[QUOTE=CaptainCrunch;6904852]Terrible story of a woman who lost her son and her leg, the Canadian Forces decided she was on duty at the time, but are refusing to pay for her leg. /QUOTE]
It is a heart-wrenching story and is awful to read about her accident. However, I want to make clear a few points because the media, as usual, didn't include them, either willfully or ignorantly.
1. The CAF did not decide she was on duty at the time. A certain MGen (Semianiw) and the Summary Investigation determined she was on duty at the time. Note that a Summary Investigation is non-binding. The CAF (CDS for all intents and purposes) over-ruled the MGEN and the case went to court and the court dismissed Capt Fawcett's claim.
[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.
https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf...QAHRmF3Y2V0dAE
2. The stories in the media paint a picture of a nasty CAF, unwilling to pay for a prosthetic. But that isn't true. Regardless of whether she was on duty or not, the CAF paid for all of her medical procedures, rehab and prosthetic legs while she still served. Only after she released did the CAF obligation end.
3. Commuting to/from work (in the military) is considered to be "on duty" and the grey areas are things like if the member stops on the way to/from work to run an errand. How many stops are you allowed, and for how long? As per normal, this "on duty" while commuting is not clearly defined. Typically, though, it means you are covered from your last point of departure. So, home to McDonald's, not covered. McDonald's to work, covered. And vice verse for commuting home.
[QUOTE=CaptainCrunch;6904852]I guess she could go directly to veteran's affairs minister Seamus O'Reagan./QUOTE]VAC will not pay because the CAF determined the injury was not duty-related. When/if the CAF reverses their decision, VAC will then engage.
At the end of the day, MGen Semianiw (who was Chief of Military Personnel at the time) decided in her favor and that should have been the end of it. But it's the CAF. So, advisors to the CDS stepped in and challenged that decision. Now, they have a PR nightmare over $40K.