ELB question

Page 2 of 5 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: ELB question

Post by LawnBoy77777 on Thu 18 Aug 2016, 14:31

Bigrex, VAC cannot set off SISIP LTD as it is not stated explicitly in NVC Regs s. 22. That other gov LTD is obviously not SiSiP LTD as SISIP LTD is specifically stated 4 times as an offset in the NVC Regs BUT not in the ELB part. Parliament is presumed to use specific language in law for a reason. Add to that the fact that SISIP LTD in non-indemntiy & contributory (not cmpensation & bought), & you can get it in addition to Compensation for injury. Look no further than the Manuge case where the SISIP LTD & pension were payable. The Pension Act pension is Compensation to injury, loss or death (Sarvanis SCC 2002) & SISIP LTD can add to it (Sulz BCCA 2006)

LawnBoy77777
CSAT Member

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

Back to top Go down

Re: ELB question

Post by LawnBoy77777 on Thu 18 Aug 2016, 14:32

Ref my last, here is a video on it

https://youtu.be/1cVGJMIg4Oc

LawnBoy77777
CSAT Member

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

Back to top Go down

Re: ELB question

Post by bigrex on Thu 18 Aug 2016, 16:27

Actually the ELB regulations refer to it as all employer sponsored LTD insurance plan, not just government sponsored. It's a catch all clause, becasue it would be impossible to list every possible situation. So even if you went to work at Canadian Tire, and had to go on their LTD program due to illness, it would still be deducted from ELB 100%, even though CT LTD isn't listed in the regs.

The only reason the SISIP lawsuit was successful, was because the policy stated, and still does, that income benefits under the PA were to be deducted. The judge agreed with us, that the disability pension, was NOT an income benefit, as it was not tied in any way to your military rank or income level. So therefor, the deduction of the PA pension, had been unlawful. If that one word had been omitted when the SISIP policy was written, I doubt that we would have won.
avatar
bigrex
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 3103
Location : Halifax, Nova Scotia
Registration date : 2008-09-18

Back to top Go down

Re: ELB question

Post by LawnBoy77777 on Thu 18 Aug 2016, 17:52

I'm feeling bad about all the posts made quickly but the SISIP Class action was a farce. Sulz BCCA 2006 should have won the case on the 1st day.

The pension is damages in Tort & cannot set off SISIP LTD so you are allowed to get both.

End of story.

In Sulz, she got $950k, CPPD, RCMP pension, GWL LTD, & VAC pension.

Only deduction from her $950k damages was the Pension Act pension as you cannot get Compensated 2x for 1 injury. She retained GWL (a copy of SISIP), RCMP superannuation pension (same as CF pension) & CPPD ( same as SISIP LTD).

The opposite of Manuge's case.

1 level higher court & a year earlier. Why did the judge try to rewrite case law?

LawnBoy77777
CSAT Member

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

Back to top Go down

Re: ELB question

Post by Vet1234 on Thu 18 Aug 2016, 18:12

This is some interesting stuff. I have no idea what you guys are talking about though...
avatar
Vet1234
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 471
Location : Ontario
Registration date : 2016-07-27

Back to top Go down

Re: ELB question

Post by bigrex on Fri 19 Aug 2016, 11:28

Well, from what I understand, is that the $950k was actually for damages, mostly lost wages, in a lawsuit against the RCMP, for harassment in 2009. It didn't award her any money for pain and suffering. But at that time, the RCMP's ltd plan, still allowed for the deduction of PA pensions until 2015. I can't find their full policy online, so I cannot confirm it, but since they are unionized, they may have been able to keep the RCMP pension and CPP(D) off the list of deductions, which would explain why she collected the court award, LTD, RCMP pension and CPP(D). She will have since been given those PA pension payments back, with the same interest that we received.
avatar
bigrex
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 3103
Location : Halifax, Nova Scotia
Registration date : 2008-09-18

Back to top Go down

Re: ELB question

Post by LawnBoy77777 on Fri 19 Aug 2016, 14:54

Bigrex, the pension is not pain & suffering. It is Tort damages (about 20% non-economic & 80% economic, using the Andrews SCC 1978 case as an example).

The Sarvanis SCC 2002 said that the Pension Act pension was like Workers' Compensation & damages in Tort, based on an "event," not the state of disability (CPPD/SISIP LTD/ELB)

LawnBoy77777
CSAT Member

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

Back to top Go down

Re: ELB question

Post by Guest on Fri 19 Aug 2016, 16:28

Policy is Policy, until Policy changes we have to go by the set Policy that is in place.

Earnings Loss Benefit is income replacement.

http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/services/rates#elb

Earnings Loss Benefit - SISIP-LTD - Offset

Policy

Veterans who released on medical grounds in accordance with chapter 15 of the Queen’s Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces within 120 days prior to, or subsequent to, the coming into force date of the CFMVRCA, are eligible to apply for EL benefits under the CFMVRCA.

SISIP-LTD benefits shall be considered as one of the amounts from prescribed sources which will be offset from any EL benefit that might otherwise be payable should the Veteran qualify under the CFMVRC Act

http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/about-us/policy/document/1091


Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: ELB question

Post by bigrex on Fri 19 Aug 2016, 17:19

Ok, I've done a little reading, because I like to be educated on matters that I discuss. In the Sarvanis case, he was a prisoner, who sued the government after being injured while in prison. He was initially denied because he had been given CPP)D, as if that exempted the government from further action. The PA was brought into the argument, because it clearly words it so that Veterans cannot sue the government for damages, for injuries that have been given a PA pension.

"34  It is useful to contrast other statutes providing pensions or compensations that are clearly foreclosed by s. 9  of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act .  One example, already noted above, is the Pension Act."

And that it was based upon an "event", only because the PA pension was only paid for service related injuries, and WCCB payment are for only work related injuries. Yet CPP(D) is granted based solely on the existence of a disability, and that it does not restrict the recipient from suing the government for causing the disability. They also do not talk about whether CPP(D),can be deducted from other government benefits, just his right to sue the government for damages.

And the other case, which I'm guessing is Andrews v Grand and Toy, talks about an employee who was injured on the job, and the level of compensation to be paid by the insurance company, for the injuries and ongoing care.

I appreciate your enthusiasm, but by referring to case law, of cases that have no direct bearing on the PA, the NVC, or SISIP, you are only muddying the water. So I respectfully request that you leave the actual legal talk to your lawyer, while keeping the site updated on your progress.
avatar
bigrex
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 3103
Location : Halifax, Nova Scotia
Registration date : 2008-09-18

Back to top Go down

Re: ELB question

Post by Guest on Fri 19 Aug 2016, 17:51

I say keep the legal talk coming . I'm getting a lot of interesting reads out of it . however in general ill have to agree with bigrex THUS FAR ( a lot more reading to do ) I think you are on to something in a couple of the huge lot of subjects ya slammed down in the last couple of days.

gotta defer on to many comments for now think I got AT LEAST two weeks research ta do before id feel comfortable commenting in depth on some of the subject material .

so ya thanks for that .

propat

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: ELB question

Post by LawnBoy77777 on Fri 19 Aug 2016, 18:18

VAC is part of the Executive branch of gov & cannot make law. ELB set offs are Regulatory law.

SISIP policy 901102 has a clause prohibiting assignment & the Crown must respect contracts. So VAC cannot take SISIP LTD into account.

SISIP cannot take ELB into account due to NVC s. 89

LawnBoy77777
CSAT Member

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

Back to top Go down

Re: ELB question

Post by Guest on Fri 19 Aug 2016, 19:12

LawnBoy are you saying that Veterans can collect both ELB and SISIP at the same time?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: ELB question

Post by Vet1234 on Fri 19 Aug 2016, 19:18

That's what I'm hearing.
avatar
Vet1234
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 471
Location : Ontario
Registration date : 2016-07-27

Back to top Go down

Re: ELB question

Post by LawnBoy77777 on Fri 19 Aug 2016, 20:00

Bigrex, the pension is not pain & suffering. It is Tort damages (about 20% non-economic & 80% economic, using the Andrews SCC 1978 case as an example).

The Sarvanis SCC 2002 said that the Pension Act pension was like Workers' Compensation & damages in Tort, based on an "event," not the state of disability (CPPD/SISIP LTD/ELB)

LawnBoy77777
CSAT Member

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

Back to top Go down

Re: ELB question

Post by Bruce72 on Fri 19 Aug 2016, 20:11

LawnBoy

I'm fairly confused by your reference to SISIP Policy 901102 because I'm under the impression that policy is related to life insurance.

Bruce72
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 660
Location : Newfoundland
Registration date : 2014-03-13

Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 5 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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