ELB question

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

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: ELB question

Post by Bruce72 on Fri 19 Aug 2016, 20:17

Cancel my last.  I've read more about Policy 901102 still don't really understand it though. Some documents I'm reading only refer to Life Insurance others to Long Term Disability.

Bruce72
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 651
Location : Newfoundland
Registration date : 2014-03-13

Back to top Go down

Re: ELB question

Post by bigrex on Sat 20 Aug 2016, 00:20

From the NVC regulations

"22 The following sources are prescribed for the purpose of the amount of variable B in subsection 19(1) of the Act:

(a) [Repealed, SOR/2012-195, s. 1]

(b) benefits payable under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, the Public Service Superannuation Act or the Employment Insurance Act;

(c) benefits payable under the Canada Pension Plan or the Act Respecting the Québec Pension Plan other than amounts payable for a dependent child;

(d) benefits payable under any employer-sponsored long-term disability insurance plan;

(e) benefits payable in respect of economic loss under the Government Employees Compensation Act or any provincial workers’ compensation legislation;

(f) amounts payable in respect of economic loss arising from legal liability to pay damages;

(g) amounts payable under an employer pension plan;

(h) employment earnings payable while the veteran is not participating in a rehabilitation plan or vocational assistance plan developed by the Minister or where the veteran is participating in such a plan and the sum of the earnings loss payable for a month plus the employment earnings for the month exceeds the veteran’s imputed income; and

(i) 50% of employment earnings payable while the veteran is participating in a rehabilitation plan or vocational assistance plan developed by the Minister so long as the sum of the earnings loss payable for a month plus the employment earnings for the month does not exceed the veteran’s imputed income.

23 The following sources are prescribed for the purpose of subsection 23(3) of the Act:

(a) [Repealed, SOR/2012-195, s. 2]

(b) benefits payable under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act or the Public Service Superannuation Act other than amounts payable for a dependent child;

(c) benefits payable under the Canada Pension Plan or the Act Respecting the Québec Pension Plan other than amounts payable for a dependent child;

(d) benefits payable under any employer-sponsored long-term disability insurance plan other than amounts payable for a dependent child;

(e) benefits payable in respect of economic loss under the Government Employees Compensation Act or any provincial workers’ compensation legislation other than amounts payable for a dependent child;

(f) amounts payable in respect of economic loss arising from legal liability to pay damages; and

(g) amounts payable under an employer pension plan other than amounts payable for a dependent child."

So even though it does not specifically list SISIP as a deduction, sections 22(d) and 23(d) is open to interpretation of what is considered an employer sponsored LTD program. But I would think that any judge that this would go in front of, would consider SISIP an employer sponsored plan, since the policy owner is the CDS, and the vast majority of the premiums are paid by the treasury board. Believe me, if they thought that there was any wiggle room, to exclude SISIP from the deductions, they would simply change the wording in the regulations. They don't need to send it for a vote, or even let anyone know they are making the change, and there would be nothing that we could do about it.

And as far as the clause about assigning the SISIP LTD, tit is not relevenat, because VAC is not stopping you from getting your SISIP. They still deposit your LTD in the bank every month. Believe me, I wish that everyone would get as much money as possible, but I cannot, in good conscience, allow anyone to be misled into believing that it is a possibility to get both full ELB and full SISIP, at the same time.
avatar
bigrex
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 3092
Location : Halifax, Nova Scotia
Registration date : 2008-09-18

Back to top Go down

Re: ELB question

Post by Bruce72 on Sat 20 Aug 2016, 07:55

So in layman's terms both SISIP and ELB are considered income replacement benefits, and are taxable, therefore, one would cancel out the other. And this is why when a Veteran has inadvertently collected both benefits at the same time, an overpayment is considered to have happened and repayment of said overpayment occurs.

Is this a correct interpretation of the rules?

Bruce72
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 651
Location : Newfoundland
Registration date : 2014-03-13

Back to top Go down

Re: ELB question

Post by LawnBoy77777 on Sat 20 Aug 2016, 09:39

SISIP LTD will be tax free soon. Insurance replaces property that was lost, already owned.

Income is new money. That is why taxes apply, on a transaction where your wealth increases. We paid for SISIP & ELB. ELB's price was the Right to sue, or was it? Someone should sue VAC on ELB & see if they try to rely on CLPA s. 9.

That point about SISIP being offset as per NVC Regs s. 22 is incorrect. It is offset as VAC wrote a policy on 18MAY12 to prescribe SISIP LTD as an offset.

VAC cannot write law. The ELB offsets are law. A policy cannot override law.

Even Regulations (subordinate law), cannot override a conflicting Act.

NVC s. 22 is cancelled out by CFSA s. 83; CPP Act s. 65(1) & (1.1); FAA s. 67; NDA s. 39(3)

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 Sat 20 Aug 2016, 09:58

Unlike what has been implied, the ELB regulations can be liberally interpreted so that most LTD plans, including SISIP, can be deducted without having to be specifically named. I'm not saying that your entire argument is invalid, as you may just be successful having CPP(D) removed from the list of reductions, because of the nature of CPP(D). But the government is never going to allow Veterans to collect from two different income replacement plans, for the same lost income.
avatar
bigrex
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 3092
Location : Halifax, Nova Scotia
Registration date : 2008-09-18

Back to top Go down

Re: ELB question

Post by bigrex on Sat 20 Aug 2016, 10:25

During the SISIP lawsuit, the judge stated that ELB could lawfully deduct the PA pension, because it only listed "benefits under the Pension Act" as a deduction, whereas SISIP used the wording "income benefits under the Pension Act". And that would be a case of a regulation legally overriding a law. He stated that a policy owner, can put anything they want in a policy, but if challenged, they have to live or die by the wording that is in the policy, and not what they may have been intended. that's why I was shocked when the Tories voluntarily ceased the ELB clawback, as quickly as they did. I was sure it was going to take another lawsuit, and more importantly, the public pressure that the lawsuit would bring.
avatar
bigrex
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 3092
Location : Halifax, Nova Scotia
Registration date : 2008-09-18

Back to top Go down

Re: ELB question

Post by LawnBoy77777 on Sat 20 Aug 2016, 10:43

The thing is, the SISIP class action was bad.

They missed the fact that, if the benefits were the same character, why did Manulife get to take the pension? That is absurd. The 2 benefits are not the same so they cannot interact. (Sarvanis SCC 2002: CPPD is non-indemnity & contributory, so it is untouchable).

The other fatal mistake was calling the pension pain & suffering when that is not what it is. The pension is the exact same thing as damages in Tort, an event where someone hurts you:

26 This example is consistent with a reading of the words “in respect of” in the context of the clause in which they appear. The fact that a pension must be in respect of some event of “death, injury, damage or loss” gives us a fuller understanding of the import of the words. What this broad, yet in itself imprecise, phrase means, can be understood by asking what kind of a thing the pension must be in respect of. We will have a different view of the precise scope of the phrase in this context from, for example, the context of the clause which follows in s. 9. The latter clause refers to “death, injury, damage or loss in respect of which the claim is made”. The breadth of the words “in respect of” when attached to the concept of a “claim” may be different from the breadth of the same words when attached to a series of events.

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 Sat 20 Aug 2016, 12:19

Lawn boy, the Sarvanis lawsuit has nothing to do with the SISIP lawsuit. It revolved completely around whether getting CPP(D) removed a person's right to sue for damages. It didn't even discuss whether CPP(D) could be lawfully deducted from another source or not.

In the context of the SISIP lawsuit, regardless of why the PA was create, the actual PA pension was most akin to pain and suffering, because the amount is based on the severity of the disability. If it wasn't, as you suggest, everyone who was ever injured while serving, would receive the same amount of money, because they all equally lost their right to sue for damages

And lastly, if you're going to add a quote from somewhere, please say where it is from, because the source can drastically change the relevance of the quote..
avatar
bigrex
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 3092
Location : Halifax, Nova Scotia
Registration date : 2008-09-18

Back to top Go down

Re: ELB question

Post by Bruce72 on Sat 20 Aug 2016, 13:57

LawnBoy you said: "The other fatal mistake was calling the pension pain & suffering when that is not what it is. The pension is the exact same thing as damages in Tort, an event where someone hurts you"

An injury, like falling 8 metres from an obstacle during training

A wound, like having someone detonate an IED in you immediate AO and you are showered with shrapnel.

They're are both events where someone got hurt, but only one was deliberate.

I'm just trying to understand all of this.


Bruce72
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 651
Location : Newfoundland
Registration date : 2014-03-13

Back to top Go down

Re: ELB question

Post by pinger on Sat 20 Aug 2016, 16:31

Meanwhile... nothing is static for too too long.

What I mean is the GoC could change the rules. In time, 5 -10 years who know's. Prescribed sources etc. etc. applied against 1st, 2nd, 3rd payer as one example.
Not to fearmonger or make a mountain of a molehill but hey...!
Wake up one morning to new rules aka, bendover gomer your fracked again.

Bottom line: Due diligence with prudence.
Should ring a bell to each veteran...
if capable... and it's sad if any can not.

Just my rambling opinions.



avatar
pinger
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 1223
Location : Facebook-less
Registration date : 2014-03-04

Back to top Go down

Re: ELB question

Post by LawnBoy77777 on Sat 27 Aug 2016, 16:59

The Sarvanis case from 2002 proved the Manuge case was BS. It said the Pension Act pension was based on an event that caused injury, death or loss. The basis of tort, versus CPPD which is paid on the basis of insurance which means that a state of disability is the triggering act.
The Sulz case is the best exxample. Sulz lost her Pension Act pension from the Tort damages. In addition Pension Act s. 25 claws back Tort damages & Workers' Compensation. They take back the same type of payment. Notice the Pension Act does NOT take CPPD or SISIP or the CF pension. That us the right way.

CPPD cannot be deducted from Tort damages (Bradburn v Great Western Railway 1875; Gill SCC 1973; Cugliari v White ONCA 1998; Demers v Monty ONCA). The reason is simple, as shown in Sarvanis SCC 2002. They are non-indemnity & contributory. Non-indemnity means not paid to Compensate for loss. The entire case revolved around Canada trying to deduct the value of the CPPD from the damages they had to pay Sarvanis. Canada tried to pull a fast one. CLPA s. 9 is designeed to prevent double dipping, 2 payments for the same injury.

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 Sat 27 Aug 2016, 18:43

LawnBoy77777 wrote:The Sarvanis case from 2002 proved the Manuge case was BS. It said the Pension Act pension was based on an event that caused injury, death or loss. The basis of tort, versus CPPD which is paid on the basis of insurance which means that a state of disability is the triggering act.
The Sulz case is the best exxample. Sulz lost her Pension Act pension from the Tort damages.  In addition Pension Act s. 25 claws back Tort damages & Workers' Compensation. They take back the same type of payment. Notice the Pension Act does NOT take CPPD or SISIP or the CF pension. That us the right way.

CPPD cannot be deducted from Tort damages (Bradburn v Great Western Railway 1875; Gill SCC 1973; Cugliari v White ONCA 1998; Demers v Monty ONCA). The reason is simple, as shown in Sarvanis SCC 2002. They are non-indemnity & contributory. Non-indemnity means not paid to Compensate for loss. The entire case revolved around Canada trying to deduct the value of the CPPD from the damages they had to pay Sarvanis. Canada tried to pull a fast one. CLPA s. 9 is designeed to prevent double dipping, 2 payments for the same injury.

ok... Wanna dumb that down for me please? I have no idea what you're talking about. I'd have to google and research atleast 2 or 3 things in each sentence.
avatar
Vet1234
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 461
Location : Ontario
Registration date : 2016-07-27

Back to top Go down

Re: ELB question

Post by Vet1234 on Sat 27 Aug 2016, 18:58

Side note. I'm not trying to be rude, I just struggle with grasping what you're trying to say.
My head doesn't work like it used to. I read the majority of your posts and they sound intelligent and important, I just don't understand your references and sometimes even the subjects you're talking about. I'm not sure if I'm the only one, but for me... they're definitely a hard read.
avatar
Vet1234
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 461
Location : Ontario
Registration date : 2016-07-27

Back to top Go down

Re: ELB question

Post by LawnBoy77777 on Sat 27 Aug 2016, 20:53

NP, I used to be a teacher...

Sarvanis SCC 2002 was a case where a Federal inmate was injured in jail & sued. Tort damages were ordered & CPPD was in the mix so Canada argued they could take off the Canada Pension Plan Disability as it was a pension payable out of federal money. The judges said that the pension mentioned in Crown Liabilities & Proceedings Act s. 9 was Pension Act pensions, not retirement pensions or CPPD. They are not meant to Compensate for loss. The pension is. Therefore both the CPPD & Tort damages were paid.

Some might think this unfair as Sarvanis got too much. That he was paid for the same thing 2x. However those people are WRONG. That was the question put to the Supreme Court of Canada & there is no higher court. So we have to agree or at least grumble away while the person gets both the CPPD that they bought & the damages in Tort that a person got to make them whole after a WRONGDOER hurt them.

The basis of Tort is:

1. You have the right not to be hurt by anyone else;

2. If some WRONGDOER does hurt you, he must make you whole, as much as money can do so as no one can replace lost limbs, for example. This is known as the Compensation or Indemnity principle. The pension is an Indemnity for loss. SISIP LTD is not, as the CPPD is not.

Clear as mud? ☺

Perhaps think of in terms of the Bradburn case from 1875.

You bought insurance for a rainy day. If the wrongdoer takes the value of the insurance off the damages he has to pay, you bought the insurance to help the one who disabled you! That is insane.

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 Sat 27 Aug 2016, 21:19

ok got ya. so what does that have to do with ELB?
You're saying legally we can collect both sisip and elb?
are you likening sisip to cppd and elb to tort?
that's where I'm confused now. Isn't a Disability award tort?
avatar
Vet1234
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 461
Location : Ontario
Registration date : 2016-07-27

Back to top Go down

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

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

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