Home | Weird | Veterans' benefits letters fail 'adequacy' test

Veterans' benefits letters fail 'adequacy' test

By Staff 20/02/2012 10:33:00

Font size:

A review of Veterans Affairs Canada's letters to former soldiers who have been denied disability benefits has revealed a pattern of providing information but no adequate explanation of how the decisions were made.

"All the letters examined failed a test of adequacy in the reasons given for the decisions," says the country's veterans ombudsman, Guy Parent, in a report released Monday.

He reviewed a random sample of 213 decision letters sent out between 2001 and 2010. While they mostly dealt with denial of benefits, the letters sometimes explained what benefits were granted.

The ombudsman said military veterans have a right to know why and how decisions that affect them are made by the department.

"Our review uncovered a pattern of letters that provided information to applicants about decisions made, the legislation, policies or evidence considered, without providing an adequate explanation of how the decisions were made," he wrote in a letter to Veterans Affairs Minister Stephen Blaney accompanying the report.

"It troubles me to think that many veterans may be wrongly assessed and do not pursue the matter further because the letter did not reveal where the department's decision might have been flawed," Parent wrote in the report.

"It is equally unacceptable for veterans to exercise their appeal rights without having been provided with a clear explanation of the decision."

A spokesman for Blaney issued the following statement later Monday morning:

"Cutting red tape and providing hassle-free services to our veterans is Minister Blaney's top priority. The minister welcomes the recommendations in the ombudsman's report and intends to act quickly."

Specifically, the report says that of the letters reviewed:

• 15 per cent just stated the assessment result.

• 65 per cent gave a minimal explanation by stating the assessment result, and referring to legislation, assessment tools and supporting documents.

• 20 per cent listed detailed information on legislation, assessment tools and supporting documents that would likely let recipients infer "to some extent how the decision was arrived at."