Author Topic: SISIP LTD Class Action settled (and follow-up on claw-back)  (Read 236706 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Greymatters

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 15,700
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,571
Re: SISIP LTD Class Action
« Reply #50 on: September 06, 2007, 00:27:11 »
Those are some pretty thorough responses!  Good points. 

What is the likelihood of said lawsuit be expanded to a class action suit? (if thats the correct term Im thinking of)

Offline Bigrex

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 0
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 58
Re: SISIP LTD Class Action
« Reply #51 on: September 06, 2007, 06:05:40 »
Seeing as one of the senior members of a law firm (Branch McMaster) who are a leading Class Action firm, has volunteered to aide in preperation of our case, I say we have a pretty good shot. Also the fact that there are so many of us helps, up to 6000 are covered by the proposed class. If not accepted a class action but Dennis wins, they need to realize, that they would be facing a great deal of lawsuits. I would pay gladly $5000 to get the $36000.00+ they owe me, and since there was presidence, it would be a sure thing, so why not just either fix the issue or not, in one fell swoop, it just makes sense.

Offline battleaxe

  • Member
  • ****
  • 0
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 107
Re: SISIP LTD Class Action
« Reply #52 on: September 06, 2007, 10:49:58 »
Bigrex,

I received a little info the other day from another interested veteran that helps to highlight what you're saying about the class action suit.

Link to Boyne Clark website, explaining the collaboration between Boyne Clarke and Branch McMaster, a law firm that specializes in class action cases out of Vancouver.

http://boyneclarke.ns.ca/news.php?id=9

The website gives other links for more info.  Quite informative.

I have a question about one part of it- any legal minds out there?

From the website:

"Since the filing of our statement of claim we have received a significant number of e-mails from former members of the Canadian Forces inquiring as to whether they form part of the class and whether they can join in the action against the Government of Canada. The class we propose to have certified includes all those former member of the Canadian Forces whose SISIP LTD benefits have been reduced by the amount of their VAC Disability Pension. (“SISIP Clawback”) Should the Federal Court certify the class under this definition, any former member of the Canadian Forces subject to the SISIP Clawback would be a part of the class action against the Government of Canada unless they specifically opted out of the action."

Does this mean that we (former members of the Canadian Forces whose SISIP LTD benefits have been reduced by the amount of their VAC Disability Pension) will benefit without having to "sign up" as it were?  We are members of the suit by default and will automatically be compensated by SISIP due to the policy changes that will logically come into affect if the suit wins?

How will this work?

We should be hearing more on this in November or so - it's been in the papers - link is http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2007/09/04/4469622-cp.html if it hasn't already appeared elsewhere on the forum.

Bren

Offline Bigrex

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 0
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 58
Re: SISIP LTD Class Action
« Reply #53 on: September 06, 2007, 12:47:11 »
Yes, if you are under the "class", then if it is certified as a class action, and won, all in the class will benefit, unless they opt out of the lawsuit. I think the database they have created is more for their records, maybe to present in court, as further proof that this affects a great deal of disabled/ medically released veterans, not just Dennis Manuge, he only had the willingness to take it to court first. Contacting the layers doesn't mean you will be subpoenaed or anything, so it cannot hurt.  Those who do contact them will be notified via email of all important information from the lawyer, or it can usually be read shortly afterwards at veteransvoice.info, so it's up to you. 

Also I'm alot better off than some of the young privates that have been injured in Afghanistan, if they were severely injured and unable to return to work and relied on SISIP to give them money to live off, all that their ruined lives are worth is between $1861.00 and $2735.00 per month plus 2 % each year until 65. So a 20year old who went to Afghanistan , right after battle school, gets injured to the point where he can no longer work, and goes on SiISIP LTD, in 45 years, his monthly earning will go from a max of $1861.00 to $2996.00, just over the unofficial poverty line for a household. And while on SISIP LTD, he cannot seek any additional income other than employment, he cannot apply for CPP disability, because that would get deducted from his sisip cheque 100%, he cannot get any money from VAC, including extra money for dependants, other than the new disability awards, which aren't that big of an amount if you need to make it last all your life. So that 20 year old, injured while serving his country will possibly never own his own house, probably never know the feeling of purchasing a brand new car, never afford to give his children a decent Christmas, or take them to Disneyland, all because of SISIP and greedy uncaring bureaucrats. If we get this settlement, and SISIP stops clawing back our money, people will not get rich, like one guy thinks, and there is a big difference between getting rich and being financially comfortable.

Offline battleaxe

  • Member
  • ****
  • 0
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 107
Re: SISIP LTD Class Action
« Reply #54 on: September 06, 2007, 14:42:53 »
I'm with you on all of it.

And thanks for bringing up the younger soldiers again...those are the ones who are affected most by disability and release.  When you look at the benefits that injured personnel are offered- many of them are dependent on salary upon release. 

New/younger military personnel may be getting paid better than they used to, but still, 75% of release salary for some is not all that impressive an amount- especially if there are families and kids involved.

Anyway, thanks for the info.  It's great to see movement on this issue...and there are many, IMO, who ought to be thanking Manuge for sticking his neck out the way he has.

Bren

 

dennismanuge

  • Guest
Re: SISIP LTD Class Action
« Reply #55 on: December 04, 2007, 10:42:17 »
Hi folks

Glad you are discussing this, but those of you willing to settle for the government eating up what is rightly yours....grow a backbone and stand up for yourselves and if you are not willing to do so, stand up for those around you that can not stand up for themselves. I personally stand to gain only about $10 000 from my legal action against the crown. I am not drawing SISIP benefits at the moment and I have not since my 24 month elegibility ran out. I went through VOC Rehab, topped my course, graduated with honours, and gained lawful, full-time employement. I do not need SISIP LTD. I am greatful for my education, but I do believe I earned it when I Broke my back serving this country. What I did not earn was the ability of the federal government to clawback my money illegally. A disability pension is not replacement income, not taxable, and therefore, fundementally it is untouchable by anyone. There are some 70 points of argument in my statement of claim and I suggest any of you weak minded brain washed followers out there, get a grip and give it a read before spewing your ignorant and self defeating words to others when they are simply asking appropriate questions to learn more about the issue that you are to ignorant to learn yourself. As far as me or the class i represent "getting nowhere with this" I urge you to read and follow the story. We will be certified as a Class Action in February of 2008. If you disagree with the two ombudsmen, I look forward to your comments after a federal court judge destroys the crown and there inadequacy in their responsibility to disabled veterans. Stay tuned. Yours very seriously and sincerely, Dennis Manuge

Offline Greymatters

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 15,700
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,571
Re: SISIP LTD Class Action
« Reply #56 on: December 04, 2007, 15:56:11 »
I am more concerned with the so-called assistance in helping medically released service members find new employment for those who can work, or even work with accommodation (although I will admit this is less important than clawing back money from veterans dependent on that support).  As far as I am concerned, ex-service members are deliberately excluded and denied access to competitions and positions in other government departments, that includes civilian positions with the RCMP, DFO, HRSDC and many other government departments.  Many of these work-places are able to support disabled and injured people, they make accommodations for their own employees, yet they have no interest in hiring former CF members.  Further, the system of advertisement and competition specifications are rigged against CF members despite the fact that they are able to move to another part of the country to work at that position.  What is worse, is that SISIP representatives (among others) are aware of this but do nothing with the information. 

To fix this I would suggest the CF implement a post-release follow-up interview process to gain information from released veterans.  This would address not only this issue, but other issues that might exist.  At this moment, there is no effort to find out what is wrong with the system except when a retired member complains through a  third party such as an ombudsman (such as whats going on now with the 'clawback' issue).  Although the military is not responsible for my welfare after release, it is responsible for ensuring that former members are treated properly and giving access to jobs as part of the release process.  At the moment there is no means for them to ascertain this other than through service providers.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2007, 18:30:20 by Greymatters »

dennismanuge

  • Guest
Re: SISIP LTD Class Action
« Reply #57 on: December 04, 2007, 16:05:20 »
Greymatters
you make very good points and you understand what some of the real issues are. That is why i am seeking support to have a public inquiry  on a systemic scale into how we (disabled veterans) have been, and are being treated. Thanks for your comments.
Dennis

Offline Greymatters

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 15,700
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,571
Re: SISIP LTD Class Action
« Reply #58 on: December 04, 2007, 18:26:31 »
... Thanks for your comments... 

In this matter, thank you, but I must defer subject matter expertise to our resident guru (IMO) on the subject, 48th Regulator (visible as the brown monk drinking ale).  He is much more active and informed on the subject than I am.

"Oh master, a new disciple approaches..."   ;D

Offline the 48th regulator

    A mans gotta eat.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 45,600
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,934
  • Emancipate yourself from mental slavery.
    • Green Veterans Canada
Re: SISIP LTD Class Action
« Reply #59 on: December 04, 2007, 21:23:22 »
Hi folks

Glad you are discussing this, but those of you willing to settle for the government eating up what is rightly yours....grow a backbone and stand up for yourselves and if you are not willing to do so, stand up for those around you that can not stand up for themselves. I personally stand to gain only about $10 000 from my legal action against the crown. I am not drawing SISIP benefits at the moment and I have not since my 24 month eligibility ran out. I went through VOC Rehab, topped my course, graduated with honors, and gained lawful, full-time employment. I do not need SISIP LTD. I am grateful for my education, but I do believe I earned it when I Broke my back serving this country. What I did not earn was the ability of the federal government to claw back my money illegally. A disability pension is not replacement income, not taxable, and therefore, fundamentally it is untouchable by anyone. There are some 70 points of argument in my statement of claim and I suggest any of you weak minded brain washed followers out there, get a grip and give it a read before spewing your ignorant and self defeating words to others when they are simply asking appropriate questions to learn more about the issue that you are to ignorant to learn yourself. As far as me or the class I represent "getting nowhere with this" I urge you to read and follow the story. We will be certified as a Class Action in February of 2008. If you disagree with the two ombudsmen, I look forward to your comments after a federal court judge destroys the crown and there inadequacy in their responsibility to disabled veterans. Stay tuned. Yours very seriously and sincerely, Dennis Manuge

Dennis Welcome aboard, you are the person we have been waiting for on this thread.

Too much has been said about your situation and you cause, and some of us have been supportive of it.

You see, I was told exactly what you are fighting for.  The fact that I collect a VAC pension, that SISIP considers this an actual income.

Do I claim this pension on my taxes?  No. So then tell me how they are able to win the bid to be the supplier of our insurance, if they contravene the policy of our own government.

As you have said, two ombudsman have declared this to be wrong.

Now me, I have a lot more to fight.  I just received the letter stating that since my injuries occurred before 1999, there is a clause that states, because I did not pay into SISIP, I am unable to claim.  Fair enough, I did not pay into it.  However, when I was injured I did pay into it, and was denied then.

Am I going to fight it?  Hell ya!  I look at what you are trying to do, and again, $10,000 is not that much, but it is the principle.  Should we grow a spine and do this?  Maybe your post will help others to do this.

But what I have to say brother, is you are preaching to the quire here.  This site is in no way associated with DND, The CF, or SISIP.  All privately owned.  We abide by the rules that any soldier follows, and that is what keeps this site above and beyond others.

Again, thank you Dennis, and all I ask is that you become an active member here.  We need the input of someone that is working to make a change for the better for all of us that have, are, and will serve.

dileas

tess
« Last Edit: March 23, 2010, 17:38:47 by the 48th regulator »
I know that I’m not perfect and that I don’t claim to be, so before you point your fingers make sure your hands are clean.

Offline DBA

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 7,520
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 341
Re: SISIP LTD Class Action
« Reply #60 on: December 05, 2007, 13:19:29 »
The lawsuit in question has no real chance of legal success. It's only chance is to hype it till maybe public pressure makes the government give in. I got a very short SISP presentation when I was in the Reserves and even in the short time they had they got across the in effect 'clawback' very well. The coverage was point blank put as when you get injured:

other government compensation (if any) + SISP payouts = SISP coverage amount

For Reserves they pointed out the (if any) often ended up as none for us and that SISP would do a nice job of covering more situations. For when there is government compensation it would make up any shortfalls to the coverage level. That "make up any shortfalls" is key as it's the other side of the in effect "clawback". It wasn't some hidden provision it was in pointed out very directly in the seminar I got.

It would probably be more effective to lobby for long term SISIP payments to be indexed the same as government compensation. This a real gap in coverage that effects all SISIP beneficiaries not just those also with some form of on going government compensation.
It is not worth an intelligent man's time to be in the majority.  By definition, there are already enough people to do that. --  G.H. Hardy

dennismanuge

  • Guest
Re: SISIP LTD Class Action
« Reply #61 on: December 05, 2007, 13:55:20 »
Ladies & Gentlemen

The law suit is in fact off of the ground. To the tune of approximately $100 000.00 invested legally in myself and this case on behalf of the estimated 4000-6000- disabled veterans that have been affected. Just because something is not hidden or because they tell you about it, does not mean it is legal. "Government compensation"? A veterans affairs disability pension is not considered income, bottom line, end of story. Some of you folks need to do a little back ground work to educate and bring yourself up to speed.

Why is a still serving member of CF able to draw their entire salary and collect a VAC disability pension? As soon as you are medically released you are to drop to "75% of your former rate of pay"  but they deduct your cpp, VAC, military pension, etc...off of the 75%. That, my friends is illegal under the pension act. Again I direct you to my statement of claim. Read it, understand it! It is not rocket science.

If the $100 000.00 already invested is not enough to convince any of you that this law suit is for real, perhaps ask yourself the question of why Mr. Ward Branch, the number one class action legal mind in Canada is a part of my/our legal team. It certainly is not because he thinks we do not have a strong case. Read, listen, learn....if you still not believe in the cause, no worries! Good luck to you.

Cheers
Dennis Manuge

dennismanuge

  • Guest
Re: SISIP LTD Class Action
« Reply #62 on: December 05, 2007, 14:31:14 »
Federal Court Entries For: Manuge Vs Her Majesty The Queen

web site: http://cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/portal/page/portal/fc_cf_en/Index

simply type in Manuge under search and follow the path to our case. This is what has been done so far in Federal Court

- 2007-10-09 Ottawa Written directions received from the Court: The Honourable Mr. Justice Barnes dated 09-OCT-2007 directing that "The Court directs that the Plaintiff's motion to certify this proceeding as class action shall be heard at the Federal Court, 1801 Hollis Street, Suite 1720 Halifax, Nova Scotia, on February 12, 13 and 14, 2008 inclusive placed on file on 09-OCT-2007 Confirmed in writing to the party(ies) 

2007-10-05 Ottawa Ottawa 05-OCT-2007 BEFORE The Honourable Mr. Justice Barnes Language: E Before the Court: Case Management Conference Result of Hearing: Parties agreed on tentative dates for hearing of outstanding motion held by way of Conference Call Duration per day: 05-OCT-2007 from 10:05 to 10:20 Courtroom : Judge's Chambers - Ottawa Court Registrar: Ingrid Sherling Total Duration: 15min Appearances: Mr. Peter Driscoll 902.469.9500 representing Plaintiff Mr. Ward Branch 604.654.2999 representing Plaintiff Ms. Lori Rasmussen 902.426.4472 representing Defendant Comments: Parties agreed that duration of hearing would be 3 days. Tentative dates: Defendants aff: January 7, 2008, Plaintiffs' Brief: January 21, 2008, Defendant's Brief: February 4, 2008. Minutes of Hearing entered in Vol. 758 page(s) 353 - 355 Abstract of Hearing placed on file

2007-10-04 Ottawa Oral directions received from the Court: The Honourable Mr. Justice Barnes dated 04-OCT-2007 directing that "A case management teleconference will be held on Friday, October 5, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. Ottawa time" placed on file on 04-OCT-2007 Confirmed in writing to the party(ies) 

2007-10-03 Ottawa Letter from Defendant dated 03-OCT-2007 in response to the Court's direction of 25-SEP-2007, explaining why the proposed date of 26-NOV-2007 for the hearing of the outstanding motion is unworkable for the defendant received on 03-OCT-2007

2007-10-01 Ottawa Letter from Plaintiff dated 01-OCT-2007 in response to the direction of Barnes J. dated September 25, 2007, advising of the Plaintiff's availability in November for the hearing of an outstanding motion in Halifax for the week of November 26, 2007 and referring to the possible teleconference for the week of 9-OCT-2007 received on 01-OCT-2007

- 2007-09-25 Ottawa Oral directions received from the Court: The Honourable Mr. Justice Barnes dated 25-SEP-2007 directing that further to Mr. Driscoll's discussion with the Registry, wherein he advised the Registry that parties were in agreement in suggesting that counsel would report to the Court in writing on the status of this action no later than Tuesday, October 9, 2007: "The Court is agreeable to the arrangements proposed by counsel as reported verbally by Mr. Driscoll and a further case management conference will be held in abeyance for two weeks. In the meantime, counsel should consider the possibility of scheduling the outstanding motion for the week of November 26, 2007 at Halifax which is available to the Court" placed on file on 25-SEP-2007 Confirmed in writing to the party(ies) 

14 2007-09-04 Halifax Solicitor's certificate of service on behalf of Peter J. Driscoll confirming service of the Amended Statement of Claim and the Motion Record (Doc.13) upon Defendant by courier on 04-SEP-2007 filed on 04-SEP-2007

13 2007-09-04 Halifax Motion Record containing the following original document(s): 10 11 12 Number of copies received: 3 on behalf of Plaintiff filed on 04-SEP-2007

12 2007-09-04 Halifax Affidavit of Jodie Archibald sworn on 04-SEP-2007 contained within a Motion Record on behalf of Plaintiff in support of Motion Doc. No. 10 filed on 04-SEP-2007

11 2007-09-04 Halifax Affidavit of Dennis Manuge sworn on 04-SEP-2007 contained within a Motion Record on behalf of Plaintiff in support of Motion Doc. No. 10 with Exhibits A to D filed on 04-SEP-2007

10 2007-09-04 Halifax Notice of Motion contained within a Motion Record on behalf of Plaintiff returnable (but no hearing date indicated at this time) for certification as a class action and that Dennis Manuge be appointed as the representative Plaintiff filed on 04-SEP-2007

9 2007-09-04 Halifax Amended Statement of Claim filed on 04-SEP-2007

- 2007-06-14 Ottawa Written directions received from the Court: The Honourable Mr. Justice Barnes dated 14-JUN-2007 directing that "In accordance with the discussion with counsel in the case management teleconference held on June 8, 2007, it is agreed that the filing and service of an Amended Statement of Claim in this proceeding shall be completed on or before September 4, 2007. It is also agreed that the Plaintiff shall have an extension to file the motion for certification from July 16, 2007 to September 4, 2007. It was also agreed that items 3 and 4 set out in Mr. Driscoll's letter of June 5, 2007 would be left for resolution on or after September 1, 2007. The expectation is that a further case management teleconference will be scheduled upon the request of counsel for early September 2007 to deal with those oustanding issues along with any other matters that require attention." placed on file on 14-JUN-2007 Confirmed in writing to the party(ies) 

- 2007-06-08 Ottawa Ottawa 08-JUN-2007 BEFORE The Honourable Mr. Justice Barnes Language: E Before the Court: Case Management Conference Result of Hearing: Parties agree to deadlines in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Plaintiff's letter of June 5, 2007. Parties agree to put off fixing dates for items in paragraphs 3 and 4 of that letter. Another teleconference to be arranged to discuss further dates, sometime in September, 2007 held by way of Conference Call in chambers Duration per day: 08-JUN-2007 from 13:00 to 13:04 Courtroom : Judge's Chambers - Ottawa Court Registrar: Robert Lemoine Total Duration: 4min Appearances: Mr. Peter J. Driscoll (902)460-3414 representing Plaintiff Mr. Lori Rasmussen and Ms. Susan Taylor (902)426-4472 representing Defendant Minutes of Hearing entered in Vol. 750 page(s) 338 - 339 Abstract of Hearing placed on file 

- 2007-05-28 Ottawa Oral directions received from the Court: The Honourable Mr. Justice Barnes dated 28-MAY-2007 directing that a CMC by TC is set down for June 8/07 @ 1pm (Ottawa) placed on file on 28-MAY-2007 Confirmed in writing to the party(ies) 

- 2007-05-28 Ottawa Telephone calls from Cynthia Leaver, Registry Assistant, Actions, (Ottawa) on Mon., May 28 - re: case management teleconference proposed for Friday, June 8, 2007, between 9:30 a.m. to 3 p.m., to discuss available dates for deadlines for filing documents, etc. (only date available in Mr. Justice Barnes' schedule); duration: 40 minutes; language: English. At 10:20 a.m., I spoke with Jodie Archibald, Assistant to P's counsel, Peter Driscoll (in court today) - she indicated that Mr. Driscoll is available all day on June 8, 2007. At approx. 10:25 a.m., I spoke with Stella Aucoin, assistant to D's counsel, Ms. Lori Rasmussen (who returns to office on Mon., June 4); best time for Ms. Rasmussen appears to be in the afternoon between 1-3 p.m. (If there are changes, they will contact Kevin Kelly, A/SRO). placed on file on 28-MAY-2007

- 2007-05-23 Montréal Letter from Defendant dated 23-MAY-2007 The defendant takes the position that the Plaintiff's request for teleconference is premature (see Plaintiff's letter of 22-MAY-2007) received on 23-MAY-2007

- 2007-05-22 Montréal Letter from Plaintiff dated 22-MAY-2007 to requests that a telephone conference be held to discuss available dates for Motion for Certification, deadlines for filing documents in support of and response to and to assit with respect to the setting up of the process for the filing and exchange of motion materials received on 22-MAY-2007

- 2007-05-22 Ottawa Written directions received from the Court: The Honourable Mr. Justice Barnes dated 18-MAY-2007 directing that "The Defendant's motion [doc.#2] is allowed. The Defendant will not be required to file its Defence to this action until 30 days after the Court renders a decision on the Plaintiff's motion for certification which shall be filed on or before July 16, 2007." placed on file on 22-MAY-2007 Confirmed in writing to the party(ies) 

8 2007-04-26 Ottawa Order dated 24-APR-2007 rendered by Chief Justice Lutfy Matter considered without personal appearance The Court's decision is with regard to Motion ex proprio motu Result: "IT IS ORDERED pursuant to Rule 383 that Justice Robert Barnes is designated as Case Management Judge and Prothonotary Richard Morneau will assist in the management of this matter." Filed on 26-APR-2007 certified copies sent to parties & to CAS-SATJ Office: HALIFAX Transmittal Letters placed on file. entered in J. & O. Book, volume 983 page(s) 247 - 247 Interlocutory Decision 

7 2007-04-17 Halifax Solicitor's certificate of service on behalf of Lori Rasmussen confirming service of doc #6 upon Plaintiff by telecopier on 16-APR-2007 filed on 17-APR-2007

6 2007-04-17 Halifax Motion Record containing the following original document(s): 2 3 4 5 Number of copies received: 3 on behalf of Defendant filed on 17-APR-2007

5 2007-04-17 Halifax Written Representations contained within a Motion Record on behalf of Defendant concerning Motion in writing Doc. No. 2 filed on 17-APR-2007

4 2007-04-17 Halifax Consent on behalf of Plaintiff to Defendant's motion #2 contained within a motion record filed on 17-APR-2007

3 2007-04-17 Halifax Affidavit of Tracy Kempton sworn on 12-APR-2007 contained within a Motion Record on behalf of Defendant in support of Motion Doc. No. 2 filed on 17-APR-2007

2 2007-04-17 Halifax Notice of Motion contained within a Motion Record on behalf of Plaintiff ON CONSENT in writing to be placed before the Court in Ottawa for an Order suspending the Defendant's obligation to serve/file a Defence pending determination of Plf's motion for certification of class action filed on 17-APR-2007 Draft Order\\Judgment received. 

- 2007-03-15 Halifax Covering letter from Plaintiff dated 15-MAR-2007 concerning Doc. No. 1 placed on file on 15-MAR-2007

1 2007-03-15 Halifax Statement of Claim and 2 cc's filed on 15-MAR-2007 Certified copy(ies)/copy(ies) transmitted to Director of the Regional Office of the Department of Justice Section 48 - $2.00 


 


dennismanuge

  • Guest
Re: SISIP LTD Class Action
« Reply #63 on: December 05, 2007, 14:35:00 »
Contact Info for  Legal Counsel Peter Driscoll; Lead counsel for Dennis Manuge in " Manuge Vs Her Majesty The Queen"

Peter Driscoll
McInnes Cooper
1300-1969 Upper Water Street
Purdy's Wharf II
P.O. Box 730
Halifax
Nova Scotia B3J 2V1
Tel: 902 444 8451
Fax:902 425 6350
peter.driscoll@mcinnescooper.com

Offline DBA

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 7,520
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 341
Re: SISIP LTD Class Action
« Reply #64 on: December 05, 2007, 14:49:54 »
When you purchased SISIP coverage the policy was clear in this regard and they have lived up to it. So one question would be is the coverage somehow illegal? The answer sure looks like no. Top up policies that add on to any current coverage or other benefits have a long history. These type of policies take up any slack/shortfall and do not stand on their own. They are also much cheaper than free standing policies as the expected total payouts are obviously going to be a lot less.

The intent of disability payments isn't really legally relevant to a separate insurance policy. The insurance policy promised to make up any shortfalls between those payments and it's coverage cap. They have done so. I can't see any legal case against SISIP winning a legal fight.

While I agree it's not fair that some get to double up on benefits and pay while it's not possible to double up on benefits and SISIP that isn't really a legal argument. I support pushing the government to level things out but don't think the current legal action has a chance to succeed.
It is not worth an intelligent man's time to be in the majority.  By definition, there are already enough people to do that. --  G.H. Hardy

dennismanuge

  • Guest
Re: SISIP LTD Class Action
« Reply #65 on: December 05, 2007, 15:15:23 »
Manulife Financial is only the administrator for the SISIP LTD program. The actual funds belong to the treasury board of Canada. You are absolutely entitle to your opinion and thoughts, but our argument is not that SISIP or anyone else has not done what they said they would, we are arguing that the entire scheme, LTD policy is "in fact illegal under the pension act." making it irrelevant that they disclose or not to each soldier. They did not have the right to set up the LTD system that they have in place. It is illegal under already established laws under the pesnion act. A very large law firm and two experts in the field are saying not only do we have a case, but we are willing to back the disabled veterans affected 100%. Unless you are a lawyer or an expert in the field, my money and loyalty stays with my/our legal team. When i purchased SISIP, with no choice to purchase it or not, I remind you, unlike any other LTD plan in the land, where one does have a choice, I thought it was bull crap then too. When I was stolen from for 24 months by the SISIP clawback, I simply said that it is high time someone made people aware of just how wrong it is. Again, I am the least impacted by this. I only drew SISIP benefits for the two years i was in school. Once I was re-trained and had been hired to work full-time, I am fine. I do not want anything else from the government other than what they have taken from me, which is alot less than what many others have experienced. If this or any other government goes unchallenged on issues....well we see the patronage and the kickbacks and the scandals on a daily, monthly, yearly basis, don't we. Quite frankly i prefer to have my $10 000 in my pocket, not the governments or one of their pals. Excuse me for  being selfish.

Dennis

Repectfully

dennis

dennismanuge

  • Guest
Re: SISIP LTD Class Action
« Reply #66 on: December 05, 2007, 15:18:27 »
DBA

Are you pensioned under the New Veterans Charter? Or under the old pension act?

Dennis

Offline DBA

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 7,520
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 341
Re: SISIP LTD Class Action
« Reply #67 on: December 05, 2007, 15:39:34 »
Here are the benefits description for unrelated LDT policy:

Quote
Benefit

This product provides you with a portion of your regular salary while you are disabled and unable to work.

If you are totally disabled, IAP will pay you your benefit amount. Benefit payments begin after your designated waiting period and continue while you are totally disabled. The benefit is payable to age 65, or if you become totally disabled between the ages of 63 and 65, the benefit will be payable for a maximum of 24 months.

If you are partially disabled, IAP will pay you 50% of your benefit. Payments for partial disability can begin up to age 65 and continue for a maximum of 6 months while you remain partially disabled.

Mental and nervous disorders are also covered under this plan.

According to current Canadian Tax laws, these benefits are not taxable if you personally pay the premiums.

Benefits payable from this plan and from all other sources (e.g. disability benefits from another group plan, Canada/Quebec Pension Plan, Worker's Compensation, EI, etc.) may not exceed 85% of your average take home pay.

Note the same 'top up' or 'claw back' depending on how you view it just like SISIP in the last paragraph. Another example, part of the description of the Long Term Disability Benefits of the Ontario Teachers Insurance Plan.

Quote
CPP Benefits

Your LTD insurance provides for the integration of benefits when Canada Pension Plan (CPP) disability benefits are approved. You may be asked to apply for CPP benefits. In most cases your LTD plan directly offsets any benefits paid to you, as a contributor, from CPP.

Again it's a clawback/top-up type thing depending on how you look at it.

I am not on any disability, I was fortunate to release from the reserves without any medical problems. Good luck on the legal challenge, even if I don't think the legal side is sound there are other ways to win and it's not unheard of for weak cases to succeed.
It is not worth an intelligent man's time to be in the majority.  By definition, there are already enough people to do that. --  G.H. Hardy

Offline Bigrex

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 0
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 58
Re: SISIP LTD Class Action
« Reply #68 on: December 05, 2007, 16:11:57 »
We didn't purchase the insurance, we were forced to take it, and pay into it for our entire careers, to pay us if injured, yet if someone who is severely injured near the end of their career, it is more than likely that SISIP will not pay them a single cent. As a disabled vet with 15 years served, and a 45% VAC pension, SISIP only gives me roughly 16% of my pre-release pay, and even if they extend my coverage past the 24 months, the indexing will see that amount drop, especially in concurrent years where the VAC and superannuation indexes are higher than the max of 2% set by SISIP. 2 years ago, when VAC was indexed at 7.1% and CF pensions were indexed at 2.2%, any SISIP payments would have dropped by around $80.00. At that rate, SISIP will basically cancel it's own coverage after a decade or so of high indexing. Soldiers are being penalized by SISIP for getting severely injured later in their careers, but we shouldn't be punished for getting hurt on the job by our insurance, if anything, this should give us better coverage, not less. and a disability is a disability, and therefor our long term disability should be the same across the board.

Is it illegal? fundamentally it is, it is treating Pension act payments as income in an Income replacement plan, which it isn't, but the only way to change it will be to legally force the government to change it, we've had the media say it needs to be changed, we've had the majority of MPs say it should be changed, the standing committee for Veterans Affairs has said it needs to be changed, but the Tories have ignored all of these, because they don't care for Veterans, they only do enough to give the appearance that they care, so instead of acting, they will order a review, then a study, then an inquiry, then start all over again, ignoring any unfavorable recommendations and appeal any court decision that favors the veterans, costing millions in legal fees.

And we have some very keen legal mids on our side, so unless , DBA, you are a Supreme Court Judge, I don't think you legal assessment has any merit. Other insurance plans are different, because they don't involve pension Act payments, they aren't given to just anyone, there are strict criteria to get them, and civilian workers compensation plans are not tax free, so therefor can be classified as income. I guess unless you are having this money deducted, you can't really appreciate where we are coming from, so just offer your support and move along.

Offline Nemo888

  • Banned
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 11,525
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 871
Re: SISIP LTD Class Action
« Reply #69 on: December 05, 2007, 16:27:22 »
I've seen a few Vets get shafted.
+1

Offline DBA

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 7,520
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 341
Re: SISIP LTD Class Action
« Reply #70 on: December 05, 2007, 21:12:12 »
Requiring enrollment in an insurance plan as a requirement for employment is also common. I don't see anything odd or uncommon with the top up coverage or the mandatory nature of the SISIP policy. It is very much like what is available and practiced elsewhere. Most such plans are not indexed to limit future liabilities. Very few plans outside of those directly government backed and funded are indexed.

I agree 110% that SISIP should have been designed to not count increases in VAC benefits due to indexing above what the SISIP increase is. That aspect of it looks really bad as it in effect undoes part of the indexing of VAC benefits. Even better would be to not count any of the increase in VAC benefits due to indexing.
It is not worth an intelligent man's time to be in the majority.  By definition, there are already enough people to do that. --  G.H. Hardy

dennismanuge

  • Guest
Re: SISIP LTD Class Action
« Reply #71 on: December 06, 2007, 07:23:50 »
Well said, Bigrex.

I guess the old expression of, "unless you've walked a mile in my shoes" definitely applies to us disabled Vets. Many of my close contacts here on the east coast are receiving very little, if not nothing at all from SISIP. They are 100% disabled, 70% disabled etc....Sad state of affairs really. That goes for most of our fellow Vets right across Canada, actually, I am just closer geogrphically to those on the east coast.

Stay well, please feel free to contact me at dennismanuge@hotmail.com. (that goes for everyone) I am building quite a data base of us right across the country. Many of us have different opinions and ideas about how to do things, but the one common goal is we want to affect positive change to end this clawback once and for all.

Cheers
Dennis Manuge

dennismanuge

  • Guest
Re: SISIP LTD Class Action
« Reply #72 on: December 06, 2007, 08:14:19 »
Pg 12-16 of Andre Marin's (first DND Ombudsman) report to MND at the time in Oct 2003

Analysis, Conclusion and Recommendations

The purpose of the SISIP long term disability plan is to provide CF Regular and Reserve Force members with a reasonable level of income should they become disabled and be released from the CF. The policy specifically states that other sources of income received by the insured member will reduce the amount of SISIP long term disability benefits payable. Disability pensions and any dependents’ benefits payable pursuant to the Pension Act are specifically listed in the policy as one of the other sources of income that will reduce the amount of LTD benefits payable. Current and former CF members and their families have complained to the Office of the Ombudsman that this reduction of their long term disability insurance benefits is unfair. They argue that disability pension benefits received through VAC under the Pension Act should not reduce the amount of their SISIP long term disability benefits because they are not income. Some complainants have taken the further position that even if there is justification to reduce their SISIP long term disability benefits by amounts received under the Pension Act, these reductions should only be for pension benefits received for the same disability and not for any amounts received for an unrelated disability or illness.

Mr. Pierre Lemay, President of SISIP, informed the Office of the Ombudsman that CF members are advised that other income sources are deducted from SISIP long term disability benefits. This is a term of the Conditions of Benefits Agreement that all members must sign once they are determined to be eligible for SISIP long term disability benefits in order to receive monthly payments.

According to Mr. Lemay, the formula for calculating SISIP long term disability benefits, which provides for deductions of other income sources, was taken into account in the development of the SISIP long term disability policy, its funding and the premiums charged. This is the type of program that Treasury Board had agreed to pay for in order to provide an income replacement of 75% of the member’s salary minus other income sources. Mr. Lemay indicated that this was an industry standard for LTD benefits. According to a May 30, 2001 letter from Maritime Life to Mr. Lemay, it is estimated that it would cost at least an additional $5 million per year to exclude Pension Act deductions from the LTD policy. Such a change would require the consent of Treasury Board. According to SISIP figures, approximately 56% of SISIP long term disability benefit recipients also receive VAC pension benefits under the Pension Act.

Our review of Public Service disability insurance plans reveals that it is common to reduce disability insurance benefits by the amount of pensions and other benefits received for the same disability. This reflects the fact that the purpose of disability insurance is to supplement a person’s income, including that received from other sources such as pensions and benefits, so that he or she is in a similar position as when they were able to work. Both the Public Service Management Insurance Plan (for federal government executives and managers excluded from collective bargaining) and the Public Service Disability Insurance Plan (for federal government employees), however, appear to restrict deductions from disability insurance benefits to amounts received from pension and benefit plans for the same disability. Benefits received from other sources for unrelated illnesses or disabilities are not deducted. Only the CF and RCMP plans reduce disability insurance benefits by the amount of disability pension received for any disability.

Is it fair that ill or injured CF members have their disability insurance benefits reduced by amounts they receive from VAC under the Pension Act in the form of a disability pension for the same or an unrelated illness or injury?

according to VAC’s web site, current or former CF members may be eligible for a disability pension under the Pension Act if they have a permanent disability that arose out of, was aggravated by, or is directly connected with peacetime Regular or Reserve Force service in the CF. Such pensions are awarded based on the compensation principle that “provides pension coverage for disability or death which was directly related to or permanently worsened by peacetime, non-SDA (Special Duty Area), service factors or events.” In addition to the basic amount payable to the member as a disability pension under the Pension Act, the member may also be entitled to receive an additional pension amount for spouse and children.

Entitlement to a disability pension under the Pension Act is based solely on the relationship between military service and the disability and is not dependent upon years of service, income or rank. The fact that the recipient may see a reduction of income caused by deduction of pension amounts from their disability insurance benefits is not considered in determining the amount of the pension award. The pension award is considered compensation for a disability related to military service and not income. For these reasons, it is not taxable.
In October 2000, the Pension Act was amended to provide disability pensions to all current CF members disabled by service-related injuries, wherever the injury occurred. Previously, active CF members could only receive a VAC disability pension if the injury occurred while serving in a Special Duty Area (SDA), such as a peacekeeping mission. CF members who were injured while fighting a flood in Canada, for example, could be deemed eligible to receive a disability pension while still serving, but could not have their disability assessed and would not actually receive a disability pension until they were released from service. Now, all active CF members with a service-related disability are eligible to receive a VAC disability pension regardless of where the injury occurred.

VAC disability pensions awarded under the Pension Act are intended to compensate members for the disability they suffered in the course of their service with the CF. Unlike SISIP disability insurance benefits, they are not intended to replace the income the member would have earned but for his or her disability.

Serving CF members receiving disability pensions through VAC under the Pension Act do not have their income reduced because of the pension they receive to compensate them for their disability. It simply does not seem fair that injured and ill members who are released from the CF for medical reasons should have their disability insurance benefit paid, which is intended to replace their income as CF members, reduced because of the same pension benefits. In my view, the SISIP policy, in designating Pension Act disability pensions as a source of income to be deducted from disability insurance benefits, is inconsistent with the intention of the Pension Act to compensate both current and former CF members for injuries or illness resulting from or related to their service with the CF. When ill or injured CF members are ultimately released from the CF for medical reasons, they in effect lose the additional financial benefit of the compensation awarded to them under the Pension Act, as this amount reduces the income replacement insurance benefit they receive under the SISIP long term disability insurance plan.

I realize that amending the SISIP policy to prevent the reduction of disability insurance benefits by amounts paid in compensation to CF members for their disabilities through pensions under the Pension Act may have a significant financial impact on premiums payable by the government of Canada under the SISIP long term disability insurance plan. In my view, however, this additional cost is justified in light of the sacrifices and risks incurred by CF members in providing an invaluable service to Canadian society. The government has an obligation to look after them when they become ill or injured as a result and cannot continue to serve.

On February 13, 2003, the Minister of National Defence announced changes to SISIP to introduce a new insurance program. It brings compensation for CF members who are the victims of dismemberment or permanent loss of sight, hearing or speech as a result of a service-related injury in line with that available to general officers. Subsequent legislation, proclaimed on June 20, 2003, made these changes retroactive so that all members who were the victim of service-related injury resulting in dismemberment or permanent loss of sight, hearing or speech could benefit.

In welcoming these long awaited improvements to the member’s insurance plan, the Chief of the Defence Staff noted, “The benefits that are provided to our men and women in uniform must reflect the risks that they undertake on behalf of the people of Canada.” The Minister also pledged in his comments to the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence that:

All of us in this room understand the many sacrifices that are demanded of these men and women. Not only do Canadian Forces personnel make sacrifices in service to their country, but they are also prepared to lay down their lives for Canada, if need be. When they sign up for a life in the military, they accept this unlimited liability. With all that the Canadian Forces gives on our behalf, we must be prepared to give back to them.

I wholeheartedly agree with these comments. In keeping with this strong commitment to CF members and their families, I strongly urge the Minister, on behalf of DND/CF, to take the necessary steps to ensure that the SISIP long term disability benefits, which members must depend on as income to support themselves and their families when they are no longer able to serve their country for medical reasons, are not reduced by the amount of disability pension they are awarded under the Pension Act to compensate them for illness or injury related to their service.

I therefore recommend that:

1.   The Minister of National Defence present the necessary submission to the Treasury Board Secretariat of Canada and ensure all other necessary steps are taken to amend the SISIP long term disability insurance policy so that Pension Act disability pensions do not reduce the amount of SISIP long term disability benefits payable to former CF members.
Changes to the SISIP long term disability insurance policy will likely bring with them claims from former CF members that they be reimbursed the amounts that have been previously deducted from their SISIP long term disability benefits. Changes to the Pension Act to allow CF members to receive disability pensions while still serving and earning income as CF members, regardless of where the service-related injury occurred, came into effect on October 27, 2000. In my view, in the interests of ensuring equal treatment compared with serving members who have been able to benefit from disability pensions under the Pension Act while still earning income in the CF, former CF members who had their income replacement disability benefits reduced under the SISIP policy on account of Pension Act disability pensions should be reimbursed as of October 27, 2000.
I therefore recommend that:

2. The Minister of National Defence take the necessary steps to ensure that former CF members who had their SISIP long term disability benefits reduced on account of disability pensions received under the Pension Act should be reimbursed for the amounts that were deducted from their benefits as of October 27,2000.

dennismanuge

  • Guest
Re: SISIP LTD Class Action
« Reply #73 on: December 06, 2007, 08:27:29 »
Ombudsman Urges Resolution to Unfair Deductions from SISIP Payments
June 15, 2007

The Honourable Gordon O’Connor, P.C., M.P.
Minister of National Defence
National Defence Headquarters
Major-General George R. Pearkes Building
101 Colonel By Drive
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0K2

Dear Minister O’Connor:

I would like to acknowledge and thank you for your letter of June 3.

Your letter responded to my letter to you of March 6, 2007, in which I set out my position as to why the Department of National Defence should implement the two outstanding recommendations made in our 2003 special report entitled Unfair Deductions From SISIP Payments to Former CF Members.

As you will recall, our report concluded that it was fundamentally unfair to deduct Pension Act disability payments from SISIP Long Term Disability benefits. It urged the Minister of National Defence to take steps to put an end to that deduction as soon as possible, and to provide retroactive compensation.

In your recent letter to me, you indicate that, in light of the sheer magnitude and complexity of the issues surrounding this matter, you were to ask departmental authorities to review my concerns. You also mention that, in view of the class action lawsuit filed with the Federal Court of Canada on March 15, 2007, you felt that you were precluded from making any further comments on the matter at this time, particularly given the lawsuit challenges the very deduction that was at the heart of our report.

I certainly do appreciate that this file raises issues that are complex and that may be expensive to address. I also understand that you would wish to be extremely careful not to make public comments about the issue, which has now been taken to the courts.

As Ombudsman, my first job is to promote the fair and just treatment of current and former members of the Canadian Forces and their families. I have indicated to you, and to others before, my firm view that the former members who are affected by the deduction are the victims of what I consider to be fundamentally unfair treatment.

As a result, I urge you, and through you, your colleagues and your officials, not to allow the court proceedings to be a reason to avoid swift action. The pending lawsuit should not preclude the implementation of the two outstanding recommendations.

At this time, given recent developments and the status of the matter, I am of the view that my office and I have done all that we can do to bring this matter to a fair and satisfactory resolution. The ultimate responsibility for ensuring this issue is resolved equitably, generously and without undue delay rests with others.

I sincerely hope that you, as Minister of National Defence, will do everything you can to ensure that fair treatment is achieved for our veterans – and that it is achieved soon.

Yours truly,

Yves Côté, Q.C.
Ombudsman

dennismanuge

  • Guest
Re: SISIP LTD Class Action
« Reply #74 on: December 06, 2007, 08:28:35 »
Response from the Minister of National Defence on Outstanding Recommendations Involving Unfair Deductions from SISIP Payments
3 June 2007

Mr. Yves Côté
Ombudsman
National Defence and Canadian Forces
100 Metcalfe Street, 12th Floor
Ottawa, ON K1P 5M1

Dear Mr. Côté:

I am writing in response to your letter of March 6, 2007 concerning two outstanding recommendations from your special report Unfair Deductions From SISIP Payments to Former CF Members.

In our meeting shortly after I received your letter, I explained that because of the shear magnitude and complexity of this issue I would ask Departmental authorities to review your concerns.

I also noted that I would not be able to respond by 30 April 2007, as you had requested, because of an impending legal challenge against the Department.

On March 15, 2007, the Federal Court in Halifax received a class action lawsuit filed by Mr. Dennis Manuge on behalf of SISIP claimants, challenging the Long Term Disability Insurance Program offered to CF members through SISIP. As such, because this matter is now pending before the courts, I am, unfortunately, precluded from making any further comments at this time.

Thank you for writing.

Sincerely,

The Honourable Gordon J. O’Connor, PC, MP