Canadian Soldiers Assistance Team (CSAT) Forum

SISIP Military Class Action Lessons Learned - From your Military Brothers

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: SISIP Military Class Action Lessons Learned - From your Military Brothers

Post by Whisky45 on Tue 31 Dec 2013, 08:48

Thanks for this very important info and research Rags that will help the RCMP disabled Vets in the struggle for justice in the courts. I do believe the number of class action law suits will increase since the RCMP management themselves have admitted that they are 15 years behind the military in properly dealing with PTSD and other OSIs. The RCMP Claw Back issue is just one Class Action Lawsuit. We all stand together. Thanks Brother

Eric Rebiere (Former Cst. RCMP 37515 LSGC and Military Veteran)
avatar
Whisky45
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 81
Location : Bath Ontario
Registration date : 2010-10-08

Back to top Go down

Re: SISIP Military Class Action Lessons Learned - From your Military Brothers

Post by Rags on Mon 25 Feb 2013, 08:13

Lesson Learned 2

Important to know what the Governments arguments are and what the key issues they want to discuss before going into the negotiations with hired guns who could talk a Inuit into buying ice.

Below is a memo from MC with Mr Toopes direction to talk on points of issue by the GOC. Read them carefully and look at our deal. There are key issues that where up to be discussed but appear to have been swept under table or just accepted.
One ca assume that the same key points will be asked to be clear by GOC rep and I suspect it will be Mr Toope again. Be prepared for the negotiation knowing i advance his issues. Use our deal and dissatisfaction parts of it to craft a better response to the GOCs position.

Extract from Memo to class - after the discussion:
"Meeting of August 3, 2012: Our meeting with Mr. Toope and representatives of the Department of Justice was a positive one. When introducing himself, Mr. Toope advised that he had instructions from the Minister of National Defence to attempt to resolve the claim with us within certain parameters and based on the following principles:

•Resolution is in both parties’ best interest;
•That any resolution will provide finality and certainty;
•Determining eligibility is a key issue to be resolved;
•No “double recovery” (i.e., employment income and SISIP payments);
•That the resolution process must focus on simplicity and intelligibility.
Issues Discussed: The following issues were discussed with respect to retroactive reimbursement:

•Management of Estate Claims – a process by which certain estate claims would be paid directly to spouses and dependent children;
•Tax Neutrality – a process for communicating appropriate tax elections available to the class to lessen the tax impact of the retroactive payments;
•Interest – the appropriate interest to be paid to the class, both pre- and post judgment;
•Cut-Off Date – the period of time that will be compensated (i.e., how far back in time will retroactive payments be made). Although there are potential statutory limitation periods, positive progress has been made with respect to the scope of recovery. This issue is a key component of the resolution discussions and, although we cannot specifically detail the discussions, we can characterize the progress on this issue as positive;
•Zero Sum Claims Management – this issue is the focus of most of the discussion between the parties. The main issue to be resolved, from the Government’s perspective, is how to fairly determine whether an individual was, and is, “totally and permanently disabled” as defined under the SISIP Long Term Disability Policy since the closing of their file with SISIP. We have taken the position that such a determination should be made with reference to medical files in the possession of Veterans Affairs Canada, and the table of disabilities used by Veterans Affairs. While agreement has not been reached on the process, the parties will seek an Order from the Federal Court permitting the sharing of information between VAC and SISIP. Once the information is disclosed, this may assist the parties to determine a fair process which complies with the policy terms, while ensuring the dignity of the participants is respected. At the close of the meeting both parties agreed to consider further proposals on the fairest process to follow in achieving the foregoing.
Why Resolution Discussions? Who Approves the Resolution? Some of you may ask “Why are we in discussions? Didn’t we win?” While it is true that after 6 years of litigation, to the Supreme Court of Canada and back again, that we won at trial on the interpretation of the contract that the Pension Act offset was unlawful, the foregoing issues were not dealt with at that trial. What we are working on now is the implementation of the decision, which gives rise to further issues as set out above. Ultimately we are trying to avoid further litigation (and delays) by involving ourselves in resolution discussions. Should either party be unable to resolve an issue satisfactorily, the issue will be litigated in Federal Court before Justice Barnes. If the parties are able to reach a resolution on all issues, the resolution still must be reviewed and approved by the Court to make sure that it is fair and reasonable.

Clarification on Counsel Fees: Our fees do not form part of the negotiations. We are focused on getting the best resolution on the core issues we can, as quickly as we can, to benefit the members. Once we are done we will review the position on fees. Again fees are not part of the resolution discussions, as only the Court will set the fees. The fee process is completely transparent. We will give notice to the Court and to the members on the amount of the fee we are seeking. The fee request will be based on a number of factors, only one of which is the contractual percentage. Other considerations are legal precedent (what has been paid in previous cases), the risk and cost of the firm to the date of the application, the work completed (appearance in the SCC, and successful trial of the contract issue), the number of people benefiting from the class action, and the amount involved. All of the foregoing is set out in an extensive brief and affidavits which will be available for review by all members and will be reviewed by the Court before the Court ultimately sets a fee that the Court decides is reasonable for the work we have done for you."

Rags
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 792
Location : Adrift
Registration date : 2013-01-06

Back to top Go down

Delay Deny Deflect and Pomposity

Post by Horseman on Fri 22 Feb 2013, 12:05

Good research, Rags, I have had a preliminary discussion with Peter Driscoll a few months ago regarding communications with our class and their involvement or lack thereof. It seems the true veteran voice comes from the military side. The BC RCMP Professional Association are "interested in the fight" on this issue but thus far they've been a bit reticent but in their defense they have some major issues of their own.
So far I'm unaware of what the legal focus or rationale behind the GoC ontinuing pursuit of this matter particularly in light of the Fed. Court's rather strongly worded finding in favour of the Military SISIP LTD court case. We have not had the same benefit of communicational updates as you've enjoyed so at this point we're left to speculate and theorize on what is happening. Your suggestion of a sub-class is out there and I'm sure has been reviewed overtly by interested parties. So unfortunately we do seemed to be the weaker sisters in this action notwithstanding the "indistinguishable" similarities in the two cases referenced on the law firm's website!
Lastly, I have been following parliamentary discussions (Question Period) on this matter and as usual Peter Stoffer, MP is leading the scourge on behalf of all Canadian Veterans and has been met with arrogant evasive responses from Minister Clement which is nothing unusual given how they treated your action in its early and later stages. So I'm theorizing, Delay, Deny and Deflect is at play.

Horseman
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 24
Location : British Columbia
Registration date : 2012-09-27

Back to top Go down

Participation In The Class Action - Its your action so get involved don't rely a Lead Plaintiff

Post by Rags on Fri 22 Feb 2013, 10:44

My RCMP Brothers a Lesson Learned

Lesson Learned 1

First most important lesson learned was to get involved in the Class Action!!!!!

You have a right to be involved in the class action early so the best advise and crafting of arguments and your position as a class is clear right from the start. Under Federal Law you have a right to participate see below.

We in the Military class action were not afforded this chance as we did not know about the details of the class action until 21 days before presentations on settlement. No way enough time to argue that the settlement was not acceptable. A better solution would have been to get involved at the early stages so your lead plaintiff does not have to guide and direct legal team all alone.
You cannot have all 10000 of ya doing this but a select group who have been given permission by the class to speak for them and gather there input is crucial. Those people should be strong leaders who will be able to direct law firm rather then do what law firm thinks is best. In the end the answer maybe the same but remember you are hiring them to work for you so tell them what you want them to do. This becomes vital when getting into negotiations with Fees and GOC.

If you cant seem to get into the class action to make decisions due to a legal dance then send a formal request to Judge using below legal paragraph to request you be appointed. For us we should have had 3 to 4 members of class along with the lead plaintiff. Make this request as early as you can so no negotiations are even started before you are there.

THE LAW:
PARTICIPATION
Marginal note:By class members
• 334.23 (1) To ensure the fair and adequate representation of the interests of a class or any subclass, the Court may, at any time, permit one or more class members to participate in the class proceeding.
• Marginal note:Directions
(2) When permitting a class member to participate in the proceeding, the Court shall give directions regarding the role of the participant, including matters relating to costs and to the procedures to be followed.
• SOR/2007-301, s. 7.


Last edited by Rags on Mon 25 Feb 2013, 08:14; edited 1 time in total

Rags
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 792
Location : Adrift
Registration date : 2013-01-06

Back to top Go down

SISIP Military Class Action Lessons Learned - From your Military Brothers

Post by Rags on Thu 21 Feb 2013, 15:54

To All Our RCMP Brothers

We have learned alot in short order and have some valuable lessons learned from our class action. I hope some of the posts that occur here will help you better manage and lead your class action to victory.

To Posters Please this is not a MC, Government, SISIP bashing session. It should be a pure advice area with important points we have found out the hard way.

Rags

Rags
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 792
Location : Adrift
Registration date : 2013-01-06

Back to top Go down

Re: SISIP Military Class Action Lessons Learned - From your Military Brothers

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum