SISIP at it again little help!!!!

Page 4 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

View previous topic View next topic Go down

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

Post by LawnBoy77777 on Thu 07 May 2015, 21:28

Ultramar case.. absolute unassignability

16]      Furthermore, if, as the respondent argues, Socanav, by virtue of the realization of a contractual relationship, had become "[Translation ] the potential beneficiary of the application for refund for taxes and drawbacks (N15)" " which has not been established " it would be necessary at the very least to infer that Ultramar, the sole manufacturer authorized to claim and obtain such a refund had, directly or indirectly,assigned to its client Socanav its rights in such refund, which would constitute an assignmentof debts that is null and void because it is prohibited by section 67 of the Financial Administration Act , R.S.C. c. F-10, which reads as follows:


67. Except as provided in this Act or any other Act of Parliament,

     (a) a Crown debt is not assignable; and     (b) no transaction purporting to be anassignment of a Crown debt is effective so as to confer on any person any rights or remedies in respect of that debt.


67. Sous réserve des autres dispositions de la présente loi ou de toute autre loi fédérale :

     a) les créances sur Sa Majesté son incessibles;     b) aucune opération censée constituer une cession de créances sur Sa Majesté n"a pour effet de conférer à quiconque un droit ou un recours à leur égard.

[17]      The absolute unassignability of a Crown debt is now firmly established, as is shown by the decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal inBief des Seigneurs Inc. v. Jean Fortin & Associés Syndic Inc., 1996 CanLII 6361 (QC CA), 44 C.B.R. (3d) 137.


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, 21:37

ya I get that however the laws remain the same and this practice is legal under all but MAYBE insurance law . but that would be an argument over the ambiguity of the contract as was the SISIP lawsuit .

buds I looked it through a few times a long time ago and seen no ambiguity in any of there deductions outside what was in question at the time .

id really like to see it stopped but really do not see any avenue to do so .

I read over a decent legal paper at that time questioning the same things you are now it may help you somewhat.

if I can find it again I will post it for you .

good luck buds

propat

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

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

Post by Guest on Thu 07 May 2015, 21:51

WOW found it .

http://www.hivandrehab.ca/EN/information/documents/LTD_CPP_legal_memo.pdf

hope this helps

propat

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

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

Post by LawnBoy77777 on Fri 08 May 2015, 06:05

Hope public opinion, not lawsuit so we save $600 Million.

Instead of getting caught up in the legslities, focus on the formation of the policy in express violation of the Gov Contracting Regulations.

No contract formed illegally can get enforced.

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 Fri 08 May 2015, 06:08

2012 OAG report, ch 4, para 4.79.

2006 OAG rep, 9.13

RCMP & CF LTD policies 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 pinger on Fri 08 May 2015, 15:48

Kudos Lawnboy. Veterans could use a few administrative Cat D9's for starters. pinger.
avatar
pinger
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 1158
Location : Facebook-less
Registration date : 2014-03-04

Back to top Go down

Page 4 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

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