Afghan-Canadian combat advisers launch discrimination suit against Department of National Defence

Murray Brewster · CBC News

· Posted: Jun 10, 2025 4:00 AM EDT | Last Updated: 4 minutes ago

Former subject connection and taste advisers — who astatine times carried retired immoderate of the astir hard and unsafe assignments of Canada's warfare successful Afghanistan — are present suing the national authorities for favoritism implicit the alleged nonaccomplishment to decently bid and instrumentality attraction of them following their work alongside combat troops, CBC News has learned.

A connection of assertion was filed connected May 30 in Ontario Superior Court connected behalf of 30 of the men — Canadian citizens of Afghan root — who were recruited by the Defence Department to assistance the service connected the crushed during the brutal Kandahar campaign.

The national authorities was served announcement of the $50 cardinal favoritism suit past Thursday.

Known by the acronym LCAs, the advisers were tasked with helping commanders and troops flooded connection and taste barriers. But they besides conducted unsafe quality gathering connected the Taliban, warned of attacks and eavesdropped connected insurgent communications.

They were civilians, not soldiers.

Many of them returned to Canada injured and broken, lone to beryllium denied attraction by the national authorities due to the fact that their contracts with the Defence Department ended aft their clip overseas and their wellness concerns, including post-traumatic accent disorder, emerged afterward.

"After years of dedicated work to their country, LCAs were abandoned successful the community," said the tribunal filing, which noted that galore of them had concealed clearance and could not sermon the operations successful which they had been involved. 

Department 'actively frustrated and undermined' cases, suit claims

The crux of the favoritism assertion is that the advisers "were recruited based connected their identities arsenic Muslim Canadians of Afghan descent and were subjected to the aforesaid risks and hazards" arsenic soldiers, yet, "Canada deprived LCAs of the aforesaid benefits and supports it provides to soldiers successful designation of these risks and hazards of war."

The erstwhile advisers besides assertion they were discriminated against by not being fixed capable pre-deployment grooming to hole for the hazards of combat.

CBC News has followed the plight of the men since 2019, and their lawsuit has besides been championed by the Canadian Forces Ombudsman's office. 

The Defence Department, successful effect to media stories and watchdog pressure, sent the advisers' cases to the Ontario Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB), which is wherever astir Defence Department cases involving civilian wounded extremity up.

The suit claims the Defence Department "actively frustrated and undermined" the cases of the advisers by the "withholding of captious accusation from the WSIB and its imposition of confidentiality obligations."

The actions, the tribunal filing says, constricted the quality of the LCAs to disclose accusation and that contributed to the rejection of astir of their superior wounded claims. 

The national authorities has not responded to the claims successful the tribunal challenge.

'I would bash it again and again'

One of the erstwhile advisers, Jamail Jushan, says it's been a disheartening journey. 

"We were forgotten — ignored," Jushan told CBC News successful an interview, adding that everyone helium and chap LCAs person dealt with person been sympathetic, but unmoved.

"They appreciated our work, they appreciated our mission, but they paid articulator work and determination was nary action."

Jushan was among a fistful of erstwhile Afghan advisers who demonstrated successful beforehand of Parliament connected Remembrance Day past year, hoping to gully attraction to their plight.

Despite feeling ignored and suffering from station traumatic accent disorder, Jushan says that if idiosyncratic asked him to service again, helium would.

"I would bash it again and again," Jushan said. "I americium sick, but if thing happened to Canada, this is my country, I volition support these people. I volition support this country. I sacrificed myself. I sacrificed my family. I sacrificed everything. I emotion this country."

He said Canada gave him a location and a consciousness of belonging earlier the war.

Abdul Hamidi, different adviser, said he's not truthful definite helium would person gone had helium known what it was going to beryllium similar and however helium would beryllium treated.

"I'm a Canadian man. I'm a quality being. I americium 1 of you," said Hamidi, who was fixed a partial disablement assessment, though it doesn't screen each of his injuries. "There's thing antithetic betwixt us. So if you brought maine to this level you person to reply me."

Hamidi says that in presumption of experiences and injuries, the lone quality betwixt him and those he advised successful Afghanistan is that they carried the rubric of soldier.

WATCH | Advisers who worked with Canadian Forces successful Afghanistan fight for benefts:

No compensation contempt ombudsman recommendation

Emma Phillips, 1 of the lawyers who filed the Charter favoritism case, says the subject has publically acknowledged the important relation the men played successful the Kandahar campaign, but has turned its backmost connected them.

The Canadian Forces Ombudsman's bureau has recommended that the advisers beryllium granted a peculiar compensation package, akin to 1 handed retired for cadets injured successful an accidental grenade detonation successful the 1970s. In that case, cadets were eligible for $42,000 with an further fiscal grant going up to $310,000 for those earnestly injured.

The Defence Department has truthful acold refused to budge.

Phillips says the government's ongoing refusal to assistance the advisers compensation is "a tragedy, really."

An investigation by the ombudsman six years agone recovered that attraction for the civilian contractors during the warfare was an afterthought.

Before the opening of large combat operations successful 2006, the section concisely considered implementing a argumentation to bounds the duration and scope of civilian deployments. But the thought was inexplicably dropped, and it wasn't until 2007 that a impermanent directive was drafted.

The ombudsman's 2019 investigation found that the bid was not implemented until November 2011 — 4 months aft Canadian troops had withdrawn from warring the Taliban.