Former soldier who launched $150M racism class-action denied compensation

A Canadian soldier takes part in an announcement in Petawawa, Ont., on Thursday, Oct. 19, 2023. (THE CANADIAN PRESS/Sean Kilpatrick) (Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press)

A Canadian military veteran, who helped launch a $150-million class action against the federal government over racial discrimination in the Armed Forces before removing himself as a plaintiff to pursue his own claim, has been denied compensation by the Federal Court.

Former soldier Wallace Fowler was one of the plaintiffs whose lawsuit led to years of negotiations before a settlement was finally reached in January, clearing the way for up to 45,000 current and former servicemembers to claim between $5,000 and $35,000.

Fowler was dissatisfied with the settlement, however, and opted out of the class-action to pursue damages on his own, arguing the discrimination he suffered as a Black man in the military seriously affected his mental health.

• Read more: CAF discrimination settlement was ‘a slap in the face,’ says former soldier

Justice Sébastien Grammon, writing on behalf of the Federal Court, struck down the new claim, ruling that Fowler was already compensated for his mental-health injuries through his disability pension.

“Canadians who put their lives and health at risk in the service of (the country) deserve respect and consideration,” the Federal Court judge wrote in the May 7 decision, published online Friday.

“This is especially so when members of racialized groups enlist in the CAF to defend a society that has not always treated them fairly. Where these individuals are subject to further discrimination and harassment while serving in the CAF, this is a cruel irony and a source of shame and embarrassment for our country.”

Fowler had been posted to military bases in Ontario and British Columbia while serving briefly in 1997 and then again from 2000 to 2003.

During that time, “he and his family repeatedly endured incidents of racial discrimination that can only be described as shameful,” the judge summarized.

“As a result of these incidents, his mental health condition deteriorated and he was diagnosed with major depressive disorder,” according to the decision.

“He was honourably released from the CAF in 2003 because he could not be advantageously employed.”

After leaving the Armed Forces, Fowler was granted a disability pension for depression, which later included increased benefits for post-traumatic stress disorder.

• Read more: Canadian soldier wins compensation for cancer linked to burn pits after Veterans Affairs denied claim

In 2016, Fowler and others brought the class-action on behalf of military members who suffered racial discrimination or harassment in connection with their military service dating back to April 17, 1985.

“Mr. Fowler, however, was unsatisfied with the settlement and obtained leave to opt out,” Grammon wrote.

“Mr. Fowler then brought the present action. In his statement of claim, he described the incidents of racial discrimination to which he was subjected. He also describes how his efforts to obtain redress and to hold the perpetrators accountable were ineffective.”

• Read more: Canadian military veteran’s class-action lawsuit over mouldy warships denied

The Attorney General of Canada urged the court to strike down Fowler’s claim, arguing that he was awarded disability benefits specifically to address the racism he had encountered in the military and was therefore duly compensated already.

Fowler did not deny receiving those benefits, and the federal government did not deny the existence of a culture of discrimination in the military, the judge wrote, citing the precedent of the recently settled class-action case Fowler helped initiate.

“The present decision is about the proper procedure to obtain redress for racial discrimination,” Grammon concluded.

“I must, however, strike his statement of claim because he has received a disability pension in respect of the same facts, and the applicable legislation bars an action in damages where the plaintiff has received a pension or indemnity in respect of the same injury.”