SISIP at it again little help!!!!

Page 3 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: SISIP at it again little help!!!!

Post by LawnBoy77777 on Wed 06 May 2015, 08:46

Read preamble.. 65(3) uses "may" & if used would go in direct contradiction to public policy

LawnBoy77777
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 196
Location : St. John's
Registration date : 2015-05-02

Back to top Go down

Re: SISIP at it again little help!!!!

Post by Guest on Wed 06 May 2015, 09:42

yes buds "may"means the minister has the power and right to do so under the act.

there are way to many acts and laws to read so I don't read a lot of policies so im not sure what the exact policy is but you may want to ask yourself . what takes priority a law/act or a policy ?

propat

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: SISIP at it again little help!!!!

Post by LawnBoy77777 on Thu 07 May 2015, 07:24

12. Every enactment is deemed remedial, and shall be given such fair, large and liberal construction and interpretation as best ensures the attainment of its objects.

& Charter s. 26 protects Common Law property Rights. Dis Ins creates Property when you get money.

13. The preamble of an enactment shall be read as a part of the enactment intended to assist in explaining its purport and object.

More importantly, CDS is Insurer NOT MANULIFE. That would mean s. 65(3) creates a Conflict of Interest. Manulife might have a better shot at asking s. 65(3) to apply than GoC.

Public Policy is Law. It is the source of Law. If GoC says it is Public Policy to protect retirement income, it passes Laws to that effect. Interpretation Act s. 13 is an Act, as you mentioned. S. 12 is a Law, making a narrow and restrictive reading of any Act illegal.

LawnBoy77777
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 196
Location : St. John's
Registration date : 2015-05-02

Back to top Go down

Re: SISIP at it again little help!!!!

Post by LawnBoy77777 on Thu 07 May 2015, 08:36

A bit more
Contracts can fall under the heading of statutory illegality in various ways.They may be expressly or impliedly prohibited by statute, or be entered into with the object of committing an act prohibited by statute, or require the incidental performance of an act contrary to statute, or have the capacity to confer benefits through the violation of a statute.

- "prohibited by statute" CPP Act s. 65(1)
- Gov Contracting Regs non-tendering

In contrast to cases of statutory and common law illegality, a contract that violates public policy is one which contravenes a value deemed so fundamental that it necessitates the intervention of the courts in spite of the fact that there has been no contravention of a legal obligation.

- key backup plan. If CPP Act s. 65(3) is in viol of "public policy", it is illegal despite it being Law! Consider Rosa Parks & the Law that she "broke."

LawnBoy77777
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 196
Location : St. John's
Registration date : 2015-05-02

Back to top Go down

Re: SISIP at it again little help!!!!

Post by LawnBoy77777 on Thu 07 May 2015, 08:37

Thats an excerpt from a legal paper. I'm not a lawyer but I've read a lot on these subjects so I'm confident I'm right

LawnBoy77777
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 196
Location : St. John's
Registration date : 2015-05-02

Back to top Go down

Re: SISIP at it again little help!!!!

Post by Guest on Thu 07 May 2015, 15:47

oh you may be right the thing is laws must be implemented as not to offend the constitution or the charter of rights and freedoms' . public policy must be implemented as not to offend any laws of the land.

im not even sure about the public policy about this as I have said but I do know many if not all LTD insurance plans have deductions and many ( at least all the different ones I have seen )deduct CPPD .

so it seems any public policy against deducting CPPD from LTD plans either is not being used or not being used very often .

when it comes to laws/acts or any legislation im unaware of any that restrict this action.

propat

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

crown debts not assignable

Post by LawnBoy77777 on Thu 07 May 2015, 19:59

SCC - we are owed "crown debts" for CF pen/CPP etc

The agreement letter was incapable of creating an effective assignment owing to s. 67 of the Financial Administration Act, which states that "[e]xcept as provided in this Act or any other Act of Parliament . . . a Crown debt is not assignable". "Crown debt" is defined to include not only existing debts, but also future debts "due or becoming due". The Financial Administration Act fails to permit such assignment, and no express authorization appears in any other federal statute

LawnBoy77777
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 196
Location : St. John's
Registration date : 2015-05-02

Back to top Go down

Re: SISIP at it again little help!!!!

Post by LawnBoy77777 on Thu 07 May 2015, 20:00

CPP Regs also support me

LawnBoy77777
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 196
Location : St. John's
Registration date : 2015-05-02

Back to top Go down

Re: SISIP at it again little help!!!!

Post by LawnBoy77777 on Thu 07 May 2015, 20:00

CPP Regs

(2) For the purpose of subsection 65(3) of the Act, if, for any reason, no deduction has been made or a deduction and payment have been made by the Minister for an amount that is less than the amount that might have been paid under that subsection, the Minister shall not authorize any other deduction and payment.

- seems clear to me that the only pmt available to Insurers is retro pay.
- no pmt = no more $
- 1 pmt = no more $

LawnBoy77777
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 196
Location : St. John's
Registration date : 2015-05-02

Back to top Go down

Re: SISIP at it again little help!!!!

Post by Guest on Thu 07 May 2015, 20:25

you do know that they are deducting the amount of your CPPD from the SISIP benefit as per contract not taking your CPPD from source don't you????

nothing you have posted shows any proof that SISIP is breaking any laws whatsoever by deducting CPPD .

but yes it would be difficult if not impossible for them to garnish your CPPD or deduct it from the source if you will.

propat

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: SISIP at it again little help!!!!

Post by LawnBoy77777 on Thu 07 May 2015, 21:15

Its an indirect way to assign money they cant get directly

LawnBoy77777
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 196
Location : St. John's
Registration date : 2015-05-02

Back to top Go down

Re: SISIP at it again little help!!!!

Post by LawnBoy77777 on Thu 07 May 2015, 21:16

Its an indirect way to assign money they cant get directly

On the question of assignment, then, Wachowich J. concluded that the Trustee is "attempting to get through the back door something it could not get through the front"

LawnBoy77777
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 196
Location : St. John's
Registration date : 2015-05-02

Back to top Go down

Re: SISIP at it again little help!!!!

Post by LawnBoy77777 on Thu 07 May 2015, 21:18

2 cases come to mind.. Beattie & Ultramar. Both confirm "indirect assignment or attachment" is illegal

LawnBoy77777
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 196
Location : St. John's
Registration date : 2015-05-02

Back to top Go down

Re: SISIP at it again little help!!!!

Post by LawnBoy77777 on Thu 07 May 2015, 21:22

Moreover, Parliament has enacted legislation specifically providing how and to what extent garnishment of Canada Pension Plan benefits,Old Age Security Act benefits and benefits under the Public Service Superannuation Actmay take place. These provisions are found in the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 4 (2nd Supp.), and in the Garnishment,Attachment and Pension Diversion Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. G-2. Under the former, moneys to be garnisheed must be payable within the period of a year during which a garnishee summons duly served binds the Crown. In the latter, an application may be made to divert up to 50 per cent of superannuation benefits of a recipient to whom the benefits are immediately payable. It is conceded that the applicant in these proceedings has not tried to avail herself of these statutory schemes, and for the obvious reason that there does not appear to be any moneys presently payable to the respondent that could, even in part, be intercepted.

In light of these statutory provisions, it seems to me that the order of Binks J. contemplates the government of Canada exceeding the clear statutory framework provided by Parliament for the redirection of amounts payable by the Crown to a judgment debtor. While counsel for the applicant characterizes the order as requiring the government to do nothing more than respond according to law to the initiative of the attorney or agent substituted by the order to act in the stead of the respondent, I cannot help but view the scheme as anindirect attachment or extra-legislative garnishment. Counsel for the applicant referred the court to Martin v. Martin (1981),1981 CanLII 1701 (ON SC), 33 O.R. (2d) 164, 123 D.L.R. (3d) 718 (S.C.), Simon v. Simon (1984), 45 O.R. (2d) 534, 38 R.F.L. (2d) 198 (Div. Ct.), and Lavigne v. Robern (1986), 1986 CanLII 2548 (ON SC), 56 O.R. (2d) 385, 30 D.L.R. (4th) 756 (H.C.J.), as examples of the manner in which Ontario courts have in the past tried to fashion remedies that would permit money payable by the Crown to be diverted to a creditor in compelling circumstances.

Since those cases were decided, Parliament amended the Public Service Superannuation Act by adding in s. 10(10)(c), as previously noted, that except as provided for in the legislation I have already referred to, benefits are exempt from attachment, seizure or execution either at law or in equity. Since the appointment of a receiver is a form of equitable execution, Parliament must have intended to make the diversion of pension benefits payable under this Act attachable or able to be diverted exclusively under theGarnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act and the Pension Benefits Division Act, S.C. 1992, c. 46 (Sch. II). Moreover, it should be remembered that the courts of equity fashioned "equitable" remedies to achieve justice which was unattainable largely because of the rigidity of legal remedies which were the creatures of the courts of law. Here, where Parliament has fashioned statutory remedies and placed limitations on those remedies with great specificity, I think it is the proper role of the courts to apply and maintain those remedies, including their limitations.

In light of the foregoing, it seems to me that some of the paragraphs in the order of Binks J. are beyond this court's current jurisdiction and cannot stand.

Paragraphs 3 and 7 are in conflict with the legislative framework I have referred to, both as to the general claim on funds sought to be garnisheed by the applicant or her agents and as to the claim on 100 per cent of some funds. The scheme to substitute an attorney or agent to act in the respondent's stead and trigger payments to which the respondent may be entitled under the Public Service Superannuation Act and then receive them and pay them into court in this matter is, in my view, an indirect attempt to attach the funds. Even proceeding under the statutory scheme, at best, 50 per cent could be attached. In my view, these paragraphs must be struck out.

As far as paras. 8 and 9 are concerned, they constitute indirect ways to receive or attachmoneys which are not presently payable and are unsupportable. They conflict with the prohibitions against assignment andattachment found in the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.), the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act. When moneys are payable under any of those Acts, the garnishment process is laid out in theFamily Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act and the Garnishment,Attachment and Pension Diversion Act.

LawnBoy77777
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 196
Location : St. John's
Registration date : 2015-05-02

Back to top Go down

Re: SISIP at it again little help!!!!

Post by LawnBoy77777 on Thu 07 May 2015, 21:26

Take the Manuge case.. sisip was "indirectly assigning or attaching" Pension Act pmts that were not directly attachable.

Taking $ received for Pension Act off of sisip was accounting for Pension Act $ that could never be legally taken into account.

LawnBoy77777
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 196
Location : St. John's
Registration date : 2015-05-02

Back to top Go down

Page 3 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

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