Experts
EN
Allison Inquiry | Daniel Freiheit | Day 2 September 9th, 2026
An Ontario lawyer who helps vaccine-injured clients apply for compensation explains what Access to Information records show about the federal Vaccine Injury Support Program. He describes a contract that sent most of the budget to administration, a redacted litigation management plan, and an appeal clause that let claimants resubmit with new evidence.
Daniel Freiheit, a member of the Law Society of Ontario and a certified specialist in corporate and commercial law, has acted for people navigating the Vaccine Injury Support Program. He testifies about what he learned from an Access to Information Act request for the contract between the federal government and the third-party administrator, and from an appeal to the Information Commissioner that later unredacted a schedule. Freiheit says the disclosed contract allocated about 63% of the program budget to administration, compared with roughly 15 to 20% for Ontario's workers' compensation board, and that the schedule was a litigation management plan he believes was designed to slow litigation against the government and the administrator. With the host, he reads a contract clause allowing claims to be resubmitted when new reliable evidence supports a causal link, and explains how this conflicted with the short appeal windows and firm three-year cutoff that claimants were told about. From his casework he cites the burden of requiring medical records to come directly from care providers, case manager turnover, and a lack of evidence that a medical review board with named, qualified doctors exists. Freiheit describes the successor Vaccine Impact Assistance Program as an improvement, with no apparent cap on income replacement and a willingness to review earlier denials, though he says it is overwhelmed. He offers recommendations on medical record handling and certified review boards, and answers questions from an MP and the Inquiry's organizers.
Daniel Freiheit, a member of the Law Society of Ontario and a certified specialist in corporate and commercial law, has acted for people navigating the Vaccine Injury Support Program. He testifies about what he learned from an Access to Information Act request for the contract between the federal government and the third-party administrator, and from an appeal to the Information Commissioner that later unredacted a schedule. Freiheit says the disclosed contract allocated about 63% of the program budget to administration, compared with roughly 15 to 20% for Ontario's workers' compensation board, and that the schedule was a litigation management plan he believes was designed to slow litigation against the government and the administrator. With the host, he reads a contract clause allowing claims to be resubmitted when new reliable evidence supports a causal link, and explains how this conflicted with the short appeal windows and firm three-year cutoff that claimants were told about. From his casework he cites the burden of requiring medical records to come directly from care providers, case manager turnover, and a lack of evidence that a medical review board with named, qualified doctors exists. Freiheit describes the successor Vaccine Impact Assistance Program as an improvement, with no apparent cap on income replacement and a willingness to review earlier denials, though he says it is overwhelmed. He offers recommendations on medical record handling and certified review boards, and answers questions from an MP and the Inquiry's organizers.
