• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Class Action Suit against NVC & "Govt has no obligation to soldiers"

RobA said:
As for the " ABC" foolishness, you guys gave Harper 10 years to fix the mess that HE CREATED and now you want them back because Trudeau didn't snap his fingers and give us all pensions the day after the election? Grow up.

You need to review your history. Yes, PM Harper didn't fix the mess, and he bears responsibility for that. But the NVC was crafted and championed by the proceeding Liberal government. That's the same party that today has to admit that they made a mistake.

Forgive me if I don't hold my breath waiting.
 
RobA said:
It sounds like these DOJ lawyers are not in sync with the federal government. The Equitas lawyers said "these DOJ lawyers are making liars out of the Liberal government". That implies that the Equitas guys at least think that the DOJ is acting someone independently.

If they thought it was coming directly from the Trudeau government, he would say " the Liberal government ARE liars ".

This seems to me to be an obvious strategic move to play this out in the court of public opinion, which seems like a good idea to me.

I'm not too worried about lawyers wrangling during private meeting. That's what they do. The DoJ lawyers are trying to get a settlement that satisfies the olaintiffs while at the same time trying ti keep it as inexpensive as possible. And the plaintiffs are trying to squeeze every dime they can from the government. Thats how this works.

Let's talk when the government makes an official statement.

As for the " ABC" foolishness, you guys gave Harper 10 years to fix the mess that HE CREATED and now you want them back because Trudeau didn't snap his fingers and give us all pensions the day after the election? Grow up.

jollyjacktar said:
Who said anything about supporting Harper?  Besides, the Liberals started the ball rolling with Martin.  They're all equally guilty of bringing it into being as it is.  Memories a little short, eh?  Don't let your jaw hit the floor if the present GoC does as they've all done in the past and back off commitments after they've got what they want from the voters. 

ModlrMike said:
You need to review your history. Yes, PM Harper didn't fix the mess, and he bears responsibility for that. But the NVC was crafted and championed by the proceeding Liberal government. That's the same party that today has to admit that they made a mistake.

Forgive me if I don't hold my breath waiting.

For those, like Brihard, who wondered what I was talking about, this is the kind of stuff I meant. Nothing against the posters. We all do it sooner or later. This is wasted space and energy. We all know the NVC was championed by Martin, all parties then voted for it. Harper came and went, no change. Now it's the Liberals chance to fix it. We already know this. It's been stated a bunch of times.

I just want us to start looking forward. The past can't be changed. The future can.

Partisan politics intruding on the thread situation only obscures the sight lines.

recceguy
 
I'd buy DoJ lawyers acting alone, except the guy who was fired for suggesting no social contract was promptly reassigned back to the case by the Liberals. No amount of hand wringing can get away from that fact.
 
PuckChaser said:
I'd buy DoJ lawyers acting alone ...
You really think government lawyers freelance without getting direction from on high or telling anyone what they're going to do?  Just like staff, they can advise, but it's up to someone political to eventually decide "go ahead" or "pack 'er in."  I'd be happy to hear from any legal beagles here about how often government lawyers act without advice or direction from their client - and my $50-donation-to-a-wounded-vet-charity bet on that still stands.
PuckChaser said:
...  the guy who was fired for suggesting no social contract was promptly reassigned back to the case by the Liberals.
Do we know he was fired?  I haven't heard anything along those lines, especially if he was making an "approved" argument.  I stand to be corrected, though.
 
Sorochan told CTV’s Power Play Wednesday that what the justice department has done now is ask the court to rule on whether the Conservatives were correct about there being no social contract with veterans.
“When that argument was made in the courts, there was a public outcry saying, ‘How can you say there’s nothing special warranted for people that put their life on the line for their country?’” Sorochan said.
He added that the argument was “repudiated by the Conservative government in its last days, was campaigned against by the Liberal government, and was certainly not accepted by any of the Liberals that I dealt with during the election campaign."
Sorochan said he believes “progress" was made on programs for benefits by both the Conservatives and the Liberals, and that despite “some disappointment” that the Liberals had not honoured their pensions promise in their first budget, they may still be planning to do so.
“I think what they want to do,” said Sorochan, “is they want to say ‘the government can do what it wants.’”
“It happens to want to do good things for veterans now but it has no obligation to do them,” he added. “That’s the gist of what they’re arguing.”

More at link.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/liberals-accused-of-breaking-promise-to-uphold-sacred-obligation-to-veterans-1.2908124
 
milnews.ca said:
... Let me predict the essence of such a statement, which would come from someone asking about it, rather than the Minister or the Department issuing a news release saying, "yeah, we're going back to court against vets":
We are committed to establishing sound policy, and ensuring Veterans and their families get the services they need, and that they are served with care, compassion and respect.  Since the issue is before the courts, I can't comment further.
...
I was only close, and not very at that - forgot the reference to the mandate letter and Budget 2016 (not the first Minister to use that messaging) ...
... When asked about the lawsuit, Veterans Affairs Minister Kent Hehr said it would be inappropriate to comment on any lawsuits that are before the courts.

“Nevertheless, we’re moving ahead on our mandate to do better for veterans and their families. We delivered significantly on that in Budget 2016 on earning loss benefit, on the career impact allowance and the disability award. We continue to work through the mandate letter and to make veterans’ and their families’ lives better,” said Hehr before caucus ...
Mandate letter attached - we'll see ...

Here's the NDP's statement on the "Carry On Litigation!" reports:
New Democrats are outraged by reports today that veterans are yet again being fought in court by their own government that will deny our heroes their benefits. This comes after the Liberal Party campaigned on bringing back a lifetime pension for veterans.

After Conservatives spent $700,000 fighting veterans in court, the Liberal government has hired the same lawyer used by the Conservatives, to try once again to deny that the government owes veterans a special obligation due to their service to this country.

"These veterans have earned our respect and deserve the benefits they are owed – continuing this shameful lawsuit is a disgrace," said Irene Mathyssen (London-Fanshawe) NDP Critic for Veterans Affairs.

Just last year the House unanimously passed an NDP motion that recognizes Canada's covenant of moral, social, legal, and financial obligations to veterans ...
Nothing on the Conservative site as of this post - will share if/when an official news release statement is issued.
 

Attachments

milnews.ca said:
You really think government lawyers freelance without getting direction from on high or telling anyone what they're going to do?  Just like staff, they can advise, but it's up to someone political to eventually decide "go ahead" or "pack 'er in."  I'd be happy to hear from any legal beagles here about how often government lawyers act without advice or direction from their client - and my $50-donation-to-a-wounded-vet-charity bet on that still stands.Do we know he was fired?  I haven't heard anything along those lines, especially if he was making an "approved" argument.  I stand to be corrected, though.

I was trying to give the Liberals the benefit of the doubt, I didn't think they'd slap us in the face that hard and fast after the election.

Also, the lawyer in question was removed from the case on recommendation from Erin O'Toole when he took over the VAC file, I highlighted that portion in the article I linked here: http://army.ca/forums/threads/105851/post-1435742.html#msg1435742
 
PuckChaser said:
I was trying to give the Liberals the benefit of the doubt, I didn't think they'd slap us in the face that hard and fast after the election.
It was too easy for them - just letting the meter run out, so they could say, "hey, we didn't flick a switch". But even then, they could still have said, "keep the pause button on" or "shut 'er down".  Well played politically, but nice (latest) kick in the 'nads for vets  :not-again:

PuckChaser said:
Also, the lawyer in question was removed from the case on recommendation from Erin O'Toole when he took over the VAC file, I highlighted that portion in the article I linked here: http://army.ca/forums/threads/105851/post-1435742.html#msg1435742
Seen - I stand corrected, and thanks for the reminder.

Meanwhile, the editorial cartoon machine didn't take long ...
 

Attachments

  • 13226833_10207744000991086_6698206827012249819_n.jpg
    13226833_10207744000991086_6698206827012249819_n.jpg
    19.3 KB · Views: 183
While each file is different, it’s quite possible that the DOJ lawyers are operating in a bit of a vacuum with limited updates to their instructions. It can be hard to get questions onto the ADM/DM’s agenda and even harder to get timely directions.
 
Actually, there are basically two categories of litigation handled by the DOJ:

First, there is the "general" litigation that do not raise policy issues, such as the run of the mill crown liability, or a labour case such as arbitration of a federal employee's firing, or a basic contract dispute, etc. These do not require any specific position on policy to be taken and are probably handled at a reasonably low level for instructions, perhaps no higher than director level, and once the instructions have been given, then they go on their merry way to resolution.

Second, there is the "special" litigation, which actually does raise policy issues and can have important repercussion on how a given piece of legislation will be applied thereafter. For those cases, it goes all the way up the chain and, if there is a change of government and the very policy at issue was the object of the new government's program in some form, you can be sure that the status of litigation and the current position - together with its rationale - has been fully exposed to the new minister and that he/she was advised on what should be done. If the Minster wishes to change the government position, he is then free to bring the matter to the PMO and thereafter, change the instructions to his DM.

It's now been more than six months. You can be sure that this matter was briefed to the new Minister early on and if there have been no change in instructions, it is because the government does not plan to take a different position.
 
 
Oldgateboatdriver said:
Actually, there are basically two categories of litigation handled by the DOJ:

First, there is the "general" litigation that do not raise policy issues, such as the run of the mill crown liability, or a labour case such as arbitration of a federal employee's firing, or a basic contract dispute, etc. These do not require any specific position on policy to be taken and are probably handled at a reasonably low level for instructions, perhaps no higher than director level, and once the instructions have been given, then they go on their merry way to resolution.

Second, there is the "special" litigation, which actually does raise policy issues and can have important repercussion on how a given piece of legislation will be applied thereafter. For those cases, it goes all the way up the chain and, if there is a change of government and the very policy at issue was the object of the new government's program in some form, you can be sure that the status of litigation and the current position - together with its rationale - has been fully exposed to the new minister and that he/she was advised on what should be done. If the Minster wishes to change the government position, he is then free to bring the matter to the PMO and thereafter, change the instructions to his DM.

It's now been more than six months. You can be sure that this matter was briefed to the new Minister early on and if there have been no change in instructions, it is because the government does not plan to take a different position.
Not to mention,  the minister would have to be a moron not to know that this is a major issue. The only way this does not the minister's direct (or inferred ) approval is if he gives zero Fucks about his file.
 
Colin P said:
While each file is different, it’s quite possible that the DOJ lawyers are operating in a bit of a vacuum with limited updates to their instructions. It can be hard to get questions onto the ADM/DM’s agenda and even harder to get timely directions.
Good points.  The "Yes, Minister" in me pictures a scenario where someone (not the Minister himself) thought, "it's on a timer countdown - maybe we shouldn't draw the eye to it, one way or another," leading to resumption by omission (still a decision). That said ...
Oldgateboatdriver said:
You can be sure that this matter was briefed to the new Minister early on ...
... I'm guessing this isn't something one would bury as Appendix Z of the incoming Minister's briefing binder, either.
 
Is this really the best Team Red can do?
... (Veterans Affairs Minister) Hehr told CTV’s Power Play Friday that the government is not “taking veterans to court,” but merely continuing a suit that has been “ongoing for years.” He said the lawsuit “was filed by veterans under the former government as a result of their lack of attention to veterans’ issues.” ...
This government stopped other cases in court, some brought to court by others,, but it chooses not to abandon this one?!?!?!?!

Jesus.  H.  Tapdancing.  Christ.  :facepalm:

To bastardize the hashtag recommended by VAC on Twitter, #rememberthemincourtonly
 
More salt in the wounds of Canada's veterans. Are the Liberals hoping we give up fighting because they're not going to make it retroactive for us? Highlights are mine.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/liberals-committed-to-lifelong-pension-option-for-injured-vets-but-may-not-be-retroactive-1.2911500

Liberals 'committed' to lifelong pension option for injured vets, but may not be retroactive

Veteran Affairs Minister Kent Hehr says the Liberal government is not taking veterans to court.

Josh Dehaas, CTVNews.ca
Published Friday, May 20, 2016 7:08PM EDT
Last Updated Friday, May 20, 2016 8:30PM EDT

Veterans Affairs Minister Kent Hehr says the Liberals are committed to a lifelong pension option for injured veterans, but he will not say whether his government intends to offer the pensions retroactively to those who have already received lump sums.

The Liberal government was accused this week by both the New Democrats and Conservatives of breaking campaign promises to veterans, after it proceeded to fight a lawsuit brought forward by veterans in 2012, who have argued that Canada has a sacred obligation to provide the pensions and other benefits.

Funded by the group Equitas Society, the lawsuit was put on hold last year after the Conservative government made a number of changes to appease veterans, who had been particularly enraged by the introduction of the lump sum payments in 2005 -- a change that all three major parties initially supported. Equitas argues that the lump sums result in less money over time.
Related Stories

During last year’s election, the Liberals promised to bring back the pensions and to end the lawsuit. Don Sorochan, the lawyer working for the plaintiffs, said at the time that he expected the election would help the veterans get what they wanted. Some injured vets campaigned for the Liberals.

Sorochan told CTV News earlier this week he felt “betrayed” after the justice department asked a judge to rule on the arguments the Conservatives had made in the case, rather than dropping it.

Note the last line here. They're not taking us to court, they're just wanting the judge to rule on the arguments the "Evil Conservatives" used, despite the fact that the lawyer who the Tories removed from the case for using those arguments, was reinstated by the Liberals as soon as they could. They've already set a precedent on retroactivity for payments (this year's budget for DA retroactive to 2006), but upon realizing how much its going to cost them, they're wavering. We can always take them to court over it, right?
 
From what I understand this lawsuit if successful opens the door for serving CAF members and Veterans to sue the GOC. This lawsuit isn't so much about benefits and pensions as it is about having the ability to sue the government. The government wants to have the freedom to do what it wants without being sued.
 
The liberals are screwing this one up badly. My speculation is thus:

They are going to stick to the mandate letter, meaning veterans will see life-long penions restores. But, the lawsuit has a second order effect that is of greater significance than the main thrust of the suit itself. That is to say, it would open the flood gates to serving military members (four of the plaintiffs were serving at the time of filing) suing the government over benefits.

Recognize that in the larger context, this is at the same time the the RCMP, another federal organization, has finally won the right to unionize, and also at the same time faces charges under the labour code. I suspect the government is quietly afraid that the Equitas lawsuit would present significant long term liability risk from soldiers and veterans suing over all manner of other matters. Equitas has accidentallly become a lightning rod for a larger legal principle that the government rightly fears.

 
Would the government not be gambling with this tho? If the government loses than the gates are open. If they had given a timeline for the pension and met what the Equitas group was asking for in writing the lawsuit would have been dropped. I'm guessing the government is sure they will win this.
 
Back
Top