Daniel Freiheit
Day 2 · September 9, 2026 · 0:16:20
Key points Daniel Freiheit is a Law Society of Ontario member and certified corporate and commercial law specialist who has represented clients dealing with the Vaccine Injury Support Program. He describes filing an Access to Information request that returned a heavily redacted contract, including redacted sections on the appeal process and transparency. He says the contract disclosed that over roughly 63 percent of the program budget went to the administrator, far higher than comparable Ontario compensation programs. He explains a redacted 'litigation management plan' was designed to slow litigation against Health Canada and the third-party provider, and was only unredacted in 2023. He notes the contract allowed claims to be resubmitted anytime new reliable evidence arose, contradicting the short appeal windows applicants were given. He identifies the chain of custody for medical records and high case-manager turnover as major causes of delay in the program. He says the rebranded program appears to have no budget cap and reopens denied claims, but he questions whether a qualified medical review board is in place.
Speaker 1
0:01 Thank you, Thor. 0:02 So our next witness is Daniel Freehite. 0:05 And Daniel, welcome. 0:08 Daniel, we'll first of all put you under oath. 0:11 So do you, Daniel Freehite, promise to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Speaker 2
0:22 I solemnly affirm to tell the truth. Speaker 1
0:24 Thank you, Daniel. 0:26 Just by way of introducing you, you're a member of the Law Society of Ontario. 0:30 You're a certified specialist in corporate and commercial law. 0:34 You also do a lot of regulatory and advisory practice. 0:38 You're a graduate of Western Law and Ivy Business School. 0:42 And you've done a lot of advocacy relating to public health and public safety. 0:47 And that includes you've acted for a number of people that have had issues with the vaccine injury support program. 0:54 And so we've invited you to share with us about your experiences, the trials of your clients and what you've found out through access to information requests. Speaker 2
1:04 So I was assisting people in accessing compensation through the Vaccine Injury Support Program. 1:12 And in that regard, I did make an Access to Information Act request early on, probably around June of 2020. 1:18 I got back the Access to Information Act request in around June of 2022. 1:24 a schedule to that document was redacted. 1:29 And I thought it was quite relevant to understanding how the program worked. 1:33 Even the title of the document itself was redacted. 1:35 What wasn't redacted were the paragraph headings. 1:38 And so a lot of what I'm saying, by the way, is available on my X account. 1:44 I'm going by recollection here. 1:45 But one of the paragraphs related to the appeal process under the Vaccine Injury Support Program 1:51 and one of the paragraphs related to transparency. 1:53 So I thought it was very unusual that these portions of the document were adapted. 1:58 So I did file an appeal with the Office of the Information Committee. Speaker 1
2:02 So can I just slow you down? 2:03 Because some people won't understand. 2:06 So access to information, we have an act called the Access to Information Act, where the government is legally obligated to provide us with information. 2:14 And you basically request information on that program, and you get a copy of the contract, 2:20 between the federal government and this third party provider, but blanked out are things like the appeal process. 2:30 And so you're, why would this be blanked out? Speaker 2
2:33 Well, and right, and the website for the Vaccine Injury Support Program, which has now been removed, which has been reported, that website didn't provide that much information about the relationship between the Public Health Agency of Canada 2:48 and the third party providers to how that worked. 2:51 So the Access to Information Act disclosure was helpful, except for those redactions. 2:56 But it did provide some insight into the budget. 2:58 And all this is leading up to how it affects how people apply to the program and how it impacts the application process. 3:05 It disclosed the heavy allocation to the administrative costs. 3:10 I think it's been reported it was over 63% around of the program budget was going to the administrator, which is very high compared to other programs. 3:20 And that was actually in the contract? 3:22 That was disclosed in the contract, that total amount. Speaker 1
3:24 So when people criticize publicly, wow, this percentage went in, well, the government knew that in advance. 3:32 They contracted it. 3:33 So the two-thirds of the amount would go to administration and only a small amount would go to compensation. Speaker 2
3:38 So other comparable programs, what I'm seeing is the Worker Safety and Insurance Board program of Ontario, the allocation I think is closer to 15 to 20% as to the program cost versus there's also another motor vehicle fund in Ontario. 3:53 And the program cost there is again closer to 30% at most. 3:57 from the websites I recall seeing. 4:00 So yes, this was a high administrative cost for this program. 4:03 And to be fair, reviewing these records does take a lot of time. 4:07 There are extensive documentation looking at the reports, the scientific reports to establish causality. 4:14 It's a program that was in its infancy, and so it would be generally typically higher, but that was surprising to see as a lay person. Speaker 1
4:22 We had a witness here earlier. 4:26 I think it was Michael Oates who was suggesting, you know, the program really should be designed where, you know, the default is we're going to compensate you and let's find a reason not to. 4:39 But in any event, you're telling us that at the very beginning, this program by contract, the federal government knew that almost, you know, most of the money would be going to administrations. Speaker 2
4:51 Correct. 4:51 And to that point, I think if every application was just accepted without too much review, that can create its own hazard. 4:58 So I can see the need for a bit of a pushback in some of these applications. 5:02 I do recall that Thailand had a different approach in this regard. 5:05 Thailand was much more, to your point, accepted the injury as stated, but they just awarded a lesser amount for each application. 5:13 So there's some advantages to this. Speaker 1
5:14 I slow you down because you just revealed something I hadn't thought of. 5:18 They both 5:18 They've only got a limited amount of money to dish out under the contract. 5:23 So they're kind of obligated that it's not going to come out of their own pockets. 5:27 So they're actually limited in the amount. 5:30 So it's a closed amount regardless of the number of people that apply and regardless of the injuries they have. Speaker 2
5:36 Well, that's one of the reasons why I thought it was important. 5:39 Why I wanted to come here today is that that is part of the constraints of the program is that there is an incentive to or just the way the mechanism works. 5:48 It's you have a limited budget. 5:50 A certain portion goes to the administrative costs and you have to reserve hold back the funds for those who've been injured from the vaccine. 5:57 And so, yes, there is a sort of mechanism to delay payments. 6:02 And you see that with the appeal process, which going back to my earlier comments about the redactions, what that appeal process revealed to me was that it was part of a schedule to that document, the contribution agreement called the litigation management plan or process. 6:19 So meaning that schedule was really designed to slow down litigation against Health Canada or Public Health Agency of Canada and the third party provider of the service. 6:32 That was the whole point of that schedule. 6:35 It was ultimately unredacted by the Office of the Information Commissioner in September, for me, I think September of 2023. 6:44 And so that showed how you deal with the appeals. 6:49 process, which from my experience with the Vaccine Injury Support Program, I do not believe they complied with that aspect of the contract. Speaker 1
6:58 And I apologize we didn't create a slide, but you provided me with those documents, which I have to say just shocked me. 7:04 So thank you for doing that work of doing the ATI request to reveal this. 7:08 But I'm just going to read the paragraph that you flagged to my attention. 7:12 So this is in the contract, and this is what should govern the right to access an appeal. 7:19 And it reads, so this is Section 3.1.3. 7:24 Claimants will be advised that a claim can be resubmitted for assessment only if new reliable evidence from a recognized source has arisen to support a causal relationship between the injury and or the progression of industry. 7:41 Now, tell us what that means. Speaker 2
7:43 So that's very interesting. 7:44 And that, to me, suggests that when people were being refused or denied on their initial application and they were given a time limit to appeal, when I saw that unredacted component, I mean, that really opened up the appeal time frame. 7:58 It means that anytime there's new studies, anytime someone with an injury from the vaccine gets a proper diagnosis, and it's been taking a lot of people a lot of time. 8:09 We've heard that here in the past couple of days. 8:11 I personally have assisted one individual whose diagnosis took, I think, four or five years. 8:18 So once that diagnosis is in, it's a fresh application. 8:23 To Public Health Agency credit, the new program, the new V app does open up this window. 8:31 They're willing to look at it now. 8:33 So that's the silver lining. 8:35 The downside is that I think they're still overwhelmed. 8:39 They haven't addressed the administrative issue here, which is that there is more applications than they anticipated. 8:45 And that's also revealed in another ATIP, which shows that 255 people are being moved over from the original program. Speaker 1
8:55 And I just want to slow this down again, because some people might not understand how this would affect the people that are refused. 9:03 So if you're refused and you're told you have a short window to appeal, well, that wasn't what the contract said. 9:09 The contract said, well, at any time, 9:13 new information comes forward. 9:15 So if your appeals, your applications refused, we don't recognize this as vaccine injury. 9:21 And all of a sudden, other countries and there's research. 9:23 No, no, this is vaccine injury under the contract. 9:26 Well, you could just reapply because you have new information and people weren't told this. 9:31 And you were surprised because it didn't. 9:33 You're helping people in the appeal process and it's surprising you. 9:37 that the contract isn't matching what everyone believes. Speaker 2
9:40 There was, I think, confusion in the communication as to, yes, what is the finality of that first decision, and also confusion about the three-year final cutoff for any application. 9:51 So I think there was some, you know, some provisions that said there's a firm three-year cutoff, but then you have this other provision that says subject to, you know, if there's additional information or evidence. Speaker 1
10:03 What's the experience been like dealing with 10:06 the Vaccine Injury Support Program, like as a lawyer trying to help? Speaker 2
10:10 So the main issue I have, and if it's one recommendation I can make for a public health agency in Canada going forward, is the chain of custody for medical records. 10:20 The major, major issue is that they're asking for medical records to come directly from the medical care provider. 10:27 Our doctors are already overwhelmed. 10:29 The admin staff is already overwhelmed to have them 10:32 have direct communication with PHAC for those documents is a burden on the hospital system. 10:38 So that was one issue I found was that there were major delays just in getting the medical records. 10:43 In court, all you have to do is have an affidavit and you attach all your documents as exhibits and you swear or affirm that affidavit and it's before a judge. 10:51 If it's good enough for a judge, it should be good enough for Public Health Agency of Canada. 10:55 to make a determination. 10:56 So that's one. 10:57 The other issue was a lot of turnover in the case managers that really caused a lot of delays in the applications, a lot of confusion. 11:05 But again, I think to their credit, I think PHAC has recognized this. 11:10 The only question is whether they have boots on the ground to now deal with this to, you know, to solve the problem. Speaker 3
11:19 Daniel, thanks for coming. 11:20 And when we originally talked about, you know, this, this is a mystery, the, this whole 11:26 this program. 11:27 So I didn't realize, and I know we've had a couple of conversations, that it was actually part of the contract that that amount of money would go to actual administration. 11:38 So my question in terms of how much more knowledge do you have of the new program versus the old program? 11:44 You sort of talked a bit, but is there still a lot of Speaker 2
11:47 We have no idea. 11:49 They've put up some good information on the website about it, and I did obtain additional ATIPs through a third party, and I think BlackWalks did report on it. 11:59 But in terms of the rebranding, it's called an impact assessment. 12:04 Correct, yeah. 12:07 So I think the new program has a number of benefits. 12:10 It doesn't... 12:12 First of all, the time window, they're accepting new applications, they're looking at all the people who are administratively denied at the VISB, at the original program, they're willing to look at those denials. 12:24 And again, I think the budget is 12:28 has not been, from what I've seen, there's been no limit in the budget. Speaker 3
12:31 Okay, so they're going to open it up. 12:33 There's not necessarily a cap now. 12:36 You're saying that... 12:36 Correct. Speaker 2
12:37 And so the prior program had an annual income replacement cap of $100,000 per person per year. 12:46 There's no cap to the new program from what I've seen. 12:48 There was also a fixed amount for a death benefit. 12:52 There was a fixed amount for injury benefits. 12:54 So those don't appear, from what I've seen, limited in the new program, which, again, 12:58 is to PHAC's credit. Speaker 3
13:00 Okay, well, that sounds encouraging. 13:02 I guess my other question would be then, although they may have seemed to open it up a bit more flexible, it's probably too early to tell whether people are still having a hard time filling out applications, getting them in. 13:16 And response time. Speaker 1
13:18 I mean, that's a typical complaint against government, you know, bureaucracy. 13:22 Every program, right? Speaker 2
13:23 I think there is a lot of redundancy that could probably be reduced with, you know, if people fill out the forms online. 13:30 But again, it's getting those documents in there from, you know, in a different format. 13:34 Also ensuring that there is a medical review board in place. 13:37 I haven't seen any evidence. 13:39 There is actually medical practitioners or doctors as part of the new program. 13:45 So that's a concern. 13:47 I think ATIPs have been sought about that to determine who those doctors are if they've been established. 13:54 But that needs to be confirmed because that's your bottleneck. Speaker 3
13:56 So we're not making recommendations to this inquiry. 14:02 If you could recommend a few things that would make sense for the program, have you thought about that at all in terms of that, or would you be willing to provide some information for us after the fact? 14:13 Sure, yeah, I'd be happy to. 14:14 Do you have anything off the top of your head right now, or have you been thinking about anything? Speaker 2
14:18 Well, I can say just those two issues, which is the chain of custody of medical records, to make that simpler. 14:26 and more efficient for everybody. 14:29 Win for the doctors, win for the hospitals, win for everybody. 14:32 And the other recommendation I would say is just to get that review board and have it certified all the prior decisions that were made. 14:39 I haven't seen like they attach the decision as a schedule and it's 14:44 We're told by a case manager that that was reviewed by board, but we need better evidence. 14:48 And my recommendation would be to have a regulated professional confirm that there's been a team. 14:54 And I know we don't want to name medical professionals because there can be a concern there for their careers. 15:00 I think they should be identified to someone who can just verify that they have the qualifications to make those determinations. 15:08 That's great. Speaker 1
15:09 Well, I just find it interesting that in every other forum, we know who the decision maker is. 15:15 We can see if there's bias and appeal based on bias. 15:19 We can see if they're qualified and appeal based on qualified. 15:22 But for some reason, because this is a forbidden topic, that there's a risk of disclosing medical practitioners in case they happen to be ruling in favor of vaccine injured, that that could hurt their careers. 15:35 I mean, that's in itself speaks volumes. Speaker 2
15:40 I acknowledge it is unusual. 15:42 Every tribunal in this country, from what I know, the tribunal members are all identified, I guess because the response, the COVID response was so dramatic and it was very volatile. 15:55 I appreciate that it's now a sensitive area. Speaker 3
16:01 Okay, we're almost out of time, but any final thoughts for us on this? Speaker 2
16:04 I know that's it. 16:04 I just thank you very much for allowing me the opportunity. 16:08 I really appreciate it. 16:09 All our discussions and thank you all for. Speaker 3
16:10 Well, thanks. 16:11 Thank you very much for the input. 16:12 This is very helpful. 16:13 Thank you. Speaker 1
16:14 And I know you traveled on short notice to do this. 16:16 We really appreciate you coming and sharing this. 16:18 Thank you.