Between you and your expert you would know that Timothy Gilbert is a veteran who appealed to the Federal Court. The Federal Court accepted his appeal and sent it back to the Veterans Review and Appeal Board with directions. It had an unfavourable ruling. It went back to the Federal Court, and they sent it back again. It wasn't bad enough that the Federal Court told VRAB they got it wrong once, it was twice.
The court in the decision that was released just last month said that the second decision was unreasonable. The appeal panel misunderstood its role and failed to redetermine the matter in accordance with the directions provided by Justice Barnes. When Justice Barnes heard the first appeal, he sent it back to the appeal panel and told them to do one of two things: either resolve the uncertainty with regard to a medical report in favour of the veteran, or seek clarification as is contemplated under the act. The appeal panel did neither of these things, rendering the decision unreasonable.
I want to ask you about the Gilbert decision in view of the fact that this decision came out after you wrote your report.
I also want you to factor in some pretty disturbing evidence we heard from a former board member, Harold Leduc, on October 22. He said that a concern they have as well is they're guided by the Federal Court, but when they get Federal Court decisions, their senior legal adviser, or whoever is tasked to do this, will give any number of reasons why they don't agree with the decision that comes back saying they should defer to a new panel. He said that any decision that comes back that doesn't agree with their decision, they're basically given every reason why they shouldn't believe it.
I'm interested in your comments on the culture of the board considering what happened since you've written your report in the Gilbert case and the troubling evidence we've heard from Harold Leduc.