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

[dapaterson]

I somehow suspect that Walt, John & Jody are expending considerable effort on this behind the scenes.

 

[jollyjacktar]

I don't believe there was any intention to make changes once the votes were cast.  Played the Veterans like a violin.  The Liberals are the architects of the NVC, no way they'd undo their creation.

 

[TCM621]

I don't believe there was any intention to make changes once the votes were cast.  Played the Veterans like a violin.  The Liberals are the architects of the NVC, no way they'd undo their creation.

They would if it was politically expedient to do so. No Liberal value or policy is too entrenched to get changed to stay in power. The fact is that they can do why ever they want to veterans as long as they blind the masses with virtue signalling and weed.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Look on the bright side.  Between the Khadr payout, ISIS terrorists being rehabilitated through poetry and now this, the liberal promises next election are going to quite entertaining.

 

[jollyjacktar]

:rofl:

 

[Cloud Cover]

I don't think the door is completely shut on this, the court has offered a way forward. And they certainly took a shot at the loose mouth of a PM 100 years ago:

"The idea that inspirational statements by a prime minister containing vague assurances could bind the government of Canada to a specific legislative regime in perpetuity does not, in any way, conform with the country's constitutional norms," Groberman wrote.
The judgment also dismissed the arguments put forward that the government had violated the veterans' charter rights, though Groberman did leave the Equitas members with one possible course of action.
"While the benefits conferred under the New Veterans Charter cannot be characterized as deprivations of life, liberty or security of the person," Groberman wrote, "we wondered whether the plaintiffs might wish to argue that their injuries, which were caused in their service to Canada, should be so characterized."

So the benefits argument door has been closed (subject to leave being granted to appeal by the SCC). However, is this court seriously suggesting that putting soldiers in harms way with a foreseeable risk of harm for every soldier/sailor/airman injured might be a violation of the Charter.  Sounds like a policy nightmare and I really hope there is further appeal so the SCC reviews this and cleans up the mess because the Liberals clearly will not. 

 

[PuckChaser]

I skimmed through the decision, one thing that really jumped out at me was this line:

[5]            The notice of civil claim in this matter is an interesting document, containing considerable detail on the history of Canada’s armed forces, and the evolution of programs to compensate military personnel for injuries. It also outlines the personal histories of the plaintiffs. Unfortunately, it is prolix, and contains a good deal of rhetorical excess. Contrary to the formal requirements of a notice of civil claim, it mixes allegations of fact with the legal bases for the claim and with the relief sought. It is difficult, on reading the claim, to determine which of the myriad facts pleaded are to be treated as material, and how the facts relate to legally-based claims.

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/ca/17/04/2017BCCA0422.htm

The term "baffle them with bullshit" comes to mind, and perhaps we did not have the best lawyers or representative plantiffs in the lead on this one. One of the plantiffs runs "Veterans Guerilla Radio" podcast, and his posts on Facebook are incoherent ramblings. It doesn't surprise me that we lost if that was line 5 in the decision.

 

[brihard]

I read the decision in its entirety... Not looking good for the plaintiffs unfortunately. For the claim to be dismissed in its entirety like this means that the top court in B.C. thinks they have absolutely no actionable claim with any merits, even supposing that the facts asserted are completely true. The court today completely dismissed the notion that any of the legal obligations that the plaintiffs assert the crown bears are valid.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Hearing rumblings online now about veterans groups actively trying to dissuade people from joining the CAF.

Not sure what course this will take, if any, but if the Vets walk the same as they talk we could be in for a bombastic and dramatic time until election 2019.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Hopefully they'll only be fooled once by JT and gang.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Hopefully they'll only be fooled once by JT and gang.

I'm not sure any party out there is guilt free on this one old buddy.  My blood runs blue, but that team FUBAR'd this just as badly.

 

[jollyjacktar]

I'm not sure any party out there is guilt free on this one old buddy.  My blood runs blue, but that team FUBAR'd this just as badly.

Yes, true, they're both dicks but they really bought into the Team Red dream this last election and pushed the ABC agenda.

 

[dapaterson]

Interestingly, the judge included a para that essentially states "Here's how to pursue this in the courts"...

 

[Halifax Tar]

Yes, true, they're both dicks but they really bought into the Team Red dream this last election and pushed the ABC agenda.

Agreed.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Interestingly, the judge included a para that essentially states "Here's how to pursue this in the courts"...

I don't think this is over.  I am no legal eagle but I think the nest step is the SCC, no ?

 

[Jarnhamar]

In the last election campaign, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's Liberals appealed to aggrieved veterans with a promise to "re-establish lifelong pensions as an option" as well as increase the value of compensation for an injury.

Just because we haven't heard  the Prime Ministers reaction to this Court decision and subsequent affirmation that the Liberals will make good on their campaign promise yet doesn't mean its not coming. Let's have some faith. I'm sure our MND will chime in too, he's one of us after all right?

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Interestingly, the judge included a para that essentially states "Here's how to pursue this in the courts"...

Saw that too at para [91]. An interesting argument to be made there in my view. I read it as consequence of the judge's personal views expressed at para [16], which is as close to rebuke as a judge will dare give politicians in matters of policy that belong to Parliament.

I have dealt in my past with civil law aspects/consequences of breach, by non government actors, of international treaties dealing with the laws of war to which Canada was both a signatory and internalized the law in our legislation. For those type of claims, you can really expand on what the courts will agree to look at, or not but after a full hearing generally.

 

[brihard]

Just because we haven't heard  the Prime Ministers reaction to this Court decision and subsequent affirmation that the Liberals will make good on their campaign promise yet doesn't mean its not coming. Let's have some faith. I'm sure our MND will chime in too, he's one of us after all right?

The Minister of Veterans Affairs releases a pretty bland statement today, but noticeably it promises that the ‘pension option’ will be finalized by the end of this year. My guess is we see legislation tabled just before the holiday recess, and that that bill along with C-42 get fast tracked in the winter/spring sitting for budget 2018.

 

[cowboy628]

Well I’m hearing pickets around recruiting offices.

 

[FJAG]

I don't think this is over.  I am no legal eagle but I think the nest step is the SCC, no ?

A civil action will only be heard by the SCC if leave to appeal is granted by the SCC. This from the court's FAQ:

(the court's) mandate is to deal with issues of law which are
- of public importance, or
- of such a nature or significance as to a warrant decision by the Court.It is not enough for you to think the Court of Appeal is wrong to have your case heard by the Supreme Court.  Matters that the Court hears generally transcend the interests of the immediate parties and do not turn only on the facts of the case.  For example, in many of the cases that come before it, the Court must determine the legal meaning of a provision of a statute, and its decision is likely to have an impact on society as a whole.
. . .
Of the approximately 600 leave applications submitted each year, only about 80 are granted.  The possibility of succeeding in getting an appeal heard is in general remote.  Each application for leave to appeal is considered carefully by the Court.  The Court never gives reasons for its decisions.  It is important to remember that the Court's role is not to correct errors that may have been made in the courts below.

I won't comment on the quality of the plaintiff's pleadings in this matter as I haven't seen them but I can certainly read between the lines and it would appear that the lawyer put in everything but the kitchen sink. Drafting a good claim (or notice of claim) is a bit of an art form. The following are the requirements that come from the Manitoba Queen's Bench:

Every pleading shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the party relies for a claim or defence, but not the evidence by which those facts are to be proved.

A party may raise any point of law in a pleading, but conclusions of law may be pleaded only if the material facts supporting them are pleaded.

Where a party's claim or defence is founded on an Act or Regulation, the specific sections relied on shall be pleaded.

It is absolutely critical to plead accurately and concisely. In effect, in a motion for summary judgement (like this one) the court assumes that the material facts pleaded are true and then determines whether the state of the law is such that the plaintiffs' might succeed. If so the case goes on to trial where the plaintiff must prove that, in fact, the material facts are true and convince the court that the state of the law leads to the conclusion that they seek.

When one pleads a new novel legal principle one usually faces an uphill climb because you can't point at settled law. You have to convince a court that an existing principle of law can and should be expanded. This does happen from time to time. (For example the tort of negligence didn't exist as a legal principle before 1932 when the UK House of Lords held that a duty of care extended to anyone reasonably foreseeable of being damaged by the defendants actions or inactions and not just those in contractual relationships with them--a major jump in the law at the time.)

There clearly is a unique relationship between the crown and its military members that does not exist with any other citizen. It's hard to prove that there is a duty of a certain level of compensation or care though especially when you consider how poorly the crown used to treat its soldiers and sailors before the twentieth century. The strides forward that were made during and since WW1 were all legislative. The trouble with legislation is that it can be legally changed for the worse as well as the better by the government in power. I don't give the court route much chance of success. I think this needs a major public affairs campaign to shame the government into taking action.

Quite frankly while the dollar numbers are very substantial to the individual members, they are peanuts for the government. The changes in 2006 were bean counting at it's worst--it was a way of duplicating/simulating civilian insurance schemes based on lump sum settlements/payouts that allowed the insurers to wash their hands of responsibility after the payout. In the legal trade we used to disparagingly call those compensation tables "the meat chart". (incidentally, IMHO, the same abacus clicker mentality was involved in the reserve pension scheme)

:cheers: