SISIP LTD 2002 - 2018
- Thread starter bossi
- Start date
- Status
- Reaction score
- 27,534
- Points
- 1,090
Canada Revenue Agency distinguishes between taxable income and non-taxable income - sub-categories, not distinct categories.
In fact, were SISIP to be particularly perverse, they'd claim that since VAC pensions are non-taxable, they;re actually worth more than the face value - and increase the reduction.
(Or should I not put such things in writing, lest some "bright boy" at the insurance company latch onto this idea?)
In fact, were SISIP to be particularly perverse, they'd claim that since VAC pensions are non-taxable, they;re actually worth more than the face value - and increase the reduction.
(Or should I not put such things in writing, lest some "bright boy" at the insurance company latch onto this idea?)
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
Dataperson
FYI and to other nay sayers who think they know everything about everything!
It is your own ignorance and lack of understanding, along with the rest of Canada's population, that allow attrocities like this to carry on! I'm an advocate and educator of people....whether you like me or not, or my methods.
I am challenging the very legislation that allowed the SISIP policy for LTD to even be created....
From Federal Court Documents....
"[11] First of all, I do not agree with the Crown that the liability issue which Mr. Manuge has raised in his pleadings is based upon a decision of a federal board or tribunal. While it is undoubtedly correct that the inclusion of Article 24(a)(iv) of the SISIP Plan emanates from a decision made many years ago by the Chief of Defence Staff or by his delegate, what Mr. Manuge seeks to challenge is the lawfulness of the government's policy (as reflected in Article 24 of the SISIP Plan) and by the corresponding action to reduce his monthly SISIP income by the amount received by him under the Pension Act. This situation is more in keeping with that addressed by the Federal Court of Appeal in Krause v.Canada, [1999] 2 F.C. 476, 236 N.R. 317 (C.A.) than in Grenier, above. In Krause, the Applicants sought prerogative relief to compel the Crown to credit their pension accounts as required by the Public Service Superannuation Act"
....Federal Court Justice Robert Barnes, Presiding Judge, Manuge vs Her Majesty the Queen
You can read the entire certification decision at
the Federal Court Website, under decisions and the date is May 20th , 2008 or at http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/2008/2008fc624/2008fc624.html
Read up, make sure you understand the issue, before throwing in un-valid arguments.
Also ask yourself why the largest Law Firm in atlantic Canada, McInnes Cooper, have invested over $250 000.00 and why my co-counsel, Mr. Ward Branch wanted to be involved in this case. Mr. Branch is the leading class action lawyer/expert in Canada. If there was nothing here we would not be certified and protected by federal court and SISIP & VAC would not have the notices on the front of their web pages about the class action.
http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/general/
http://www.sisip.com/en/index.asp
Lastly, our numbers have grown to over 6200 Disabled Veterans and 100 estates!
Do let me know if you need any other correct and or accurate information!
Good Day
Dennis Manuge
Representative Plaintiff, Manuge Vs Her Majesty The Queen
32 Isaac's place RR#2
Site 10A, Box 0
Head of Chezzetcook, NS B0J1N0
Home: (902) 827-4807
Cell : 499-0656
dmanuge@eastlink.ca
dennis.manuge@mobility.blackberry.net
FYI and to other nay sayers who think they know everything about everything!
It is your own ignorance and lack of understanding, along with the rest of Canada's population, that allow attrocities like this to carry on! I'm an advocate and educator of people....whether you like me or not, or my methods.
I am challenging the very legislation that allowed the SISIP policy for LTD to even be created....
From Federal Court Documents....
"[11] First of all, I do not agree with the Crown that the liability issue which Mr. Manuge has raised in his pleadings is based upon a decision of a federal board or tribunal. While it is undoubtedly correct that the inclusion of Article 24(a)(iv) of the SISIP Plan emanates from a decision made many years ago by the Chief of Defence Staff or by his delegate, what Mr. Manuge seeks to challenge is the lawfulness of the government's policy (as reflected in Article 24 of the SISIP Plan) and by the corresponding action to reduce his monthly SISIP income by the amount received by him under the Pension Act. This situation is more in keeping with that addressed by the Federal Court of Appeal in Krause v.Canada, [1999] 2 F.C. 476, 236 N.R. 317 (C.A.) than in Grenier, above. In Krause, the Applicants sought prerogative relief to compel the Crown to credit their pension accounts as required by the Public Service Superannuation Act"
....Federal Court Justice Robert Barnes, Presiding Judge, Manuge vs Her Majesty the Queen
You can read the entire certification decision at
the Federal Court Website, under decisions and the date is May 20th , 2008 or at http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/2008/2008fc624/2008fc624.html
Read up, make sure you understand the issue, before throwing in un-valid arguments.
Also ask yourself why the largest Law Firm in atlantic Canada, McInnes Cooper, have invested over $250 000.00 and why my co-counsel, Mr. Ward Branch wanted to be involved in this case. Mr. Branch is the leading class action lawyer/expert in Canada. If there was nothing here we would not be certified and protected by federal court and SISIP & VAC would not have the notices on the front of their web pages about the class action.
http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/general/
http://www.sisip.com/en/index.asp
Lastly, our numbers have grown to over 6200 Disabled Veterans and 100 estates!
Do let me know if you need any other correct and or accurate information!
Good Day
Dennis Manuge
Representative Plaintiff, Manuge Vs Her Majesty The Queen
32 Isaac's place RR#2
Site 10A, Box 0
Head of Chezzetcook, NS B0J1N0
Home: (902) 827-4807
Cell : 499-0656
dmanuge@eastlink.ca
dennis.manuge@mobility.blackberry.net
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION REGARDING THE REDUCTION OF S.I.S.I.P. LONG TERM DISABILITY BENEFITS BY THE AMOUNT OF PENSION ACT PAYMENTS
Manuge v. Her Majesty the Queen
Court No. T-463-07
The Federal Court of Canada has certified the above case as a class action. If you are a former member of the Canadian Forces whose S.I.S.I.P. Long Term Disability plan benefits (“SISIP LTD”) have been reduced by the amount of your monthly VAC Disability Pension payable under the Pension Act, you may be a member of the class in this action. If the action succeeds or is settled, your entitlement to an award will depend upon your individual circumstances.
WHAT IS THE ACTION ABOUT?
Under the terms of the SISIP LTD plan, an amount equal to 75% of the disabled former member’s pay at release is payable, but is reduced by payments received from the VAC disability pension.
The class action challenges the authority of the Government of Canada to lawfully reduce SISIP LTD benefits by the amount of VAC disability benefits payable, and further challenges the reduction as being discriminatory, contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The claim also alleges breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, breach of public duty and bad faith on the part of the Government of Canada.
The class action seeks, among other things, a declaration by the court that the Government of Canada acted improperly in reducing the SISIP LTD benefits, and repayment of the amounts reduced, as well as punitive, exemplary, and aggravated damages.
All class members will be bound by the judgment, whether favourable or unfavourable, in the class action.
WHO ARE THE CLASS MEMBERS?
The class has been defined by the Federal Court, by Order dated May 20, 2008, as follows:
“All former members of the Canadian Forces whose long term disability benefits under S.I.S.I.P. Policy No. 901102 were reduced by the amount of their VAC disability benefits received pursuant to the Pension Act from April 17, 1985 to date.”
The person who brought the lawsuit and who is a class member and the representative plaintiff in the class action is Dennis Manuge, c/o Peter Driscoll, McInnes Cooper, 1300 – 1969 Upper Water Street, Purdy’s Wharf Tower II, PO Box 730, Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3J 2V1.
WHAT DO I NEED TO DO TO TAKE PART IN THE CLASS ACTION:
All class members have a right to participate in the class action. You do not need to do anything to participate. You are automatically included in the class action. If you do not want to participate you must opt-out, by completing an opt-out notice available from McInnes Cooper. If you elect not to participate, your opt-out notice must be received by the offices of McInnes Cooper by no later than December 8, 2008. McInnes Cooper can help you confirm whether you are a class member. McInnes Cooper can be reached at the following address:
McInnes Cooper, 1300 – 1969 Upper Water Street, Purdy’s Wharf Tower II, PO Box 730, Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3J 2V1
Tel: (902) 425-6500
Fax: (902) 425-6350
E-mail: SISIPclassaction@mcinnescooper.com
When contacting McInnes Cooper, please provide:
• Your name;
• Your address;
• Your dates of service in the Canadian Forces;
• Your date of medical release from the Canadian Forces;
• The date upon which you commenced receiving a VAC
disability benefit under the Pension Act;
• The date you commenced receiving SISIP Long Term
Disability benefits;
• The amount by which your SISIP LTD benefits were
reduced by your VAC Disability benefits.
DO I NEED TO PAY ANYTHING?
You do not have to pay any direct legal fees out of your own pocket. If the case is not successful, no legal fees will be charged.
By agreement with the representative plaintiffs, counsel fees may be calculated at 30% of any amounts recovered. If a settlement, judgment, voluntary payment or execution or other benefit is obtained, the lawyers will apply to court for approval of a fee that is consistent with the terms of this agreement, or some lesser amount. The court will decide what amount is fair.
This arrangement compensates the lawyers for the risk they have assumed in advancing the case and performing the legal work. The lawyers do not receive any money unless the case is successful. Even if the class action does not succeed, class members are not responsible for the fees of any of the lawyers involved in the case.
WHO ARE THE LAWYERS FOR THE CLASS?
Peter Driscoll, McInnes Cooper, 1300 – 1969 Upper Water Street, Purdy’s Wharf Tower II, PO Box 730, Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3J 2V1
Ward Branch, Branch MacMaster, 1210 – 777 Hornby Street, Vancouver, BC, V6Z 1S4
WHOM DO I CONTACT FOR MORE INFORMATION?
For more information or to opt out of the class action, please contact McInnes Cooper at the address set out above. You can also monitor the McInnes Cooper website at www.mcinnescooper.com .
Manuge v. Her Majesty the Queen
Court No. T-463-07
The Federal Court of Canada has certified the above case as a class action. If you are a former member of the Canadian Forces whose S.I.S.I.P. Long Term Disability plan benefits (“SISIP LTD”) have been reduced by the amount of your monthly VAC Disability Pension payable under the Pension Act, you may be a member of the class in this action. If the action succeeds or is settled, your entitlement to an award will depend upon your individual circumstances.
WHAT IS THE ACTION ABOUT?
Under the terms of the SISIP LTD plan, an amount equal to 75% of the disabled former member’s pay at release is payable, but is reduced by payments received from the VAC disability pension.
The class action challenges the authority of the Government of Canada to lawfully reduce SISIP LTD benefits by the amount of VAC disability benefits payable, and further challenges the reduction as being discriminatory, contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The claim also alleges breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, breach of public duty and bad faith on the part of the Government of Canada.
The class action seeks, among other things, a declaration by the court that the Government of Canada acted improperly in reducing the SISIP LTD benefits, and repayment of the amounts reduced, as well as punitive, exemplary, and aggravated damages.
All class members will be bound by the judgment, whether favourable or unfavourable, in the class action.
WHO ARE THE CLASS MEMBERS?
The class has been defined by the Federal Court, by Order dated May 20, 2008, as follows:
“All former members of the Canadian Forces whose long term disability benefits under S.I.S.I.P. Policy No. 901102 were reduced by the amount of their VAC disability benefits received pursuant to the Pension Act from April 17, 1985 to date.”
The person who brought the lawsuit and who is a class member and the representative plaintiff in the class action is Dennis Manuge, c/o Peter Driscoll, McInnes Cooper, 1300 – 1969 Upper Water Street, Purdy’s Wharf Tower II, PO Box 730, Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3J 2V1.
WHAT DO I NEED TO DO TO TAKE PART IN THE CLASS ACTION:
All class members have a right to participate in the class action. You do not need to do anything to participate. You are automatically included in the class action. If you do not want to participate you must opt-out, by completing an opt-out notice available from McInnes Cooper. If you elect not to participate, your opt-out notice must be received by the offices of McInnes Cooper by no later than December 8, 2008. McInnes Cooper can help you confirm whether you are a class member. McInnes Cooper can be reached at the following address:
McInnes Cooper, 1300 – 1969 Upper Water Street, Purdy’s Wharf Tower II, PO Box 730, Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3J 2V1
Tel: (902) 425-6500
Fax: (902) 425-6350
E-mail: SISIPclassaction@mcinnescooper.com
When contacting McInnes Cooper, please provide:
• Your name;
• Your address;
• Your dates of service in the Canadian Forces;
• Your date of medical release from the Canadian Forces;
• The date upon which you commenced receiving a VAC
disability benefit under the Pension Act;
• The date you commenced receiving SISIP Long Term
Disability benefits;
• The amount by which your SISIP LTD benefits were
reduced by your VAC Disability benefits.
DO I NEED TO PAY ANYTHING?
You do not have to pay any direct legal fees out of your own pocket. If the case is not successful, no legal fees will be charged.
By agreement with the representative plaintiffs, counsel fees may be calculated at 30% of any amounts recovered. If a settlement, judgment, voluntary payment or execution or other benefit is obtained, the lawyers will apply to court for approval of a fee that is consistent with the terms of this agreement, or some lesser amount. The court will decide what amount is fair.
This arrangement compensates the lawyers for the risk they have assumed in advancing the case and performing the legal work. The lawyers do not receive any money unless the case is successful. Even if the class action does not succeed, class members are not responsible for the fees of any of the lawyers involved in the case.
WHO ARE THE LAWYERS FOR THE CLASS?
Peter Driscoll, McInnes Cooper, 1300 – 1969 Upper Water Street, Purdy’s Wharf Tower II, PO Box 730, Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3J 2V1
Ward Branch, Branch MacMaster, 1210 – 777 Hornby Street, Vancouver, BC, V6Z 1S4
WHOM DO I CONTACT FOR MORE INFORMATION?
For more information or to opt out of the class action, please contact McInnes Cooper at the address set out above. You can also monitor the McInnes Cooper website at www.mcinnescooper.com .
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Representative Plaintiff said:
Dennis, I dont think they are challenging your assertions or your case, merely debating the issue while waiting for a legal decision...
- Reaction score
- 6
- Points
- 430
Representative Plaintiff said:
Well, while your motives may be sound, I do find your tone on entering this thread somewhat objectionable for someone who claims to be here as an educator. How about reining in the attitude and you may find your experience here to be less harsh than you seem to be expecting or attempting to invite.
Army.ca Staff
- Reaction score
- 27,534
- Points
- 1,090
Representative Plaintiff said:
They're repesenting you becasue they see a potential lucrative settlement with the Crown from which they will profit greatly. They'll be taking 30% of anything that's awarded. If we assume 4000 plaintiffs, each of whom may receive $10K in lost benefits and $5K in damages, that represents $60M for the plaintiffs. Your legal firm would take $18M of that (plus expenses).
Note that the Federal Court ruling you cite is a class certification only. Nothing more. Not a ruling on merits of the case (one way or the other), emrely a recognition that the underlying facts do give rise to grounds for a class to be certified for a case before the Federal Court.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
dapaterson said:
You could get damages too? I thought it would be interest on lost funds only...
the 48th regulator
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
Greymatters said:
Anyone released collecting a pension from VAC, be it a medical release or not.
dileas
tess
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
Hi Guys and gals
My tone and my will has gotten us a certified class action in federal court, maybe if more folks had the stones, court would not have been necessary. I of all people are aware of the decision being on certification, but have any of you read anything in the legal form for this case.
The judge approves any legal fees, despite the retaining agreement
We are seeking our legal fees to be paid, in full, by the crown,
Yes we are seeking damages...why? Because the DND ombudsman informed them (the governments of the day) that this issue was "fundementally wrong" and needed to be fixed, Peter Stoffer's Private Members bill passed in the house of Commons, Nov -06, The Senate Sub Committee, at which I was a witness said, "Fix It", and about a thousand letters from us asked them politely.....So they were aware of the problem and chose to neglect it! Hence damages.
I remind you all again, my cut is $10 000. That's it.
yes the lawyers and law firm will get money, but they have had to invest in myself and this case at 100% risk to them, so again I am saying that I am the one closest to this situation and I know the facts and I find it hard to read what others print, when they have not even read the case, the certification decision, etc...yet come on here and pass judgement on me, my lawyers, this case.
I am not looking for friends, I am trying, literally to save peoples lives! My record stands for itself, attitude and all!
Yes I am an educator and an advocate for disabled Veterans! Yes my attitude serves me well there, thanks for checking in though!
Dennis
My tone and my will has gotten us a certified class action in federal court, maybe if more folks had the stones, court would not have been necessary. I of all people are aware of the decision being on certification, but have any of you read anything in the legal form for this case.
The judge approves any legal fees, despite the retaining agreement
We are seeking our legal fees to be paid, in full, by the crown,
Yes we are seeking damages...why? Because the DND ombudsman informed them (the governments of the day) that this issue was "fundementally wrong" and needed to be fixed, Peter Stoffer's Private Members bill passed in the house of Commons, Nov -06, The Senate Sub Committee, at which I was a witness said, "Fix It", and about a thousand letters from us asked them politely.....So they were aware of the problem and chose to neglect it! Hence damages.
I remind you all again, my cut is $10 000. That's it.
yes the lawyers and law firm will get money, but they have had to invest in myself and this case at 100% risk to them, so again I am saying that I am the one closest to this situation and I know the facts and I find it hard to read what others print, when they have not even read the case, the certification decision, etc...yet come on here and pass judgement on me, my lawyers, this case.
I am not looking for friends, I am trying, literally to save peoples lives! My record stands for itself, attitude and all!
Yes I am an educator and an advocate for disabled Veterans! Yes my attitude serves me well there, thanks for checking in though!
Dennis
George Wallace
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 184
- Points
- 710
Ya know something Dennis, if you don't sort out your ego and arrogance in your next post, you may be CHECKING OUT.
Clean up your TONE.
George
Milnet Staff
Clean up your TONE.
George
Milnet Staff
the 48th regulator
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
Dennis,
PM inbound brother.
dileas
tess
PM inbound brother.
dileas
tess
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
Will do Tess!
I hear you and I know you know from where I am coming
I hear you and I know you know from where I am coming
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
My ego is large, you don't get where I have gotten, with-out one. But it is not too large to appologise to the milnet staff. Sincerely I do!
I find it very difficult to read things posted by those who are not involved directly and therefore have access to the "real story" and factual information.
That is why I saw it necessary to jump on this form again.
Greymatters & Tess; the class definition is
"All former members of the Canadian Forces whose long term disability benefits under the SISIP policy number 901102 were reduced by the amount of their VAC disability benefits received pursuant to the Pension Act from April 17, 1985 to date."
So you must meet this in order to be included. You must have been medically released and received LTD from SISIP...reply to your guys exchange around seeking damages and VAC pension medically released or not. I think this is what you were asking? Not 100% sure. Please clarify if I'm misreading the exchange.
I have included my personal contact information (in a prior post today) for those who would like to ask me questions, directly, to gain insight in to this issue. Please feel free to contact me by e-mail or phone anytime before 9pm Atlantic time....my wife works long days and she needs her rest, so I don't take calls after that time.
George, I hope this post is ok?
I find it very difficult to read things posted by those who are not involved directly and therefore have access to the "real story" and factual information.
That is why I saw it necessary to jump on this form again.
Greymatters & Tess; the class definition is
"All former members of the Canadian Forces whose long term disability benefits under the SISIP policy number 901102 were reduced by the amount of their VAC disability benefits received pursuant to the Pension Act from April 17, 1985 to date."
So you must meet this in order to be included. You must have been medically released and received LTD from SISIP...reply to your guys exchange around seeking damages and VAC pension medically released or not. I think this is what you were asking? Not 100% sure. Please clarify if I'm misreading the exchange.
I have included my personal contact information (in a prior post today) for those who would like to ask me questions, directly, to gain insight in to this issue. Please feel free to contact me by e-mail or phone anytime before 9pm Atlantic time....my wife works long days and she needs her rest, so I don't take calls after that time.
George, I hope this post is ok?
- Reaction score
- 27,534
- Points
- 1,090
Dennis:
We probably disagree on a lot, but I do respect you for putting yourself out and making yourself available.
We probably disagree on a lot, but I do respect you for putting yourself out and making yourself available.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
dataperson
I can say sorry to you directly for the strong attitude and tone. Yes we might disagree on alot, though I'm not sure why. I just got an e-mail from a female disabled veteran of 28 years service who is currently being clawed back $2900/month. Because SISIP's application says "up front" that we are going to deduct VAC pensions and CPP, simply does not make it right. Hence my challenge in court. we have 27 points of argument and 15 questions are certified as common questions of law or fact.
To clarify for all, Yes I am saying that this is plain wrong, however, that is not the end all be all. We have solid legal grounds to argue. We have beyond excellent representation, who will be paid for, in all likelihood, by the government, not us. Even if it is us, the class, that has to pay....70% of something is better than 0% of nothing! The retaining agreement that I signed, with-out the luxury of consult with the other 6200 members of the class, was signed with that in mind. It is a standard fee for a case of this magnitude, even as the judge has said,
[34] " One other concern raised by the Crown involves the magnitude of the contingency fee that would be payable under the terms of the Retainer Agreement entered into between Mr. Manuge and his legal counsel. That Agreement provides for a fee of 30% of any favourable financial judgment plus disbursements. The Agreement also duly notes that the fee payable “shall be subject to approval by the Court”. There is certainly nothing inappropriate about a contingency fee arrangement in a case like this one where the outcome is unpredictable and where the amounts individually in issue appear insufficient to support litigation. The amount of fee payable at the end of a class proceeding is, of course, subject to assessment by the trial court and must bear some reasonable relationship to the effort actually expended and to the degree of risk assumed by counsel. I have no reservations about the ability of the Court to deal with this issue, if necessary, in the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction."
I'm doing pretty good with this toned down approach, you guys!
I just hope that you all can appreciate where the attitude and tone come from...this is not an easy path, some days it is downright lonely, the personal cost has been high, but I'm still in the fight. I am not a saint, nor do I think I am anyone other than someone who knows the difference between right and wrong. The SISIP Clawback is wrong, it is illegal, and we are going to fix it!
On another note, one must also remember that if you do not disclose on the SISIP LTD application your VAC Pension, CPP etc...if you do not play the game, knowing full well you will lose these monies, you get nothing! If that is not coersion (can't spell) or holding a gun to an already compromised individual, I don't know what is. Justice Barnes actually laughed out loud at the certification hearing when the crown's attorneys held my SISIP application up, stating Mr. Manuge knew full well what he was in for, because he read and signed the document. I would have signed my right arm away, or worse, because if I hadn't I would have had nothing, no money. Again, just because the application says so, does not make it legal, or simply, right!
dataperson, have a good night and take care
Dennis "The Menace"
I can say sorry to you directly for the strong attitude and tone. Yes we might disagree on alot, though I'm not sure why. I just got an e-mail from a female disabled veteran of 28 years service who is currently being clawed back $2900/month. Because SISIP's application says "up front" that we are going to deduct VAC pensions and CPP, simply does not make it right. Hence my challenge in court. we have 27 points of argument and 15 questions are certified as common questions of law or fact.
To clarify for all, Yes I am saying that this is plain wrong, however, that is not the end all be all. We have solid legal grounds to argue. We have beyond excellent representation, who will be paid for, in all likelihood, by the government, not us. Even if it is us, the class, that has to pay....70% of something is better than 0% of nothing! The retaining agreement that I signed, with-out the luxury of consult with the other 6200 members of the class, was signed with that in mind. It is a standard fee for a case of this magnitude, even as the judge has said,
[34] " One other concern raised by the Crown involves the magnitude of the contingency fee that would be payable under the terms of the Retainer Agreement entered into between Mr. Manuge and his legal counsel. That Agreement provides for a fee of 30% of any favourable financial judgment plus disbursements. The Agreement also duly notes that the fee payable “shall be subject to approval by the Court”. There is certainly nothing inappropriate about a contingency fee arrangement in a case like this one where the outcome is unpredictable and where the amounts individually in issue appear insufficient to support litigation. The amount of fee payable at the end of a class proceeding is, of course, subject to assessment by the trial court and must bear some reasonable relationship to the effort actually expended and to the degree of risk assumed by counsel. I have no reservations about the ability of the Court to deal with this issue, if necessary, in the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction."
I'm doing pretty good with this toned down approach, you guys!
I just hope that you all can appreciate where the attitude and tone come from...this is not an easy path, some days it is downright lonely, the personal cost has been high, but I'm still in the fight. I am not a saint, nor do I think I am anyone other than someone who knows the difference between right and wrong. The SISIP Clawback is wrong, it is illegal, and we are going to fix it!
On another note, one must also remember that if you do not disclose on the SISIP LTD application your VAC Pension, CPP etc...if you do not play the game, knowing full well you will lose these monies, you get nothing! If that is not coersion (can't spell) or holding a gun to an already compromised individual, I don't know what is. Justice Barnes actually laughed out loud at the certification hearing when the crown's attorneys held my SISIP application up, stating Mr. Manuge knew full well what he was in for, because he read and signed the document. I would have signed my right arm away, or worse, because if I hadn't I would have had nothing, no money. Again, just because the application says so, does not make it legal, or simply, right!
dataperson, have a good night and take care
Dennis "The Menace"
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
After reading through the details and heated debate it is important to remember a few things about the issue that always get forgotten or the value they carry in the argument gets diminished with time or lack of undersanding. Points to remember when forming the argument for or against:
1. VAC Pensions are a "Gift of Canada for pain and suffering"....they are not a pension nor are they income that is why they are non taxed.
2. Civies do no get pain and suffering grants clawed back by there insurance company and specifically our insurance company that funds SISIP does not claw back from its civies.
3. Remember this really is about the wounded not the medically released for normal ills which it has now become.
4. No one told me when I signed up for the disability insurance that I would pay for my entire career but when I became disabled they would never pay me thus they kept all the money I gave them knowing they would never payout if I was injured in combat. Not that this is wrong if they say they dont cover it but when they say they will cover and dont its fraud.
So in all the arguments for and against remember these little bits.
3rd Horseman
1. VAC Pensions are a "Gift of Canada for pain and suffering"....they are not a pension nor are they income that is why they are non taxed.
2. Civies do no get pain and suffering grants clawed back by there insurance company and specifically our insurance company that funds SISIP does not claw back from its civies.
3. Remember this really is about the wounded not the medically released for normal ills which it has now become.
4. No one told me when I signed up for the disability insurance that I would pay for my entire career but when I became disabled they would never pay me thus they kept all the money I gave them knowing they would never payout if I was injured in combat. Not that this is wrong if they say they dont cover it but when they say they will cover and dont its fraud.
So in all the arguments for and against remember these little bits.
3rd Horseman
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
Good points Horseman, but I challenge you on the "injured in combat vs, medically released"
If that's your opinion, great, however, I broke my back in Petawawa, at 3 RCR, they took almost 2.5 yrs to tell me what I had done to myself, and I did my tour in Bosnia, broken back and all.....I was not injured in combat, and this is all about being medically released, drawing SISIP and having one's VAC monies, clawed back.
My opinion.
I appreciate your thoughts and you expressing them.
Dennis
If that's your opinion, great, however, I broke my back in Petawawa, at 3 RCR, they took almost 2.5 yrs to tell me what I had done to myself, and I did my tour in Bosnia, broken back and all.....I was not injured in combat, and this is all about being medically released, drawing SISIP and having one's VAC monies, clawed back.
My opinion.
I appreciate your thoughts and you expressing them.
Dennis
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
The reporting on the Federal Court docket represents the usual litigation grind including the DOJ’s objections to including estate claims and our response, and forcing the Defendant to get their documents in order and disclose them to us. This will go on for the next 12-24 months (optimistically) before we have a trial. The Appeal hearing is set for December 16th in Toronto.
- Status
Similar threads
