Simon Logan v. Her Majesty The Queen

[Chargersfan]

Based on what grounds?

That it’s income.…which is he whole point of this case.

 

[dapaterson]

The underlying issue of the Logan action is what constitutes pay. Changes to pay post-release are discussed in the VAC regulations governing IRB, and the terms of the SISIP insurance policy.

Any changes to CAF compensation will be reflected IAW the terms of the insurance policy and the VAC regulations.

 

[CountDC]

rumours are just that - rumours. Until the docs come out and can be studied don't get your hopes up. Make sure it doesn't say "pending TB approval" as we have had that happen before.

 

[Chargersfan]

The underlying issue of the Logan action is what constitutes pay. Changes to pay post-release are discussed in the VAC regulations governing IRB, and the terms of the SISIP insurance policy.

Any changes to CAF compensation will be reflected IAW the terms of the insurance policy and the VAC regulations.

It was indeed….and the ‘underlying issue‘ was the inclusion of monthly allowances in the calculation of pay. The judge determined that they should be, and the government reluctantly accepted that - well, they settled out of court and did not appeal - which is akin to accepting the decision. So, if this new housing money is a monthly allowance which is taxed as income and treated as income when calculating other benefits, the government doesn’t have a leg to stand on. If a member is injured in service, why should they get refused money given to still serving members, if they would otherwise be receiving it? Easy loss for the government here.

 

[brihard]

It was indeed….and the ‘underlying issue‘ was the inclusion of monthly allowances in the calculation of pay. The judge determined that they should be, and the government reluctantly accepted that - well, they settled out of court and did not appeal - which is akin to accepting the decision. So, if this new housing money is a monthly allowance which is taxed as income and treated as income when calculating other benefits, the government doesn’t have a leg to stand on. If a member is injured in service, why should they get refused money given to still serving members, if they would otherwise be receiving it? Easy loss for the government here.

It's probably safe to say that, until you actually know what will replace PLD, trying to prognosticate based on rumours is a fool's errand. Some info has made social media that does not necessarily accurately reflect what's being proposed, but a ton of people seem to be running with it anyway, because nature abhors an (information) vacuum.

It would also be unwise to assume that the government's lawyers are not live tot he impacts of Logan, and that they aren't prepared to amend regulation as necessary to make sure that the scope of certain benefits isn't accidentally expanded beyond what is intended.

Implementation of any major change to spending will be done quite carefully. Nobody should be banking on, or even particularly hopeful about, what that looks like.

 

[Chargersfan]

It's probably safe to say that, until you actually know what will replace PLD, trying to prognosticate based on rumours is a fool's errand. Some info has made social media that does not necessarily accurately reflect what's being proposed, but a ton of people seem to be running with it anyway, because nature abhors an (information) vacuum.

It would also be unwise to assume that the government's lawyers are not live tot he impacts of Logan, and that they aren't prepared to amend regulation as necessary to make sure that the scope of certain benefits isn't accidentally expanded beyond what is intended.

Implementation of any major change to spending will be done quite carefully. Nobody should be banking on, or even particularly hopeful about, what that looks like.

Which is why I clearly said ‘if the rumors are true’.

Do you really believe the government isn’t going to f$&k this up? What policy implementation in the past has happened that they haven’t f$&ked up? Being slow on implementing a decision doesn’t mean they are being smart or careful about it, it just means they are pathetically incapable of making a decision unless it somehow benefits them.

 

[CampCricket]

The law firm actually mailed me a copy of this certified class action stating that this class action included me and if I did not want to be included, this was my opportunity to OPT OUT.

Anyone else get an envelope in the mail with an opt out form?

This statement in the class action has the wheels in my head turning:

—————————

All former members of the Canadian Armed Forces who were released on or before December 31, 2021 and who on or after July 17, 2012 received, long term disability benefits and/or dismemberment benefits under Division 2, Part lll(B) of SISIP Policy 901102, and had a monthly allowance from the Canadian Armed Forces in effect on the date of their release from the Canadian Armed Forces or, in the case of a Class “C" member, when the injury was incurred or the illness was contracted.

——————-
I was a class C reservist injured in Kandahar… I was receiving hardship and risk allowances… these have a monthly classification and I was in receipt of these allowances when I was injured…. Is it a pipe dream of mine that these allowances could be calculated into my SISIP ELB calculation… the legal firm is taking up to 33% of the retro payment but has no claim on any ongoing additional monies added to the SISIP for 2022 onward… So perhaps this is why I got a mailed copy? The law firm makes their cut if I am paid and based on how much more it turns out to be… I wasn’t a trade that got specialist pay and if you were getting HA and RA, you would not get field pay… seems to good to be true. Anyone else included in this have any thoughts?

 

[CampCricket]

Just got a letter the other day addressed to me with no cover letter, no return address, etc.

Before I opened it, it looked like one of those generic credit card letters.

It appears to be a class action lawsuit run by the law firm McInnes Cooper, for former Members of the CAF who on or after July 17, 2012 received long term disability benefits and/or dismemberment benefits under division 2, part III(B) of SISIP Policy 001102, and had an allowance from the CAF in effect on the date of their release from the CAF or, in case of a Class 'C' member, when the injury was incurred or the illness was contracted. ("Class")

It also says all participants are automatically opted in. And you have to opt out if you dont want to be included.


I have left a lot of the letter out mostly because I'm trying on my phone. But has anyone else got such a letter, or know more info about this.

I've never recieved anything like this before. But the letter itself seems unprofessional as it just is pretty much an information pamphlet with a bit of legal jargon and no introduction.

I just got my letter as of Feb 2023 with the opt out form. Letter indicates a final hearing on 23 April 2023… must be just getting to those released medically that were class c reservists at time of entry… we must be harder to track down… or maybe they just got around to including people like myself. I see from the posts that the class action was successful and this is a hearing to finalize, so they got my attention now.

 

[CampCricket]

I think what PuckChaser was getting at is that you could have two dudes/dudettes in the same section, both hit by the same IED with the same injuries, both medically released and can't work again. Yet they would have differing LTD payment amounts. Sounds like another lawsuit waiting to happen. The same standard should be applied across the board.

I'm hoping this works out equally for both injured Reg and Res pers. I don't think we've always done the best job of taking care of injured soldiers, but I suspect things have been worse for reservists specifically. Who gives a crap whether a soldier injured on deployment is from The RCR or The QOR. If they both did their jobs and paid a price, they should be properly cared for and compensated.

There could never be any equal compensation between a medically released reservist or reg force person injured in a special duty area. As a reservist, I do not automatically qualify to receive my CF pension, I am penalized on the career impact top up allowance… you can have more than 20 calendar years of service with only a few years pensionable time… but not qualify for the career impact allowance (even though it was meant to compensate those without a “full pension”. ) Also, you can be injured enough where you cannot return to you civilian employer. There are reservist that have higher paying jobs than what is paid to them in uniform… and your military career and civilian career often do not progress at the same rate based on how your life is split between the two careers… BUT - I am fairly certain that the decision to give reservist allowances at the date of injury is based on the policies applied to becoming a class c reservist.

When I deployed, I was enrolled or transferred into the class c service and at the end of my contract I was “released” out of my service. I had issues where my class c extension got messed up and could not be fixed because the system treats the end of a class c contract the same as a release from the regular forces. So I was put on reserve force compensation in lieu of a class c extension based on that technicality.

Therefore, I would have been entitled or still receiving those allowances at the point of my “release”. There is a lot of irregularities in the reservist world on how things are administered.

 

[CountDC]

Unfortunately there were too many reservists that should have been extended but were not. In fairness sometimes it was because of someone dropping the ball in taking care of the member but sometimes it was because the member didn't report an issue until after the Class C was closed. Of course sometimes the member didn't realize there was a problem until later. Don't know if it will still work but it used to be if you didn't complete the release digest they couldn't close the Class C (no pay didn't continue).

 

[Teager]

I just got my letter as of Feb 2023 with the opt out form. Letter indicates a final hearing on 23 April 2023… must be just getting to those released medically that were class c reservists at time of entry… we must be harder to track down… or maybe they just got around to including people like myself. I see from the posts that the class action was successful and this is a hearing to finalize, so they got my attention now.

If you visit the website you will see it was posted Feb 6th so they mailed it out to everyone they have information for after that.

Since you were a reservist and I assume injured while on a tour you will be entitled to risk and hazard pay and any other monthly allowance you were recieving at the time of your injury.

 

[CampCricket]

If you visit the website you will see it was posted Feb 6th so they mailed it out to everyone they have information for after that.

Since you were a reservist and I assume injured while on a tour you will be entitled to risk and hazard pay and any other monthly allowance you were recieving at the time of your injury.

I went through my files and found my sheet from my tour that listed my additional allowances and monthly amounts. While serving in Kandahar I got risk level 4, hardship level 5, and foreign service 1A… but I would have hit level 1 B on the last month of my tour. Back in 2011 that totaled 2222 extra each month. If you compare that to what the indexed amounts currently listed under cbi 210, that would be about 2800 today. That would be an incredible bump in pay if these monthly allowances stick. I am going to wait and see what happens. Trying to not get mentally invested in the possibility in case it’s not true or there is some technicality that disqualifies me… but if that turns out to be the case… something like this could have a huge impact on life style. Thank you Simon Logan.

New headline… says 288 million to be set aside and lawyers will get 16.5% not the 33% the asked for originally.

Home - Archyde

 

[JJ.]

I went through my files and found my sheet from my tour that listed my additional allowances and monthly amounts. While serving in Kandahar I got risk level 4, hardship level 5, and foreign service 1A… but I would have hit level 1 B on the last month of my tour. Back in 2011 that totaled 2222 extra each month. If you compare that to what the indexed amounts currently listed under cbi 210, that would be about 2800 today. That would be an incredible bump in pay if these monthly allowances stick. I am going to wait and see what happens. Trying to not get mentally invested in the possibility in case it’s not true or there is some technicality that disqualifies me… but if that turns out to be the case… something like this could have a huge impact on life style. Thank you New headline… says 288 million to be set aside and lawyers will get 16.5% not the 33% the asked for origina

Home - Archyde

From the above article,
“They don’t give us what we are entitled to,” laments ex-corporal Carl Bois. The soldier remains bitter, even though the class action agreement will ensure that he will recover no less than $106,500 in benefits not received "since leaving the Canadian army."


So this gentleman must have been actively Involved with the trial to receive an accurate settlement figure?

 

[brihard]

I went through my files and found my sheet from my tour that listed my additional allowances and monthly amounts. While serving in Kandahar I got risk level 4, hardship level 5, and foreign service 1A… but I would have hit level 1 B on the last month of my tour. Back in 2011 that totaled 2222 extra each month. If you compare that to what the indexed amounts currently listed under cbi 210, that would be about 2800 today. That would be an incredible bump in pay if these monthly allowances stick. I am going to wait and see what happens. Trying to not get mentally invested in the possibility in case it’s not true or there is some technicality that disqualifies me… but if that turns out to be the case… something like this could have a huge impact on life style. Thank you Simon Logan.

New headline… says 288 million to be set aside and lawyers will get 16.5% not the 33% the asked for originally.

Home - Archyde

I can understand disability benefits derived from pre-release income factoring in trade spec pay, environmental allowances, etc, but why the hell would they incorporate risk, hardship, and foreign service premium? By all means pay those until the tour would have been completed, but those were never going to continue after the tour was done. They shouldn’t be part of what is deemed one’s permanent income that needs to be replaced in the case of medical release.

 

[CampCricket]

I can understand disability benefits derived from pre-release income factoring in trade spec pay, environmental allowances, etc, but why the hell would they incorporate risk, hardship, and foreign service premium? By all means pay those until the tour would have been completed, but those were never going to continue after the tour was done. They shouldn’t be part of what is deemed one’s permanent income that needs to be replaced in the case of medical release.

The tour allowances only apply to class c reservist. For reg force, it’s the allowances in place at the time of release. I am inclined to think that class c reservists are technically released out of the forces before being re-enrolled back into their home unit in order to move them from one pay system (reg force / class c pay) to the other (reserve pay system). So class c reservists medically released due to injury or illness attributed to that service would meet the criteria of having those allowances in place at the time of their “release”. I suspect that Very few reservist will meet this criteria. When this class action was announced, I did not pay much attention to it as I didn’t get spec pay and was not receiving and field or sea pay at the time. Seems to good to be true and if I get this, it would go against the intent of those allowances. If I was reg force and med evac’d out to say Germany or sent home for treatment mid tour… the policy is to halt those allowances.
I read through some of the court documents on the logic. From what I can tell, the case the plaintiff made on what makes up pay opened the door for all allowances to be considered that are allocated monthly. Class c reservists would luck out because of the type of service they perform in uniform and the language used to cover periods of service that are full time but temporary. I may be wrong, but I remember the SISIP policy changing if in 2012 to better include reservist because they were having issues after returning from Afghanistan with injuries, so some of the policies were amended. SISIP may have opened themselves up to this type of class action and/or might be the reason this lawsuit covers releases from 2012 onward. I can see the policy being carefully rewritten after this to close the loophole, but until then, a few class c reservists will benefit from this decision. Will post what happens with my file. Still think there will be some technicality to void this but who knows anything for sure yet unless you were one of the primary plaintiffs in this class action.

Looks like it’s now 8500 people and 277 million. The amount of compensation only applies to those receiving wage replacement from SISIP. Looks like the 15% top up to 90% is excluded… so anyone part of the class action will receive 100% up until Dec 2021… but there is a statement that looks like vac might consider this income to be clawed back by them going forward.

“VAC will begin to apply the full updated Benefits as an offset to the IRB as set out in the Veterans Well-being Regulations.”
Am i correct with my interpretation?

Proposed Settlement in Class Action regarding the Calculation of Canadian Armed Forces Long Term Disability (CAF-LTD) Insurance Benefits for Disabled Canadian Armed Forces Veterans

www.mcinnescooper.com

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Camp Cricket,

you may “tend think“ that one is “released” from the CAF when you move from Class C to A, but you would be entirely and factually incorrect. So yeah, I think much of your argument rests on wishful thinking.

 

[brihard]

The tour allowances only apply to class c reservist. For reg force, it’s the allowances in place at the time of release. I am inclined to think that class c reservists are technically released out of the forces before being re-enrolled back into their home unit in order to move them from one pay system (reg force / class c pay) to the other (reserve pay system). So class c reservists medically released due to injury or illness attributed to that service would meet the criteria of having those allowances in place at the time of their “release”. I suspect that Very few reservist will meet this criteria. When this class action was announced, I did not pay much attention to it as I didn’t get spec pay and was not receiving and field or sea pay at the time. Seems to good to be true and if I get this, it would go against the intent of those allowances. If I was reg force and med evac’d out to say Germany or sent home for treatment mid tour… the policy is to halt those allowances.
I read through some of the court documents on the logic. From what I can tell, the case the plaintiff made on what makes up pay opened the door for all allowances to be considered that are allocated monthly. Class c reservists would luck out because of the type of service they perform in uniform and the language used to cover periods of service that are full time but temporary. I may be wrong, but I remember the SISIP policy changing if in 2012 to better include reservist because they were having issues after returning from Afghanistan with injuries, so some of the policies were amended. SISIP may have opened themselves up to this type of class action and/or might be the reason this lawsuit covers releases from 2012 onward. I can see the policy being carefully rewritten after this to close the loophole, but until then, a few class c reservists will benefit from this decision. Will post what happens with my file. Still think there will be some technicality to void this but who knows anything for sure yet unless you were one of the primary plaintiffs in this class action.

Looks like it’s now 8500 people and 277 million. The amount of compensation only applies to those receiving wage replacement from SISIP. Looks like the 15% top up to 90% is excluded… so anyone part of the class action will receive 100% up until Dec 2021… but there is a statement that looks like vac might consider this income to be clawed back by them going forward.

“VAC will begin to apply the full updated Benefits as an offset to the IRB as set out in the Veterans Well-being Regulations.”
Am i correct with my interpretation?

Proposed Settlement in Class Action regarding the Calculation of Canadian Armed Forces Long Term Disability (CAF-LTD) Insurance Benefits for Disabled Canadian Armed Forces Veterans

www.mcinnescooper.com

God no. Moving from one pay system to another is in no way shape or form a ‘release’. You remain a member of the Reserve Force throughout. RPSR vs CCPS was purely an administrative thing.

 

[Rifleman62]

I was released from the CAF at the end of a CL C contract. Caused no end of problems with VAC.

 

[dapaterson]

The terms and conditions of SISIP LTD have some differences between Reg F and class C members.

 

[CampCricket]

God no. Moving from one pay system to another is in no way shape or form a ‘release’. You remain a member of the Reserve Force throughout. RPSR vs CCPS was purely an administrative thing.

Exactly, but the physical procedure in front of the computer is to process the end of class C as a release as it was the only way to remove a reservist out of this system… but yes, it’s not treated as a formal release from the CF. I sat there in front of the release clerk as she did this and explained to me what she was doing when she closed out my class c engagement. This technicality also came up when I did my grievance to the ombudsman regarding how my class c extension was not processed quickly enough to accommodate my diagnosis and treatment for injuries. These technicalities were argued before I was approved for reserve force compensation in lieu of the class c extension… major deciding factor was that I was “released” and no longer had access to that system.

But I read the entire legal argument on the lawyers website. When the veterans well being act was updated, there was a change in how salary was defined that made it ambiguous and implied the act had its own definition of what included monthly pay. There was also no specific reference limiting pay to cbi 204. There was also a specific clause added for reservist to give them coverage where it states that the calculation is to use the monthly pay being paid at the time of injury or release.

So since the plaintiff was able to successfully argue that monthly pay includes all monthly allowances, this principal is then applied to the entire act as written from 2012 - 2021, so reservists receiving class c tour allowances goes under that blanket. The act has since been rewritten (after the crown lost) to close this loop hole. Going forward, new releases will not benefit from the ambiguity of the veterans well being act during this time period.