ELB question

Page 5 of 5 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: ELB question

Post by LawnBoy77777 on Tue 30 Aug 2016, 20:39

bigrex you make some good points but it isn't up to me & you.

The Supreme Court pronounced on damages in 1978 (I was 12, they didn't ask me☺) & they said Andrews was to be paid in Capital as that was what he lost. The pension & WCB were mentioned briefly in that case as they are Tort law replacements.

Paul Weiler stated that WCB does not include a non-economic loss component. I have not verified his' statement but he is (or was, if dead) an expert in Compensation. I disagree with him on some points.

The much quoted, by me anyway, Sarvanis SCC 2002 case reveals the Pension Act pension to be an Indemnity payment based on an event causing injury, death or loss in service. That is the very definition of Tort damages. However, like WCB, it is a compromise & you only get some Compensation, not full Compensation.

Now, on to what I came to post in the 1st place ☺

"The earnings loss benefit is provided in recognition of the economic impacts of a career ending and/or service-related health problem on a veteranís ability to earn income following release from the military."

ELB is CAPITAL too. Therefore it is not supposed to be taxed. Interesting point, huh.

I seem to gravitate to taxes a lot as I worked for those bastards at CRA for 16 years. I have a $2.6 Million lawsuit pending vs CRA that I've placed on hold until I fix the veteran's issues.

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 Tue 30 Aug 2016, 20:48

War Amps ONCA 1997:

From its inception the basic pension has been paid to the disabled veteran because

of the particular gravity of the disability he suffered in the service of his country

and

its impact on his capacity to earn a basic living.

- The pension is loss of earning capacity.

As I have indicated, the basic pension is paid to the disabled veteran because of the degree of particular disability he suffered in the service of his country and its relative impact on his capacity to earn a basic living.

- loss of earning capacity; not a word about pain yet...

It is based entirely on the level of disability with which he must live for the rest of his life.

- why ELB must be lifelong...

The underlying rationale is to provide some compensation for the severity of the particular disability endured and its relative impact on earning capacity.

- "Some compensation..." Compensation means to be paid in full for loss. "Some" indicates less than full... Earning capacity keeps getting repeated so it MUST be important ☺

The basic pension depends only on the degree of disability burden that continues to rest on the veteran throughout his life.

- I'm trying to get vets behind converting ELB to:

1. Lifetime;

2. No clawbacks;

3. No mandatory Rehab as a condition of damages;

4. No tax, CAPITAL isn't taxed (Jennings SCC 1966)

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 Tue 30 Aug 2016, 20:52

ya know what bugs me in the sulz case is why the PA pension deduction was not contested . yup in the end they may have deducted it from the entire general damage award or part of that . thing is even if the judge likened the PA pension to general damages in its entirety . they were 125,000

the total amount for past and future wage loss was around 360,000

the lawyer could have put an extra 235,000 tax free dollars in his clients pocket .

huge mistake I think .

propat

propat

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: ELB question

Post by LawnBoy77777 on Sat 03 Sep 2016, 16:52

There was no chance of Sulz keeping both pension & damages as that would violate the Indemnity principle.

I talked to to lawyer & offered him a way to get her the money back, maybe. Because the Federal law should have come first. While this might seem no difference, the Pension Act (I read recently) only takes HALF. She would have been 2x as well off.

What I told the lawyer was to ask for the pension + damages due to the mistake in law by failing to note the Pension Act came first. It was a slim chance BUT that new point is a dman good one. I should email him again. Barry Carter, seems like a very good lawyer, represents RCMP & CF members a lot I think. Practicing 36 years.

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 Sat 03 Sep 2016, 19:51

actually she IN FACT did keep both pension and damages because she only lost part of the pension and kept the damages not related to wage loss .

the thing is they deducted the wage loss portion of damages from the pension . these two things are not alike in any way and paid for completely different reasons thus offending the Indemnity principle .

sure they could have very well detected the other damages in whole or in part as they do seem to act somewhat like the PA pension . but not the wage loss .

cost the client 235,000 tax free dollars .

bad move

propat


Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Page 5 of 5 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

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