with AND, they are doing it without the benefit of ANY institutionalized support systems.  They have no pensions, no fall-back position, no dental or medical plans, no glasses.  NOTHING.  They go to work for as little as their employers can pay, and they truly do, soldier on.  Being medically released 8 years ago, it is SO OBVIOUS how truly lucky a military/ex-military member is, even if they are/think they are getting screwed over by the system.  There are so many people that bust their ass for $250 in their pocket per week, it is unbelievable.  Aside from maybe slapping a sticker on the bumper of  their car (which is meaningless because there are everywhere now), they've got their own very real day to day problems to deal with, and the plight of a few thousand veterans doesn't even hit their radar.  The best/worst thing about this, is that the politicians and paper pushers are completely aware of this public apathy.  We are inundated with information/spam/"news" and very few pieces of news stay in front of the public eye for very long.

How many of the public actually know about even the most publicly available problems for the military and vets?  Very few, and that is  the way it will stay.  How many care?  Even less.  That's the reality.  So, for these two guys, all the power to them.  Regardless of their motives, best of luck, and I hope they rock on (but doubt they will be successful because there's just too many levels of red tape for them to navigate).  In the end, the best and only person to give a shit about you, is you, and you have to fight for that at a level of effort that very few are interested in.  People that are still in the military have no real clue about that.  It was that way before, and it's definitely that way now in the age of the bean counter.


----------

