Legal Concepts for my lawsuits

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Legal Concepts for my lawsuits

Post by LawnBoy77777 on Sat 20 Aug 2016, 06:54

I'm fairly new here & I'm feeling I'm posting too much so maybe I can post the key concepts behind my proposed class action to explain to the reader what is up. Here is a repost of my Key Evidence Consolidation post in my Observation Post FB group:
Key Evidence Consolidation Post
In case I get my class actions started soon, I will start placing key evidence in the one place.
Key arguments:

1. It is our money, as National Defence Act s. 39(1) sets up benefits that are Non-Public Property (NPP: Not tax money) why sue ourselves. That is the definition of absurdity;

2. The Canadian Forces' Service Income Support Insurance Plan (SISIP) policy 901102 has never been competitively tendered in accordance with law so the doctrine of ILLEGALITY means they lose & we win;

3. Public Policies are the reason behind law:

Compensation principle: In Tort, the damages received cannot exceed your loss. You may not profit from insurance.

Disability: aiding the disabled is good policy, to balance the scales for hardship suffered;

Poverty Reduction: income brings health & dignity;

Retirement: 3 tiers of retirement are OAS; CPP; pensions; The CF pension is in the 3rd tier as it is considered a "private pension;"

Rule of law: Heart of democracy, no one is above the law, even the one's making law;

National Defence (Roy FCA): Recruitment & retention is important in an all volunteer military;

4. Statutory Law prohibiting set off or clawback, in law or EQUITY (Equity is last resort, a law can be unjust):

Canadian Forces Superannuation Act s. 83: Specific prohibition against interception, including indirectly;

Public Service Superannuation Act s. 10(10);

Canada Pension Plan (CPP) Act s. 65(1);

New Veterans Charter s. 89, this one prohibits SISIP LTD from taking ELB/PIA/PIAS;

Old Age Security (OAS) Act s. 36, RISB cannot take OAS but alleges it can;

Employment Insurance (EI) Act s. 42;

Financial Administration Act (FAA) s. 21, this law sets up "Special Purpose Accounts" for contributions. Contributions are NOT tax;

FAA s. 67: No intercepting a Crown debt; general prohibition against set off, clawback, reduction, deduction, etc;

National Defence Act (NDA) s. 39(3) added 25JUN16, prohibits "alienation" which is another word for clawback;

National Defence Act s. 39(1) as SISIP LTD is supposed to "benefit" but it hurts, instead.

5. Common Law precedents:

A. Sulz BCCA 2006 (Almost the only one I need): established CF/RCMP/PS pensions as non-indemnity & contributory; established GWL/SISIP/Sun Life/PSMIP/CPPD as non-indemnity & contributory; confirmed CPPD as non-indemnity & contributory; ESTABLISHED the Pension Act pension as being NOT pain & suffering but the same as WCB/Tort

B. IBM v Waterman SCC 2013: Pensions are assets; Service = contributions as EARNED in service. Nothing in life is free;

C. Ratych SCC: Bradburn principle, get what you pay for & we paid SISIP LTD premiums to obtain "peace of mind;"

D. Clarke v Clarke SCC: Pensions are assets; CF pension is immune from alienation;

E. Beattie v Ladocoeur ONSC: Fed laws protect Crown debts; even indirectly. This case is KEY as Canada intervened to say no one can take Crown debts;

F. Cugliari v White ONCA: CPPD is NOT deducted from Tort damages: Tort damages = WCB = VAC so they can GO TO HELL;

G. Manuge FC: little I can use but the affidavits will help kill their BS;

H. Granovsky SCC says minimum contributory period for CPPD but I didn't meet that test, CPP is self-funded, not welfare;

I. Roy FCA: National Defence public policy ;

J. Buschau SCC 2006: good case on pension characteristics.

K. Ultramar FC: Indirect assignment is unlawful; The absolute unassignability of Crown debts is now firmly established;

L. Cunningham v Wheeler SCC 1994: Bradburn principle; Parry v Cleaver. LTD does not come off damages & VAC is damages;

M. Fraser SCC: A contract cannot impose a liability on a 3rd party, important as the SISIP policy alleges it can reduce premiums by taking CF pension & CPP into account when it cannot!

6. Charter issues:

A. SISIP violates Charter s. 15(1) by treating disabled Reservists as less equal than Regular Force members; CHRA s. 7(b) too. It also means that VAC's policies are bad because we are being treated badly in LAW & that is unjust under the Charter. The majority cannot use that majority to punish the minority;

B. SISIP & VAC violate Charter s. 8 by breaching our Privacy;

C. SISIP & VAC violate our Liberty, Charter s. 7: SISIP by requiring us to apply to CPPD; VAC by requiring mandatory in law Rehabilitation as a condition of Tort damages

D. Arbitrary law? S. 52 of Charter if I recall.

7. Possible allegations:

(I) Breach of Trust: SISIP is NPP but they think Canada owns it;

(II) Bad Faith: see #1 & more;

(III) Fraud: using SISIP as 1st payer when it is NPP;

(IV) Negligence: setting off immune Crown debts;

(V) Breach of privacy: collecting personal finacial details without cause;

(VI) Breach of Fiduciary Duty: SISIP is a Fiduciary due to the power imbalance.

8. Canadian Bar Association (37k lawyers) states Reimbursement agreements are unlawful as no Consideration ($) to seal the deal. Without money, a deal is not a deal. They said:

A. If you are an insurer, don't send;

B. If you are the insured, don't sign.

9. There is no real policy. Canada fakes us out by using Manulife as a "sham."

10. Principles:

A. Subrogation (offset) is only available to indemnity insurance; However, even in indemnity insurance, we need to recover more than 100% before the insurer is subrogated.

B. Bradburn principle: No deduction of non-indemnity insurance from damages;

C. Indemnity (Compensation) principle: The victim needs the be Compensated FIRST, then any excess is for the 3rd party insurer;

D. Utmost good faith: insurers who insure their own insured must act in UTMOST GOOD FAITH. Is this like a Fiduciary Duty?

LawnBoy77777
CSAT Member

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Legal Concepts for my lawsuits

Post by Guest on Sat 20 Aug 2016, 08:51

thanks for that.

propat

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Legal Concepts for my lawsuits

Post by LawnBoy77777 on Sat 20 Aug 2016, 11:27

No problem. Remember how Canada bitched about the COST if the pension was allowed to be received + SISIP LTD? They should have known about Somersall SCC 2002:

ICYMI?: Somersall SCC

72 In view of the near-negligible value of the subrogation right, it would be overreaching, in my view, to regard its loss as significantly changing the insurer’s position.

** The risk that the insurer has assumed is effectively compensated for by the insured’s monthly premium.

**Without being #cynical, I would be very surprised indeed if the loss of a subrogation right with little practical value were significant enough to have any effect whatever upon the insurer’s balance sheet.

**** The #insurer is #free to set #premiums at such a level as to ensure that its #risk is covered, exclusive of the anticipated value of subrogation rights, and I would cautiously presume that this is precisely what it has done.

- Here is the answer to SISIP saying that offsets would cost more. SISIP is free to set the premium at what it requires. If the offsets are illegal, they have saved money though illegal means.

73 The value of the indemnity payment, by contrast, is of great significance to the insured.

- The value of the non-indemnity payment is of great significance to the insured & disabled veteran.

** It is clear enough that the insured valued the availability of such payment highly enough to pay a substantial increase in monthly premiums for it.

- It is clear that the disabled veteran, while serving, valued the availability of such payment highly enough to pay the monthly premiums as required by law.

*** It is also clear that the insurer would rather not make the payment, to the extent of pursuing the case all the way to this Court.

- It is clear that the insurer, SISIP, would rather not make the payment, to the extent of forcing us to take it to court.

The result of finding for the appellant in this case upon the insurance industry at large will not be to restore or confirm the value of lost subrogation rights. It will be to release insurers from paying out the rather more substantial amounts to which subscribers to the SEF 44 Endorsement would otherwise be entitled.

74 ** The insurer is entitled to the rights acquired by contract as much as any natural person.

- The insurer is entitled to the rights acquired by contract as much as any natural person but in this case there was no contract. The SISIP policy ws imposed in law, not contract. Queen's Regulations & Orders mandate the deduction from pay.

But it would be foolhardy to disregard the common sense results of an interpretation of a contract that would grant the insurer a windfall in escaping its presumed obligations while depriving the insured of the amount she would have expected to have been paid to her in the normal course of business.

- The common sense result is that SISIP is escaping its presumed obligations, achieving a windfall, while depriving the insured veteran of the amount he would have expected to have been paid to him in the normal course of business.

- This also applies to the CPP offset. CPP being deducted from CPP "bridging" deprives us of the amount we expected to get through paying into two different pension plans. I expect two payments if I pay into two pensions. I expect the same amount as both pensions added together, no integration.

I am convinced that the interpretation here adopted is not only the most natural view of the terms of the contract, but sound and equitable public policy as well.

A policy that recognizes the relative value of a subrogation right to an insurer and of an indemnity payment to an insured person is what one would expect the Superintendent of Insurance to attempt to formulate and adopt. In my view, that is what has been done in the SEF 44.

- SCC said that this is "sound & equitable policy."

https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2002/2002scc59/2002scc59.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAJc29tZXJzYWxsAAAAAAE&resultIndex=1

LawnBoy77777
CSAT Member

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Legal Concepts for my lawsuits

Post by Guest on Sat 20 Aug 2016, 12:23

now still researching a lot of stuff but one thing about the CPPD thing id like to add is something ive been saying for many years now .

history short version .

in on or around 1966 . CCP benefits and pension benefits for a lot Canadians were linked . by that I mean both premiums and benefits . this had the support of unions and in our case just the CDS as it lowered premiums while lowering benefits as well .

in on or around 1999 - 2001 C-78 if I recall correctly de-linked the pensions as well as dividing them and of course taking the 30 billion surplus ta boot .

anyhow today they say they are still" linked " however not by the intent of the initial agreement no sir . the premiums it seems were the only one of the two parts of the initial " link " that was de-linked it seems the benefits were not . so the premiums went up while the benefits remained with the same CPP deduction from the pension .

of cores no real representation from us in all of this .

just throwing that onto the pile .

propat


Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Legal Concepts for my lawsuits

Post by bigrex on Sat 20 Aug 2016, 13:05

lawnboy, once again, the court case that you have used, has no bearing on the actual discussion. It was two men injured in a motor vehicle accident trying to sue their personal insurance company, because the person that hit them didn't have any insurance, limiting what they could claim from him, and about how a claim would be reduced by amounts received from other insurance policies. It doesn't address CPP(D) or the PA.


So please, if you find a court case that specifically states that it is illegal to deduct CPP(D), the CF pension, or even a LTD benefit, we would love to see it. Otherwise, all these court cases that you are throwing into the mix, are only adding to the confusion and frustration.

avatar
bigrex
CSAT Member

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Legal Concepts for my lawsuits

Post by Guest on Sat 20 Aug 2016, 13:51

Just so were all on the same page regarding LawnBoy's quest to pursue legal matters concerning various benefits that affect Veterans, I will explain my interpretation of the reasons why LawnBoy is posting case law examples on the forum. It is in my opinion and (LawnBoy can correct me on this) that LawnBoy is using several case law examples to bring forward to his lawyer in hopes of getting some benefits that are available to Veterans brought before a judge to sue for what he believes is unfair and unjust. He wanted to share those case law examples with CSAT which I appreciate as I'm sure everyone does. Although some of his legal post maybe hard to digest in it's complexity, it is just something he wished to share with all of us, so digest what you can and don't get overwhelmed with the info as this will be digested by the courts, not officially by CSAT, it is meant for discussion and shared info. Regarding policies that are in place today, fair or unfair, they are set policies that we have to quote by until such a time that either the policy changes from source, OR from the courts.

I myself am very much appreciative of the hard work and dedication that LawnBoy is doing, I support him and thank him and wish him the best of luck.

BZ LawnBoy

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Legal Concepts for my lawsuits

Post by LawnBoy77777 on Sat 20 Aug 2016, 16:11

Trooper, you got it right. I am trying to simplify the legal mumbo jumbo. I want everyone to understand the concepts, not just trust the lawyers. I think the class were screwed by McInnes Cooper. They refused to represent me. Despite having a "slam dunk" case. The government does not have a leg to stand on. My ace up my sleeve is the fact they failed to tender the policy as described in the Office of the Auditor Generals 2012 Fall report, chapter 4, para 4.79. As the policy was never tendered, it is not valid. If it is not valid, they cannot enforce the clawbacks! Try going to court & proving to the judge that they can clwback our benefits when I say, "Excuse me, your Honour. The Financial Administration Act's Government Contract Regulations, s. 7(b), require a contract over $25,000 to be publicly tendered. SISIP LTD policy 901102 has NEVER been tendered in 50 years. I want you to tell them that , under the doctrine of illegality, the courts will not enforce ann unlawful act."

Office of the Auditor Generals 2012 Fall report, chapter 4, para 4.79: "Finally, we found that the contract between the Canadian Forces and the private sector insurer that delivers the Service Income Security Insurance Plan dates back to 1969. Since then, it has not been subject to a competitive tendering process. As a result, there is a risk that costs are higher than necessary."

http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_201210_04_e_37348.html


Here is my latest opus, though of this today:

Had important thought I think: Privity of contract might prove essential to us. I'll use the Bradburn 1875 case to show people.

1. Privity of contract is an essential element of contract law that says the only people that the contract concerns can do anything about it. Anyone who is not bound by the contract is a stranger to it;

2. Bradburn had a contract of insurance between him & the insurer where he paid premiums to insure against disability. He got £31 under that policy. The Railway that hurt him was a stranger to the contract;

3. Therefore, it would have been really nice if the judge back then had stated what I am about to say:

A. Mr. Bradburn had an insurance contract between ABC insurance company & himself, Great Western Railway is a stranger to the policy so has no interest in the contract;

B. Great Western Railway injured Mr. Bradburn in Tort, through a Negligent act that caused permanent disability. Tort damages do not require a relationship between the wrongdoer & their victim. The negligent railway must restore Mr. Bradburn to his' pre-injured state, insofar as money can replace the Capital nature of bodily loss;

C. The two laws, Tort law & Contract law, do not intersect;

D. Furthermore, in Contract law, Great Western Railway is a stranger to Mr. Bradburn's contract of insurance. It cannot claim against the contractual payment he became entitled to by making the premium payment in return for ABC insurance company underwriting the risk of paying a set amount payable if the risk came true;

E. On an Equitable note, it would be entirely unjust for the Wrongdoer to profit at the expense of the victim they created through a Tortious act that triggered the payment of the "peace of mind" contract. The victim paid for the contract of insurance to insure against calamity. To take that away meant the victim paid the required premiums for nothing.

F. On a policy note, the contract of insurance is non-indemnity because the value of Mr. Bradburn cannot be quantified. The Tort action quantifies the loss by the Judge making a determination of how much was lost. Non-indemnity insurance cannot make Mr. Bradburn whole after his loss because the insurance payment is limited by the agreement in contract. Tort damages are limited by the amount of loss.

G. The non-economic loss in Tort has been limited by the Andrews SCC 1978 case that arbitrarily set non-pecuniary losses at $100,000 which is $360,000 with Cost Of Living Allowance. That is set at an arbitrary amount as it cannot be quantified. In that regard, it is similar to non-indemnity insurance.

In summary, it is totally improper for a Wrongdoer to try & appropriate the non-indemnity insurance.

Furthermore, the non-indemnity insurance has no right of Subrogation, from whence the right to offset comes. Likely this is because indemnity insurance & Tort damages are indemnity. The INDEMNITY principle states you cannot profit from insurance, you get paid back 100% of your loss but a dime more. That principle is also known as the Compensation principle. Therefore non-indemnity & contributory insurance has no right to offset.

This likely has it's basis in the fact the premium COMPENSATES for the risk underwritten. In other words, the insurer was Compensated in full by the premium paid.

LawnBoy77777
CSAT Member

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Legal Concepts for my lawsuits

Post by Guest on Sun 21 Aug 2016, 06:47

Here's a couple of questions I have that some maybe able to answer.

1. I read awhile back from someone's post on FB that LTD was tax free from 1969 to 1971. However I could not find actual reference to this. Does anyone know if this is indeed true? If so could you post the reference to it.

2. LTD is for life up until Jan 1995, those released after, expire at age 65. Why was this changed?


Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Legal Concepts for my lawsuits

Post by LawnBoy77777 on Sun 21 Aug 2016, 08:15

I can answer both:

1. All LTD was tax free from 1917-1971. In 1971 ITA s. 6(1)(f) was enacted, making LTD taxable if the employer pays any part of the premium. In 1973 Boarelli v Flannigan ONCA was decided saying that the total wage package included all fringe benefits, like SISIP LTD premiums. From 1969-1971 the CF mbr paid 100% of the premium. From 1971-1990 the CF mbr paid 50% which ought to have made at least 50% non-taxable but that ignores Boarelli. 75% of LTD is tax free, btw. We are getting screwed. Contact me for an appel letter: Matt7.Edwards@gmail.com or download from my open FB group: Observation Post.

2. In 1995, SISIP ended lifetime benefits to save money without asking you. SISIP is a Trust so we get a say. NDA s. 39(1) says a contributor can direct the CDS with a "specific direction." I did that last year to no avail.

LawnBoy77777
CSAT Member

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Legal Concepts for my lawsuits

Post by LawnBoy77777 on Sun 21 Aug 2016, 08:19

I've got more info now but here is last year's letter. Add Landry TCC (I paid tax on the SISIP premium so no tax on the benefit)

August 27, 2015

21 Silverton St.
St. John’s, NL
A1G 1V8

CRA
Appeals

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please consider this an appeal of my taxes based on the very simple premise of Horizontal Equity. People in the same position must be treated the same.

Long Term Disability Insurance proceeds were tax free until 1971 when Income Tax Act s. 6(1)(f) was introduced for the first time, after Canada implemented only a small part of the Carter omission report.

Private LTD is still tax free. Group insurance or LTD is taxable if the employer pays any part of the premium. Canadian Force member’s SISIP LTD currently has 85% paid by the employer “on behalf of the employee” & the employee has 15% withheld at source. Viewed in this light, 100% is paid by the CF member; after all it is LTD & not vehicle insurance or building insurance so why would the employer pay LTD insurance on its own behalf?

Therefore CRA has a choice to make so that we are treated fairly.
Tax us both, ensuring Horizontal Equity; or
Tax neither, ensuring Horizontal Equity.

To help you decide in my favor, imagine the public outcry if you change such a long-standing tax free source of funds. I find it hard to believe that the 1971 ITA amendment went through.

Take the Ratych SCC case, though it was talking about tort damages not tax, the principles are the same:
The group insurance will operate on the same principle as any private insurance scheme.
Fairness requires that the member of the group be compensated in the same manner as the individual with the private contract of insurance.
Workmen's compensation and sick benefits are compensation in the nature of insurance payments. Although their purpose is to make up for loss of wages to some extent, they are not themselves wages.

Stitzinger v. Imperial Life Assurance Company of Canada also has a good point as monthly LTD damage payments are NOT INCOME:
Income is, as the Oxford English Dictionary states, the "produce" of an existing ability or asset. Damages, on the other hand, remedy the loss of an ability or asset, whether a bodily or property asset. Damages therefore are not the produce of an existing ability or asset; they replace a lost ability or asset.

Speaking of employment income, I did not work for Manulife. This seems almost trivial but is fundamental. The insurance proceeds I receive are “in respect of the SISIP policy 901102” & not in respect to employment. “In respect of is used to relate two subjects. For example, I got wages “in respect of my service.” I got a LTD benefit “in respect of my service.” The actual insurance proceeds are therefore, once removed from my service. It is a small but vital difference. In fact, no proof of income loss is required, much like Canada Pension Plan Disability.

Take these facts into consideration & delete any T4A’s on my file so that I can be treated exactly as another disabled person is treated, receiving my periodic damages tax free. After all your body is a Capital Asset.

Yours Sincerely,


Matthew Edwards, CD
Capt (Ret’d)

LawnBoy77777
CSAT Member

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Legal Concepts for my lawsuits

Post by LawnBoy77777 on Sun 21 Aug 2016, 08:50

Modified

Someone in CSAT forum asked about SISIP LTD tax so I posted this simple appeal from last year. I'll add a bit (Brine & Landry + QR&O 208.53):

August 21, 2015

21 Silverton St.
St. John’s, NL
A1G 1V8

CRA
Appeals

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please consider this an appeal of my taxes based on the very simple premise of Horizontal Equity. People in the same position must be treated the same.

Long Term Disability Insurance proceeds were tax free until 1971 when Income Tax Act s. 6(1)(f) was introduced for the first time, after Canada implemented only a small part of the 1966 Carter Commission report. I think that the 1973 Boarelli v Flannigan Ontario Court of appeal case got missed by CRA as thta case said that it was safe to assume that the total agreed upon wage package would include all benefits. This obviously includes the part of the SISIP LTD premium paid by Canada "on our behalf." Bring this to the attention of the Minister to have that section of the Income Tax Act repealed.

Private LTD is still tax free. Group insurance or LTD is taxable if the employer pays any part of the premium. Canadian Force member’s SISIP LTD currently has 85% paid by the employer “on behalf of the employee” & the employee has 15% withheld at source. Viewed in this light, 100% is paid by the CF member; after all it is LTD & not vehicle insurance or building insurance so why would the employer pay LTD insurance on its own behalf? In addition, in 1997 it was revealed that only 75% of LTD insurance in Canada is tax free. Why is the one's who defend Canada, including the disabled civilians getting tax free LTD, getting a better benefit than the one's taking a bullet for them? This is so unfair it is almost beyond belief!

Therefore CRA has a choice to make so that we are treated fairly.

Tax us both, ensuring Horizontal Equity; or

Tax neither, ensuring Horizontal Equity.

To help you decide in my favor, imagine the public outcry if you change such a long-standing tax free source of funds. I find it hard to believe that the 1971 ITA amendment went through.

Take the Ratych SCC case, though it was talking about tort damages not tax, the principles are the same:

The group insurance will operate on the same principle as any private insurance scheme. Fairness requires that the member of the group be compensated in the same manner as the individual with the private contract of insurance. Workmen's compensation and sick benefits are compensation in the nature of insurance payments. Although their purpose is to make up for loss of wages to some extent, they are not themselves wages.

Stitzinger v. Imperial Life Assurance Company of Canada also has a good point as monthly LTD damage payments are NOT INCOME:

Income is, as the Oxford English Dictionary states, the "produce" of an existing ability or asset. Damages, on the other hand, remedy the loss of an ability or asset, whether a bodily or property asset. Damages therefore are not the produce of an existing ability or asset; they replace a lost ability or asset.

Speaking of employment income, I did not work for Manulife. This seems almost trivial but is fundamental. The insurance proceeds I receive are “in respect of the SISIP policy 901102” & not in respect to employment. “In respect of is used to relate two subjects. For example, I got wages “in respect of my service.” I got a LTD benefit “in respect of my service.” The actual insurance proceeds are therefore, once removed from my service. It is a small but vital difference. In fact, no proof of income loss is required, much like Canada Pension Plan Disability.

Take these facts into consideration & delete any T4A’s on my file so that I can be treated exactly as another disabled person is treated, receiving my periodic damages tax free. After all your body is a Capital Asset.

One final point, & this is a doozy. Canada wrote Queen's Regulations & Orders 208.53 in 1982 when it mandated all CF member's would participate in SISIP LTD & they made the premiums deductible from pay. Having worked at CRA from 1996-2012 as a tax collector, I find it totally inconceivable that SISIP LTD premiums would be deducted ahead of tax, CPP & EI. In other words, we paid taxes on our SISIP LTD premium & when you buy LTD out of after tax income, the benefit is tax free. Landry TCC is my reference. Precedent is important in a democracy as it shows that we are being treated fairly. The Brine TCC 2003 & 2006 cases also state that we must get tax free SISIP LTD as the four Federal LTD benefits are the same. Brine was a member of the PSMIP LTD plan while I was a member of Sun Life & SISIP LTD. As such, I add these irrefutable points to my appeal.

Yours Sincerely,


Matthew Edwards, B. PE, B. Ed., CD
Captain (Retired)
C39xxxxxx
SIN:


LawnBoy77777
CSAT Member

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Legal Concepts for my lawsuits

Post by Guest on Sun 21 Aug 2016, 10:52

Thank You LawnBoy for clearing this up.

Basically SISIP/LTD is taxed because a part of the premium is paid by our employer.

Ending of SISIP/LTD at age 65 was changed from a lifetime benefit to ending at age 65 to save money.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Legal Concepts for my lawsuits

Post by LawnBoy77777 on Sun 21 Aug 2016, 11:12

SISIP LTD is taxed under the authority of Income Tax Act s. 6(1)(f) as the employer paid some part of the premium. Though that letter is simple, I have other good arguments:

1. SISIP LTD is insurance & insurance is, by definition, a repayment for lost property you owned. Income tax is designed to tax an increase in wealth. Insurance cannot increase wealth as the Compensation principle states that you cannot exceed the amount lost. Therefore, no tax on the "insurance procceds" paid in relation to the contract of insurance;

2. ITA s. 6(1)(f) is part of ITA s. 6, whose purpose is to tax any fringe benefits that have escaped taxation. As QR&O 208.53 had the premiums deducted in law, there is no application of ITA s. 6 in the first place. The idea that Canada would pay a fringe benefit over basic pay tax free is ABSURD, given Canada is the tax collector;

3. A restatement of my letter but: Canada is a common law country & case law sets precedents EVERYONE must follow. The Brine & Landry TCC cases show that our LTD must be tax free. If not, we are being treated unfairly given that other disabled people get their insurance proceeds tax free. In fact, Altman ONSC case also comes to mind. Altman & Steve's Music paid a portion of the premium but the LTD was paid tax free.

In short, Canada is screwing us over. The Manuge settlement could not be taxed as Income Tax Act s. 6(1)(f) has 2 conditions:

A. The payment has to be paid periodically: SISIP violated that condition by refusing to pay it as they should have. As this condition has not been met, ITA s. 6(1)(f) cannot apply to the retroactive payment of SISIP LTD in the form of damages in contract;

B. The employer must pay some part of the premium: We paid all of the premium. Most in service (IBM v Waterman SCC 2013, service has value) & some in cash deducted from pay. Therefore, the entire premium was in fact paid by us with the employer acting as a financial intermediary (National Bank of Canada FCA 2003);

LawnBoy77777
CSAT Member

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Legal Concepts for my lawsuits

Post by Guest on Sun 21 Aug 2016, 11:25

LawnBoy, is this tax issue something your addressing in your quest to sue? OR is it something your doing outside of the courts through the CRA?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Short cut to Legal Concept Of A Lawsuit

Post by pinger on Sun 21 Aug 2016, 15:52



No.1  Buy a good lawyer.

No.2  Buy a really good Judge.

No.3  Buy the best politician.

Juggle the order, but be very selective my peers. It's shell game after all.

And the house usually holds... JMO for the day
avatar
pinger
CSAT Member

Number of posts : 1236
Location : Facebook-less
Registration date : 2014-03-04

Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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