# SISIP LTD 2002 - 2018



## bossi

(wonder how many others have the mistaken impression SISIP would look after them ... ?)

Support grows for major who lost legs on duty
Calls for military compensation
  
Heather Sokoloff  
National Post 
Monday, July 22, 2002

Major Bruce Henwood was given a peacekeeping medal in 2000 by Gov.-Gen. Adrienne Clarkson. He would also like to be given compensation. 
  
ADVERTISEMENT 

  
A campaign is growing to force the government to compensate an Armed Forces major who lost both his legs during a 1995 peacekeeping mission in Croatia.

Major Bruce Henwood‘s legs were blown off below the knee by a land mine while he was on patrol as a United Nations observer.

He was shocked to discover he would receive nothing from the Department of Defence after his injuries ended his 23-year career.

"This is a moral issue the military has to deal with," said Maj. Henwood, 45, who lives in Calgary with his wife and three children. "The last thing any commander would want is his soldier, in the back of his mind, thinking, am I going to be taken care of if I get injured? Is my family going to be OK?"

Art Hanger, the former Alliance defence critic, has lent his support to the cause, as have the Royal Canadian Legion and the War Amps of Canada. Retired Colonel Don Ethell, a highly decorated peacekeeper, and retired Brigadier-General Joe Sharpe, also have voiced their support for Maj. Henwood.

Though Maj. Henwood has been lobbying the government since 1998, the issue, mired by complex insurance regulations, has received little attention. However, public sympathy towards the military has warmed since four Canadian soldiers were killed and eight injured by a U.S. bomb in Afghanistan.

"The vast majority of people have been, shall we say, educated, with these events. They now understand what military personnel go through," says retired Major General Lewis Mackenzie, who commanded the UN troops during the siege of Sarajevo in 1992.

Maj. Henwood assumed his injury would entitle him to an award from the Service Income Security Insurance Plan (SISIP), the department‘s mandatory insurance scheme. Instead, he discovered his Forces pension and disability benefits, about 75% of his military income, cancelled access to SISIP benefits.

He is asking the government to overhaul SISIP, bringing the dismemberment benefits in line with most private-sector plans. He wants a lump-sum payment that recognizes his injury has diminished his earning potential.

Maj. Henwood says organizations such as the Royal Bank or Dalhousie University pay severely injured employees a lump sum of several times their annual salary as compensation, in addition to disability benefits. Even members of Parliament are entitled to a lump sum payment of $250,000.

"I‘m not an insurance expert. I‘m just a guy that got blown up," Maj. Henwood said. "But losing your legs should be worth something."


----------



## Harry

From my own experience and that of an Investigator dealing with complaints regarding SISIP, ladies and gents, the policies are not worth the ink wasted to sign them.  I remember in Battle School being told that SISIP and specifically, LTD where not optional, I like everyone else had to sign on whether I wanted to or not.

SISIP, AKA, Maritime Life make a phenomenal return on the investment provided by the rank and file of the CF and DND.  Especially in light of the fact that the stats clearly indicate that they pay out very few claims and those that they do are meager at best.

Not bad for a bunch of retired CF members who work for and administer the so-called SERVICE.

Reminds me of the time a full Col explained to me in no uncertain terms that the CANEX is for the rank and file and no one benefited from the profits.  This in light of his sitting on the board or whatever they call it and he received whatever annual cash dividend, reward, honorarium or what ever they called it.

I was always lead to believe that SISIP, LTD and after my release, CAR where good programs and if anything ever went wrong medically, I (like everyone else) would be taken care of.  I only have to follow the story of Bruce Henwood and realize that these programs benefit someone, just not those who need it.

UBIQUE


----------



## bubba

sisip sucks///my buddy has ptsd,from to many tours.they told him his long term dissability is only good 4 2years.i always was told ltd was 4 life.they told him they changed there policy after96 or 98 to 2years,instead of 4life,i guess alot of guys are claiming it(ha,ha)they just want the premium,they dont want to pay out.they should be charged for false representation to the men,women who serve this country///bubba  :fifty:


----------



## George Wallace

I just received a disturbing e-mail that will probably affect all serving and former members of the CF.  





> Subject: Supplementary Death Benefits - Canadian Army (Regular)
> 
> Dear   Garry and Stephen, As a Canadian Soldier, I  have been paying into SDB every month since I was 17 and still do each month  through my Army Pension - On the 14 Nov 1958 I swore on the bible and red ensign Canadian  flag that I was prepared to give my life in defence of HMQE2 and my country Canada.  This year I will turn 65 and find out  that there is still another claw back to my NOK benefits and it has been reduced by 10% each year since I was aged 60.  When Prime Minister Paul Martin was Finance Minister he took 16.6 billion dollars out of our pension fund so there is no way the Government can say there was no funds to keep paying SDB, or even to give raises in our Army Pensions. To say that would be a lie.  Again it shows what the liberal  politicians think abut those who were willing to lay their lives on the line for Canada.  If I had died before aged 60 my wife would have received double my retirement salary from SDB and it would have been used to bury me and help her in her old age.  This year half of the SDB will already have been clawed back through sneaky legislation  and although I want the SDB deductions from my Army  pension cheque to continue just  in case there is enough left over  to perhaps bury me?, and therefore  I won't become a burden on my family who are all struggleing in this high cost modern world- Why should my wife be left with little or few benefits and little support?   It is very very  sad to see what is happening to our benefits!    I see that arguments have been won in court to collect the SDB benefits, but why should old soldiers and their families have to go to court to collect what is rightfully theirs?  If the PCs get into power will they right this wrong? Hopefully there will be enough left in the kitty to pay for a flag, my coffin, a plot and my stone? There appears to be nothing left for my beloved wife.   Blessings Billy http://iwvpa.net/willbondwha/
> 
> I received the following from an Army buddy who got it from the Sigs Club of Canada - one has to be a lawyer to keep up with the nitpicking and  chipping away at our meagre benefits and some people have hired legal representation  and won, but one has to ask the question why should this litigation action have to be taken to  receive  paid for benefits?  The Liberals have a habit of changing the rules after the fact and that is just not right!
> 
> In early Sept. 2005 oral arguments were presented at both the Public Service Class Action and the Canadian Forces Class Action concerning the Supplementary Death Benefits (SDB).  The actions went to trial on the common issues at the Law Courts in Vancouver on 13 June 2005.
> 
> Under the Public Service Superannuation Act (PSSA) and the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act (CFSA), a Supplementary Death Benefit is payable to beneficiaries of deceased federal Public Servants and Canadian Forces members.   Until late 1999 the amount of the benefit payable was reduced by
> 10% per year for covered members who died after age 60.  Since 1999, the
> 10% yearly reduction under the PSSA applies after age 65, rather than age 60.
> 
> The class actions challenge the age-related benefit reduction as discriminatory, contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. A similar case brought on an individual basis in the Federal Court of Canada by Mrs. Ruth Margolis resulted in a favourable judgement for the plaintiff. The class actions are brought on behalf of all members insured under the SDB program.
> 
> Basically what happened was the lady retiree in B.C. sued and won.   Her death benefits were not reduced.   As you know it is twice the amount of salary we were making at the time of retiring.
> 
> The counter-claim by the govt. says that it would bankrupt the system if it were to be paid out in fully.   I think an actuary quoted 1.8 billion dollars.
> 
> If you want the full story and court rulings, go to the legal website that is handling the case.   It is   www.branmac.com <http://www.branmac.com/> and then click on class actions.



It appears to be a legitimate email.  For further information, here is a link to the Class Action Suit being filed by Branch McMaster Barristers & Solicitors:  http://www.branmac.com/classactions/deathbenefits.htm

Many thanks to the Liberals for taking such fine care of us with their moral and ethical fiscal policies.  

{Edit}   Something has to be done with that "  ¦nbsp " code problem.


----------



## MCpl Burtoo

My mum and dad were talking about this last night. My dad spent 35 yrs in the Air Force and retired as a WO and is pushing 65 yrs of age. If he dies in the next couple of years my mum will receive some money, and once he hits 65 it is going to be pennies! It makes you wonder why we pay into this all of our careers. I know it is there for serving members in order to take care of loved ones when we are gone, but what about our retired members and vets that have served. Once again the insurance industry is there to take our money, but does not want to give any back when the time comes!


----------



## George Wallace

Forlorn Hope said:
			
		

> ....... Once again the insurance industry is there to take our money, but does not want to give any back when the time comes!


On that note...I suppose I should start a thread on the latest from SISIP.


----------



## Sandy Skipton

What is being said is true.... having gone through an SDB claim recently, (in June..) I got my husbands last year of wages. X2 and then, since he passed away at age 63, they took 30% off the calculation... SDB is reduced 10% per year after age 60, so by age 70 it is GONE... nada, nothing... just thought I would comment from recent experience... He was a M/Cpl, served 24.5 years, retired in 1982.. His last years pay was about $21,000   so you do the calculations of what I actually got... not much.

While he was in the service SISIP was formed.. it was explained as a job insurance to the guys at that time.. he did not take SISIP because of all the clawbacks that had happened... so no SISIP for his wife... life can be so much fun can't it?   And we will not talk about DVA... believe me please.. .DND does not look after you. While in the service,  when you retire or when you die... Be informed so you can take the time to set things up to protect your family.

My daughter lost her spouse in 2001, he had SISIP, SISIP seemed to be a good way but I am not sure now with the new changes.. read it all very carefully...


----------



## 284_226

Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act.

http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/Front/565818.html

Ex-soldier filing class-action lawsuit against Ottawa over disability pension clawback
By CHRIS LAMBIE Staff Reporter

A former army Ironman competitor has launched a proposed class-action lawsuit that could cost the federal government hundreds of millions of dollars.

In October 2000, Dennis Manuge was working as a mechanic on an armoured vehicle at CFB Petawawa in Ontario when he fell about three metres, breaking a small bone in his back.

Mr. Manuge, who now lives in Porters Lake, is suing because Ottawa clawed back about $10,000 of his disability pension for two years after he was released from the military.

"This is not about the money," he said Tuesday.

"Unless we get damages awarded to us, by the time legal fees are paid, I’ll be lucky to see $5,000."

But other more severely disabled vets are seeing much more money clawed back, Mr. Manuge said.

"Some of these guys are losing $1,500 or $2,000 a month," he said, adding the toll it’s taken on their families has been horrendous.

Mr. Manuge, 37, has written to scads of politicians, including Defence Minister Gordon O’Connor, to complain about the clawback.

"To this day, all I received from the minister of national defence is a postcard with the crest of the Canadian Forces on one side and, on the back, it simply says, ‘The minister has received your correspondence,’ " he said.

"After breaking my back for this country and for him and everybody else, that’s what he and his staff thought of me."

The former corporal’s back injury causes him considerable pain. In 2002, while still in the army, he started receiving a $444 monthly disability pension equivalent to 20 per cent of his pay.

"I got my entire Canadian Forces pay, plus my disability pension," Mr. Manuge said.

But that changed when he was released from the Forces in December 2003 for medical reasons.

Under the military’s insurance plan, which everyone in uniform must join, Mr. Manuge was entitled to three-quarters of his former income for two years because he had become too physically disabled to do his job.

The plan takes into account all relevant sources of income and only pays the amount that takes a person up to the 75 per cent level, according to a recent letter that military ombudsman Yves Cote wrote to Mr. O’Connor.

"Most notably, and in my view problematically, (the plan) considers monthly Pension Act disability pensions as a ‘relevant source of income’ and deducts such pensions from the amount that would otherwise be paid to the former Canadian Forces member," Mr. Cote wrote.

The ombudsman’s office investigated after receiving more than 50 complaints.

"Complainants argued that it was unfair that disability pensions were considered as a source of income under the (plan’s) formula, when the purpose of the disability pension was not to act as income replacement but to compensate them for the pain and suffering they had endured as a result of becoming disabled while serving their country," Mr. Cote wrote.

The ombudsman’s office eventually agreed that was "profoundly unfair." It recommended the military stop clawing back the money and that former Forces personnel who had their benefits reduced due to disability pensions be reimbursed for amounts deducted since October 2000, when the pension scheme in question was instituted.

The ombudsman said the cost of those changes is estimated to be $320 million.

The lawsuit, which has not yet been certified by a judge as a class action, also seeks punitive, exemplary and aggravated damages. It argues the clawback deprives former soldiers of their charter right to live free from discrimination.

As early as 2003, the ombudsman told the government it wasn’t fair to treat former soldiers who lost their jobs due to a disability differently than those who were injured but could still serve.

"I think it’s a righteous claim," said Peter Driscoll, the Dartmouth lawyer handling Mr. Manuge’s case.

The pension scheme was changed last year.

But there are still people in uniform collecting disability pensions who could see them clawed back if they are terminated, Mr. Driscoll said.

And there are thousands of people who lost pension benefits between 2000 and 2006, he said.

In the past five days, he’s heard from more than 100 of them, including dozens in Nova Scotia, who are keen to join the lawsuit filed March 15 in Federal Court.

The government has 30 days to file a defence.

A Justice Department spokesman refused comment on the case.

Mr. Manuge joined the military in August 1994. He spent nearly a decade in the army, including a tour in Bosnia in 2001 after he was injured.

While Mr. Manuge’s physical activities are now limited to walking and Pilates exercises, in 1999 he participated in the army’s Ironman race. That involved carrying an 18-kilogram pack while marching and running 33 kilometres, carrying a canoe 4.3 kilometres, paddling the craft 7.5 kilometres and lugging the pack another 5.5 kilometres. He completed the race in eight hours and 40 minutes.

"To go from that level of physical fitness to a physical disability and be given absolutely zero respect or consideration from the government, to me it’s criminal," Mr. Manuge said. "It’s absolutely unacceptable."

( clambie@herald.ca)


----------



## geo

-1 to DND & the CF
this is mucking around in someone's pension - for no good reason.
a dissability pension IS NOT a benefit & should not be treated as such.


----------



## GUNS

A civilian who is on long term disability(LTD) and receives taxable income outside of his/her LTD. Will have an amount equal to the amount of taxable income clawed-back.

There is no justice for disabled people whether they be soldiers or civilians.


----------



## geo

... two wrongs doesn't make a right IMHO


----------



## 3rd Horseman

This has been fought before and put on hold awaiting the CFs insurance agents and CFs position on it. Still waiting. This is just one more case to possibly cause the CF and in particular the CDS (who is the designated policy holder of LTD SISIP) to decide to change the claw back of DVA pain and suffering money from the unfortunate soldiers who have been injured.

  Past arguments have been going in a slightly different direction then this recent case. My position in a past action was that since the DVA money was not a pension and was specifically named as a {gift of Canada for Pain and suffering} and was not taxable that it should fall within the normal civi parameters of a pain and suffering grant and that it is not calculated in the insurance LTD SISIP calculations of disability claw back.

  The example sited as argument for was as follows:

  Ford worker is injured at the factory, he is fully disabled due to fault of company and is pensioned off as a medical pension. He gets his Ford pension reduced to the current years (like us) and he gets his pay topped up by a Long Term Disability Plan, (Like us). Funny too as it is the same insurer as we have. He then sues the company and wins an award and gets x $ for pain and suffering and X $ for lost earnings. His lost earnings award is clawed back as that is the insurance company's money as they are paying out the lost wages as part of the LTD plan. He keeps his full pain and suffering award as it is non taxable and has nothing to do with income replacement just pain and suffering.

  Sounds good to me too bad it sounds silly to the CDS, the policy holder.

  This issue went to treasury board as they hold the purse strings on this issue and the word I got was that all, DVA, LTD SISIP and CDS including MND and Treasury board were on side. They just needed the legislation to change the rules.

Time is a-wasting and so are we who are injured.


----------



## battleaxe

GUNS said:
			
		

> A civilian who is on long term disability(LTD) and receives taxable income outside of his/her LTD. Will have an amount equal to the amount of taxable income clawed-back.



SISIP (unlike the scenario above) only claws back %50 of any taxable income earned while on LTD (up until the point that I make as much as pre-disability, then it is all taken). I'm on LTD, yet earn a little extra by working out of home.  I just submit my earnings every month and they claw back half. Works well, I think- there is still incentive to work because I still get to keep the extra that I make and I still have the security of the disability plan for my famly while I deal with my illness. 

Having my VAC clawed back stings, however, especially given that the claw back does not apply to those not on LTD or to those receiving the new lump sum disability awards as per the New Charter.  I get why Manuge is upset.

For those interested, the law firm involved has posted the class action suit on it's website at http://boyneclarke.ns.ca/news/sisip/.

Now my questions on the subject:

In this class action suit- how much of the recovered disability earnings will actually go to the lawyers in the end? Does anybody know how this will work?

I know they are aksing for info on anyone who wants to join the class action suit.  And I also know that there are many affected by this situation-me being one of them.

What I want to know-self serving as it may seem- is whether or not it is better to join the class and the legal fight or wait until the Treasury Board and DND and SISIP and VAC all get their collective crap together and change the policy.

Manuge is fighting a good fight for all people in this situation and my thanks go out to him for doing it.  I hope he doesn't end up losing on something that will end up benefitting many others. Getting the spotlight onto this issue might speed up the process of changing the present policy.  Many, yes including me, can now simply wait for the dust to settle and the policy to change. And we won't have to share anything with the lawyers.

Any thoughts on this? Is my thinking correct on this?


----------



## 3rd Horseman

Battleaxe,

  Boyne Clark is my legal team and what I know of them and how they operate is that 30% goes to the legal team from the total award amount. Since this is such a sensitive award I would suggest that, they (Boyne Clark) will ask for legal to be paid by the crown outside of the straight award. This will leave the lions share going to the troops, if that occurs you can bet that damages will not be granted just actual claw back owing. 
  You can normally get in on a class action like this by putting a little cash down as a retainer in the past it has been 1,500 to 5,000 as a rough guess.

  On the issue of DVA giving 10% grants and SISIP giving higher ones I see the opposite as the big issue, DVA gives a full disability (85% to 100%) and SISIP gives zero.


----------



## 3rd Herd

3rd,
Given the time involved getting a class action suit before the courts, receiving a decision then the numerous appeals available to those involved will it be our grand children or great grand children that finally get the award ?


----------



## battleaxe

3rd Horseman said:
			
		

> Battleaxe,
> 
> Boyne Clark is my legal team and what I know of them and how they operate is that 30% goes to the legal team from the total award amount. Since this is such a sensitive award I would suggest that, they (Boyne Clark) will ask for legal to be paid by the crown outside of the straight award. This will leave the lions share going to the troops, if that occurs you can bet that damages will not be granted just actual claw back owing.
> You can normally get in on a class action like this by putting a little cash down as a retainer in the past it has been 1,500 to 5,000 as a rough guess.
> 
> On the issue of DVA giving 10% grants and SISIP giving higher ones I see the opposite as the big issue, DVA gives a full disability (85% to 100%) and SISIP gives zero.



3rd,

Thanks for the info...I guess I'm just leery of the whole legal thing. 
I've sent my share of letters (like Manuge, I have letters from the MND and VAC that state they've received my correspondence-but have yet to receive a real response), and have kept an eye on the situation.  There are many people working on this- MPs, the Ombudsman-and there are many of us that are biding our time, waiting for the policy to change through the work that they're doing.  Maybe I'm wrong to think it will, or just stupidly naive- but I do think that something so fundamentally flawed will have to be put right at some point.
If this class action goes through, and if it is successful, the claw back policy will change.  Won't it have to? Only those who join the class action are in jeopardy of losing part of what is their due (I hope, as you say, that they do go after the crown for legal costs). The rest- those like me who have just chosen to wait it out, unwillingly to commit financially to the fight out of fear of losing more- may benefit, it seems, more than those who are willing to take the risk.

I guess what I'm trying to ask, quite bluntly, is this: Is the class action suit being started in order to fight a fight that is already in the process of being won?  The publicity generated by the suit may speed up the process a bit, but will it change the eventual outcome?  That's what I'll have to research a bit more and become more comfortable with before deciding to join in on this thing.

I hope it works out for you all. What you're doing will help many others... and I'd like to say I had the courage to join you immediatetly. Recent events, however, have made me way cautious. I'm content to wait for a bit on this one. 

As for the disparity in SISIP vs. VAC disability awards- are you talking about SISIP LTD?

I was referring to Long Term Disability- that SISIP is extending long term disability benefits past the normal two years because of extensive illness and yet VAC is giving low percentage assessments for the same illnesses.

Are you saying that you're seeing VAC give high disability assessments and yet SISIP is stopping LTD disability payments after the initial 24 months after release? Or is it another SISIP payout (lump sum type like ADIP-Accidental Dismemberment Insurance Program) that you're referring to? 

Just to clarify...this interests me because SISIP and VAC are beginning to overlap benefits- ie. VAC now has the Economic Loss Benefits Program which will kick in for certain people if SISIP runs out. I beginning to wonder sometimes if SISIP and VAC aren't both sitting back and saying- "I'm not going to pay that because the other guy will".

It's getting awfully confusing...
Bren


----------



## battleaxe

Another article on the situation: 

http://www.hfxnews.ca/index.cfm?sid=19519&sc=93.

I still can't help but think that Boyne Clarke has picked up a case that's already in the process of being won.  Anybody else?

Bren


----------



## schart28

The Hill Times, July 30th, 2007
LETTERS

We need a public commission of inquiry into treatment of disabled veterans, says Canadian veteran 
Re: "Disabled CF veterans proceed with class action suit against government," (The Hill Times, June 18, p. 1). We need the public's help in the most desperate way. We Canadian Forces Disabled Veterans are struggling, daily, to survive physically, mentally, and economically due to the appalling disrespect and neglect at the hands of the Conservative Government of Canada. 

We are yelling out loud for your help. 

The Service Income Security Insurance Plan (SISIP) and Veterans Affairs Canada are allowing us to be robbed of disability pensions and other monies that have been earned with blood, sweat, and tears during service to this great nation. We are losing our families, houses, going bankrupt, and struggling to get services and assistance from the two organizations, SISIP and VAC, that are supposed to be our main avenues of support. 

How much more self-respect and dignity do we need to give up and sacrifice before you, the general public, help us and stand beside us in this life and death struggle for survival? 

Together we can demand a public commission of inquiry into how disabled veterans have been and continue to be treated. 

Dennis Manuge 

Porter's Lake, N.S. 

(The letter-writer has initiated a class action lawsuit in Federal Court in Halifax, N.S., against the Crown and is trying to reclaim about $10,000 of his disability pension.)


----------



## DBA

What it's about: long term SISIP disability benefits are clawed back by the amount of any disability pension provided by the federal government. Similar packages in some other government departments don't have the same claw back provisions. For all the emotional tugging in the letter that fact was made plain to me when I was given a SISIP presentation long ago. It was offered as a 'top up' for when you considered the base benefits too low for your needs and to cover more situations. That the package of benefits offered by SISIP don't match other departments seems reasonable since each should be tuned to the needs and desires of members of that department.


----------



## Reccesoldier

The fact that the person who wrote this letter did not point out that this claw-back has always been in place, and instead chooses to level an unfair accusation at a single political party shows that he is interested in more than getting an administrative injustice corrected.  

Axe, meet grindstone...


----------



## retiredgrunt45

I for one was made well aware about the claw back on my SCAN in 96, so it shouldn't be of any surprise to anyone. I was awarded LTD SISIP, a VA pension and my military pension was fully indexed upon release after serving my 23 years. That adds upto 75% of my salary until i turn retirement age. Would I like more money? Who wouldn't? The system is not setup to make anyone rich, it's there to provide the former member a reasonable amount of money in order to live comfortably, which I do. Want more buy a lottery ticket. 

I often hear of members being released and complaining about, how are they going to  possible pay for a that new house, new vehicle or whatever they just purchased on this amount of money.  Sorry but that's your problem, not the systems. Move to a smaller house, buy a good used vehicle and thin out your wallet of some of that plastic that we all cherish so much. It's called being responsible for ones own destiny. I have no problems with either the VA or SISIP. Both my case managers are outstanding individuals and do a bang up job of taking care of my needs. When I joined we had to pay into our own SISIP premiums, thank God my Sgt/Major told me to sign on the dotted line and forget about it and that's exactly what I did. Now its automatic when you join, DND pays your premiums for you, so if one does get injured your taken care of.  I think some people are just not happy unless they have something to complain about.  

No I didn't ask to get injured, but I did and nothing is going to change that, suck it up, because that's life. I had to make some hard choices and changes to my life afterwards, but again that's life. We do what we have to do and that is just the way it is. I thank my lucky stars I have LTD benefits, otherwise I'd be living in a cardboard box on a street called somewhere.

Ask anyone in the private sector, how much they get if they get injured and can't return back to work, workman's comp may last a few years and unless you have a big fat insurance policy to cash in, they have 0, zilch, Nada thing. Makes you wonder who's getting the shaft...


----------



## battleaxe

retiredgrunt45 said:
			
		

> I for one was made well aware about the claw back on my SCAN in 96, so it shouldn't be of any surprise to anyone. I was awarded LTD SISIP, a VA pension and my military pension was fully indexed upon release after serving my 23 years. That adds upto 75% of my salary until i turn retirement age. Would I like more money? Who wouldn't? The system is not setup to make anyone rich, it's there to provide the former member a reasonable amount of money in order to live comfortably, which I do. Want more buy a lottery ticket.
> 
> I thank my lucky stars I have LTD benefits, otherwise I'd be living in a cardboard box on a street called somewhere.



I too am thankful for LTD benefits- and my family has adapted well to life after my release. We’ve downsized, and have learned to live within the financial limits set by the 75% SISIP LTD provides.  I am also grateful for the pension I earned after 17 years in the CF, and that VAC acknowledges responsibility for my disability and medical care.

However (there is always a however to these things), I will never sit back and be smug about the position I find myself in.  My SISIP LTD was extended past the initial 2 year period due to the extent of my disability- but I know that not every released soldier can count on the same type of continuing support.  

I know that I have to badger physicians and specialists every year to provide medical documentation for continuing SISIP support (don’t you?)…and I also know that, for many, SISIP is nothing more than a glorified EI system that is abruptly stopped , for many, two years after release- irregardless of whether they are re-employed after release or not. 

I can sit back and be thankful that, after 17 years in the CF, 75% of my wages upon release still amounts to a fair chunk of change.  However, many soldiers are released after 3, 5, or 10 years in, and 75% of their wages may not be adequate to care for their families and meet current financial obligations.

I am thankful that I was released later in life and career, after I had created a financial cushion for myself, had equity and savings and training and experience to fall back on.  However…I can still feel for younger people who are disabled and released- in the middle of the process of life and family- who may struggle to meet financial commitments despite the supports in place.

And…I can see how it may irk some people (like Manuge) to know that there are some people able to work full time and receive their full VAC pensions with no restrictions (cripes, there are still people working full time in the military and getting their VAC disability awards and pensions free and clear- because it is not supposed to be considered income) while his, because he is on SISIP and unable to work, is considered income and clawed back. This is what Manuge’s fight is about- why VAC is considered income for some (those on SISIP) but not others.

The topic of SISIP and VAC clawbacks has been done on this forum-I won’t get into it farther.  I just wanted to point out that, with issues such as this, it doesn't hurt to look at all sides of it.  When you look at this issue- do not look at it from the perspective of someone who has their 20 plus years in- or even 15 years in.  

What would have happened to you and yours if your medical release had occurred when you had 7 years in? 11? If SISIP had decided to discontinue your benefits?

That’s how I choose to look at this issue…because I know that I am very lucky to have been released when I was...and I realize I would have been in a world of hurt if it had happened ten years earlier.

Last thought:  Manuge is fighting a fight that may benefit many of us.  I’ve lost my VAC benefits (award, pension, whatever they call it?) for the entire time I’ve been on SISIP.  I haven't made a big stink about it, even though I think the policy is bizarre and unfair-never had the time or energy to fight the bureaucracy. Will I, however, turn down a back payment of those benefits if Manuge wins the class action suit and the clawback policy is ever changed? No.

I'm just curious- and I know this sounds confrontational but I can't think of a nice way to ask it, so I'm sorry but- will you?

Bren


----------



## Greymatters

Have to agree with Manuge, treating VA as income only benefits the insurance company, not the soldier.  Valid points when you consider that the VA is supposed to compensate you for not being able to fully perform a job due to injury, then SISIP uses that as an excuse not to pay money you need as income bacause you are still injured or in the middle of retraining.


----------



## retiredgrunt45

I to can understand the plight some members who only have 3-7-10 years of service and suddenly being medically released, My post was not meant for these members. My post was meant for the ones who have their time in 20+ and get medically released and still complain about the benefits. 

 I do see both sides, but I also see former members who are drawing LTD pensions and claiming to be disabled working full time and then complaining their benefits are being clawed back by SISIP. If you can work full time, why should you be drawing the benefits in the first place. These LTD SISIP benefits are called (loss of wage benefits) and were designed for those of us who can't work any longer in a full time capacity. If everyone claiming this benefit did this, but weren't penalized, the money would quickly quickly dry up.

Some people refuse to admit that they are abusing the system, but complain the loudest.

Sorry but one can't have it both ways.


----------



## GUNS

Men, your situation is no different than civilians. As a soldier I was fully aware of my benefits or lack there of, when I joined. Yet, I stayed in. I left the military of sound body and sound mind(questionable). I was lucky to land a good job as a mechanic. At the ripe old age of 52 I became very sick and was forced to retire at 55 due to my illness.

I went on LTD from my company's insurance provider. Not nice! Hounded to death by the insurance provided to apply for Canada Pension (Medical). I applied to get the insurance provider off my back. When I was accepted for CP Disability, the insurance provider clawed back every cent.

Any taxable income that comes my way will be clawed back by the insurance provider. So your situation is not unique. My point of view on this is, I paid x number of dollars a month for LTD benefits which would be 80% of Take-Home, Tax Free. With the Claw-Back policy, the insurance provider is legally ripping me off of money that I paid for.

No matter how hard you fight for something, someone will always find a means to block your way. Most anyone can do is keep fighting.


----------



## battleaxe

retiredgrunt45 said:
			
		

> but I also see former members who are drawing LTD pensions and claiming to be disabled working full time and then complaining their benefits are being clawed back by SISIP. If you can work full time, why should you be drawing the benefits in the first place. These LTD SISIP benefits are called (loss of wage benefits) and were designed for those of us who can't work any longer in a full time capacity. If everyone claiming this benefit did this, but weren't penalized, the money would quickly quickly dry up.



Thanks for the reply, but I need some clarification on this one...

My understanding is this...

If a released member is on SISIP and working full time, their wages are clawed back (rightfully so) by SISIP- as any and all wages are considered taxable income. Actually, only 50% of earned wages are clawed back - up until the point that the total income (LTD plus earnings) is equal to the salary upon release. This gives people an incentive to return to work- they can earn more than the 75% offered by SISIP.

But...no recipient of SISIP is able to exceed their post-release salary/wages and still receive any money from SISIP.  

They can remain under the protection of SISIP LTD for the first two years after release- just in case new employment opportunities don't work out. This added job protection is a needed benefit to counteract the fact that the CF does not accommodate for disability (ie. leaves members to find own post- release employment) and that CF members cannot draw EI. It gives a security blanket for two years so that released members can get their feet solidly back on the ground and into new employment after release.

So, while released members may be in the SISIP program, it does not necessarily mean that they are profiting from it or taking advantage.

The SISIP LTD program doesn't seem, to me, like a system that is easy to take advantage of or profit from.

Also, when you say that they are "then complaining their benefits are being clawed back by SISIP"- do you mean the VAC benefits that are clawed back?

I have often said that the worst thing the military ever did was to offer a disability pension/award to people who were still able to serve full time.  That policy created strife within the workplace and confusion for everyone. I feel that any and all compensation for service related injuries is best offered upon release- when disabilities and injuries affect future employability and quality of life (my opinion only).

But- if VAC is going to offer disability awards to members still able to serve and work full time- and call it a non-taxable/non-income benefit- then I feel that veterans under SISIP have every right to complain that the very same awards, for them, are considered income- whether they happen to be working or not. 

That is my understanding.  Hope I'm not too far off base.

Bren


----------



## battleaxe

GUNS said:
			
		

> Any taxable income  that comes my way will be clawed back by the insurance provider.



The sticky point here being that VAC disability awards are non-taxable and not supposed to be considered income.  
That's the gist, I think, behind the suit Manuge has launched.  Another point he is basing his suit on- that only those payments awarded prior to 2006 (the monthly payments) are subject to clawback.  Currently- with the new lump sum awards- there are no claw backs at all. (How on earth would they figure that out?)

Anyway, I agree with you that all you can do is to keep fighting...and that many of the situations that come up about employment issues and benefits are not unique to the military. It's hard to compare all the different variations in workplaces and policies, though.  Sometimes that best you can do is fight for those that affect you personally.

Hope it all works out well for you,

Bren


----------



## retiredgrunt45

Let me clarify, VAC benefits are not clawed back, these are a non taxable allowance not and income. But because there is no longer monthly pension awards being given, the member's lump sum award, whatever it may be is still tax free and not subject to any clawback.

 SISIP benefits are different and come under (loss of wage category) which are classified as income and taxable as income. This is not and award such as the new VAC charter pays out to disabled members. This benefit was designed to replace (lost of wage earnings) that a member can no longer make due to a disability.  If someone is able to work, the money they earn is then deducted from their monthly SISIP payment. But let me add, that the member's benefit never goes below 75% of his earnings before they left the military under the extended LTD benefit. But what people seem to forget is if one is unable to continue working, their SISIP benefit is once again topped backup to the maximum, unlike UI benefits as someone mentioned earlier, which once you use up your stamps, it's gone and with each withdrawal the amount gets smaller. No comparison.

Also for those members with 20+ years who are being medically released, will have their military pension (superannuation) fully indexed upon release. You don't have to wait until you turn 60 and this can add upto and additional 30% on your pension. More years served, higher the rank, higher the indexed amount. The formulas is still (years served + your age upon release= 85.) In my case I would have had to wait till I was 64 for full indexing.

I admit there is still much room for improvement, but these benefits were designed to give a member 75% of there past salary and are still much more generous than what is currently available through the private sector under the workmans compensation act.

I feel what is going on at the moment with these court cases and what not, is going to have a lasting repercussion down the road. It can only go one of two ways. Either they will completely revamp the system or they will discontinue the benefits all together, due to cost overruns and the treasury department has the final say on this. If it's the latter, wait and see, if it's the last, alot of people are going to be left on very thin ice with no income. So the few who weren't satisfied with what they received, spoiled it for the majority of us who actually needed it.


----------



## battleaxe

retiredgrunt45,

I think we both have the same basic concern- that the ones who truly require available benefits (those who are disabled and unable to work) are vulnerable because the system is currently so screwed up.

I still find myself at odds with some of the things you are saying, however, and being the stickler for detail that I am, wish to pursue this topic a bit farther. 
I hope you take my comments for what they are- an attempt to clarify and learn.  I’m concerned you’ll think I’m just butting heads with you- and that is not my intention.

You say, “VAC benefits are not clawed back”. But...in the case of Manuge- whose VAC award comes in monthly payments-they are being clawed back.  
That is the basis for his lawsuit. 
Currently, those who receive lump sum payments under the new Veteran’s Charter keep all of their VAC benefit- the payouts are not subject to claw back. There are still many, however, who receive the monthly payments, on SISIP LTD, who see their VAC benefit clawed back.
You say that there are no longer any monthly pension awards being given. 
There are no new monthly payments being awarded, for sure, but this does not mean that many people on SISIP LTD do not still receive monthly payments, and lose them to SISIP, under the old system.

About SISIP- After two years, if you can work, you’re taken off of SISIP LTD- and from what I know, there’s no going back on it.
If, after two years, you are found to be disabled and unable to work, you are kept on SISIP LTD and offered fair income replacement.
The system, IMO, is quite fair. 

Re: the Manuge lawsuit.  
You say that, “the few that weren’t satisfied with what they received, spoiled it for the rest of us who actually needed it.”
Who is to say that Manuge doesn’t need it?  
He’s disabled, released, unemployed, and unable to work. His VAC benefits are being clawed back, while he sees many other CF personnel/veterans, able bodied enough to continue full time employment, collecting theirs free and clear.  
He’s decided to fight an injustice that many have grumbled about for years.
I can’t fault him for that.  
While I do agree with you that there is abuse of the system and many frivolous lawsuits- I don’t believe that his fight is in either of these categories.  I think his fight is one of the valid ones.

Anyway, I’m writing another book.  When I get on this topic I tend to go on… sorry about that.

Bren


----------



## retiredgrunt45

Hello Bren, My apologies, I didn't mean to come of as callous as it sounded. I didn't realize that he was under the old VA system. 

 Number 1: I still don't understand some of the complexities of his case. Is he able to work? And if he is, why is the VA taking money way from him? To me it doesn't make sense. I see many other vets collecting VA pensions and working, but their pensions are not clawed back. If that is the case, then yes he should fight it.

Number 2: Is he on permanent SISIP benefits? If not, why was he not placed on permanent status if he's no longer able to work. To me it sounds rather odd. The VA just doesn't subtract money from a members pension, there must be other underlying circumstances.

I contacted my VA representative and was told that VAC does not take money from anyone's pension for any reason. Once you have been awarded a pension at a percentage the amount will never decrease. You can asked to be reassessed to have your pension increased, but never decreased. Something doesn't add up here.

I receive both SISIP LTD and a VAC monthly pension. Never has my VA pension ever been clawed back. I don't know it just doesn't add up. Unless of course he is looking for 100% of his past income. This to me would be the only way it would make any sense.

This is the way it's designed to work under the old plan.

 Superannuation (military pension) $XXX.XX number of dollars
 VAC monthly benefit                    $XXX.XX number of dollars
 Monthly SISIP pmt.                      $XXX.XX number of dollars 
                                     Totals = 75% of your past salary (no more no less)

(SISIP makes up the difference between your superannuation and your VAC
 to bring you upto 75%.)
                                     
I'm baffled, until I can find out more info about this case.


----------



## the 48th regulator

I agree with you wholeheartedly,

However, I was told at the onset of my injuries, due to the fact that VAC was caring for me, SISSIP was not entitled to help.  After I was released I am being reassessed by SISSIP, as I was medically released, however;



> I contacted my VA representative and was told that VAC does not take money from anyone's pension for any reason. Once you have been awarded a pension at a percentage the amount will never decrease. You can asked to be reassessed to have your pension increased, but never decreased. Something doesn't add up here.



This is incorrect, if your injuries are found to be improving, you may very well be trimmed down from your percentage allotted to you.  I was also told this by both VAC, and my Legion rep.  It is rare when it happens, but there is absolutely no legislation that blocks it from happening.

dileas

tess


----------



## DBA

Note that it's SISIP that claws back benefits not VAC. It's the type of insurance SISIP is and it is legal so I  am not sure how far the lawsuit will get. It tops up your monthly VAC benefits and income.

Thinking on this more it might be better to lobby for conversion of 50% (or some other %) of VAC monthly benefits into a lump sum payment for those who wish it. The lowered monthly VAC benefits would mean less clawed back by SISIP and the lump sum would provide for more financial flexibility. Paying off the house or buying products to make going back to work easier are both more likely with a lump sum vs monthly payments. Still if money going out ends up still less than money coming in a lump sum will only last so long and then the situation would be worse with the lower monthly payments.


----------



## Greymatters

GUNS said:
			
		

> Men, your situation is no different than civilians...
> 
> At the ripe old age of 52 I became very sick and was forced to retire at 55 due to my illness.  I went on LTD from my company's insurance provider. Not nice! Hounded to death by the insurance provided to apply for Canada Pension (Medical). I applied to get the insurance provider off my back. When I was accepted for CP Disability, the insurance provider clawed back every cent.



This doesnt cover all workplace injuries for civilians though, which is different from the military system.  Many employees injured in the workplace are covered under Workers Compensation acts and receive immediate support and benefits.  Unfortunately the people coordinating the retraining programs arent all as smart as they should be, but every system has its flaws... 

_Edit - reread your posts and saw you already alluded to this..._


----------



## Greymatters

retiredgrunt45 said:
			
		

> Superannuation (military pension) $XXX.XX number of dollars
> VAC monthly benefit                    $XXX.XX number of dollars
> Monthly SISIP pmt.                      $XXX.XX number of dollars
> Totals = 75% of your past salary (no more no less)



I think this demonstrates the point very clearly.  IMO, the VAC should not be included in the calculations, period.


----------



## retiredgrunt45

> Men, your situation is no different than civilians. As a soldier I was fully aware of my benefits or lack there of, when I joined. Yet, I stayed in. I left the military of sound body and sound mind(questionable). I was lucky to land a good job as a mechanic. At the ripe old age of 52 I became very sick and was forced to retire at 55 due to my illness.
> 
> I went on LTD from my company's insurance provider. Not nice! Hounded to death by the insurance provided to apply for Canada Pension (Medical). I applied to get the insurance provider off my back. When I was accepted for CP Disability, the insurance provider clawed back every cent.
> 
> Any taxable income that comes my way will be clawed back by the insurance provider. So your situation is not unique. My point of view on this is, I paid x number of dollars a month for LTD benefits which would be 80% of Take-Home, Tax Free. With the Claw-Back policy, the insurance provider is legally ripping me off of money that I paid for.
> 
> No matter how hard you fight for something, someone will always find a means to block your way. Most anyone can do is keep fighting.



 With this in mind, how far will this go in court? Seeing that both civilian and military sectors have basically the same problems, this goes well beyond the scope of any one particular case and I can't see the insurance industry changing their policies any time soon.


----------



## DBA

The policy is most likely written the other way around in that they will make up any shortfall up to the limits of your coverage. If you get money from other sources there is less of a shortfall so they pay out less. If yours is all clawed back then it's just the same as all those who pay premiums and never get hurt - they get no benefits besides peace of mind as to being covered if things were worse. Like if the injury was deemed outside normal coverage but is covered by the top up policy. As well top up policies I imagine have much lower premiums than more direct coverage.


----------



## battleaxe

retiredgrunt45 said:
			
		

> Hello Bren, My apologies, I didn't mean to come of as callous as it sounded. I didn't realize that he was under the old VA system.
> 
> Number 1: I still don't understand some of the complexities of his case. Is he able to work? And if he is, why is the VA taking money way from him? To me it doesn't make sense. I see many other vets collecting VA pensions and working, but their pensions are not clawed back. If that is the case, then yes he should fight it.
> 
> Number 2: Is he on permanent SISIP benefits? If not, why was he not placed on permanent status if he's no longer able to work. To me it sounds rather odd. The VA just doesn't subtract money from a members pension, there must be other underlying circumstances.
> 
> I contacted my VA representative and was told that VAC does not take money from anyone's pension for any reason. Once you have been awarded a pension at a percentage the amount will never decrease. You can asked to be reassessed to have your pension increased, but never decreased. Something doesn't add up here.
> 
> I receive both SISIP LTD and a VAC monthly pension. Never has my VA pension ever been clawed back. I don't know it just doesn't add up. Unless of course he is looking for 100% of his past income. This to me would be the only way it would make any sense.
> 
> This is the way it's designed to work under the old plan.
> 
> Superannuation (military pension) $XXX.XX number of dollars
> VAC monthly benefit                    $XXX.XX number of dollars
> Monthly SISIP pmt.                      $XXX.XX number of dollars
> Totals = 75% of your past salary (no more no less)
> 
> (SISIP makes up the difference between your superannuation and your VAC
> to bring you upto 75%.)
> 
> I'm baffled, until I can find out more info about this case.



I'll apologize about the length of this post upfront...I had to include a letter in the text of the post because I couldn't get it to post with the specific internet address for said letter. So anyway...sorry..and grab a coffee...


Just to clarify- it is SISIP clawing back VAC payments (as DBA just mentioned) - his VAC pension amount isn't being decreased.

Is he working right now? I can’t say that I’m as sure about that as I may have sounded earlier.  I had read an article that gave me that impression but can’t find it right now…I’m looking…and I’ll get back to you if I find it.

Most current info I have is from July 19- Chronicle Herald article- that states his lawsuit was launched to “regain about $10,000 in disability pension that was clawed back from him for two years while he trained for a new career after being released from the army in 2003”. (From this I get that he was under the old system of monthly VAC payments and that he was on SISIP when the claw backs occurred).

Truthfully though, his employment status should have no bearing on whether or not he receives his VAC award.  That should be his free and clear whether he works or not or is on LTD or not.

Using your equations, he is saying that:

Superannuation (military pension) + monthly SISIP payment= (should equal) 75% of past salary (no more, no less)

...and then you should receive your VAC pension amount on top of that.

Can I ask whether your VAC claim was accepted prior to October 2000?  I don’t want to get into personal info you’re not willing to get into- but I can’t see any other reason that your VAC wouldn’t be clawed back by SISIP.  Those of us who receive monthly VAC payments (for claims finalized after October 2000) receive monthly VAC payments but have an equal amount clawed back by SISIP.

There are different scenarios of payment/clawbacks/awards based on when VAC claims were initiated and approved- we may just be all talking about different situations here.

Is that what’s confusing me?

Anyway…the best I’ve ever seen the SISIP clawback 'scandal' explained is in the following letter from Yves Cote to then Minister of Defence Graham in 2003 which can be found at this link: http://www.ombudsman.forces.gc.ca- under "Letters and Statements":



Letter to the Minister of National Defence regarding recommendations included in the 2003 Special Report
October 26, 2005

The Honourable William Graham, P.C., Q.C., M.P.
Minister of National Defence
National Defence Headquarters
Major-General George R. Pearkes Building
13th floor, North Tower
101 Colonel By Drive
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0K2

Dear Minister Graham:

I am writing with respect to the Special Report entitled Unfair Deductions From SISIP Payments to Former CF Members. As you may recall, my predecessor provided this report to former National Defence Minister John McCallum on August 27, 2003. On October 8, 2003, Minister McCallum wrote to the former Ombudsman, commenting that the report was “thoughtful and timely” and advising that he agreed with all of the recommendations it contained. The report was made public on October 30, 2003. On November 4, 2003, the House of Commons Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs (SCONDVA) unanimously passed a motion imploring “the Defence Minister and government to accept and enact the recommendations forthwith.”

While three of the report’s recommendations have been implemented, two remain outstanding. These concern the offsetting (deduction) of Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) disability pensions awarded under the Pension Act, awarded as compensation for a disability resulting from military duty, from the amount paid out by SISIP Long Term Disability (LTD) as monthly income replacement benefits.

It might be useful to describe some of the rules, terms and conditions relevant to these recommendations.

The SISIP LTD plan guarantees CF members 75% of their previous salaries for up to two years if they are released, in particular, because of a service-related disability. Payments can continue to age 65 if the member remains disabled.

However, SISIP LTD does not necessarily pay the whole 75% itself; under the plan, any other source of income a member receives is taken into account and offset from the amount SISIP pays directly.

VAC disability pensions, even though they are not considered income but rather disability benefits aimed at compensating CF members for injuries suffered in the line of duty, are considered a source of income under the SISIP LTD formula. Therefore, they are taken into consideration when SISIP LTD determines how much it will pay out to disabled former CF members in income replacement benefits.

The Ombudsman’s report recommended that since VAC disability pensions are not income, they should not be considered as income when calculating SISIP LTD benefits. The report also recommended that individuals who had previously had their SISIP LTD benefits reduced be reimbursed retroactive to October 27, 2000. (This is the date on which all serving CF members became entitled to collect VAC disability pensions while still serving, regardless of where their injury occurred. Before that date, only those injured in a special duty area were entitled to collect the tax-free disability benefit while still serving and collecting a salary.)

Following my meeting with you on September 27, 2005, our General Counsel, Mary McFadyen, met with your Special Assistant, Brian O’Neil on October 5, 2005, taking the opportunity to explain why we think these recommendations should be implemented, and pointing out the inherent unfairness in considering a pension intended to compensate for a disability as a source of income deductible from SISIP LTD payments.

It is important to emphasize that the new Veterans Charter may correct this inequity, but this will happen only from the date of its coming into force (possibly April 2006) onward; my understanding is that the Charter will not have any retroactive effect. This means that former members not falling under the new Charter (i.e., those currently in the system and any others entering the system between now and the coming into force of the Charter) will continue to be subject to the rules under examination here. In other words, those who are collecting SISIP LTD payments and receiving VAC disability benefits under the Pension Act will continue to have their SISIP LTD payments reduced by the VAC disability benefits they receive.

To illustrate why I believe this is fundamentally unfair, I would like to use the following hypothetical examples.

Let us examine the situation of two Master Corporals serving in the same Army unit, both having eight years of service and both being injured in the same incident (before the coming into force of the Charter).

MCpl A suffers injuries that leave him permanently disabled, but the disability is not severe enough to prevent him from continuing to serve in the Regular Force. Let us assume he was assessed at suffering from a 20% incapacity, which results in a monthly VAC pension of approximately $400.00. This is a pension which, normally, he would receive tax-free for the rest of his life. Assume further that this member continues to serve for another twenty-five years, and eventually retires as a Master Warrant Officer. On retirement, he will be entitled to a full (superannuation) pension based, of course, on his salary in his last five years of service at a higher rank than when he was injured.

According to the regime now in place, this member will receive his VAC monthly pension in addition to his Regular Force pay from the time of his injury to the time of his retirement, and, when he retires, he will receive it in addition to his superannuation pension. In other words, he will always receive his (tax-free) VAC pension in addition to his other income.

Let’s now turn to MCpl B who was much less lucky. His injury was much more serious. In fact, it was so serious that he was released from the CF as medically unfit to serve. He applied for a VAC pension and was assessed at 70% incapacity. This entitles him to a VAC pension of approximately $1400.00 per month (assuming he was single and had no children). Let us examine his situation in more detail:

he lost his job; 
his physical impairment is so serious that the likelihood of his finding a civilian job may be extremely limited; 
because he had only eight years of service, he is not entitled to (superannuation) pension payments; 
under SISIP LTD his income will, upon release from the CF, be reduced to 75% of his regular force salary; and 
he will not be able to collect his VAC pension in addition to his SISIP LTD benefits; on the contrary, the value of that pension will be offset from his SISIP payments. 
The two examples I have just used – and I believe they are not farfetched – demonstrate why, in my view, there is a fundamental element of unfairness in the present system which leads to real and serious inequities. It is this very unfairness that the two recommendations that have not been implemented are meant to redress.

I believe that a strong case can be made that VAC pension payments should not be considered as income replacement as such, but rather as compensation for the consequences flowing from disabilities suffered (e.g., loss of enjoyment of life, loss of career opportunities, continuing pain and suffering, etc.).

Incidentally, I presume that the changes made in 2000 to allow Regular Force members to collect their regular pay and their VAC pensions were based on a similar rationale, i.e., that the VAC disability payments are not income replacement but rather that they are intended, as I just indicated, to act as compensation for losses other than losses of income.

If this is correct, and if one assumes that the primary purpose of SISIP LTD is to act as income replacement, then it seems to me that it would be logical – indeed, imperative – that a change should be made to prevent VAC pension payments from being offset from SISIP LTD benefits. Otherwise, the system will only be seen as condoning treatment that is significantly unfair and inequitable to those who, like MCpl B, are most disabled and who suffer most.

Because the situations that soldiers like MCpl B find themselves in result directly from their millitary service, from their service to their country, I believe they deserve better. They ought to be treated with care, compassion and generosity. They ought to be treated in a manner that is substantially similar to that of soldiers who are able to continue serving their country, in spite of the injuries they have suffered.

Given that this point was raised when we met, I would also add that, during the Office’s investigation of this matter, SISIP President, Pierre Lemay, advised us that removing Pension Act disability payments from the formula for determining SISIP LTD payments would cost approximately $5 million per year. We have not independently verified this. I will only say that if Mr Lemay is right, it does not appear that the money required to correct this serious inequity is disproportionate.

I understand that you have received advice from the Department on this matter, and will soon be making a decision. As you know, the role of an Ombudsman does not end after making recommendations. It continues afterwards to ensure that, to the extent possible, those recommendations are acted upon by the organization. As the recommendations in this Report have been accepted by your predecessor, the Honourable John McCallum, and also endorsed by the Honourable David Pratt, when he was Chairman of SCONDVA, I would urge you to consider giving effect to them.

As you know, there is considerable interest in this matter. The Royal Canadian Legion strongly supports these recommendations and we receive constant inquiries from serving and former CF members, as well as from members of Parliament and the public, as to whether or not the recommendations will be implemented.

I believe strongly that this inequity should be corrected. I feel a responsibility to update my constituents on this matter, and given the passage of time, I consider it imperative that I do so at the earliest opportunity. I would therefore suggest this matter be addressed on a priority basis.

I thank you for your thoughtful consideration of these recommendations and I look forward to what I hope will be a positive response from you.

Yours truly,

Yves Côté, Q.C.
Ombudsman  

Hope it helps to clarify...and you might take note of the date- October 2005.  Manuge is fighting a fight that the Ombudsman recognized should be fought almost 2 years ago.  Sad?
  
Bren


----------



## the 48th regulator

Well,

Yesterday, I spoke with my case worker from SISIP/Manulife and I was told that I must submit copies of all my pay stubs, dating from the time of my medical release.  Then based on my Salary from my civilian employer, and the percentage I was awarded from VAC (I received my pension prior to the new charter) a decision will be made with regads what SISIP will cover me.

After that decision is made, I will be taxed on the total.

I made the comment, that, really there would be no use going forward as I see a total of zero being awarded to me.  She just nervously giggled.

Oh well, strike two with SISIP, I should have expected as much.

I would really like to see that legality of how they have this contract, and how the bid process went into it.

dileas

tess


----------



## battleaxe

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> After that decision is made, I will be taxed on the total.



OK, and I had never thought about this aspect of it until you wrote the above sentence, does that mean that we (those of us who have our monthly VAC payments clawed back by SISIP) are ultimately paying income tax on what is supposed to be a non-taxable benefit?

I can't wrap my mind around how that would work?

Anybody?


----------



## the 48th regulator

Apparently, if we are to be given SISIP payments to offset loss of income, in their infinite wisdom, it therefore becomes "taxable Income".

A second tier of clawback.

Just lovely.

dileas

tess


----------



## 3rd Herd

To muddy the waters a little more, yes you can have claims under both the old and the new charters. It depends on the date of claim file. Some interesting interpretations of which covers what going on. Next the EI folks will not claw back Temp Loss Earning Benefits if your are on medical EI. BUT VAC will claw back medical EI payments. I arranged a conference call between the head of EI here in Alberta with myself and VAC in Charletown. ( I suspect judging by grammatical nuances used the EI towards the VAC, he was former service). VAC used some very specific word choices  when the new benefit plan was formulated. Somewhere around here I have a letter from EI confirming their position on the issue.

Tess,
don't feel bad. My advocate got my file mixed up with someone else's. The apology letter is worth framing or a figure 11.

edit to add:

three of us here in Calgary approached Mr Rob Anders MP.'s ( Chair of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs Canada) back in May about the possibilities of a sit down in August.  MPs do not always meet with there constituents when back on home turf.


----------



## Greymatters

the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Apparently, if we are to be given SISIP payments to offset loss of income, in their infinite wisdom, it therefore becomes "taxable Income". A second tier of clawback.



I found that annoying as well...


----------



## retiredgrunt45

> Well,
> 
> Yesterday, I spoke with my case worker from SISIP/Manulife and I was told that I must submit copies of all my pay stubs, dating from the time of my medical release.  Then based on my Salary from my civilian employer, and the percentage I was awarded from VAC (I received my pension prior to the new charter) a decision will be made with regads what SISIP will cover me.
> 
> After that decision is made, I will be taxed on the total.
> 
> I made the comment, that, really there would be no use going forward as I see a total of zero being awarded to me.  She just nervously giggled.
> 
> Oh well, strike two with SISIP, I should have expected as much.
> 
> I would really like to see that legality of how they have this contract, and how the bid process went into it.
> 
> dileas



If you can work, why should you be able to draw LTD SISIP benefits in the first place? These benefits were designed for people who "can't work" and have no other source of income, if that were the case the SISIP program would go bankrupt in a hurry. Sorry you can't have your cake and eat it also. The argument that "it's not fair" is rubbish. The system works and for the people who disagree, haven't taken the time to actually research why and how it works and for whom. Don't bash the program, it works quiet well for those of us who ended up in wheelchairs. 

Do you think workmans comp, will continue to pay you if you return to work? NO. And good luck trying get it. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



> Can I ask whether your VAC claim was accepted prior to October 2000?  I don’t want to get into personal info you’re not willing to get into- but I can’t see any other reason that your VAC wouldn’t be clawed back by SISIP.  Those of us who receive monthly VAC payments (for claims finalized after October 2000) receive monthly VAC payments but have an equal amount clawed back by SISIP.
> 
> There are different scenarios of payment/clawbacks/awards based on when VAC claims were initiated and approved- we may just be all talking about different situations here.
> 
> Is that what’s confusing me?



To answer your question, yes i was receiving VAC, while still serving, starting in 1999. Upon my release in 2001, I was sent for retraining by SISIP for two years at the school of my choice. My monthly SISIP payment was clawed back by the amount of my VAC pension, *but I was still receiving 75% of my past salary + the cost of my education*, which added up to $14,000.00, including, books and equipment. This is the way it's designed to work. After my condition became much worse and it became apparent that i couldn't work, I was placed on LTD SISIP. 

I really don't know were this person is planning on going with this, but if that is the case, he will not get very far. All one has to do is look and read your SISIP policy and it's right there in black and white. If this were the case, there would be many of us who felt the same and sued for lost monies. It looks to me that he is trying to get something he was never in tiltled to in the first place under the existing policy guidelines. If he was able to return to work, he shouldn't be drawing SISIP.

Like I stated previously, it doesn't add up. unless he's looking for 100%. But this will never happen.


----------



## the 48th regulator

> If you can work, why should you be able to draw LTD SISIP benefits in the first place? These benefits were designed for people who "can't work" and have no other source of income, if that were the case the SISIP program would go bankrupt in a hurry. Sorry you can't have your cake and eat it also. The argument that "it's not fair" is rubbish. The system works and for the people who disagree, haven't taken the time to actually research why and how it works and for whom. Don't bash the program, it works quiet well for those of us who ended up in wheelchairs.
> 
> Do you think workmans comp, will continue to pay you if you return to work? NO. And good luck trying get it.



Hmm,

So maybe my definition is askew.  Because of the fact that I appear to have my faculties in order, exonerates me making an opinion with regards to compensation by SISIP.  Although I have incurred life long injuries (Hearing Loss, Blindness, Constant head and Muscular pain, psychological, etc), by your reasoning, I have to wait until I am totally incapacitated before I am able to offer an opinion.

Explain to me this, when I was injured I received absolutely zero from SISIP, even when I was put on light duties for close to 3 years, which affected my career and income.  Now after my medical release, I am being assessed based on my civilian employment?  How do they gauge that?  Do they look at my type of employment, years at the job, and assess that I have been held back from possible promotions due to my injuries?  Do they factor that in?  No they look at the face value of my pay stub and claw back.

We are forced to sign up for an insurance program (Literally, or we would not have received our contract to go overseas), pay into it, then receive absolutely nothing when something does happen.  Wouldn't you agree that this practice is odd and unfair?  It is downright illegal, in my opinion!

dileas

tess


----------



## karl28

I think that in my opinion if CF members are being forced to pay into this insurance plan and there are some CF members who do not receive any benefits after they have been injured than they should be able to at least get the money back that they paid into the program .


----------



## George Wallace

karl28 said:
			
		

> I think that in my opinion if CF members are being forced to pay into this insurance plan and there are some CF members who do not receive any benefits after they have been injured than they should be able to at least get the money back that they paid into the program .



 ???

Excuse me!  

Reread what you just wrote and then ask yourself if any Insurance Company in Canada, or the world, would have a Policy stating members who do not receive any benefits after they have been injured should be able to at least get the money back that they paid into the program.


----------



## retiredgrunt45

Tess I was also turned down the first time I applied for LTD after the initial two years, I went out and found a very good specialist in my case an orthopedic surgeon, who took on my case and we fought for six months to get me reinstated on LTD. SISIP in turn sent me to another specialist of their choosing, as a second opinion and upon receiving the same results from their doctor, reinstated me. 

So you see, we don't all automatically get LTD, even the ones of us who are worse off. But again these checks and balances are placed there for a reason. If you feel you should be on LTD, fight for it, find a doctor who will listen to your concerns and back it up with hard medical fact and you'll be surprised what can happen.

As for the ones who say that paying into it should be optional, it was at one time prior the early 80's. But I'm very glad now that I opted to pay into it voluntarily starting in 1979. For the ones who opted not to and ended up getting injured, those are the ones who are much worse of than the rest of us.


----------



## the 48th regulator

That is what I am getting at,

To get anything we must fight for it?  We are sent to fight for our country's foreign policy, then come back and fight the state run insurance company for compensation when we are injured?

Although I know that we must fight for it, but I question why should injured Soldiers have to do that?  The government forces us to take the insurance policy that has very strict parameters to be compensated, maybe we should stand up and let the public know of such disgusting practices!

dileas

tess


----------



## battleaxe

retiredgrunt45 said:
			
		

> If you can work, why should you be able to draw LTD SISIP benefits in the first place? These benefits were designed for people who "can't work" and have no other source of income, if that were the case the SISIP program would go bankrupt in a hurry. Sorry you can't have your cake and eat it also. The argument that "it's not fair" is rubbish. The system works and for the people who disagree, haven't taken the time to actually research why and how it works and for whom. Don't bash the program, it works quiet well for those of us who ended up in wheelchairs.
> 
> To answer your question, yes i was receiving VAC, while still serving, starting in 1999. Upon my release in 2001, I was sent for retraining by SISIP for two years at the school of my choice. My monthly SISIP payment was clawed back by the amount of my VAC pension, *but I was still receiving 75% of my past salary + the cost of my education*, which added up to $14,000.00, including, books and equipment. This is the way it's designed to work. After my condition became much worse and it became apparent that i couldn't work, I was placed on LTD SISIP.
> 
> I really don't know were this person is planning on going with this, but if that is the case, he will not get very far. All one has to do is look and read your SISIP policy and it's right there in black and white. If this were the case, there would be many of us who felt the same and sued for lost monies. It looks to me that he is trying to get something he was never in tiltled to in the first place under the existing policy guidelines. If he was able to return to work, he shouldn't be drawing SISIP.
> 
> Like I stated previously, it doesn't add up. unless he's looking for 100%. But this will never happen.



Me again,

SISIP does cooperate with people who can and do work.  

I now work part time out of home, and send in my earnings- my SISIP payments are offset accordingly.  Because, however, I can't hope (at this point) to make even close to what I was earning upon release- or even 75% of that- SISIP still offfers financial support. It doesn't have to be all or nothing. I've found that my case managers think well outside the box.  I'm very appreciative, actually.

That doesn't mean I think they should be getting my VAC award, though.

You stated above that you received your VAC award over and above your full pay and benefits while you were still serving. This is because your VAC award was, in those circumstances, considered independent of your financial situation.  It was your personal award for the disability you suffered in the course of your duties- it was considered a bonus (not really a good word, but I can't think of another) for your sacrifice.  It was not considered income.

Why, upon release and upon entering the SISIP program, and when you needed the money more, was your VAC integrated into your financial situation and considered income?

There will always be comparisons made to other policies and programs for other government workers in seeking fairness for veterans.  I do it all the time. You've made comparisons to Worker's Comp.
The only comparison I have to make when considering the suit Manuge has launched is the comparison between veterans on SISIP and still serving members.  If I compare a still serving, able-to-work member who is receiving a full salary plus his VAC to a medically released, unable-to-work member receiving 75% salary without the benefit of his VAC - I have to say I understand the basis for the suit. 

You say that ,"he is trying to get something he was never entitled to in the first place under the existing policy guidelines".  

I get that.  I know what the policy states and what the entitlements are. 

Manuge's suit is all about asking whether or not those existing policies are right and fair? 

Based on that one comparison I just made- I think not.  

I'm not bashing SISIP - the VAC clawback is, IMO, a small flaw in an otherwise well run program.  My opinion only, of course. From reading other comments- I know that it is not considered in such a positive light by all who access the program.

There are people in many differing stages of this disabiity and release process.  

If I had commented on this two years ago- when I was dealing with the loss of my career and professional status, and we were selling our home in order to downsize, VAC was shutting me out, and life was a painful crap heap- my response would have been much different, and much more emotionally charged and...harsh. 

I've had the time to calm down...and adapt...(maybe become a bit complacent) and, as I stated before, was in a pretty good situation (now that I'm thinking more clearly) to weather the storm that came my way. I still always like to look at things as others may see them, however, and do realize that, with the system being as whimsical and varied (unpredictable) as it is, not everyone is in the same place as me or has the same perceptions about the support they are receiving.

You say that "the argument that "it's not fair" is rubbish".  Your opinion- I respect that.  

My opinion, however, is that the unfairness that Manuge is fighting is the actual rubbish.  The fact that he is fighting a point that the Ombudsman dropped the ball on adds to the stench of it.

I wish Manuge well- the policies are not going to change unless someone fights them. I'll be keeping an eye out for ongoing information on his suit.

Bren


----------



## Bigrex

Dennis Manuge is working, and is not currently on LTD, so he is not milking the system, only seeking the money that was deducted during the 24 months he was covered. The lawsuit was only started after the government failed to act on the recommendations of two DND Ombudsmen , and only after several years and an utter failure for the NVC to retroactively correct the policy, unfortunately a time limit had to be place on it, so the ombudsmen chose back to when serving members started being able to receive VAC pension while still serving. Also some have argued that all insurance plans are the same, but they aren't, the public service and politicians insurance plans do not deduct pension act payments from their LTD payments. Pension act monthly payments are not income, I believe it even states it in the act, thus making it tax free, therefor it was illegal for SISIP to include it in their formula as income in the first place, but the MND at the time, as the initial policy holder didn't care, and I highly doubt Veterans Affairs  were consulted beforehand. Also an insurance company, that I had no choice but to pay into, shouldn't penalize members because they were injured on the job, were farther along in their career, or both. A disability is a disability and benefits should be the same for everyone. As a Spec 1 Cpl with 15 years of service and awarded a VAC pension before Apr 2006, I make $3500 per month (75%), of which SISIP only pays $611.00 after taxes. But a member released this year with less than 10 years in, they would get their return of contributions, Severance pay, the SISIP payments of $3500 per month, possibly until 65 plus their disability award, sometimes well over $100,000.00.  And since I can no longer work, that is all I will ever get, and will only be increased by a maximum of 2% each year, even if the national index is much higher.  Meaning if my VAC pension gets indexed by 7% like 2 tears ago, and my superannuation goes up by 3%, it only means less for SISIP to pay, as we cannot make more than a 2% increase in money per year, as it is dictated by SISIP. With the numbers I used, as an example of 2008 rates, if indexing was separate, my next years monthly income would be $3732.00, but using SISIPs method, it would only be $3645.00, a difference of 87 dollars per month, or $1044.00 for the year. Obviously the SISIP program needs to be completely revamped for the betterment of disabled veterans, but it will only happen if they are forced to change, after all this is our money in their pockets, and they don't want to give it away willingly. This is the unfairness that that is being addressed in the lawsuit.


----------



## Greymatters

Those are some pretty thorough responses!  Good points.  

What is the likelihood of said lawsuit be expanded to a class action suit? (if thats the correct term Im thinking of)


----------



## Bigrex

Seeing as one of the senior members of a law firm (Branch McMaster) who are a leading Class Action firm, has volunteered to aide in preperation of our case, I say we have a pretty good shot. Also the fact that there are so many of us helps, up to 6000 are covered by the proposed class. If not accepted a class action but Dennis wins, they need to realize, that they would be facing a great deal of lawsuits. I would pay gladly $5000 to get the $36000.00+ they owe me, and since there was presidence, it would be a sure thing, so why not just either fix the issue or not, in one fell swoop, it just makes sense.


----------



## battleaxe

Bigrex,

I received a little info the other day from another interested veteran that helps to highlight what you're saying about the class action suit.

Link to Boyne Clark website, explaining the collaboration between Boyne Clarke and Branch McMaster, a law firm that specializes in class action cases out of Vancouver.

http://boyneclarke.ns.ca/news.php?id=9

The website gives other links for more info.  Quite informative.

I have a question about one part of it- any legal minds out there?

From the website: 

"Since the filing of our statement of claim we have received a significant number of e-mails from former members of the Canadian Forces inquiring as to whether they form part of the class and whether they can join in the action against the Government of Canada. The class we propose to have certified includes all those former member of the Canadian Forces whose SISIP LTD benefits have been reduced by the amount of their VAC Disability Pension. (“SISIP Clawback”) Should the Federal Court certify the class under this definition, any former member of the Canadian Forces subject to the SISIP Clawback would be a part of the class action against the Government of Canada unless they specifically opted out of the action."

Does this mean that we (former members of the Canadian Forces whose SISIP LTD benefits have been reduced by the amount of their VAC Disability Pension) will benefit without having to "sign up" as it were?  We are members of the suit by default and will automatically be compensated by SISIP due to the policy changes that will logically come into affect if the suit wins?

How will this work?

We should be hearing more on this in November or so - it's been in the papers - link is http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2007/09/04/4469622-cp.html if it hasn't already appeared elsewhere on the forum.

Bren


----------



## Bigrex

Yes, if you are under the "class", then if it is certified as a class action, and won, all in the class will benefit, unless they opt out of the lawsuit. I think the database they have created is more for their records, maybe to present in court, as further proof that this affects a great deal of disabled/ medically released veterans, not just Dennis Manuge, he only had the willingness to take it to court first. Contacting the layers doesn't mean you will be subpoenaed or anything, so it cannot hurt.  Those who do contact them will be notified via email of all important information from the lawyer, or it can usually be read shortly afterwards at veteransvoice.info, so it's up to you.  

Also I'm alot better off than some of the young privates that have been injured in Afghanistan, if they were severely injured and unable to return to work and relied on SISIP to give them money to live off, all that their ruined lives are worth is between $1861.00 and $2735.00 per month plus 2 % each year until 65. So a 20year old who went to Afghanistan , right after battle school, gets injured to the point where he can no longer work, and goes on SiISIP LTD, in 45 years, his monthly earning will go from a max of $1861.00 to $2996.00, just over the unofficial poverty line for a household. And while on SISIP LTD, he cannot seek any additional income other than employment, he cannot apply for CPP disability, because that would get deducted from his sisip cheque 100%, he cannot get any money from VAC, including extra money for dependants, other than the new disability awards, which aren't that big of an amount if you need to make it last all your life. So that 20 year old, injured while serving his country will possibly never own his own house, probably never know the feeling of purchasing a brand new car, never afford to give his children a decent Christmas, or take them to Disneyland, all because of SISIP and greedy uncaring bureaucrats. If we get this settlement, and SISIP stops clawing back our money, people will not get rich, like one guy thinks, and there is a big difference between getting rich and being financially comfortable.


----------



## battleaxe

I'm with you on all of it.

And thanks for bringing up the younger soldiers again...those are the ones who are affected most by disability and release.  When you look at the benefits that injured personnel are offered- many of them are dependent on salary upon release.  

New/younger military personnel may be getting paid better than they used to, but still, 75% of release salary for some is not all that impressive an amount- especially if there are families and kids involved.

Anyway, thanks for the info.  It's great to see movement on this issue...and there are many, IMO, who ought to be thanking Manuge for sticking his neck out the way he has.

Bren


----------



## dennismanuge

Hi folks

Glad you are discussing this, but those of you willing to settle for the government eating up what is rightly yours....grow a backbone and stand up for yourselves and if you are not willing to do so, stand up for those around you that can not stand up for themselves. I personally stand to gain only about $10 000 from my legal action against the crown. I am not drawing SISIP benefits at the moment and I have not since my 24 month elegibility ran out. I went through VOC Rehab, topped my course, graduated with honours, and gained lawful, full-time employement. I do not need SISIP LTD. I am greatful for my education, but I do believe I earned it when I Broke my back serving this country. What I did not earn was the ability of the federal government to clawback my money illegally. A disability pension is not replacement income, not taxable, and therefore, fundementally it is untouchable by anyone. There are some 70 points of argument in my statement of claim and I suggest any of you weak minded brain washed followers out there, get a grip and give it a read before spewing your ignorant and self defeating words to others when they are simply asking appropriate questions to learn more about the issue that you are to ignorant to learn yourself. As far as me or the class i represent "getting nowhere with this" I urge you to read and follow the story. We will be certified as a Class Action in February of 2008. If you disagree with the two ombudsmen, I look forward to your comments after a federal court judge destroys the crown and there inadequacy in their responsibility to disabled veterans. Stay tuned. Yours very seriously and sincerely, Dennis Manuge


----------



## Greymatters

I am more concerned with the so-called assistance in helping medically released service members find new employment for those who can work, or even work with accommodation (although I will admit this is less important than clawing back money from veterans dependent on that support).  As far as I am concerned, ex-service members are deliberately excluded and denied access to competitions and positions in other government departments, that includes civilian positions with the RCMP, DFO, HRSDC and many other government departments.  Many of these work-places are able to support disabled and injured people, they make accommodations for their own employees, yet they have no interest in hiring former CF members.  Further, the system of advertisement and competition specifications are rigged against CF members despite the fact that they are able to move to another part of the country to work at that position.  What is worse, is that SISIP representatives (among others) are aware of this but do nothing with the information.  

To fix this I would suggest the CF implement a post-release follow-up interview process to gain information from released veterans.  This would address not only this issue, but other issues that might exist.  At this moment, there is no effort to find out what is wrong with the system except when a retired member complains through a  third party such as an ombudsman (such as whats going on now with the 'clawback' issue).  Although the military is not responsible for my welfare after release, it is responsible for ensuring that former members are treated properly and giving access to jobs as part of the release process.  At the moment there is no means for them to ascertain this other than through service providers.


----------



## dennismanuge

Greymatters
you make very good points and you understand what some of the real issues are. That is why i am seeking support to have a public inquiry  on a systemic scale into how we (disabled veterans) have been, and are being treated. Thanks for your comments.
Dennis


----------



## Greymatters

dennismanuge said:
			
		

> ... Thanks for your comments...



In this matter, thank you, but I must defer subject matter expertise to our resident guru (IMO) on the subject, 48th Regulator (visible as the brown monk drinking ale).  He is much more active and informed on the subject than I am. 

"Oh master, a new disciple approaches..."   ;D


----------



## the 48th regulator

dennismanuge said:
			
		

> Hi folks
> 
> Glad you are discussing this, but those of you willing to settle for the government eating up what is rightly yours....grow a backbone and stand up for yourselves and if you are not willing to do so, stand up for those around you that can not stand up for themselves. I personally stand to gain only about $10 000 from my legal action against the crown. I am not drawing SISIP benefits at the moment and I have not since my 24 month eligibility ran out. I went through VOC Rehab, topped my course, graduated with honors, and gained lawful, full-time employment. I do not need SISIP LTD. I am grateful for my education, but I do believe I earned it when I Broke my back serving this country. What I did not earn was the ability of the federal government to claw back my money illegally. A disability pension is not replacement income, not taxable, and therefore, fundamentally it is untouchable by anyone. There are some 70 points of argument in my statement of claim and I suggest any of you weak minded brain washed followers out there, get a grip and give it a read before spewing your ignorant and self defeating words to others when they are simply asking appropriate questions to learn more about the issue that you are to ignorant to learn yourself. As far as me or the class I represent "getting nowhere with this" I urge you to read and follow the story. We will be certified as a Class Action in February of 2008. If you disagree with the two ombudsmen, I look forward to your comments after a federal court judge destroys the crown and there inadequacy in their responsibility to disabled veterans. Stay tuned. Yours very seriously and sincerely, Dennis Manuge



Dennis Welcome aboard, you are the person we have been waiting for on this thread.

Too much has been said about your situation and you cause, and some of us have been supportive of it.

You see, I was told exactly what you are fighting for.  The fact that I collect a VAC pension, that SISIP considers this an actual income.

Do I claim this pension on my taxes?  No. So then tell me how they are able to win the bid to be the supplier of our insurance, if they contravene the policy of our own government.

As you have said, two ombudsman have declared this to be wrong.

Now me, I have a lot more to fight.  I just received the letter stating that since my injuries occurred before 1999, there is a clause that states, because I did not pay into SISIP, I am unable to claim.  Fair enough, I did not pay into it.  However, when I was injured I did pay into it, and was denied then.

Am I going to fight it?  Hell ya!  I look at what you are trying to do, and again, $10,000 is not that much, but it is the principle.  Should we grow a spine and do this?  Maybe your post will help others to do this.

But what I have to say brother, is you are preaching to the quire here.  This site is in no way associated with DND, The CF, or SISIP.  All privately owned.  We abide by the rules that any soldier follows, and that is what keeps this site above and beyond others.

Again, thank you Dennis, and all I ask is that you become an active member here.  We need the input of someone that is working to make a change for the better for all of us that have, are, and will serve.

dileas

tess


----------



## DBA

The lawsuit in question has no real chance of legal success. It's only chance is to hype it till maybe public pressure makes the government give in. I got a very short SISP presentation when I was in the Reserves and even in the short time they had they got across the in effect 'clawback' very well. The coverage was point blank put as when you get injured:

other government compensation (if any) + SISP payouts = SISP coverage amount

For Reserves they pointed out the (if any) often ended up as none for us and that SISP would do a nice job of covering more situations. For when there is government compensation it would make up any shortfalls to the coverage level. That "make up any shortfalls" is key as it's the other side of the in effect "clawback". It wasn't some hidden provision it was in pointed out very directly in the seminar I got. 

It would probably be more effective to lobby for long term SISIP payments to be indexed the same as government compensation. This a real gap in coverage that effects all SISIP beneficiaries not just those also with some form of on going government compensation.


----------



## dennismanuge

Ladies & Gentlemen

The law suit is in fact off of the ground. To the tune of approximately $100 000.00 invested legally in myself and this case on behalf of the estimated 4000-6000- disabled veterans that have been affected. Just because something is not hidden or because they tell you about it, does not mean it is legal. "Government compensation"? A veterans affairs disability pension is not considered income, bottom line, end of story. Some of you folks need to do a little back ground work to educate and bring yourself up to speed. 

Why is a still serving member of CF able to draw their entire salary and collect a VAC disability pension? As soon as you are medically released you are to drop to "75% of your former rate of pay"  but they deduct your cpp, VAC, military pension, etc...off of the 75%. That, my friends is illegal under the pension act. Again I direct you to my statement of claim. Read it, understand it! It is not rocket science.

If the $100 000.00 already invested is not enough to convince any of you that this law suit is for real, perhaps ask yourself the question of why Mr. Ward Branch, the number one class action legal mind in Canada is a part of my/our legal team. It certainly is not because he thinks we do not have a strong case. Read, listen, learn....if you still not believe in the cause, no worries! Good luck to you.

Cheers
Dennis Manuge


----------



## dennismanuge

Federal Court Entries For: Manuge Vs Her Majesty The Queen

web site: http://cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/portal/page/portal/fc_cf_en/Index

simply type in Manuge under search and follow the path to our case. This is what has been done so far in Federal Court

- 2007-10-09 Ottawa Written directions received from the Court: The Honourable Mr. Justice Barnes dated 09-OCT-2007 directing that "The Court directs that the Plaintiff's motion to certify this proceeding as class action shall be heard at the Federal Court, 1801 Hollis Street, Suite 1720 Halifax, Nova Scotia, on February 12, 13 and 14, 2008 inclusive placed on file on 09-OCT-2007 Confirmed in writing to the party(ies)  

2007-10-05 Ottawa Ottawa 05-OCT-2007 BEFORE The Honourable Mr. Justice Barnes Language: E Before the Court: Case Management Conference Result of Hearing: Parties agreed on tentative dates for hearing of outstanding motion held by way of Conference Call Duration per day: 05-OCT-2007 from 10:05 to 10:20 Courtroom : Judge's Chambers - Ottawa Court Registrar: Ingrid Sherling Total Duration: 15min Appearances: Mr. Peter Driscoll 902.469.9500 representing Plaintiff Mr. Ward Branch 604.654.2999 representing Plaintiff Ms. Lori Rasmussen 902.426.4472 representing Defendant Comments: Parties agreed that duration of hearing would be 3 days. Tentative dates: Defendants aff: January 7, 2008, Plaintiffs' Brief: January 21, 2008, Defendant's Brief: February 4, 2008. Minutes of Hearing entered in Vol. 758 page(s) 353 - 355 Abstract of Hearing placed on file 

2007-10-04 Ottawa Oral directions received from the Court: The Honourable Mr. Justice Barnes dated 04-OCT-2007 directing that "A case management teleconference will be held on Friday, October 5, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. Ottawa time" placed on file on 04-OCT-2007 Confirmed in writing to the party(ies)  

2007-10-03 Ottawa Letter from Defendant dated 03-OCT-2007 in response to the Court's direction of 25-SEP-2007, explaining why the proposed date of 26-NOV-2007 for the hearing of the outstanding motion is unworkable for the defendant received on 03-OCT-2007 

2007-10-01 Ottawa Letter from Plaintiff dated 01-OCT-2007 in response to the direction of Barnes J. dated September 25, 2007, advising of the Plaintiff's availability in November for the hearing of an outstanding motion in Halifax for the week of November 26, 2007 and referring to the possible teleconference for the week of 9-OCT-2007 received on 01-OCT-2007 

- 2007-09-25 Ottawa Oral directions received from the Court: The Honourable Mr. Justice Barnes dated 25-SEP-2007 directing that further to Mr. Driscoll's discussion with the Registry, wherein he advised the Registry that parties were in agreement in suggesting that counsel would report to the Court in writing on the status of this action no later than Tuesday, October 9, 2007: "The Court is agreeable to the arrangements proposed by counsel as reported verbally by Mr. Driscoll and a further case management conference will be held in abeyance for two weeks. In the meantime, counsel should consider the possibility of scheduling the outstanding motion for the week of November 26, 2007 at Halifax which is available to the Court" placed on file on 25-SEP-2007 Confirmed in writing to the party(ies)  

14 2007-09-04 Halifax Solicitor's certificate of service on behalf of Peter J. Driscoll confirming service of the Amended Statement of Claim and the Motion Record (Doc.13) upon Defendant by courier on 04-SEP-2007 filed on 04-SEP-2007 

13 2007-09-04 Halifax Motion Record containing the following original document(s): 10 11 12 Number of copies received: 3 on behalf of Plaintiff filed on 04-SEP-2007 

12 2007-09-04 Halifax Affidavit of Jodie Archibald sworn on 04-SEP-2007 contained within a Motion Record on behalf of Plaintiff in support of Motion Doc. No. 10 filed on 04-SEP-2007 

11 2007-09-04 Halifax Affidavit of Dennis Manuge sworn on 04-SEP-2007 contained within a Motion Record on behalf of Plaintiff in support of Motion Doc. No. 10 with Exhibits A to D filed on 04-SEP-2007 

10 2007-09-04 Halifax Notice of Motion contained within a Motion Record on behalf of Plaintiff returnable (but no hearing date indicated at this time) for certification as a class action and that Dennis Manuge be appointed as the representative Plaintiff filed on 04-SEP-2007 

9 2007-09-04 Halifax Amended Statement of Claim filed on 04-SEP-2007 

- 2007-06-14 Ottawa Written directions received from the Court: The Honourable Mr. Justice Barnes dated 14-JUN-2007 directing that "In accordance with the discussion with counsel in the case management teleconference held on June 8, 2007, it is agreed that the filing and service of an Amended Statement of Claim in this proceeding shall be completed on or before September 4, 2007. It is also agreed that the Plaintiff shall have an extension to file the motion for certification from July 16, 2007 to September 4, 2007. It was also agreed that items 3 and 4 set out in Mr. Driscoll's letter of June 5, 2007 would be left for resolution on or after September 1, 2007. The expectation is that a further case management teleconference will be scheduled upon the request of counsel for early September 2007 to deal with those oustanding issues along with any other matters that require attention." placed on file on 14-JUN-2007 Confirmed in writing to the party(ies)  

- 2007-06-08 Ottawa Ottawa 08-JUN-2007 BEFORE The Honourable Mr. Justice Barnes Language: E Before the Court: Case Management Conference Result of Hearing: Parties agree to deadlines in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Plaintiff's letter of June 5, 2007. Parties agree to put off fixing dates for items in paragraphs 3 and 4 of that letter. Another teleconference to be arranged to discuss further dates, sometime in September, 2007 held by way of Conference Call in chambers Duration per day: 08-JUN-2007 from 13:00 to 13:04 Courtroom : Judge's Chambers - Ottawa Court Registrar: Robert Lemoine Total Duration: 4min Appearances: Mr. Peter J. Driscoll (902)460-3414 representing Plaintiff Mr. Lori Rasmussen and Ms. Susan Taylor (902)426-4472 representing Defendant Minutes of Hearing entered in Vol. 750 page(s) 338 - 339 Abstract of Hearing placed on file  

- 2007-05-28 Ottawa Oral directions received from the Court: The Honourable Mr. Justice Barnes dated 28-MAY-2007 directing that a CMC by TC is set down for June 8/07 @ 1pm (Ottawa) placed on file on 28-MAY-2007 Confirmed in writing to the party(ies)  

- 2007-05-28 Ottawa Telephone calls from Cynthia Leaver, Registry Assistant, Actions, (Ottawa) on Mon., May 28 - re: case management teleconference proposed for Friday, June 8, 2007, between 9:30 a.m. to 3 p.m., to discuss available dates for deadlines for filing documents, etc. (only date available in Mr. Justice Barnes' schedule); duration: 40 minutes; language: English. At 10:20 a.m., I spoke with Jodie Archibald, Assistant to P's counsel, Peter Driscoll (in court today) - she indicated that Mr. Driscoll is available all day on June 8, 2007. At approx. 10:25 a.m., I spoke with Stella Aucoin, assistant to D's counsel, Ms. Lori Rasmussen (who returns to office on Mon., June 4); best time for Ms. Rasmussen appears to be in the afternoon between 1-3 p.m. (If there are changes, they will contact Kevin Kelly, A/SRO). placed on file on 28-MAY-2007 

- 2007-05-23 Montréal Letter from Defendant dated 23-MAY-2007 The defendant takes the position that the Plaintiff's request for teleconference is premature (see Plaintiff's letter of 22-MAY-2007) received on 23-MAY-2007 

- 2007-05-22 Montréal Letter from Plaintiff dated 22-MAY-2007 to requests that a telephone conference be held to discuss available dates for Motion for Certification, deadlines for filing documents in support of and response to and to assit with respect to the setting up of the process for the filing and exchange of motion materials received on 22-MAY-2007 

- 2007-05-22 Ottawa Written directions received from the Court: The Honourable Mr. Justice Barnes dated 18-MAY-2007 directing that "The Defendant's motion [doc.#2] is allowed. The Defendant will not be required to file its Defence to this action until 30 days after the Court renders a decision on the Plaintiff's motion for certification which shall be filed on or before July 16, 2007." placed on file on 22-MAY-2007 Confirmed in writing to the party(ies)  

8 2007-04-26 Ottawa Order dated 24-APR-2007 rendered by Chief Justice Lutfy Matter considered without personal appearance The Court's decision is with regard to Motion ex proprio motu Result: "IT IS ORDERED pursuant to Rule 383 that Justice Robert Barnes is designated as Case Management Judge and Prothonotary Richard Morneau will assist in the management of this matter." Filed on 26-APR-2007 certified copies sent to parties & to CAS-SATJ Office: HALIFAX Transmittal Letters placed on file. entered in J. & O. Book, volume 983 page(s) 247 - 247 Interlocutory Decision  

7 2007-04-17 Halifax Solicitor's certificate of service on behalf of Lori Rasmussen confirming service of doc #6 upon Plaintiff by telecopier on 16-APR-2007 filed on 17-APR-2007 

6 2007-04-17 Halifax Motion Record containing the following original document(s): 2 3 4 5 Number of copies received: 3 on behalf of Defendant filed on 17-APR-2007 

5 2007-04-17 Halifax Written Representations contained within a Motion Record on behalf of Defendant concerning Motion in writing Doc. No. 2 filed on 17-APR-2007 

4 2007-04-17 Halifax Consent on behalf of Plaintiff to Defendant's motion #2 contained within a motion record filed on 17-APR-2007 

3 2007-04-17 Halifax Affidavit of Tracy Kempton sworn on 12-APR-2007 contained within a Motion Record on behalf of Defendant in support of Motion Doc. No. 2 filed on 17-APR-2007 

2 2007-04-17 Halifax Notice of Motion contained within a Motion Record on behalf of Plaintiff ON CONSENT in writing to be placed before the Court in Ottawa for an Order suspending the Defendant's obligation to serve/file a Defence pending determination of Plf's motion for certification of class action filed on 17-APR-2007 Draft Order\\Judgment received.  

- 2007-03-15 Halifax Covering letter from Plaintiff dated 15-MAR-2007 concerning Doc. No. 1 placed on file on 15-MAR-2007 

1 2007-03-15 Halifax Statement of Claim and 2 cc's filed on 15-MAR-2007 Certified copy(ies)/copy(ies) transmitted to Director of the Regional Office of the Department of Justice Section 48 - $2.00


----------



## dennismanuge

Contact Info for  Legal Counsel Peter Driscoll; Lead counsel for Dennis Manuge in " Manuge Vs Her Majesty The Queen"

Peter Driscoll
McInnes Cooper
1300-1969 Upper Water Street
Purdy's Wharf II
P.O. Box 730
Halifax
Nova Scotia B3J 2V1
Tel: 902 444 8451 
Fax:902 425 6350 
peter.driscoll@mcinnescooper.com


----------



## DBA

When you purchased SISIP coverage the policy was clear in this regard and they have lived up to it. So one question would be is the coverage somehow illegal? The answer sure looks like no. Top up policies that add on to any current coverage or other benefits have a long history. These type of policies take up any slack/shortfall and do not stand on their own. They are also much cheaper than free standing policies as the expected total payouts are obviously going to be a lot less. 

The intent of disability payments isn't really legally relevant to a separate insurance policy. The insurance policy promised to make up any shortfalls between those payments and it's coverage cap. They have done so. I can't see any legal case against SISIP winning a legal fight.

While I agree it's not fair that some get to double up on benefits and pay while it's not possible to double up on benefits and SISIP that isn't really a legal argument. I support pushing the government to level things out but don't think the current legal action has a chance to succeed.


----------



## dennismanuge

Manulife Financial is only the administrator for the SISIP LTD program. The actual funds belong to the treasury board of Canada. You are absolutely entitle to your opinion and thoughts, but our argument is not that SISIP or anyone else has not done what they said they would, we are arguing that the entire scheme, LTD policy is "in fact illegal under the pension act." making it irrelevant that they disclose or not to each soldier. They did not have the right to set up the LTD system that they have in place. It is illegal under already established laws under the pesnion act. A very large law firm and two experts in the field are saying not only do we have a case, but we are willing to back the disabled veterans affected 100%. Unless you are a lawyer or an expert in the field, my money and loyalty stays with my/our legal team. When i purchased SISIP, with no choice to purchase it or not, I remind you, unlike any other LTD plan in the land, where one does have a choice, I thought it was bull shit then too. When I was stolen from for 24 months by the SISIP clawback, I simply said that it is high time someone made people aware of just how wrong it is. Again, I am the least impacted by this. I only drew SISIP benefits for the two years i was in school. Once I was re-trained and had been hired to work full-time, I am fine. I do not want anything else from the government other than what they have taken from me, which is alot less than what many others have experienced. If this or any other government goes unchallenged on issues....well we see the patronage and the kickbacks and the scandals on a daily, monthly, yearly basis, don't we. Quite frankly i prefer to have my $10 000 in my pocket, not the governments or one of their pals. Excuse me for  being selfish.

Dennis

Repectfully

dennis


----------



## dennismanuge

DBA

Are you pensioned under the New Veterans Charter? Or under the old pension act?

Dennis


----------



## DBA

Here are the benefits description for unrelated LDT policy:



> Benefit
> 
> This product provides you with a portion of your regular salary while you are disabled and unable to work.
> 
> If you are totally disabled, IAP will pay you your benefit amount. Benefit payments begin after your designated waiting period and continue while you are totally disabled. The benefit is payable to age 65, or if you become totally disabled between the ages of 63 and 65, the benefit will be payable for a maximum of 24 months.
> 
> If you are partially disabled, IAP will pay you 50% of your benefit. Payments for partial disability can begin up to age 65 and continue for a maximum of 6 months while you remain partially disabled.
> 
> Mental and nervous disorders are also covered under this plan.
> 
> According to current Canadian Tax laws, these benefits are not taxable if you personally pay the premiums.
> 
> Benefits payable from this plan and from all other sources (e.g. disability benefits from another group plan, Canada/Quebec Pension Plan, Worker's Compensation, EI, etc.) may not exceed 85% of your average take home pay.



Note the same 'top up' or 'claw back' depending on how you view it just like SISIP in the last paragraph. Another example, part of the description of the Long Term Disability Benefits of the Ontario Teachers Insurance Plan.



> CPP Benefits
> 
> Your LTD insurance provides for the integration of benefits when Canada Pension Plan (CPP) disability benefits are approved. You may be asked to apply for CPP benefits. In most cases your LTD plan directly offsets any benefits paid to you, as a contributor, from CPP.



Again it's a clawback/top-up type thing depending on how you look at it.

I am not on any disability, I was fortunate to release from the reserves without any medical problems. Good luck on the legal challenge, even if I don't think the legal side is sound there are other ways to win and it's not unheard of for weak cases to succeed.


----------



## Bigrex

We didn't purchase the insurance, we were forced to take it, and pay into it for our entire careers, to pay us if injured, yet if someone who is severely injured near the end of their career, it is more than likely that SISIP will not pay them a single cent. As a disabled vet with 15 years served, and a 45% VAC pension, SISIP only gives me roughly 16% of my pre-release pay, and even if they extend my coverage past the 24 months, the indexing will see that amount drop, especially in concurrent years where the VAC and superannuation indexes are higher than the max of 2% set by SISIP. 2 years ago, when VAC was indexed at 7.1% and CF pensions were indexed at 2.2%, any SISIP payments would have dropped by around $80.00. At that rate, SISIP will basically cancel it's own coverage after a decade or so of high indexing. Soldiers are being penalized by SISIP for getting severely injured later in their careers, but we shouldn't be punished for getting hurt on the job by our insurance, if anything, this should give us better coverage, not less. and a disability is a disability, and therefor our long term disability should be the same across the board. 

Is it illegal? fundamentally it is, it is treating Pension act payments as income in an Income replacement plan, which it isn't, but the only way to change it will be to legally force the government to change it, we've had the media say it needs to be changed, we've had the majority of MPs say it should be changed, the standing committee for Veterans Affairs has said it needs to be changed, but the Tories have ignored all of these, because they don't care for Veterans, they only do enough to give the appearance that they care, so instead of acting, they will order a review, then a study, then an inquiry, then start all over again, ignoring any unfavorable recommendations and appeal any court decision that favors the veterans, costing millions in legal fees.

And we have some very keen legal mids on our side, so unless , DBA, you are a Supreme Court Judge, I don't think you legal assessment has any merit. Other insurance plans are different, because they don't involve pension Act payments, they aren't given to just anyone, there are strict criteria to get them, and civilian workers compensation plans are not tax free, so therefor can be classified as income. I guess unless you are having this money deducted, you can't really appreciate where we are coming from, so just offer your support and move along.


----------



## Nemo888

I've seen a few Vets get shafted. 
+1


----------



## DBA

Requiring enrollment in an insurance plan as a requirement for employment is also common. I don't see anything odd or uncommon with the top up coverage or the mandatory nature of the SISIP policy. It is very much like what is available and practiced elsewhere. Most such plans are not indexed to limit future liabilities. Very few plans outside of those directly government backed and funded are indexed. 

I agree 110% that SISIP should have been designed to not count increases in VAC benefits due to indexing above what the SISIP increase is. That aspect of it looks really bad as it in effect undoes part of the indexing of VAC benefits. Even better would be to not count any of the increase in VAC benefits due to indexing.


----------



## dennismanuge

Well said, Bigrex.

I guess the old expression of, "unless you've walked a mile in my shoes" definitely applies to us disabled Vets. Many of my close contacts here on the east coast are receiving very little, if not nothing at all from SISIP. They are 100% disabled, 70% disabled etc....Sad state of affairs really. That goes for most of our fellow Vets right across Canada, actually, I am just closer geogrphically to those on the east coast.

Stay well, please feel free to contact me at dennismanuge@hotmail.com. (that goes for everyone) I am building quite a data base of us right across the country. Many of us have different opinions and ideas about how to do things, but the one common goal is we want to affect positive change to end this clawback once and for all.

Cheers
Dennis Manuge


----------



## dennismanuge

Pg 12-16 of Andre Marin's (first DND Ombudsman) report to MND at the time in Oct 2003

Analysis, Conclusion and Recommendations

The purpose of the SISIP long term disability plan is to provide CF Regular and Reserve Force members with a reasonable level of income should they become disabled and be released from the CF. The policy specifically states that other sources of income received by the insured member will reduce the amount of SISIP long term disability benefits payable. Disability pensions and any dependents’ benefits payable pursuant to the Pension Act are specifically listed in the policy as one of the other sources of income that will reduce the amount of LTD benefits payable. Current and former CF members and their families have complained to the Office of the Ombudsman that this reduction of their long term disability insurance benefits is unfair. They argue that disability pension benefits received through VAC under the Pension Act should not reduce the amount of their SISIP long term disability benefits because they are not income. Some complainants have taken the further position that even if there is justification to reduce their SISIP long term disability benefits by amounts received under the Pension Act, these reductions should only be for pension benefits received for the same disability and not for any amounts received for an unrelated disability or illness.

Mr. Pierre Lemay, President of SISIP, informed the Office of the Ombudsman that CF members are advised that other income sources are deducted from SISIP long term disability benefits. This is a term of the Conditions of Benefits Agreement that all members must sign once they are determined to be eligible for SISIP long term disability benefits in order to receive monthly payments.

According to Mr. Lemay, the formula for calculating SISIP long term disability benefits, which provides for deductions of other income sources, was taken into account in the development of the SISIP long term disability policy, its funding and the premiums charged. This is the type of program that Treasury Board had agreed to pay for in order to provide an income replacement of 75% of the member’s salary minus other income sources. Mr. Lemay indicated that this was an industry standard for LTD benefits. According to a May 30, 2001 letter from Maritime Life to Mr. Lemay, it is estimated that it would cost at least an additional $5 million per year to exclude Pension Act deductions from the LTD policy. Such a change would require the consent of Treasury Board. According to SISIP figures, approximately 56% of SISIP long term disability benefit recipients also receive VAC pension benefits under the Pension Act.

Our review of Public Service disability insurance plans reveals that it is common to reduce disability insurance benefits by the amount of pensions and other benefits received for the same disability. This reflects the fact that the purpose of disability insurance is to supplement a person’s income, including that received from other sources such as pensions and benefits, so that he or she is in a similar position as when they were able to work. Both the Public Service Management Insurance Plan (for federal government executives and managers excluded from collective bargaining) and the Public Service Disability Insurance Plan (for federal government employees), however, appear to restrict deductions from disability insurance benefits to amounts received from pension and benefit plans for the same disability. Benefits received from other sources for unrelated illnesses or disabilities are not deducted. Only the CF and RCMP plans reduce disability insurance benefits by the amount of disability pension received for any disability.

Is it fair that ill or injured CF members have their disability insurance benefits reduced by amounts they receive from VAC under the Pension Act in the form of a disability pension for the same or an unrelated illness or injury?

according to VAC’s web site, current or former CF members may be eligible for a disability pension under the Pension Act if they have a permanent disability that arose out of, was aggravated by, or is directly connected with peacetime Regular or Reserve Force service in the CF. Such pensions are awarded based on the compensation principle that “provides pension coverage for disability or death which was directly related to or permanently worsened by peacetime, non-SDA (Special Duty Area), service factors or events.” In addition to the basic amount payable to the member as a disability pension under the Pension Act, the member may also be entitled to receive an additional pension amount for spouse and children.

Entitlement to a disability pension under the Pension Act is based solely on the relationship between military service and the disability and is not dependent upon years of service, income or rank. The fact that the recipient may see a reduction of income caused by deduction of pension amounts from their disability insurance benefits is not considered in determining the amount of the pension award. The pension award is considered compensation for a disability related to military service and not income. For these reasons, it is not taxable.
In October 2000, the Pension Act was amended to provide disability pensions to all current CF members disabled by service-related injuries, wherever the injury occurred. Previously, active CF members could only receive a VAC disability pension if the injury occurred while serving in a Special Duty Area (SDA), such as a peacekeeping mission. CF members who were injured while fighting a flood in Canada, for example, could be deemed eligible to receive a disability pension while still serving, but could not have their disability assessed and would not actually receive a disability pension until they were released from service. Now, all active CF members with a service-related disability are eligible to receive a VAC disability pension regardless of where the injury occurred.

*VAC disability pensions awarded under the Pension Act are intended to compensate members for the disability they suffered in the course of their service with the CF. Unlike SISIP disability insurance benefits, they are not intended to replace the income the member would have earned but for his or her disability.*

Serving CF members receiving disability pensions through VAC under the Pension Act do not have their income reduced because of the pension they receive to compensate them for their disability. It simply does not seem fair that injured and ill members who are released from the CF for medical reasons should have their disability insurance benefit paid, which is intended to replace their income as CF members, reduced because of the same pension benefits. In my view, the SISIP policy, in designating Pension Act disability pensions as a source of income to be deducted from disability insurance benefits, is inconsistent with the intention of the Pension Act to compensate both current and former CF members for injuries or illness resulting from or related to their service with the CF. When ill or injured CF members are ultimately released from the CF for medical reasons, they in effect lose the additional financial benefit of the compensation awarded to them under the Pension Act, as this amount reduces the income replacement insurance benefit they receive under the SISIP long term disability insurance plan.

I realize that amending the SISIP policy to prevent the reduction of disability insurance benefits by amounts paid in compensation to CF members for their disabilities through pensions under the Pension Act may have a significant financial impact on premiums payable by the government of Canada under the SISIP long term disability insurance plan. In my view, however, this additional cost is justified in light of the sacrifices and risks incurred by CF members in providing an invaluable service to Canadian society. The government has an obligation to look after them when they become ill or injured as a result and cannot continue to serve.

On February 13, 2003, the Minister of National Defence announced changes to SISIP to introduce a new insurance program. It brings compensation for CF members who are the victims of dismemberment or permanent loss of sight, hearing or speech as a result of a service-related injury in line with that available to general officers. Subsequent legislation, proclaimed on June 20, 2003, made these changes retroactive so that all members who were the victim of service-related injury resulting in dismemberment or permanent loss of sight, hearing or speech could benefit.

In welcoming these long awaited improvements to the member’s insurance plan, the Chief of the Defence Staff noted, “The benefits that are provided to our men and women in uniform must reflect the risks that they undertake on behalf of the people of Canada.” The Minister also pledged in his comments to the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence that:

All of us in this room understand the many sacrifices that are demanded of these men and women. Not only do Canadian Forces personnel make sacrifices in service to their country, but they are also prepared to lay down their lives for Canada, if need be. When they sign up for a life in the military, they accept this unlimited liability. With all that the Canadian Forces gives on our behalf, we must be prepared to give back to them.

I wholeheartedly agree with these comments. In keeping with this strong commitment to CF members and their families, I strongly urge the Minister, on behalf of DND/CF, to take the necessary steps to ensure that the SISIP long term disability benefits, which members must depend on as income to support themselves and their families when they are no longer able to serve their country for medical reasons, are not reduced by the amount of disability pension they are awarded under the Pension Act to compensate them for illness or injury related to their service.

*I therefore recommend that:*

1.	The Minister of National Defence present the necessary submission to the Treasury Board Secretariat of Canada and ensure all other necessary steps are taken to amend the SISIP long term disability insurance policy so that Pension Act disability pensions do not reduce the amount of SISIP long term disability benefits payable to former CF members.
Changes to the SISIP long term disability insurance policy will likely bring with them claims from former CF members that they be reimbursed the amounts that have been previously deducted from their SISIP long term disability benefits. Changes to the Pension Act to allow CF members to receive disability pensions while still serving and earning income as CF members, regardless of where the service-related injury occurred, came into effect on October 27, 2000. In my view, in the interests of ensuring equal treatment compared with serving members who have been able to benefit from disability pensions under the Pension Act while still earning income in the CF, former CF members who had their income replacement disability benefits reduced under the SISIP policy on account of Pension Act disability pensions should be reimbursed as of October 27, 2000.
I therefore recommend that:

2. The Minister of National Defence take the necessary steps to ensure that former CF members who had their SISIP long term disability benefits reduced on account of disability pensions received under the Pension Act should be reimbursed for the amounts that were deducted from their benefits as of October 27,2000.


----------



## dennismanuge

Ombudsman Urges Resolution to Unfair Deductions from SISIP Payments
June 15, 2007

The Honourable Gordon O’Connor, P.C., M.P.
Minister of National Defence
National Defence Headquarters
Major-General George R. Pearkes Building
101 Colonel By Drive
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0K2

Dear Minister O’Connor:

I would like to acknowledge and thank you for your letter of June 3.

Your letter responded to my letter to you of March 6, 2007, in which I set out my position as to why the Department of National Defence should implement the two outstanding recommendations made in our 2003 special report entitled Unfair Deductions From SISIP Payments to Former CF Members.

As you will recall, our report concluded that it was fundamentally unfair to deduct Pension Act disability payments from SISIP Long Term Disability benefits. It urged the Minister of National Defence to take steps to put an end to that deduction as soon as possible, and to provide retroactive compensation.

In your recent letter to me, you indicate that, in light of the sheer magnitude and complexity of the issues surrounding this matter, you were to ask departmental authorities to review my concerns. You also mention that, in view of the class action lawsuit filed with the Federal Court of Canada on March 15, 2007, you felt that you were precluded from making any further comments on the matter at this time, particularly given the lawsuit challenges the very deduction that was at the heart of our report.

I certainly do appreciate that this file raises issues that are complex and that may be expensive to address. I also understand that you would wish to be extremely careful not to make public comments about the issue, which has now been taken to the courts.

As Ombudsman, my first job is to promote the fair and just treatment of current and former members of the Canadian Forces and their families. I have indicated to you, and to others before, my firm view that the former members who are affected by the deduction are the victims of what I consider to be fundamentally unfair treatment.

As a result, I urge you, and through you, your colleagues and your officials, not to allow the court proceedings to be a reason to avoid swift action. The pending lawsuit should not preclude the implementation of the two outstanding recommendations. 

At this time, given recent developments and the status of the matter, I am of the view that my office and I have done all that we can do to bring this matter to a fair and satisfactory resolution. The ultimate responsibility for ensuring this issue is resolved equitably, generously and without undue delay rests with others.

I sincerely hope that you, as Minister of National Defence, will do everything you can to ensure that fair treatment is achieved for our veterans – and that it is achieved soon.

Yours truly, 

Yves Côté, Q.C.
Ombudsman


----------



## dennismanuge

Response from the Minister of National Defence on Outstanding Recommendations Involving Unfair Deductions from SISIP Payments
3 June 2007

Mr. Yves Côté
Ombudsman
National Defence and Canadian Forces
100 Metcalfe Street, 12th Floor
Ottawa, ON K1P 5M1

Dear Mr. Côté:

I am writing in response to your letter of March 6, 2007 concerning two outstanding recommendations from your special report Unfair Deductions From SISIP Payments to Former CF Members.

In our meeting shortly after I received your letter, I explained that because of the shear magnitude and complexity of this issue I would ask Departmental authorities to review your concerns.

I also noted that I would not be able to respond by 30 April 2007, as you had requested, because of an impending legal challenge against the Department.

On March 15, 2007, the Federal Court in Halifax received a class action lawsuit filed by Mr. Dennis Manuge on behalf of SISIP claimants, challenging the Long Term Disability Insurance Program offered to CF members through SISIP. As such, because this matter is now pending before the courts, I am, unfortunately, precluded from making any further comments at this time.

Thank you for writing.

Sincerely,

The Honourable Gordon J. O’Connor, PC, MP


----------



## dennismanuge

Ombudsman Calls for Fair Treatment for Injured Canadian Forces Veterans
March 6, 2007

The Honourable Gordon O’Connor, P.C., M.P.
Minister of National Defence
National Defence Headquarters
Major-General George R. Pearkes Building
13th floor, North Tower
101 Colonel By Drive
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0K2

Dear Minister O’Connor:

I am writing you to set out my position with respect to the two outstanding recommendations made in our office’s special report, entitled Unfair Deductions From SISIP Payments to Former CF Members.

I. Background
The Office of the Ombudsman conducted an investigation into the Service Income Security Insurance Plan – Long Term Disability Plan (SISIP LTD) after receiving more than 50 complaints related to the plan and benefits payable to Canadian Forces members. Although certain complaints were resolved as a result of changes made to the plan and through legislation, some matters continued to be a source of dissatisfaction among serving and former Canadian Forces members.

SISIP LTD is a group disability insurance plan that guarantees disabled Canadian Forces members replacement income if they become “totally disabled” or if they are released from the Canadian military for medical reasons. The plan guarantees 75 percent of a Canadian Forces member’s income level at the time of his or her release from the military for up to two years after his or her release. After this two-year period, payments can continue until the former military member reaches the age of 65 if he or she remains disabled.

However, SISIP LTD does not necessarily pay 75 percent of the income level at release to former Canadian Forces members. The plan takes into account any other “relevant sources of income” and only pays out the amount that would bring the total income to the 75 percent level. Most notably, and in my view problematically, SISIP LTD considers monthly Pension Act disability pensions as a “relevant source of income” and deducts such pensions from the amount that would otherwise be paid to the former Canadian Forces member.

Many of the complaints that our office received concerned the deduction of these Pension Act disability pensions from monthly SISIP LTD benefits. Complainants argued that it was unfair that disability pensions were considered as a source of income under the SISIP LTD formula, when the purpose of the disability pension was not to act as income replacement, but to compensate them for the pain and suffering they had endured as a result of becoming disabled while serving their country.

After a thorough investigation, our office agreed with the complainants and concluded that it was an unfair practice for SISIP LTD to consider Pension Act disability pensions as income and to deduct them from SISIP LTD benefits.

In October 2003, our office presented five recommendations to address this fundamental unfairness to then Defence Minister John McCallum. In response, he thanked our office for its “thoughtful and timely” work and agreed with all of the recommendations in the special report.

Since that time, three of the recommendations have been implemented. However, two remain outstanding:

That the Minister of National Defence present the necessary submission to the Treasury Board Secretariat of Canada and ensure all other necessary steps are taken to amend the SISIP LTD insurance policy so that Pension Act disability pensions do not reduce the amount of SISIP LTD benefits payable to former CF members; and that 
The Minister of National Defence take the necessary steps to ensure that former CF members who had their SISIP LTD benefits reduced on account of disability pensions received under the Pension Act should be reimbursed for the amounts that were deducted from their benefits as of October 27, 2000. 
II. Follow up to Special Report
Significant Support for Recommendations
The recommendations in our report have received widespread public support, including from veterans, veterans associations and Parliamentarians. Notably, on November 4, 2003, the House of Commons Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs passed a unanimous motion calling on “the Defence Minister and government to accept and enact the recommendations forthwith.”

More recently, the House of Commons passed the following motion on November 7, 2006:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should immediately take the following steps to assist members and veterans of the Canadian Forces and their families:
…..
4. eliminate the unfair reduction of Service Income Security Insurance Plan (SISIP) long term disability benefits from medically released members of the Canadian Forces; 
…..
New Developments
During the course of the office’s investigation, our investigators were advised that the cost of eliminating the Pension Act deductions from SISIP LTD monthly benefits would be approximately $5 million a year. However, in May 2006, our office was informed that the total cost to implement the two outstanding recommendations in our special report was now estimated to be $320 million.

Needless to say, this new figure came as a surprise to us, particularly given that the original figure of $5 million was provided to our office by SISIP officials. As a result of this new information, we met with the President of SISIP in June 2006 in order to obtain an explanation of the estimates and the significant discrepancy.

In October 2006, we were informed that the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) had reviewed the estimates and determined that the cost of eliminating the Pension Act deductions from SISIP LTD monthly benefits, retroactive to October 2000, would be between $275 million and $295 million. Given that these figures were reviewed and verified by OSFI, I have no reason to question their accuracy.

III. An Issue of Fundamental Fairness
I recognize that this new estimate is significantly higher than originally assessed. However, the inherent unfairness that our recommendations seek to correct remains: The situation faced by former Canadian Forces members who have their SISIP LTD payments reduced by the amount of their disability pension is profoundly unfair, and it needs to be addressed and resolved.

Those who are suffering – former Canadian Forces members who have had to retire as a result of their injuries – are the most disadvantaged of our veterans. They often suffer from serious psychological or physical injuries incurred while serving their country. And yet they are penalized – in some cases, severely penalized – by rules which must be reviewed and changed. I will outline the nature and source of the problem.

The Pension Act
The SISIP LTD treatment of disability pensions as a source of income is unfair and contradicts the underlying purpose of disability pensions awarded under the Pension Act. Disability pensions are not intended to act as income replacement. This is borne out by a number of factors.

Section 2 of the Pension Act clearly states that disability pensions are paid in order to fulfill “the recognized obligation of the people and Government of Canada to provide compensation to those members of the forces who have been disabled or have died as a result of military service.” The payments are meant to provide compensation for the loss of enjoyment of life and for pain and suffering caused by a specific injury.

If there was any doubt as to the purpose of a disability pension, it was eliminated when the Pension Act was amended in 2000 to allow all currently serving Canadian Forces members, regardless of where their service-related injury occurred, to draw a disability pension while continuing to receive their full military pay.

I would also note that the Pension Act does not link eligibility for a disability pension to a loss of income. In fact, there are a number of retired Canadian Forces members who are gainfully employed and who are collecting disability pensions in addition to their salary.

Finally, if disability pensions awarded under the Pension Act were meant to be income replacement, they would have been made taxable. This is not the case.

In light of the above, it is clear – and, indeed, indisputable – that Pension Act disability pensions are not meant to be income replacement. As I indicated above, they must be characterized as amounts paid for pain, suffering and loss of enjoyment of life.

SISIP LTD
That being said, I recognize that SISIP LTD is an income replacement plan. As described above, its purpose is to provide disabled military members with 75 percent of their salary on release, if they are too disabled to continue serving in the Canadian Forces. As an income replacement plan, it is logical that the benefits to which a retired member may be entitled under SISIP LTD should be subject to a reduction when there are other sources of employment income. However, disability pensions payable under the Pension Act are not linked to salary, and therefore should not be considered as income replacement.

A Fundamental Unfairness
It is fundamentally unfair that military members who are medically unable to serve in the Canadian Forces – and who are forced to give up their career and way of life – do not receive the full benefit of their Pension Act disability pension. But this is clearly the case as a result of their SISIP LTD monthly income replacement benefit being reduced by the amount of their disability pension.

This unfairness becomes even more evident when those who are forced to leave the Canadian Forces are compared with military personnel who have been injured or disabled but whose injuries or disabilities are less serious. The latter can remain in the Canadian Forces, receiving their full military pay and adding to their retirement plan, while still being entitled to a disability pension under the Pension Act.

On October 26, 2005, I wrote to then Defence Minister Bill Graham highlighting the unfair treatment faced by our veterans, and urging him to take immediate action. A copy of that letter is attached. I believe that it clearly demonstrates the significant inequity suffered by disabled Canadian Forces members who must retire in comparison with Canadian Forces members who also suffer an injury, but do not have to leave the military (see in particular pages 2 and 3).

The fact that the group of individuals receiving SISIP LTD is vulnerable, and already disadvantaged by disabilities serious enough to require them to give up their careers and collect long-term disability, leads me to the view that the inequity might very well be serious enough to attract the protection of human rights legislation, as well as the protection of the equality provisions set out in section 15 the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which identify physical and mental disabilities as prohibited grounds of discrimination.

New Veterans Charter
I must also mention that the current inequity related to SISIP LTD has only been aggravated by the New Veterans Charter, which came into force in April 2006. That is because now, under the new regime, when a member is injured or suffers a disability as a result of military service, he or she is eligible to receive a lump-sum payment, instead of a monthly Pension Act disability pension. The payment is a tax-free, lump sum disability award in order to compensate for the non-economic effects of a service related injury. These lump-sum payments can be made to either serving or former members, and are not considered a “relevant source of income”, and therefore will not offset SISIP LTD monthly benefits. It is very difficult to understand why this lump sum payment should be viewed differently from one that is received monthly.

It is important to note that the New Veterans Charter does not have retroactive effect. It did not fix the unfairness that existed prior to its enactment. Eligible former Canadian Forces members not falling under the New Veterans Charter will continue to have their SISIP LTD payments reduced by the amount of their disability pension. Therefore, the two outstanding recommendations aimed at rectifying this unfairness are as valid today as they were when they were made in 2003.

The Way Forward
I strongly believe that the appropriate and just thing to do is to fix the significant unfairness that currently prevails regarding the SISIP LTD. I urge you to find a principled solution that will satisfactorily rectify the current inequity.

I believe the dominant consideration here should not be one of a financial nature. Fundamental principles and values ought first and foremost to inform the debate. I am referring to deeply ingrained Canadian values which call for everyone to be treated fairly and equally. I also have in mind the profound sense that Canadians have that our disabled veterans deserve to be treated in a manner that is beyond reproach. The sacrifices that our disabled veterans have made and the price they continue to pay every day as a result of their disability demand that they must receive generous, fair and equal treatment.

It has often been said that a society should be judged by the manner in which it treats its most disadvantaged groups. Preventing discriminatory treatment of society’s disadvantaged groups is one of the goals of section 15(1) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Laws and government policies must be conceived and applied in a non-discriminatory manner. All Canadian Forces members who suffer a service-related disability should be treated equally, and those who are the most disadvantaged should not be treated in a manner that puts them at a further disadvantage.

At the same time, I strongly encourage you to resist any solution that would result in passing the cost of implementing the outstanding recommendations to currently serving Canadian Forces members. Given that the original problem was created by government policy and legislative action, it is incumbent on the Government of Canada to assume the cost of resolving it. Passing the cost on to currently serving members would also be unfair since, under the New Veterans Charter, those Canadian Forces members applying for disability awards after April 1, 2006, fall under its provisions, and do not stand to benefit from the implementation of the outstanding recommendations concerning disability pensions given under the Pension Act.

I urge you to look at all reasonable solutions that may be available to finally address and resolve this fundamental unfairness. In this regard, I would be happy to discuss with you any options that may be available, in order to ensure that these disabled veterans are compensated for their past loss of income, and that the practice of reducing SISIP LTD by disability pensions under the Pension Act is ended for good.

Conclusion
I would like to conclude by summing up my rationale for urging you to implement the outstanding recommendations:

The deduction of Pension Act benefits from SISIP LTD benefits is unfair, as the disability pensions paid out under the Pension Act were intended to compensate Canadian Forces members for pain, suffering and loss of enjoyment of life experienced as a result of service-related injuries, and not to replace lost salary. 
Treating the Pension Act disability pensions as income, which serves to reduce amounts paid out under SISIP LTD benefits, creates a serious inequity by denying those who need it most and those who deserve the highest degree of protection – Canada’s disabled veterans – the full benefit of a compensation plan intended to assist those who suffer injuries as a result of military service. 
The group of individuals affected by this inequity is finite, as a result of the implementation of the New Veterans Charter and of the changes it brought to the way in which Canadian Forces members are compensated for injuries. 
Our recommendations in Unfair Deductions From SISIP Payments to Former CF Members have the support of veterans, veterans associations, a former Minister of National Defence, the former Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs, and, most significantly, the House of Commons as expressed in the motion that was passed on November 7, 2006. 
The two outstanding recommendations contained in our special report must be implemented: now is the time to rectify this fundamental unfairness faced by injured Canadian veterans.

I thank you for your attention to this matter and I look forward to a response from you by April 30, 2007.

Please be advised that I intend to make this letter public as I committed to doing when I appeared before the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs in November 2006.

Yours truly,

Yves Côté, Q.C.
Ombudsman

c.c. General Rick Hillier, Chief of the Defence Staff 
Mr. Ward Elcock, Deputy Minister of National Defence

Att: October 26, 2005 Letter to Defence Minister Bill Graham


----------



## dennismanuge

A good site for finding, sharing info and getting connected.

http://www.veteranvoice.info/bulletinboard.htm

Dennis


----------



## 2 Cdo

schart28 said:
			
		

> The Hill Times, July 30th, 2007
> We Canadian Forces Disabled Veterans are struggling, daily, to survive physically, mentally, and economically due to the *appalling disrespect and neglect at the hands of the Conservative Government of Canada. *



I am all for your fight to get fair and proper treatment but my highlighting a particular section of your letter might reveal an underlying bias. Were you fighting for this when the Liberals were in power, or are you merely another pro-Lib/anti-Conservative with an ax to grind? With that one line alot of people will dismiss you as just another anti-Conservative mouthpiece.


----------



## dennismanuge

2Cdo

Thanks for comment. I have no political agenda. The government of Canada, at the moment is Conservative. They have had they benefit of all the reports, recommendations, and a private members bill introduced by MP Peter Stoffer in the fall of 2006 that the majority of parliament voted "in favour of" to correct this issue and others. The conservative government did nothing. I dislike most politicians equally, regardless of their so called partiy labels. To directly answer your question, yes I started down this road with letters to the liberals when they were still in power. My first letter in fact was to Anthony Rota, Lib MP from North bay area. I have been called much worse than a mouth piece. That is a military label for someone who has the ability to think outside the box and stand up for themselves rather than follow blindly and not question, not learn, not grow, as a soldier, human being, or what have you. I did not get into this to make or win friends. What tires me more than anything is the amount of ignorant people that shoot off with-out knowing or seeing or asking about the big picture. Start from the first note ever written on this page....there were people on here speaking about me, my background, my wanting something for nothing. That I am still trying to collect SISIP LTD? I think not. I would gladly give my $10000 to any of the thousands of Vets out there who need it more than I do. I am standing firm on a fundemental issue of right and wrong. In this case the governments of Canada, be it the current Conservative government, or the Liberals of the past, have no respect or commitment to the very citizens of this country who need thier support the most. By highlighting or underlining something, I very much want people to take notice.  Rather than point the finger back at me educate yourself about the issue. All information is available. That is why i have included all that is above. Take or leave it, that is up to you, but folks who shoot from the hip with-out a clue....those people are my enemy. Wether they are a politician or an ex soldier or a civilian. 

How long does it take to call, e-mail, write your MP? Is there anyone you served with or even perhaps yourself, that might seem worth fighting for? I know thousands that are!
Cheers


----------



## Bigrex

The ombudsmen first released his findings in 2003, under the Liberals, but these things take time, and before you knew it we were going into elections. But since the Conservatives have been in power, they have unanimously voted against the Veterans First motion, and even though it passed, with every opposition member voting yes, the Tories have snubbed the will of the House by not acting on any aspect of that motion. In March, the then MND, O'Conner stood up in the house and said " they knew about this problem since 2003, and they will fix the issue!", yet several months , a budget and a fiscal report later, they haven't acted. After that last statement, whenever O'connor was queried, he merely said he couldn't answer because it was in front of the courts, but until it actually goes to trial, it is not in front of the court, so he could have acted, and his replacement still can and he knows it. That brings us to Mckay, the whole reason he was brought in as MND is he is able to lie and mislead the public and the House without tripping over his own words, and whenever questioned of his plans on this issue, he only tries to discredit the person or party asking the question, with past votes on unrelated issues. Poor politics if you ask me. Veterans and our survivors shouldn't be used as political fodder, we only ask for fair compensation for what we have given up for our country, something the Conservatives are willing to fight tooth and nail against, and that is why most veterans, since Korea, look upon the Conservatives with disdain. The older vets got what they wanted, like my Father in Law, he only served a few years and was in Korea after the conflict was over, but at 75, he gets 3 times the money from Veterans Affairs that I do, at 47% with a family, even though he didn't even get hurt during his tenure in the Forces, but as a war vet they gave him everything. not so for older vets trying to get services now. Like the Veterans who were told that they could claim for having cancer if they served in Korea, they can, and Veterans affairs will give them the absolute minimum award, 1/5th of 5%, a measly $1400.00, for something that can and most likely will kill them.  The Conservatives have also said that they support Veterans with PTSD or OSI, yet if they commit suicide  as a result of those conditions, they have failed to pay death benefits, even though experts have said that PTSD is an injury to the brain, and should not be treated differently than a bullet wound, yet a soldier who dies of later complications from a gunshot wound will get the death benefits. They say they support veterans, but they introduced the NVC, which offers a lump sum instead of the monthly pension, and instead of support for the veteran, Veterans affairs have started acting like welfare, requiring the veteran to take part in a work program in order to be entitled to any monthly funds, don't work enough and your not entitled to it, work to much and you don't need it. It's the inconsistencies between what they say and what they do, is what most people, even younger soldiers and Veterans, don't see unless they are going through it. So unless you are disbled and suffered the SISIP clawback, nearing 65 and realizing you will lose CPP benefits from your Superannuation payments at 65, a widow trying to stay in your home, or trying to ensure your financial future after your husband has died, you will not truly understand, so don't think that we are just bashing the Conservatives, we are bashing the people who have been in power during the majority of time we've been asking for change, with billions of dollars in surplus. If you also read some articles by Sean Bruyea, he discusses the senior bureaucracy, and how they are fighting political will, for their own agenda of maintaining power, it's not just the Tories we are aiming at, but anyone with the power to correct these issues but have failed to do so.


----------



## 2 Cdo

dennismanuge said:
			
		

> 2Cdo
> 
> Thanks for comment. I have no political agenda. The government of Canada, at the moment is Conservative. They have had they benefit of all the reports, recommendations, and a private members bill introduced by MP Peter Stoffer in the fall of 2006 that the majority of parliament voted "in favour of" to correct this issue and others. The conservative government did nothing. I dislike most politicians equally, regardless of their so called partiy labels. To directly answer your question, yes I started down this road with letters to the liberals when they were still in power. My first letter in fact was to Anthony Rota, Lib MP from North bay area. I have been called much worse than a mouth piece. That is a military label for someone who has the ability to think outside the box and stand up for themselves rather than follow blindly and not question, not learn, not grow, as a soldier, human being, or what have you. I did not get into this to make or win friends. What tires me more than anything is the amount of ignorant people that shoot off with-out knowing or seeing or asking about the big picture. Start from the first note ever written on this page....there were people on here speaking about me, my background, my wanting something for nothing. That I am still trying to collect SISIP LTD? I think not. I would gladly give my $10000 to any of the thousands of Vets out there who need it more than I do. I am standing firm on a fundemental issue of right and wrong. In this case the governments of Canada, be it the current Conservative government, or the Liberals of the past, have no respect or commitment to the very citizens of this country who need thier support the most. By highlighting or underlining something, I very much want people to take notice.  Rather than point the finger back at me educate yourself about the issue. All information is available. That is why i have included all that is above. Take or leave it, that is up to you, but folks who shoot from the hip with-out a clue....those people are my enemy. Wether they are a politician or an ex soldier or a civilian.
> 
> How long does it take to call, e-mail, write your MP? Is there anyone you served with or even perhaps yourself, that might seem worth fighting for? I know thousands that are!
> Cheers



Rather long winded way to say no, but then why not just mention Government of Canada as opposed to pointing fingers as if this has only arisen since the Conservatives took over. As for being un-educated about the issue, nice try but you fail miserably. The insinuation that I don't have a clue also leads me to believe that I guessed correctly about an "hidden agenda". Hope everything works for you, even if you are a thinly disguised liberal.


----------



## dennismanuge

fighting ignorance and spinelessness takes alot of effort 2Cdo, sometimes alot of words. If it was too much for you to read in one sitting, my appologies. Good comeback though....you must know something i don't......about my hidden agenda and my political beliefs. like I said I have been called much worse by many and you did say mouthpiece, so i felt that was liscense to type. It is far easier to make accusations and discredit or distract, then to read and learn about something. 

Obviously your a conservative who has had his feelings hurt.
Thanks for the best wishes, but I will depend on my supports and my legal team.
Cheers


----------



## the 48th regulator

Folks,

Let's knock off the name calling and mudslinging.

This is an important issue to all of us that have served, and we will only hurt ourselves if we allow this threa to go downhill.

I ask, as someone with an interest and as a Moderator.

dileas

tess


----------



## dennismanuge

All

I think far too many have been far too nice for far too long. I am merely responding to all who have talked about me and this case on this means with out knowing me, my values, or even why I am doing what i am doing. I am helping them get their facts straight. If that offends some, that is truly too bad from where I am sitting. When someone brings it they better be prepared to take some of it back or get out of the way. This is exactly the reaction from most once the facts are laid out....to attack me, the case, whomever, if they don't agree. I have had enough of it. There are no hidden agendas, no political loyalties, except for me, my own MP, who is in fact Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville-Eastern Shore. That is my only political allegiance...wait and see what happens now having said that. I will be branded as a NDP. If your going to dislike me, I at least want you to have the necesary info to do so.

As for the name calling....my appolagies!

Dennis


----------



## the 48th regulator

dennismanuge said:
			
		

> All
> 
> I think far too many have been far too nice for far too long.





			
				dennismanuge said:
			
		

> Hi folks
> 
> Glad you are discussing this, but those of you willing to settle for the government eating up what is rightly yours....grow a backbone and stand up for yourselves and if you are not willing to do so, stand up for those around you that can not stand up for themselves.





			
				the 48th regulator said:
			
		

> Dennis Welcome aboard, you are the person we have been waiting for on this thread.
> 
> Too much has been said about your situation and you cause, and some of us have been supportive of it.
> 
> You see, I was told exactly what you are fighting for.  The fact that I collect a VAC pension, that SISIP considers this an actual income.
> 
> Do I claim this pension on my taxes?  No. So then tell me how they are able to win the bid to be the supplier of our insurance, if they contravene the policy of our own government.
> 
> As you have said, two ombudsman have declared this to be wrong.
> 
> Now me, I have a lot more to fight.  I just received the letter stating that since my injuries occurred before 1999, there is a clause that states, because I did not pay into SISIP, I am unable to claim.  Fair enough, I did not pay into it.  However, when I was injured I did pay into it, and was denied then.
> 
> Am I going to fight it?  Hell ya!  I look at what you are trying to do, and again, $10,000 is not that much, but it is the principle.  Should we grow a spine and do this?  Maybe your post will help others to do this.
> 
> But what I have to say brother, is you are preaching to the quire here.  This site is in no way associated with DND, The CF, or SISIP.  All privately owned.  We abide by the rules that any soldier follows, and that is what keeps this site above and beyond others.
> 
> Again, thank you Dennis, and all I ask is that you become an active member here.  We need the input of someone that is working to make a change for the better for all of us that have, are, and will serve.
> 
> dileas
> 
> John Tescione aka tess



As you know, having served, we all look at everything with a grain of salt.   So you are going to get people who question you.  Rather than coming back and swinging, you have to take a breath and realize that everyone of us, included you have a jaded outlook on the system.  

We have negative views of those who, even try to, fight that system.  As you have experienced.

Again, I look forward to your infput here, and hope you did not just come here to only clear your name, but to help those of us that need the advice on fighting the system to correct any wrongs done to us.

dileas

tess


----------



## dennismanuge

ceasefire
Tess is right. Like most of you I suspect, I have had to claw,scrap, dig in, and swing hard to get where I am at, personally and legally. WHen people I do not know question me or my motives, there is no doubt that I become defensive and offensive. Take care gents. It is not about me or my name, it is about righting a wrong. 
Pro patria
from my friends at 3RCR
Dennis


----------



## 2 Cdo

Dennis, I to will apologize. Like Tess said some of us look at things with a jaded eye, myself included. If I wrongly interpreted your letter, it was done using only what you wrote. I honestly don't know your politics but your letter could have been seen as a smear against the Conservatives only and not about your pension situation. Again, I strongly wish you all the best in your fight. Personally I have had no problems with VA or any level of government (both Conservative and Liberal), maybe I'm one of the lucky ones in that regard. 

But I think I've identified your real problem, 





> Pro patria
> from my friends at 3RCR


----------



## dennismanuge

2Cdo
Thanks. I too understand your point in reference to the way that letter was worded. However, I am glad I got the chance to explain that it was not the conservatives alone, but previous governments as well. As mentioned, my passion can help me and it can hurt me. I truly do appolagise for coming off so stubbornly and strongly. We are all brotthers and sisters here, same as when those of us were still serving bonded and banded together. This has been a long difficult struggle, and publicity wise we are not where we want to be reference the average Canadians awareness and education level on this and other Vet issues. I am very open and willing to accept input from anyone. We have tried W-5, Fifth Estate, McLean's. etc....to get national air time to really be able to explain. Part of the problem is with the different orgs involved, ie VAC, SISIP, DND, CPP, and percentages and formulas, it can be difficult to explain quickly to the average person. Some national airtime and a patient media member would go along way for boosting support, I believe. Another idea that has bounced around has been to target a high profile Canadian to educate and get to lobby on our behalf. Don Cherry, Rick Mercer, are a few names we have bounced, but being on east coast it is hard to approach or even know how to. We are scatterwed pockets all across the country barely connected by e-mail and internet and with folks in different stages of mentel, emotional and physicall illness, rallying people and even having people well enough to assist is hard. There are many out there doing great work, Sean Buyrea, Perry Grey, CJ Wallace, and others

And all of you, who are discussing. I guess again it is a long winded way of yelling for help! Thanks for your patience and willingness.

For any of you or those you know, here is my contact info:

Dennis
dmanuge@eastlink.ca
dennismanuge@hotmail.com
Dennis.Manuge@cdha.nshealth.ca
(902) 827-4807

Stay well!

Dennis


----------



## battleaxe

Old thread, new developments...

I couldn't find this particular event on the forum anywhere-my apologies if it has been posted elsewhere and I missed it.

The transcript of the proceedings for the March 5, 2008 meeting of the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs can be found at http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/2/parlbus/commbus/senate/Com-e/vete-e/03evc-e.htm?Language=E&Parl=39&Ses=2&comm_id=79.

A portion of that meeting was spent discussing the SISIP situation discussed in this thread:

Senator Downe: The second omission from your statement, and something this committee will look at, concerns complaints we have heard about the Service Income Security Insurance Plan, SISIP. What is your government's position on deducting the pain and suffering payments from the disabled veterans' long-term disability plan?

Mr. Thompson: This issue has been around almost as long as Parliament. This is an issue many members have brought up to various governments, Liberal and Conservative, in terms of changes to the plan. Basically, you are talking about the word no one likes to use in politics — a clawback.

There are a number of reasons why it is a difficult one to move on. First, the front end of how you pay into these particular plans would have to be adjusted. It would be a restructuring, not just in Veterans Affairs, but across every government agency in the country.

That is an established practice which has been around a long time. It is a difficult one to argue publicly because you are saying, "Why should that be taken away? I am disabled, so I should get that little extra benefit."

The other thing is philosophically — maybe practically — some in the insurance business will argue that, if you make it lucrative for someone to have a disability, it has a downward effect on the program as a whole. You could argue that you would get a benefit over and above what you paid in for knowing that, at the end of your days, that system actually exists. Therefore, that clawback position exists and it would have to be adjusted — actually, the cost across government departments would be in the billions of dollars to readjust it.

If I attempted to make anyone believe we will be changing it, I would not be telling the truth. I doubt if this government could ever change that, knowing what we know and knowing what past governments have done and what future governments will do. It would take a complete overhaul of the entire system to allow that change to occur. It would be too expensive.


I've highlighted the parts of the discussion that have been considered offensive by many veterans.  

I find Mr. Thompson's claim that it would take an entire overhaul of the system to rectify this problem a little odd.

Isn't the problem already fixed?

Currently, lump sum VAC payments are not being clawed back by SISIP-the New Veterans Charter fixed the clawback situation.

The only thing the government has to do to make this whole thing go away is authorize a one time payout-and repay all those veterans
 whose monthly VAC payments were clawed back by SISIP after 2001 (when they began allowing serving members to collect monthly awards), and discontinue clawing them back in future. 

Is that too simple? What am I missing?

As for this "It would be a restructuring, not just in Veterans Affairs, but across every government agency in the country."-can anyone explain why we would have to change policies for every government agency in Canada?

The military release and benefits program is quite unique-and you can bet that no other governmenr agency has some employees receiving certain benefits, while others are excluded.  This is a unique VAC problem-the fix would be unique as well, I feel.

Bren


Bren


----------



## DBA

Picking the date of 2001 to backdate to shows one of the problems. If you give a benefit to one group in a given situation there will be other groups arguing how they have similar circumstances and should also be given similar benefits. They will also probably be right. This means considering the costs of possibly giving the benefit to all groups in similiar circumstances which means government wide. 

How valid the argument is in this case I don't know.


----------



## dennismanuge

Not sure if you folks have seen this, but it is a great comparison. Sorry about format.

OPINION
6 THE HILL TIMES, MONDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2007
Civil servants and soldiers:
some are more equal than others

There’s one thing a soldier manning
a machine gun in Afghanistan
and a civil servant manning a desk in
Ottawa or Gatineau have in common:
neither is likely aware of the details of
their long-term disability plan, at least
not until tragedy strikes.
But soldiers may be forgiven if they
assume that the military’s long-term
disability (LTD) plan is on par with the
civil service plan. Both civil servants
and soldiers have additional benefits
for work-related injuries. However, a
closer look at the LTD plans of both
gives a barometer of sorts as to how
the government compensates those in
public service, in and out of uniform.
Indeed, Prime Minister Stephen Harper
expressed the belief of the vast majority
of Canadians when he stated that
“military service is the highest form of
public service.”
Enter now the financial reality of
risking your life for Canada and the
world 24 hours a day. When comparing
the military and civilian long-term
disability plans one sees that the LTD
plans afforded to the civil service are in
key areas considerably more generous
than those granted to members of the
Canadian Forces. This situation appears
counterintuitive as it is widely recognized
that the personal lives of soldiers
on average endure greater strain than
that of most civil servants. It is in the
personal lives when LTD plans are most
relevant.
Should a Member of Parliament or
bureaucrat injure themselves falling
down the stairs of their basement or
cottage receive better long-term disability
coverage than a military person
disabled in a car accident driving home
late from the military base?
“This is a golden parachute that
they have compared to our lead
parachute,” says retired sergeant Ron
Cundell, a disabled Gulf War veteran
who lives near Barrie, Ont. “Their whole
disability benefits and pension plan is
so different from ours. I have had a lot
of my friends who are still in the Forces
call me and say, ‘We’ve got to educate
ourselves.’ ”
There are two plans for employees
of the federal civil service: Disability
Insurance (DI) for employees covered
by collective bargaining, and the Public
Service Management Insurance Plan
(PSMIP) for those in management
not included in collective bargaining.
PSMIP also has a sub-category: executives
with enhanced benefits. Mandarins
in the EX, SX categories as well
as deputy ministers, EAs to ministers,
Members of Parliament and Senators
have their long-term disability paid for
100 per cent by Treasury Board. Senior
Except for the benefit initially
calculated at five per cent
more than the civil service
plans, the Canadian Forces
disability plan falls short in
several important provisions.THE HILL TIMES, MONDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2007 7
OPINION
officers in the CF with the rank
of full colonel and above also
enjoy this ‘free’ benefit via the
Service Income Security Insurance
Plan LTD or SISIP.
On the other hand, federal
civil servants covered under
collective bargaining, pay 15
per cent of the premium. Treasury
Board covers the rest. But
what is truly unique about
the Canadian system is that
a member of the military is
required to pay out-of- pocket
to help cover the costs of their
own disability benefits, even
if that injury occurs while on
duty. Although other Veterans
Affairs benefits kick in
for duty-related injuries, in
the area of income loss, SISIP
is the ‘first-payer’ for LTD for
which the soldier also pays 15
per cent of their disability
insurance premium while Treasury
Board pays the difference.
On the receiving end, except
for the benefit initially calculated
at five per cent more than
the civil service plans, the CF
disability plan falls short in several
important provisions.
To begin with both PSMIP
and DI are not allowed to
deduct ‘Pension Act’ monthly
awards for pain and suffering,
but the military’s SISIP plan
deducts every dollar of the Veterans
Affairs monthly disability
award. This serves as an insulting
testament to the military
service of the more than 4,000
injured soldiers who are collecting
or have collected SISIP
LTD benefits since October 2000
and are therefore too disabled
to work.
“A VAC award is also
referred to as a gratuity and, by
definition, a gratuity means a,
‘Thank you in appreciation,’ ”
says Cundell. “So when Canada
and the government thank me
for loss of health and quality
of life to my face, the bureaucrats
are behind me picking my
pocket of that gratuity. So to a
disabled veteran gratuity has a
completely different definition,
compliments of the bureaucrats.”
“Something is wrong here,
very wrong,” says retired corporal
Kevin Landry a disabled
veteran who served as a driver
during the conflicts in Croatia
and Bosnia. “We don’t have the
right to public assembly or protest
in uniform and once we are
out we are scattered across the
country. If we were a smaller
country we would have gotten
together to have this problem
looked at.”
And in spite of the fact that
the current and previous military
ombudsmen have called
for an end to these deductions,
nothing has been done to
date. This, in spite of the fact
that the ombudsmen’s recommendations
were supported
by the Standing Committee on
National Defence and Veterans
Affairs not to mention a
majority of MPs who last
year passed the Veterans First
Motion which included the
requirement for the government
to “eliminate the unfair
reduction of SISIP.”
“Back when I was a sergeant,
if I made a promise to my subordinates
I either carried through
with that promise or I told them
exactly why I could not follow
through—I did not leave them
hanging and that is how I kept
their respect,” says Cundell.
Another hallmark of the
government’s disability caste
system is the fact that PSMIP
and certain senior military officers
also receive life insurance,
accidental death and dismemberment
and dependent’s insurance,
premiums for which are
covered 100 percent by Canadian
taxpayers. These plans
continue to be paid for by the
federal government even when
the executives must go on long
term disability. Canada’s disabled
soldiers receive nothing
like this.
While annual increases are
capped in both plans, the civil
service plan nonetheless allows
for 50 per cent more annual
increases than the Canadian
Forces’ plan which is capped
at two per cent. Considering
that inflation (Consumer Price
Index) has been above two per
cent in five of the past seven
years, the CF plan’s advantage
in benefit payout would be eroded
in short order.
Furthermore, federal
bureaucrats can continue contributing
to their retirement
pensions while on an LTD rehabilitation
program, a provision
not granted to our wounded
soldiers. For veterans such as
Cundell, whose medical condition
forced him to retire two
months shy of his full 20-year
military pension, this limitation
serves as an especially difficult
pill to swallow.
“You were told from day one
sign this paper and we will take
care of you if you get sick,” he
says. “Well you did not tell me
that it was going to be an adversarial
program that was going
to put the blocks on me every
time I turned around.”
Paradoxically, the civil service
plan does not deduct CF
retirement pension if awarded
due to a medical release from
the CF but the Forces disability
plan deducts this important
benefit. For Kevin Landry, fate
and government policy denied
him any opportunity to collect a
military pension.
“I failed my medical and I
couldn’t buy back my time,”
he says. “I did everything to
keep my job and still it wasn’t
enough.”
Corporal Landry was medically
released with six years
regular force service and six
years in the reserves. Since he
did not have 10 years in the regular
force, he did not qualify for
a Canadian Forces retirement
pension. Federal bureaucrats,
however, qualify for a retirement
pension after only two
years service if disabled.
Although qualification for
both plans does not stipulate
whether the disability is caused
in the workplace or not, there
is a dramatic difference in how
the two plans are administered.
Civil servants can still be
employed in their original position
on partial work hours and
collect LTD. Canadian Forces
members must leave the forces
first before collecting benefits.
There is no provision which
allows CF members to return to
work on partial hours and still
collect LTD.
Finally, Treasury Board
will step in and cover deficits
accrued by two of the four
disability plans they govern
(PSMIP, DI, SISIP and RCMP)
but this guarantee does not
include the plan covering Canada’s
soldiers.
It all boils down to compensating
risk. The investment
world understands this
very well: higher risk requires
higher reward. The investment
Canada’s government has made
in our soldiers has this fundamental
law backwards. Most
Canadians would easily dispute
that a desk-bound senior
bureaucrat in Ottawa or even a
rear echelon general faces more
risk than the frontline soldiers
in bases across Canada or in
Afghanistan.
“We have to go to war even
if it is against our will,” says
Landry. “There is a huge difference;
we are soldiers; but all
the while we in the most dangerous
jobs get screwed.”
SISIP refused to return our
calls to them on this topic.
Sean Bruyea is a retired captain
and disabled soldier who
served as an intelligence officer
in the Canadian Forces for 14
years. He is now and advocate
for other disabled veterans.
Robert Smol served over 20
years in the Canadian Forces.
He is currently a teacher and a
freelance journalist in Toronto.
news@hilltimes.com
The Hill Times
Continued from Page 6
Comparing Public Servants Public Service Management Public Service Disability Service Income Security
and Soldiers’ Benefits and Insurance Plan (PSMIP) Insurance (DI) Long Term Insurance Plan (SISIP) Long
Pensions Long Term Disability Disability (all federal civil Term Disability for Canadian
(includes those civil servants servants included in Forces (all CF personnel
in
in management not in collective bargaining) uniform)
collective bargaining)
Benefit Payable 70% Income 70% of Income 75% of Income
Salary rounded up to next Yes Yes No
multiple of $250 for
calculation of benefit
Maximum Annual Increase 3% 3% 2%
for Cost of Living
(Consumer Price Index)
Eligible for Retroactive Yes if salary increase applies Yes if salary increase applies No specific statement
Salary Increases before starting LTD before starting LTD in policy
Premium Free Yes: if MP, Senator, Director No: Treasury Board pays 85% No: Treasury Board pays 85%
and above, Governor General Member 15% Member 15%
and other “Executives” (see below) Yes- if Colonel or General
otherwise Treasury Board
pays 85% Member 15%
Deduct Pension Act No Only increases in Pension Act Yes
Monthly Disability Award Payments after Disabled
in Public Service
Deduct Canadian Forces No No Yes
Retirement Pension if
Medically Released
from Forces
Length of Rehabilitation 24 months but may be extended 24 months but may be extended 24 months but may be extended
Amount of Income $0 until 100% of Salary $0 until 100% of Salary 50% of income until 100% of
Deducted while reached thereafter every reached thereafter every salary reached thereafter
on Rehabilitation dollar deducted dollar deducted every dollar deducted
Allowed Back to Original Yes: indefinitely Yes: indefinitely No provision
Employment with reduced
hours while on LTD
Rehabilitation time counts Yes Yes No
towards Retirement Pension
Eligible for Free (employer If Executive (see footnote 2): No Only Colonels and Generals
paid) Life, Accidental Death Basic life-1 yr salary otherwise NO
and Dismemberment AD&D-Death $250,000 (same as civil servant
(AD&D) Insurance while on AD&- Dismemberment executive plan)
Long Term Disability up to $250,000
Eligible for Free If Executive: No Only Colonels and Generals
Dependents’ Life and Life Spouse: $5000 otherwise NO
Accidental Death and Life Child: $2500 (same as civil servant
Dismemberment while on AD&D Death Spouse: $5000 executive plan)
Long Term Disability AD&D Death Child: $2500
AD&D Dismemberment: up to
$5000 and $2500 respectively
1 Consumer Price Index above 2% past five of seven years.
2 Members of Parliament, Senators under age 75, Persons appointed
by the Governor in Council and classified in the DM, GX, EX,
SX groups, the Auditor General, the Chief Electoral Officer, the
Commissioner and the Administrator of the Northern Pipelines
Agency, Astronauts, Executive Assistants to Ministers, Senior
Defence Scientists, Lawyers, executives in Crown Corporations.
3 Death can be due to suicide.
4 Cause of death or dismemberment does not have to be employment
related.
5 Death can be due to suicide.
– Compiled by Sean Bruyea and Robert Smol
By ROBERT SMOL AND SEAN BRUYEA
Continued on Page 7
The other value of serving: Canadians, captain Guy Noury, top right, and Sgt. Jonathan Auger, centre, who are part of the Provincial Reconstruction
Team, speak with Afghan men in Afghanistan, pictured on Sept. 24, 2007. Afghan children, pictured on Oct. 1 in Mazra’eh, above left. Corp. Frank
Charly, pictured in Zhari on Sept. 24, and two young Afghan boys imitate the Canadian Forces photographer in Langley, Afghanistan, above right, on
Sept. 24. Columnists Sean Bruyea and Robert Smol say when comparing the military and civilian long-term disability plans, it’s clear the LTD plans
afforded to the federal civil service are, in key areas, considerably more generous than those granted to members of the Canadian Forces.
Photographs courtesy of Cpl. Simon Duchesne, Canadian Forces and DND


----------



## dennismanuge

*Status of Proposed Class Action: From Federal Court Docket, Halifax*

Halifax 12-FEB-2008 *BEFORE The Honourable Mr. Justice Barnes Language: E Before the Court: Motion Doc. No. 10 on behalf of Plaintiff for certification of a class action Result of Hearing: Matter reserved held in Court * Senior Usher: Robert Robertson Duration per day: 12-FEB-2008 from 09:30 to 05:00 Courtroom : Courtroom - Law Courts Building, Halifax Court Registrar: Elizabeth Caverly 13-FEB-2008 from 10:00 to 10:55 Courtroom : Courtroom - Law Courts Building, Halifax Court Registrar: Elizabeth Caverly Total Duration: 1d 1h Appearances: Mr. Peter Driscoll (McInnes Cooper) 902.425.6500 representing Plaintiff Mr. Ward Branch (Branch MacMaster) 604.654.2999 representing Plaintiff Ms. Lori Rasmussen (DOJ-HFX) 902.426.4472 representing Defendant Mr. Jonathan Shapiro (DOJ-HFX) 902.426.4472 representing Defendant Comments: counsel provided further case law and speaking notes for ease of reference Minutes of Hearing entered in Vol. 768 page(s) 287 - 304 Abstract of Hearing placed on file 

We expect his (Justice Barnes)written decision by Mid May, hopefully, at the latest on certification as Class Action.


----------



## Greymatters

In other news, Manulife has sent out a survey this month asking respondants to evaluate the SISIP Vocational Rehabilitation Program (VRP).  Dont forget to fill it in!


----------



## dennismanuge

This message is sent on behalf of Peter Driscoll

SISIP Claw-Back Class Action Update


We are pleased to advise that the SISIP LTD Offset Class Action has been certified by the Federal Court of Canada.  The effect of the decision is that anyone who falls within the definition of the class is included in the claim against the Government of Canada unless they otherwise opt out of the court process.  Individual notices will be sent to those affected by the offset.  The class has been defined as follows:

"All former members of the Canadian Forces whose long-term disability benefits under SISIP Policy 901102 were reduced by the amount of their VAC Disability benefits received pursuant to the Pension Act (the "Class") from April 17, 1985 to date."

We attach an English version of the decision for your review.  We will circulate a French version once it is released by the Federal Court.

As always, if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at peter.driscoll@mcinnescooper.com



Ce message est envoyé de la part de Peter Driscoll

Mise à jour sur recours collectif


Nous avons le plaisir de vous annoncer que le recours collectif sur les déductions de paiements du RARM a récemment été certifié par la Cour Fédérale du Canada.  Cette décision de la Cour Fédérale a pour effet d'inclure dans l'action entreprise contre le Gouvernement du Canada toute personne à qui s'applique la définition du groupe de personnes similairement affectées, à moins que cette personne décide de se désengager du processus.  Une notification personnelle sera transmise à tout personne affectée par le présent recours collectif.  Le groupe de personnes similairement affectées a été défini de la manière suivante par la Cour Fédérale :

"Tout ex-membre des Forces Canadiennes dont les prestations d'invalidité de longe durée du RARM (Police 901102) ont été réduites d'un montant équivalent au montant reçu pour les prestations d'invalidité de l'ACC en vertu de la loi sur les pensions (le "groupe") entre le 17 avril 1985 et aujourd'hui."

Nous attachons à cette communication la version anglaise de la décision de la Cour Féderale pour votre considération.  Nous distribuerons la version française de cette décision lorsqu'elle sera disponible.

Si vous avez des questions, n'hésitez pas à me contacter à l'adresse suivante : peter.driscoll@mcinnescooper.com



 Kristine Hunter 
Paralegal

tel 902.444.8400 x8140 | fax 902.425.6350 

Purdy's Wharf Tower II
1300-1969 Upper Water Street
PO Box 730 Halifax NS B3J 2V1


----------



## George Wallace

Follow this LINK to find out about this CLASS ACTION SUIT AGAINST SSIP posted verbatim from their site (2008.0615):


*SISIP LTD Class Action*


*Manuge v. Her Majesty the Queen
Federal Court of Canada Number T-463-07*

The Class Action:

The Class Action was initiated in March of 2007 on behalf Dennis Manuge and all other disabled veterans whose SISIP Long Term Disability Benefits are reduced by the amount of the monthly VAC Disability Pension they receive under the Pension Act.

On May 20, 2008, the Federal Court of Canada certified the claim as a Class Action and defined the Class as follows:

All former members of the Canadian Forces whose long term disability benefits under the SISIP policy number 901102 were reduced by the amount of their VAC disability benefits received pursuant to the Pension Act from April 17, 1985 to date.

The effect of the certification of this claim cannot be understated. Upon certification, the claim changed from one individual pursuing litigation against the Government of Canada alone to in excess of 4500 disabled veterans pursuing the Government of Canada for their collective losses.

How Do You Participate In The Claim:

If you fall within the definition of the Class, you do not need to do anything to participate as you are automatically included in the Class Action. Each individual member of the Class will receive notice of the claim and an opportunity to opt out of the litigation should the individual not wish to participate. Details as to how you opt out of the litigation will be included in the individual notice.

What Is The Action About:

Under the terms of the SISIP Long Term Disability Plan (“SISIP LTD”), the amount of VAC Disability Pension payable to a disabled veteran is deducted from the amount of SISIP LTD otherwise payable to the veteran representing 75% pre-release salary.

The Class Action challenges the authority of the Government of Canada to lawfully deduct the VAC Disability Pension from the SISIP LTD benefits otherwise payable and further challenges the offset as being contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The claim also alleges breach of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, breach of public duty and bad faith on the part of the Government of Canada.

The claim is based on the information contained in the 2003 report of the DND Ombudsman entitled “Unfair Deductions from SISIP Payments to Former CF Members” which found the claw back to be “fundamentally unfair”.

Do I Have To Pay Legal Fees?

No. You do not have to pay any direct legal fees out of your own pocket to become involved in the claim. If the case is not successful, no legal fees will be charged.

By agreement with the representative Plaintiff, counsel fees may be calculated at a percentage of any amounts recovered. The legal fees payable to us as counsel to the Class must be approved by the Court. For example, if a settlement, voluntary payment or other benefit is obtained as a result of the class action, we will be required to apply to Court for approval of our fee that is consistent with the terms of the agreement reached with the representative Plaintiff or some lesser amount depending on what the Court decides to be fair.

This arrangement compensates us for the risk we have assumed in advancing the case and performing the legal work without a guarantee of being paid. We do not receive any money unless we are successful and even if the Class Action does not succeed, you are not responsible for any of the lawyers’ fees involved in the case.

Our Database of Class Members:

At present, we are creating a data base of individuals who may fit the definition of the Class. You may contact us to assist you to determine whether you are a Class member by contacting us at sisipclassaction@mcinnescooper.com. When contacting us, please provide:

Your name; 
Your address; 
Your dates of service in the Canadian Forces; 
Your date of medical release from the Canadian Forces; 
The date upon which you commence receiving a VAC disability benefit under the Pension Act; 
The date you commence receiving SISIP Long Term Disability benefits; 
The amount by which your SISIP LTD benefits were reduced by your VAC disability benefits. 
F.A.Q’s

We are currently developing a webpage providing answers to frequently asked questions from members of the Class. We expect to publish this page shortly and this page will be updated as the matter progresses to assist you in understanding the process.

Contact Information:

As always, please do not hesitate to contact us at sisipclassaction@mcinnescooper.com should you have any questions.


----------



## ex-pat

YES, CONSIDER THIS A POLITICAL ATTACK!  THE CONSERVATIVES ARE FIGHTING EVERY STEP OF THE WAY TO PREVENT THE ENIVITABLE.  THE SISIP CLAWBACK IS JUST WRONG.  I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY?  I COMPLETED 3 TOURS (BOSNIA, BOSNIA,AFGHANISTAN)  I ENDED UP WITH MULTIPLE SURGERY'S, BROKEN BONES, PYSHCHOLOGICAL ISSUES AND THE LIST CONTINUES.  I DID EVERYTHING THE ARMY ASKED ME TO DO.  I'VE SLEPT IN TRENCHES AT -40, I'VE PARACHUTED AT HIGH WINDS, I RUCKED 1000'S OF MILES.  I'VE SACRIFICED MY FAMILY, BIRTHDAYS, HOLIDAYS, ATTEMPTED SUICIDES FOR WHAT???  I SAY SCREW THE INDIVIDUALS RESPONSIBLE FOR TAKING WHAT LITTLE I HAVE LEFT, OR ARE ENTITLED TOO, SISIP >  I REALLY HOPE IT DOESN'T TAKE ANOTHER PERSON DRIVING THROUGH HQ BLDG'S TO RESOLVE THIS.


----------



## RHFC_piper

This topic has been covered before.

MERGED: Bruce



Just a heads up; using CAPS usually indicates yelling...


----------



## CountDC

ex-pat said:
			
		

> YES, CONSIDER THIS A POLITICAL ATTACK!  THE CONSERVATIVES ARE FIGHTING EVERY STEP OF THE WAY TO PREVENT THE ENIVITABLE.  THE SISIP CLAWBACK IS JUST WRONG.  I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY?  I COMPLETED 3 TOURS (BOSNIA, BOSNIA,AFGHANISTAN)  I ENDED UP WITH MULTIPLE SURGERY'S, BROKEN BONES, PYSHCHOLOGICAL ISSUES AND THE LIST CONTINUES.  I DID EVERYTHING THE ARMY ASKED ME TO DO.  I'VE SLEPT IN TRENCHES AT -40, I'VE PARACHUTED AT HIGH WINDS, I RUCKED 1000'S OF MILES.  I'VE SACRIFICED MY FAMILY, BIRTHDAYS, HOLIDAYS, ATTEMPTED SUICIDES FOR WHAT???  I SAY SCREW THE INDIVIDUALS RESPONSIBLE FOR TAKING WHAT LITTLE I HAVE LEFT, OR ARE ENTITLED TOO, SISIP >  I REALLY HOPE IT DOESN'T TAKE ANOTHER PERSON DRIVING THROUGH HQ BLDG'S TO RESOLVE THIS.



Political Attack? Conservatives are fighting? Can you provide details on this statement?  I see this as another VAC issue that vets have had to fight over.


----------



## dennismanuge

Good day gents

The topic has indeed been covered, however, there are 4286 of us that have not been heard, so whether it's Caps lock or actual yelling, the word must go out for as long as it takes. I did not get the quality legal representation that we have by sitting on my arse and by not jumping up and down and yelling to get us a certified Federal Court Class Action.

Keep up the good work in discussing, but pass on info as well.

Dennis


----------



## armyvern

dennismanuge said:
			
		

> Good day gents
> 
> The topic has indeed been covered, however, there are 4286 of us that have not been heard, so whether it's Caps lock or actual yelling, the word must go out for as long as it takes. I did not get the quality legal representation that we have by sitting on my arse and by not jumping up and down and yelling to get us a certified Federal Court Class Action.
> 
> Keep up the good work in discussing, but pass on info as well.
> 
> Dennis



Hi Dennis,

I think you misunderstood the "this topic has been covered before" post -- it was a comment essentially made by a member that called for a "merging" of seperate threads dealing with the same topic into one. If you now review that post, you'll find that Mr. Monkhouse did effect a merge.

But please, don't yell at us here ... yell at VAC if/when/as often as required ... but just remember that _we_ are not _VAC_.

Info dessimination, and discussion, seem to occur pretty frequently on the site. You'll have no worries there.

ArmyVern
The Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## beenthere

This is off topic but is another story of SISIPs ways of avoiding to provide benefits.
I had a problem with SISIP that never did get resolved. When I was released I wasn't aware that I was entitled to benefits from SISIP. By the time that I discovered that I could get the benefits the 180 day window to file for benefits had passed. I made application and included with the application a covering letter which covered the perfectly logical reasons for missing the 180 day window. They denied my application and stated that the 180 day limit was firm and that there was no flexibility on it period.

Not being one who gives up on something like this I put together a whole file on the issue with more than enough information to convince any logical person that my reason for not filing before 180 days was completely understandable and that I had not simply neglected to file the application. In fact my health during that period was the reason that I had overlooked the whole matter and there was more than enough documentation to prove the fact. SISIP denied my claim despite all of the evidence.

My dealings with SISIP was before the Office Of The Ombudsman came into being so that route didn't cover me and I have no further way to persue the matter.

Case closed.   Yes, I'm PO'd.


----------



## ex-pat

Thnaks Bruce!!! Instead of picking apart my frustrations, why don't you help Veterans by spreading the word.    Call your MP, talk to the media.  Mr Manuge has done one hell of a job and it's our time to carry the torch.  I can't believe that this is not resolved.  Yes this story has been covered before, sorry to bore you!!!  Sort of like a thorn in the side, it will not be gone until resolved!  I have lost great friends, sacrificed my life and given everything, to have people like you around to be entertained.  SISIP CLAWBACKS MUST BE RESOLVED!!!!! I swore an oath to protect the very country that has screwed me   Thanks Canada  for nothing.


----------



## the 48th regulator

Ineresting news on the SISIP Clawback class action suit,  all members released medically take note!

Link to Federal Court Order to VAC/SISIP to post and notify all Veterans who have experienced the SISIP Clawback of VAC disability pensions


http://cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/IndexingQueries/infp_RE_info_e.php?court_no=T-463-07

dileas

tess


----------



## Greymatters

In layman's terms, what's the purpose of the mailout - is it just to inform all affected about what is going on, or will they be seeking information?


----------



## the 48th regulator

Greymatters said:
			
		

> In layman's terms, what's the purpose of the mailout - is it just to inform all affected about what is going on, or will they be seeking information?



That anyone that was affected by the clawback, will be part of the Class action suit.  If the Class Action suit is successfull, then you will received compensation from SISP.

dileas

tess


----------



## canuck060272

My question is should we opt out of this class action or wait for decision and then put a claim in?  If we do not opt out, the lawyer's keep 30% of what they get back for us.


----------



## GAP

canuck060272 said:
			
		

> My question is should we opt out of this class action or wait for decision and then put a claim in?  If we do not opt out, the lawyer's keep 30% of what they get back for us.



would you have got the $$ without the lawyers?


----------



## canuck060272

that is the question ! Would i get money anyway without the lawyer?


----------



## GAP

canuck060272 said:
			
		

> that is the question ! Would i get money anyway without the lawyer?



If you have done work then have the customer renage on payment, how would feel? 

You have asked the lawyers to represent you, pay them.


----------



## the 48th regulator

As it stands now, SISIP look at various factors to determine what you will get.

The class action suit is fighting the fact that SISIP considers a VAC pension as income, and factors that in to the payment that you get.

I say continue with your process, and if the class action suit is positive, you will get something from that.

dileas

tess


----------



## Greymatters

There seems to be a lot of focus on the 'money' portion of the issue rather than the fact that a wrong is being righted that will benefit many future recipients...


----------



## GUNS

Your issue with  " claw-back "  is not inherent to the military alone. Civvy's are under the same practice of  " claw-back " . Insurance companies that pay out medical disability claims require all recipients to provide a list of all taxable income. Which is  "clawed-back"  from there monthly payments. 
The insurance companies will even go as far as demanding you to apply for Canada Pension (Medical), which is  "clawed-back" as well.

I agree both systems need looking into. They should ask why those elected to Parliament are exempt from any " claw-back"  while those who serve their country are not.


----------



## the 48th regulator

GUNS said:
			
		

> Your issue with  " claw-back "  is not inherent to the military alone. Civvy's are under the same practice of  " claw-back " . Insurance companies that pay out medical disability claims require all recipients to provide a list of all taxable income. Which is  "clawed-back"  from there monthly payments.
> The insurance companies will even go as far as demanding you to apply for Canada Pension (Medical), which is  "clawed-back" as well.
> 
> I agree both systems need looking into. They should ask why those elected to Parliament are exempt from any " claw-back"  while those who serve their country are not.



A VAC is not considered a taxable income by the government, only by SISIP.



			
				Greymatters said:
			
		

> There seems to be a lot of focus on the 'money' portion of the issue rather than the fact that a wrong is being righted that will benefit many future recipients...



As for the money issue, well, that is the issue.  The fact that a civilian body, who won the bid to manage our insurance can dictate what is income and what is not.  That goes against what the Government dictates legally what is.

dileas

tess


----------



## dapaterson

SISIP, in their submission and bids, indicated what would be considered income.  Premiums weer set based on those assumptions.  Change those assumptions and the premiums change.

It's the same as the whiners who complain about the CFSA reduction at age 65 - it's always been there in black and white in the plan.  Pension contributions were based on the assumption that it would happen.

If you can't be bothered to read the fine print, don't complain when it doesn't turn out the way you expect.


----------



## the 48th regulator

dapaterson said:
			
		

> SISIP, in their submission and bids, indicated what would be considered income.  Premiums weer set based on those assumptions.  Change those assumptions and the premiums change.
> 
> It's the same as the whiners who complain about the CFSA reduction at age 65 - it's always been there in black and white in the plan.  Pension contributions were based on the assumption that it would happen.
> 
> If you can't be bothered to read the fine print, don't complain when it doesn't turn out the way you expect.



So you say accept a wrong, and don't challenge it?

I am sure you read the fine print, and anticipated that one day you would be recieving a pension for a wound, when you signed the paperwork.

Sorry  Dap, but that is quite the obtuse statement.

dileas

tess


----------



## dapaterson

Where is the wrong?  SISIP stated from day one that VAC pensions are considered as income.  Don't like it?  Get DND to change the insurance policy.


Who is responsible to look after you?  You are.  Read the fine print.


----------



## CountDC

I'm with DAP on this one - the rates are based on the proposal from SISIP and accepted - nothing wrong as they are doing what was agreed. Same deal with our so called pension claw back - we get what we (at least TB on our behalf) agreed to and paid for.


----------



## dapaterson

Note that I'm not saying "Don't lobby for change", but rather that suing the insurer for doing what they said they'd do is not a recipie for success.

In addition, keep yourself informed about benefits BEFORE you require them.  Once the basement is underwater it's too late to read your home insurance policy and discover that you're not covered for water damage.


----------



## the 48th regulator

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Where is the wrong?  SISIP stated from day one that VAC pensions are considered as income.  Don't like it?  Get DND to change the insurance policy.
> 
> 
> Who is responsible to look after you?  You are.  Read the fine print.



So first you claim anyone that says anything is whining, and now you say if one does not like it, get DND to change it (Like what this class action suit is trying to do)....

I would like off of this merry-go-round so that I may retire to Bedlham....

And to reiterate, VAC pension is not an income.

dileas

tess


edit for spelling


----------



## dapaterson

Per Dictionary.com.



> Income - Synonyms  interest, salary, wages, annuity, gain, return, earnings.



Pensions are an annuity.  VAC pension therefore is an income (by definition).


----------



## Occam

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Per Dictionary.com.
> 
> Pensions are an annuity.  VAC pension therefore is an income (by definition).



Perhaps by the dictionary definition, but there are some strong arguments to the contrary - the strongest of which came from a former CF Ombudsman.

http://www.ombudsman.forces.gc.ca/mr-sm/ls-lc/2005/sisip-rarm-eng.asp



> I believe that a strong case can be made that VAC pension payments should not be considered as income replacement as such, but rather as compensation for the consequences flowing from disabilities suffered (e.g., loss of enjoyment of life, loss of career opportunities, continuing pain and suffering, etc.).
> 
> Incidentally, I presume that the changes made in 2000 to allow Regular Force members to collect their regular pay and their VAC pensions were based on a similar rationale, i.e., that the VAC disability payments are not income replacement but rather that they are intended, as I just indicated, to act as compensation for losses other than losses of income.
> 
> If this is correct, and if one assumes that the primary purpose of SISIP LTD is to act as income replacement, then it seems to me that it would be logical – indeed, imperative – that a change should be made to prevent VAC pension payments from being offset from SISIP LTD benefits. Otherwise, the system will only be seen as condoning treatment that is significantly unfair and inequitable to those who, like MCpl B, are most disabled and who suffer most.


----------



## ModlrMike

Is the litmus test not Revenue Canada? If the tax man doesn't consider it income, why should anyone else? If all income is taxed, and the pensions are not, it logically flows that they are not income.


----------



## dapaterson

Canada Revenue Agency distinguishes between taxable income and non-taxable income - sub-categories, not distinct categories.

In fact, were SISIP to be particularly perverse, they'd claim that since VAC pensions are non-taxable, they;re actually worth more than the face value - and increase the reduction.

(Or should I not put such things in writing, lest some "bright boy" at the insurance company latch onto this idea?)


----------



## Representative Plaintiff

Dataperson
FYI and to other nay sayers who think they know everything about everything!

It is your own ignorance and lack of understanding, along with the rest of Canada's population, that allow attrocities like this to carry on! I'm an advocate and educator of people....whether you like me or not, or my methods.

I am challenging the very legislation that allowed the SISIP policy for LTD to even be created....

From Federal Court Documents....

"[11]           First of all, I do not agree with the Crown that the liability issue which Mr. Manuge has raised in his pleadings is based upon a decision of a federal board or tribunal.  While it is undoubtedly correct that the inclusion of Article 24(a)(iv) of the SISIP Plan emanates from a decision made many years ago by the Chief of Defence Staff or by his delegate, *what Mr. Manuge seeks to challenge is the lawfulness of the government's policy (as reflected in Article 24 of the SISIP Plan) and by the corresponding action to reduce his monthly SISIP income by the amount received by him under the Pension Act.*  This situation is more in keeping with that addressed by the Federal Court of Appeal in Krause v.Canada, [1999] 2 F.C. 476, 236 N.R. 317 (C.A.) than in Grenier, above.  In Krause, the Applicants sought prerogative relief to compel the Crown to credit their pension accounts as required by the Public Service Superannuation Act"

....Federal Court Justice Robert Barnes, Presiding Judge, Manuge vs Her Majesty the Queen

You can read the entire certification decision at 
the Federal Court Website, under decisions and the date is May 20th , 2008 or at  http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/2008/2008fc624/2008fc624.html

Read up, make sure you understand the issue, before throwing in un-valid arguments.

Also ask yourself why the largest Law Firm in atlantic Canada, McInnes Cooper, have invested over $250 000.00 and why my co-counsel, Mr. Ward Branch wanted to be involved in this case. Mr. Branch is the leading class action lawyer/expert in Canada. If there was nothing here we would not be certified and protected by federal court and SISIP & VAC would not have the notices on the front of their web pages about the class action.

http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/general/

http://www.sisip.com/en/index.asp

Lastly, our numbers have grown to over 6200 Disabled Veterans and 100 estates!

Do let me know if you need any other correct and or accurate information! 

Good Day

Dennis Manuge
Representative Plaintiff, Manuge Vs Her Majesty The Queen
32 Isaac's place RR#2
Site 10A, Box 0
Head of Chezzetcook, NS B0J1N0

Home: (902) 827-4807
Cell   :          499-0656
dmanuge@eastlink.ca
dennis.manuge@mobility.blackberry.net


----------



## Representative Plaintiff

NOTICE OF CLASS ACTION REGARDING THE REDUCTION OF S.I.S.I.P. LONG TERM DISABILITY BENEFITS BY THE AMOUNT OF PENSION ACT PAYMENTS
Manuge v. Her Majesty the Queen
Court No. T-463-07
The Federal Court of Canada has certified the above case as a class action. If you are a former member of the Canadian Forces whose S.I.S.I.P. Long Term Disability plan benefits (“SISIP LTD”) have been reduced by the amount of your monthly VAC Disability Pension payable under the Pension Act, you may be a member of the class in this action. If the action succeeds or is settled, your entitlement to an award will depend upon your individual circumstances.
WHAT IS THE ACTION ABOUT?
Under the terms of the SISIP LTD plan, an amount equal to 75% of the disabled former member’s pay at release is payable, but is reduced by payments received from the VAC disability pension.
The class action challenges the authority of the Government of Canada to lawfully reduce SISIP LTD benefits by the amount of VAC disability benefits payable, and further challenges the reduction as being discriminatory, contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The claim also alleges breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, breach of public duty and bad faith on the part of the Government of Canada.
The class action seeks, among other things, a declaration by the court that the Government of Canada acted improperly in reducing the SISIP LTD benefits, and repayment of the amounts reduced, as well as punitive, exemplary, and aggravated damages.
All class members will be bound by the judgment, whether favourable or unfavourable, in the class action.
WHO ARE THE CLASS MEMBERS?
The class has been defined by the Federal Court, by Order dated May 20, 2008, as follows:
“All former members of the Canadian Forces whose long term disability benefits under S.I.S.I.P. Policy No. 901102 were reduced by the amount of their VAC disability benefits received pursuant to the Pension Act from April 17, 1985 to date.”
The person who brought the lawsuit and who is a class member and the representative plaintiff in the class action is Dennis Manuge, c/o Peter Driscoll, McInnes Cooper, 1300 – 1969 Upper Water Street, Purdy’s Wharf Tower II, PO Box 730, Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3J 2V1.
WHAT DO I NEED TO DO TO TAKE PART IN THE CLASS ACTION:
All class members have a right to participate in the class action. You do not need to do anything to participate. You are automatically included in the class action. If you do not want to participate you must opt-out, by completing an opt-out notice available from McInnes Cooper. If you elect not to participate, your opt-out notice must be received by the offices of McInnes Cooper by no later than December 8, 2008. McInnes Cooper can help you confirm whether you are a class member. McInnes Cooper can be reached at the following address:
McInnes Cooper, 1300 – 1969 Upper Water Street, Purdy’s Wharf Tower II, PO Box 730, Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3J 2V1
Tel: (902) 425-6500
Fax: (902) 425-6350
E-mail: SISIPclassaction@mcinnescooper.com
When contacting McInnes Cooper, please provide:
• Your name;
• Your address;
• Your dates of service in the Canadian Forces;
• Your date of medical release from the Canadian Forces;
• The date upon which you commenced receiving a VAC
disability benefit under the Pension Act;
• The date you commenced receiving SISIP Long Term
Disability benefits;
• The amount by which your SISIP LTD benefits were
reduced by your VAC Disability benefits.
DO I NEED TO PAY ANYTHING?
You do not have to pay any direct legal fees out of your own pocket. If the case is not successful, no legal fees will be charged.
By agreement with the representative plaintiffs, counsel fees may be calculated at 30% of any amounts recovered. If a settlement, judgment, voluntary payment or execution or other benefit is obtained, the lawyers will apply to court for approval of a fee that is consistent with the terms of this agreement, or some lesser amount. The court will decide what amount is fair.
This arrangement compensates the lawyers for the risk they have assumed in advancing the case and performing the legal work. The lawyers do not receive any money unless the case is successful. Even if the class action does not succeed, class members are not responsible for the fees of any of the lawyers involved in the case.
WHO ARE THE LAWYERS FOR THE CLASS?
Peter Driscoll, McInnes Cooper, 1300 – 1969 Upper Water Street, Purdy’s Wharf Tower II, PO Box 730, Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3J 2V1
Ward Branch, Branch MacMaster, 1210 – 777 Hornby Street, Vancouver, BC, V6Z 1S4
WHOM DO I CONTACT FOR MORE INFORMATION?
For more information or to opt out of the class action, please contact McInnes Cooper at the address set out above. You can also monitor the McInnes Cooper website at www.mcinnescooper.com .


----------



## Greymatters

Representative Plaintiff said:
			
		

> Dataperson
> FYI and to other nay sayers who think they know everything about everything!



Dennis, I dont think they are challenging your assertions or your case, merely debating the issue while waiting for a legal decision...


----------



## Michael OLeary

Representative Plaintiff said:
			
		

> It is your own ignorance and lack of understanding, along with the rest of Canada's population, that allow attrocities like this to carry on! I'm an advocate and educator of people....whether you like me or not, or my methods.



Well, while your motives may be sound, I do find your tone on entering this thread somewhat objectionable for someone who claims to be here as an educator.  How about reining in the attitude and you may find your experience here to be less harsh than you seem to be expecting or attempting to invite.

Army.ca Staff


----------



## dapaterson

Representative Plaintiff said:
			
		

> Also ask yourself why the largest Law Firm in atlantic Canada, McInnes Cooper, have invested over $250 000.00 and why my co-counsel, Mr. Ward Branch wanted to be involved in this case. Mr. Branch is the leading class action lawyer/expert in Canada. If there was nothing here we would not be certified and protected by federal court and SISIP & VAC would not have the notices on the front of their web pages about the class action.



They're repesenting you becasue they see a potential lucrative settlement with the Crown from which they will profit greatly.  They'll be taking 30% of anything that's awarded.  If we assume 4000 plaintiffs, each of whom may receive $10K in lost benefits and $5K in damages, that represents $60M for the plaintiffs.  Your legal firm would take $18M of that (plus expenses).


Note that the Federal Court ruling you cite is a class certification only.  Nothing more.  Not a ruling on merits of the case (one way or the other), emrely a recognition that the underlying facts do give rise to grounds for a class to be certified for a case before the Federal Court.


----------



## Greymatters

dapaterson said:
			
		

> They're repesenting you becasue they see a potential lucrative settlement with the Crown from which they will profit greatly.  They'll be taking 30% of anything that's awarded.  If we assume 4000 plaintiffs, each of whom may receive $10K in lost benefits and $5K in damages, that represents $60M for the plaintiffs.  Your legal firm would take $18M of that (plus expenses).



You could get damages too? I thought it would be interest on lost funds only...


----------



## the 48th regulator

Greymatters said:
			
		

> You could get damages too? I thought it would be interest on lost funds only...



Anyone released collecting a pension from VAC, be it a medical release or not.

dileas

tess


----------



## Representative Plaintiff

Hi Guys and gals

My tone and my will has gotten us a certified class action in federal court, maybe if more folks had the stones, court would not have been necessary. I of all people are aware of the decision being on certification, but have any of you read anything in the legal form for this case. 

The judge approves any legal fees, despite the retaining agreement

We are seeking our legal fees to be paid, in full, by the crown,

Yes we are seeking damages...why? Because the DND ombudsman informed them (the governments of the day) that this issue was "fundementally wrong" and needed to be fixed, Peter Stoffer's Private Members bill passed in the house of Commons, Nov -06, The Senate Sub Committee, at which I was a witness said, "Fix It", and about a thousand letters from us asked them politely.....So they were aware of the problem and chose to neglect it! Hence damages.

I remind you all again, my cut is $10 000. That's it.

yes the lawyers and law firm will get money, but they have had to invest in myself and this case at 100% risk to them, so again I am saying that I am the one closest to this situation and I know the facts and I find it hard to read what others print, when they have not even read the case, the certification decision, etc...yet come on here and pass judgement on me, my lawyers, this case. 

I am not looking for friends, I am trying, literally to save peoples lives! My record stands for itself, attitude and all!

Yes I am an educator and an advocate for disabled Veterans! Yes my attitude serves me well there, thanks for checking in though!

Dennis


----------



## George Wallace

Ya know something Dennis, if you don't sort out your ego and arrogance in your next post, you may be CHECKING OUT.

Clean up your TONE.

George
Milnet Staff


----------



## the 48th regulator

Dennis,

PM inbound brother.

dileas

tess


----------



## Representative Plaintiff

Will do Tess!

I hear you and I know you know from where I am coming


----------



## Representative Plaintiff

My ego is large, you don't get where I have gotten, with-out one. But it is not too large to appologise to the milnet staff. Sincerely I do!

I find it very difficult to read things posted by those who are not involved directly and therefore have access to the "real story" and factual information. 
That is why I saw it necessary to jump on this form again. 

Greymatters & Tess; the class definition is 
"All former members of the Canadian Forces whose long term disability benefits under the SISIP policy number 901102 were reduced by the amount of their VAC disability benefits received pursuant to the Pension Act from April 17, 1985 to date." 

So you must meet this in order to be included. You must have been medically released and received LTD from SISIP...reply to your guys exchange around seeking damages and VAC pension medically released or not. I think this is what you were asking? Not 100% sure. Please clarify if I'm misreading the exchange.

I have included my personal contact information (in a prior post today) for those who would like to ask me questions, directly, to gain insight in to this issue. Please feel free to contact me by e-mail or phone anytime before 9pm Atlantic time....my wife works long days and she needs her rest, so I don't take calls after that time.

George, I hope this post is ok?


----------



## dapaterson

Dennis:

We probably disagree on a lot, but I do respect you for putting yourself out and making yourself available.


----------



## Representative Plaintiff

dataperson
I can say sorry to you directly for the strong attitude and tone. Yes we might disagree on alot, though I'm not sure why. I just got an e-mail from a female disabled veteran of 28 years service who is currently being clawed back $2900/month. Because SISIP's application says "up front" that we are going to deduct VAC pensions and CPP, simply does not make it right. Hence my challenge in court. we have 27 points of argument and 15 questions are certified as common questions of law or fact. 

To clarify for all, Yes I am saying that this is plain wrong, however, that is not the end all be all. We have solid legal grounds to argue. We have beyond excellent representation, who will be paid for, in all likelihood, by the government, not us. Even if it is us, the class, that has to pay....70% of something is better than 0% of nothing! The retaining agreement that I signed, with-out the luxury of consult with the other 6200 members of the class, was signed with that in mind. It is a standard fee for a case of this magnitude, even as the judge has said,

[34]          " One other concern raised by the Crown involves the magnitude of the contingency fee that would be payable under the terms of the Retainer Agreement entered into between Mr. Manuge and his legal counsel.  That Agreement provides for a fee of 30% of any favourable financial judgment plus disbursements.  The Agreement also duly notes that the fee payable “shall be subject to approval by the Court”.  There is certainly nothing inappropriate about a contingency fee arrangement in a case like this one where the outcome is unpredictable and where the amounts individually in issue appear insufficient to support litigation.  The amount of fee payable at the end of a class proceeding is, of course, subject to assessment by the trial court and must bear some reasonable relationship to the effort actually expended and to the degree of risk assumed by counsel.  I have no reservations about the ability of the Court to deal with this issue, if necessary, in the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction."

I'm doing pretty good with this toned down approach, you guys!

I just hope that you all can appreciate where the attitude and tone come from...this is not an easy path, some days it is downright lonely, the personal cost has been high, but I'm still in the fight. I am not a saint, nor do I think I am anyone other than someone who knows the difference between right and wrong. The SISIP Clawback is wrong, it is illegal, and we are going to fix it! 

On another note, one must also remember that if you do not disclose on the SISIP LTD application your VAC Pension, CPP etc...if you do not play the game, knowing full well you will lose these monies, you get nothing! If that is not coersion (can't spell) or holding a gun to an already compromised individual, I don't know what is. Justice Barnes actually laughed out loud at the certification hearing when the crown's attorneys held my SISIP application up, stating Mr. Manuge knew full well what he was in for, because he read and signed the document. I would have signed my right arm away, or worse, because if I hadn't I would have had nothing, no money. Again, just because the application says so, does not make it legal, or simply, right!

dataperson, have a good night and take care
Dennis "The Menace"


----------



## 3rd Horseman

After reading through the details and heated debate it is important to remember a few things about the issue that always get forgotten or the value they carry in the argument gets diminished with time or lack of undersanding. Points to remember when forming the argument for or against:

1. VAC Pensions are a "Gift of Canada for pain and suffering"....they are not a pension nor are they income that is why they are non taxed. 
2. Civies do no get pain and suffering grants clawed back by there insurance company and specifically our insurance company that funds SISIP does not claw back from its civies.
3. Remember this really is  about the wounded not the medically released for normal ills which it has now become.
4. No one told me when I signed up for the disability insurance that I would pay for my entire career but when I became disabled they would never pay me thus they kept all the money I gave them knowing they would never payout if I was injured in combat. Not that this is wrong if they say they dont cover it but when they say they will cover and dont its fraud.
  So in all the arguments for and against remember these little bits.

3rd Horseman


----------



## Representative Plaintiff

Good points Horseman, but I challenge you on the "injured in combat vs, medically released"

If that's your opinion, great, however, I broke my back in Petawawa, at 3 RCR, they took almost 2.5 yrs to tell me what I had done to myself, and I did my tour in Bosnia, broken back and all.....I was not injured in combat, and this is all about being medically released, drawing SISIP and having one's VAC monies, clawed back.

My opinion.
I appreciate your thoughts and you expressing them.
Dennis


----------



## Representative Plaintiff

The reporting on the Federal Court docket represents the usual litigation grind including the DOJ’s objections to including estate claims and our response, and forcing the Defendant to get their documents in order and disclose them to us. This will go on for the next 12-24 months (optimistically) before we have a trial. The Appeal hearing is set for December 16th in Toronto.


----------



## 417 Sqn Alumni

Let me just say this, it's difficult for me to realize that Mr. Harper, Mr. McKay, Mr. Toews and Mr. Thompson all sat on the House National Defence Committee in 2003 and yet 5 years later these 4 men are still viewed as digging their heels in the sand and they have not acted on any motions they put forward to the government of the day as well as now that they make up today's government they still find it necessary to dig their collective hen the sand... and Veterans are still left holding an empty bag with no tangible results, where the majority of Veterans "Suffer in Silence". It has become clear that Veterans are important to these men only on Remembrance Day. Why is it that Veterans have to fight a battle bigger than any battle they have fought once the uniform comes off?

I would like to thank Mr. Dennis Manuge for all his efforts in righting a huge wrong! This man is doing what I am sure many of us wished could be done. He is really sticking his neck out on the line for all us Military & RCMP Veterans. As brother & sisters of a part of society that is unique above all others in our society, we owe Mr. Manuge a huge debt of gratitude for spearheading this effort so that some day none of us need "Suffer in Silence". This effort should serve as a a call to all those of us who were willing to lay our lives on the line in order that our country enjoy the rights and freedoms, that too many in our society take for granted, that we all enjoy today... incomparison to most oher countries. We owe it to all those of our comrades who have payed the ultimate sacrifice for this country. Onward and forward. Mr Manuge, you know you have my full and undivided support to you and this cause. We all owe this to the future of our military personnrel who taking the next wave of people of our society to take where we left us of in as ambassdor, in cludung my Son who has aspiration in fighting for our country

Steve M.


----------



## schart28

Its not true that civies do not get clawed back from their private insurance company.... All insurance compnay will clawed back VAC pension, CPP, RRQ and all other source of "ncome"

quote author=3rd Horseman link=topic=2483/post-770413#msg770413 date=1224558032]
After reading through the details and heated debate it is important to remember a few things about the issue that always get forgotten or the value they carry in the argument gets diminished with time or lack of undersanding. Points to remember when forming the argument for or against:

1. VAC Pensions are a "Gift of Canada for pain and suffering"....they are not a pension nor are they income that is why they are non taxed. 
2. *Civies do no get pain and suffering grants clawed back by there insurance company and specifically our insurance company that funds SISIP does not claw back from its civies.*
3. Remember this really is  about the wounded not the medically released for normal ills which it has now become.
4. No one told me when I signed up for the disability insurance that I would pay for my entire career but when I became disabled they would never pay me thus they kept all the money I gave them knowing they would never payout if I was injured in combat. Not that this is wrong if they say they dont cover it but when they say they will cover and dont its fraud.
  So in all the arguments for and against remember these little bits.

3rd Horseman  
[/quote]


----------



## Edouin

I just found out about this Lawsuit from my VAC case worker, however I appear to not be entitled to any benefits from this Lawsuit as I was denied a medical pension 3 times, even though my lawyer argued the initial injury/medical complaint occurred during duty at the Winnipeg Floods.  However, I do qualify for SISIP LTD.  Go figger, eh?  All my doctors laugh at the stupid forms I have to fill in each year for SISIP's continuing coverage.

In any case and on the advise of my doctor, I am now on CPP Disability, and guess what?  My military pension and SISIP are both clawing back.  What hurts even more is that because I waited for the outcome of the VAC Disability, I didn't apply for CPP Disability until 2007, and when I did get it, they backdated it to 2005, so gave me a lump sum of money.  As it was 4 years after I had retired and without thinking, we used that money to pay all of our debts off and thought we might finally get ahead.  Wrong move.  Well, I do get that $6k disability amount on my taxes each year...

Again, the Military Pension Plan and SISIP stated that I was grossly overpaid, and started clawing back even more money for me to repay that lump sum from CPP, so now I am receiving even less than I was before I went onto CPP.  My fault for using that lump sum to eliminate my debts, but in any case, it was totally useless to go onto CPP Disability, as in the end, no matter what we do, we will always only receive that 75% wage.  I wouldn't be surprised if they are looking into some way to use that "disability amount" on my taxes against me to claw back yet more!

Again, as both you and many others argue, I too paid into CPP and SISIP for over 23 years, so what is the difference?

I wish you luck on your class-action lawsuit.  I am stuck in a perpetual Limbo apparently.



I can't work.  I take Methadone for pain control under a University program and am under continual treatment for depression and anger issues. It would be nice to have "full" payments, but that is just a "pipe dream" for me. 3 of the last 6 years since retirement don't exist in my memory as I was so drugged up that I have no accurate memory of of my life during that time. And now, I sit and wait for the day I die.  Hell, I'm only 47!​


----------



## schart28

I assume that you have been rejected at the appeal level. If so there is still one more move which VAC does not advertise too much...

Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act
            COMPASSIONATE AWARDS
Application for compassionate award
 34. (1) A person who has been refused an award under the Pension Act, or a disability award, a death benefit, a clothing allowance or a detention benefit under Part 3 of the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act, and who has exhausted all procedures for review and appeal under this Act may apply to the Board for a compassionate award.

Panel
 (2) An application for a compassionate award shall be heard, determined and dealt with by a panel consisting of not fewer than three members designated by the Chairperson.

Granting of compassionate award
 (3) A panel may grant a compassionate award if it considers the case to be specially meritorious and the applicant is unqualified to receive an award under the Pension Act, or a disability award, a death benefit, a clothing allowance or a detention benefit under Part 3 of the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act.

Amount
 (4) The amount of a compassionate award shall be any sum that the panel may fix, but may not exceed the amount to which the applicant would have been entitled if the applicant’s claim under the Pension Act or the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act had been upheld.

Review by Minister
 (5) The Minister may from time to time vary the amount of a compassionate award that is subject to being varied in accordance with the applicant’s dependent condition.

Adjustment
 (6) The amount of a compassionate award shall be adjusted at the same times and by the same percentage as the basic pension is adjusted under subsection 75(1) of the Pension Act.

Death of recipient
 (6.1) On the death of a person to whom a compassionate award has been granted, the Pension Act applies in respect of a survivor or surviving child of that person in the same manner as it would apply if the compassionate award had been an award within the meaning of that Act.

Meaning of “survivor” and “child”
 (6.2) In subsection (6.1), “survivor” and “child” have the same meaning as in the Pension Act.

Reconsideration of decisions
 (7) The Board may, on its own motion, reconsider a decision made by it under this section and may either confirm the decision or amend or rescind the decision if it determines that an error was made with respect to any finding of fact or the interpretation of any law, or may do so on application if new evidence is presented to the Board.

Definition of “compassionate award”
 (8) In this section, “compassionate award” means a compassionate pension, allowance or supplementary award.

1995, c. 18, s. 34; 2000, c. 34, s. 67; 2005, c. 21, s. 113.


----------



## Edouin

That's great!  I'll mention that to my VAC case worker and ask what she thinks.

However, at this time, it is all moot as I'm sure my CF Pension and SISIP would be reduced yet/even more IF I ever did get this compassionate award.  I doubt that they would "back-date" it as well, so it won't do me any good in any case unless the law-suit wins and changes are made.

However, much appreciated for the heads-up!

VVV


----------



## GAP

Canadian Forces vets return medals in protest
By PETER ZIMONJIC, National Bureau , Sun Media 2nd June 2009
Article Link

OTTAWA — In an act of protest, two Canadian Forces veterans are returning their service medals to raise awareness about what they say are unfair deductions to veterans’ long-term disability pensions. 

Dennis Manuge of Dartmouth, N.S., and Robin Brentnall of Gambo, N.L., sent their medals to Gov. Gen. Michaelle Jean this week. They hope that as commander-in-chief of the Canadian Forces, Jean will take up their cause. 

“I want the government to end the clawback [of pensions] and reimburse everyone who has had that clawback apply to them,” said Manuge. “There’s absolutely no reason for the government not to act right now.” 

Manuge, a former military mechanic, was medically released from the Canadian Forces in 2003 after nearly ten years of service. He injured his back after falling off an armoured vehicle. 

Under the military insurance plan, injured veterans are entitled to a long-term disability pension that is a percentage of their former salary. On top of that, veterans also receive a veteran’s pension. 

The problem, says Manuge, is the plan treats the veteran’s pension as income and deducts the monthly payment from the long-term disability pension. 

Manuge says the clawback is reducing the income of disabled veterans by as much as $2,000 per month. 

He has filed a lawsuit against the federal government seeking the $10,000 he says was unfairly taken from him for the two years he was on long-term disability. 

A spokeswoman for Jean said when the medals are received they will be kept in a vault. Should either Manuge or Brentnall want the medals back in the future, they will be returned. 
end


----------



## Michael OLeary

I'd like to see some more facts.

Persons with Disabilities Online



> Veterans Disability Pension Program
> 
> *A disability pension from Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) is a tax-free payment to veterans with permanent disabilities resulting from injuries or diseases.* They must be wartime veterans, current or former members of the Canadian Forces (Regular or Reserves), former members of the Merchant Navy or civilians who served in close support of the Canadian Forces during wartime. You also may qualify for a pension if you are the surviving spouse, common-law partner or dependent child of a deceased VAC disability pensioner.



This says that a VAC pension is tax-free, so perhaps they are not receiving a VAC pension.

*SISIP Long Term Disability (LTD)*
Insurance Plan for the Regular Force, the Reserve Force on Class C Service, and Primary Reserve Force on Class A & B Service

Frequently Asked Questions:



> *Are the LTD benefits taxable?*
> 
> Yes. However, during the first year you become a claimant all the LTD premiums paid during your military career can be deducted for tax purposes.



This could be what they are talking about.


----------



## GAP

I thought the issue was the clawback...


----------



## the 48th regulator

GAP said:
			
		

> I thought the issue was the clawback...



Gap,

You are Correct.  Dennis Manuge is the Gent that initiated the Class action suit We have a thread here

Michael, 

You are correct, which is why he is fighting this.  Only thing is SISIP has been given the go ahead by the Treasury board and DND to claim that VAC pensions are income.  Hence the Class action suit.  A criminal action, that has been allowed by our own government bodies.

dileas

tess


----------



## Rifleman62

> Only thing is SISIP has been given the go ahead by the Treasury board and DND to claim that VAC pensions are income



Could be the first step to regulating all VAC disability settlements as taxable.


----------



## the 48th regulator

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Could be the first step to regulating all VAC disability settlements as taxable.



I know this dates back to 1994, so it is not something new.

I sure hope it does not become taxable, otherwise that will be the final nail in the coffin with my faith in the Government's care of us Veterans.

dileas

tess


----------



## Edouin

I believe the whole point of the lawsuit, is that veterans are the ONLY group of people who receive pensions and medical pensions that have this clawback by the government.

No other agency or corporation in Canada has such a barbaric rule, and trust me, if there was a union interested in taking up our case, or if the Treasury board tried this tactic with any unionized group, the country would come to a screeching halt as all unions would "stand in solidarity" until this clawback crap stopped.

I am also a veteran who falls under this category of a lesser pension due to this clawback clause.  I cannot work - I am on such a drug regimen that I wouldn't even hire me never mind my disability!  I was told by the hospital staff and doctors to apply for CPP Disability for income tax reasons, so I did.  I was quickly granted that pension, and they even gave me a 3-year back-payment when they sent the approval letter. We used that money (a substantial amount) to pay off ALL our debts, then Revenue Canada came and clawed all that money back as it falls under this same clause.  Except, we no longer had the money to pay back. We applied it all to our debts!

So now, they have cut both my pension Cheque payment and my SISIP top-up payments until that money is recovered by CF Pension board and SISIP.  I've lost almost $1,000 a month because of this.  CPP Disabilities has nothing to do with this, they just keep on giving my my monthly cheque, but the net effect is that instead of me receiving two cheques each month for a set amount, I now receive 3 cheques for LESS than I used to get. Most months, we have to dig into our Line-of-Credit accoount to make ends meet. We are hoping that by the time we maxed out, we will have paid back this clawback money. With this depression, our line-of-credit limits have been lowered too!

So now my wife - a cancer survivor who still is battling the after-effects - is pretty much forced to continue working to make ends meet.  If there was no claw-back, she would not have to continue working thru her pain and neuropathy for a measly $14/hr.  No pension plan at her workplace... As it is, she can only work 3 or 4 days a week as the pain gets too much to handle for her.

When she was fighting her cancer, EI only gave her 12 weeks of payments, even though she could not work for the better part of a year! If she would have been pregnant, she could have drawn EI for well over a year, but because she only got "cancer", EI only gave her 12 weeks coverage. This is where our Line of Credit took the largest hit as some of the drugs for her treatments were NOT covered by any insurance plan - SISIP, Alberta Health, Blue Cross, VAC, NOTHING!  And these drugs are hideously expensive for just ONE dose!  She had to take 6!

This Treasury Board BS has got to end somewhere...and I hope to hell these lads win their case - for all of us!

Where do I mail in my medal?


----------



## the 48th regulator

211->215 said:
			
		

> Where do I mail in my medal?



http://www.gg.ca/contactus/index_e.asp

dileas

tess


----------



## schart28

All insurance company have this clawback rule...Even worst, with Manulife, if you get a lump sum, they will deduct it. Ex Lump sum 10,000 and you get 1000 from Manulife, then they will not pay you for 10 months.



			
				211->215 said:
			
		

> No other agency or corporation in Canada has such a barbaric rule, and trust me, if there was a union interested in taking up our case, or if the Treasury board tried this tactic with any unionized group, the country would come to a screeching halt as all unions would "stand in solidarity" until this clawback crap stopped.


----------



## Representative Plaintiff

Hi guys and gals
Been a while.

Hope the entire letter to GG helps clarify things for those who do not understand. I hope this finds everyone doing well. Government does not tax VAC disability monies, but SISIP Maulife and the Earnings Loss Benefit under the New Charter do consider it as income. That is the isssue. 
Recent decision from *Ontario Social Benefits Tribunal *  and an upheld appeal against city of Toronto clearly sides with us saying *VAC disability monies can not and will not be considered as income.*Send me an e-mail at dmanuge@eastlink.ca and I will forward those decisions to anyone interested.
Stay well
Dennis

letter to GG below;

June 1, 2009



Her Excellency the Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean, C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D. Governor General of Canada

Rideau Hall

1 Sussex Drive
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A1



Dear Your Excellency the Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean, C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D. Governor General of Canada



SUBJECT: RENOUNCEATION OF MILITARY MEDALS DUE TO THE CONTINUED LACK OF ACTION BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TOWARDS DISABLED VETERANS OF THE CANADIAN FORCES & RCMP



My name is Dennis Manuge. I am a disabled veteran of the Canadian Forces and also the representative plaintiff for, DENNIS MANUGE v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN and the lone plaintiff for, DENNIS MANUGE v. AGC. These legal actions are a last resort to recover almost $500 million that has been illegally stolen (clawed back) by the federal government and the Department of National Defence from an estimated 6500 disabled veterans like myself. The case is known in media and political circles as the SISIP Clawback.

The Class Action:

The Class Action was initiated in March of 2007 on behalf Dennis Manuge and all other disabled veterans who’s SISIP Long Term Disability Benefits are reduced by the amount of the monthly VAC Disability Pension they receive under the Pension Act.

On May 20, 2008, the Federal Court of Canada certified the claim as a Class Action and defined the Class as follows:

All former members of the Canadian Forces whose long term disability benefits under the SISIP policy number 901102 were reduced by the amount of their VAC disability benefits received pursuant to the Pension Act from April 17, 1985 to date.

The effect of the certification of this claim cannot be understated. Upon certification, the claim changed from one individual pursuing litigation against the Government of Canada alone to in excess of 6500 disabled veterans pursuing the Government of Canada for their collective losses.

You should know that the government has already spoken and voted to end this practice in parliament on November 7, 2006. The vote in the house to support Mr. Peter Stoffer’s private bill was 154 yeas to 111 nays. No action by the government.

I, along with another disabled Veteran, my lawyer, and the Royal Canadian Legion Command, addressed the Senate Sub-Committee on Veterans Affairs on May 7, 2008. Subsequently, that committee released a report on June 18th, 2009, titled, Report on Reductions of Services Income Security Insurance Plan Long Term Disability Benefits. Below is an excerpt from their report; 

FINDINGS

This is an exceedingly complex issue, but the Subcommittee worked hard to maintain a focus on the central question as to whether the current method of reducing veterans’ SISIP LTD benefits was fair.  We have concluded it is not.

The DND and CF Ombudsman’s Special Report of October 2003, presents an in-depth study of this issue and we are pleased to note that it comes to the same conclusion as we have.  It too judges the SISIP LTD reductions to be unfair.([7])  In fact, all witnesses who appeared before us, with the exception of witnesses from the Department of National Defence (DND), felt the reductions were indeed unfair.

The Ombudsman’s report delivered five recommendations, three of which have been implemented.  Regrettably, DND has chosen not to move ahead with the two principal recommendations that call for an immediate end to SISIP LTD reductions and the reimbursement of Veterans who were subject to such reductions since 2000.

During our study of this issue DND was asked to provide two items of background information.  First, they were asked for the average SISIP LTD payment for the past fiscal year.  Second, they were asked to calculate the cost of reimbursing all Veterans whose SISIP LTD benefits had been reduced, since 1976.  Both requests were made when DND witnesses appeared before us on 30 April 2008.  At the time of publication of this report, DND had not yet replied.

 FUTURE ACTION 

The Subcommittee is concerned about all the Veterans who, since 1976, have had their SISIP LTD benefits reduced. We will revisit the complex issue of reimbursement later this year, when DND has provided the information requested.

RECOMMENDATION 

That the government immediately cease the practice of reducing SISIP LTD benefits awarded to veterans, by the amount received in a Pension Act disability pension.



As mentioned earlier in this letter, your Excellency, our legal action is a last resort. Since the DND Ombudsman’s original report (October 2003) calling for an end to this unfair clawback, we have had nothing but support and understanding towards our cause from everyone except the government of this country. Pat Stogran, the VAC Ombudsman, has overtly supported this cause on his official website as well.



“The SISIP Long Term Disability Plan is administered by the Canadian Forces, and so technically these claw backs fall outside my mandate. However, since there is no doubt in my mind that the National Defence and Canadian Forces Ombudsman has researched this issue with all the thoroughness and rigour that we in the Office would, I have no hesitation at all to echo the Ombudsman’s condemnation of this unfair treatment. Additionally, since Veterans Affairs Canada uses the same calculation formula to determine Earning Loss benefits—a program that guarantees 75 percent of pre-release salary while a Veteran takes part in the Rehabilitation Program—I have exercised my formal obligation to our stakeholders by asking the Department to review the way it calculates the Earning Loss benefits. We intend to track this matter very, very closely.”

         (Pat Stogran-VAC Ombudsman)



Here is a list of who has supported an end to this unjust and illegal practice;



Andre Marin, Yves Cote, former DND Ombudsman

Pat Stogran, VAC Ombudsman

Parliament of Canada, vote November 2006

The Royal Canadian Legion Command

The Senate of Canada

McInnes Cooper (Peter Driscoll) my legal representative



Now we are being stalled at every turn in court, and will appear before the supreme court of Canada to argue the de-certification of our action in the federal court of appeals. To what end? We will win eventually. The government needs to do the right thing now. The issue some say is complex is not really a complex issue at all. It is about fundamental fairness and doing the right thing on behalf of those of us souls who were willing to “sign a blank cheque made out to the people of Canada for an amount up to and including our lives.”



As the Queen’s Representative for Canada and your “commander in chief” role for our forces I am choosing to write to you in hopes that you will become an outspoken advocate for our cause and the other very serious issues before the courts related to Veterans.



Since the implementation of the New Veterans Charter things have not changed. The government would have us believe that the above practice no longer takes place; however, the same clawback applies when veterans apply for the Earnings Loss Benefit. (See http://www.ombudsman-veterans.gc.ca/reports-rapports/discussions/090204-discussion-eng.cfm)



In protest towards the government of Canada’s lack of action, please accept my military medals, acquired during my nine and a half years service, as I no longer respect the government of Canada, the bureaucrats who really run things, nor the institution (DND) that presented me with them. I am ashamed of my oath of allegiance to Queen and Country, when so many of us have not had that same allegiance in return. The lies, denials, and lack of action by the government of Canada need to come to light. My medals will accompany this letter.



If you and your office require further information on this issue please contact any or all of the following:



Peter Stoffer, MP Sackville Eastern Shore of NS

Peter Driscoll, Attorney McInnes Cooper, Halifax NS

Pat Stogran, VAC Ombudsman



Sincerely and respectfully





Dennis Manuge

32 Isaac’s Place

RR#2 Site 10A Box 0

Head of Chezzetcook, NS

B0J 1N0



(902) 827-4807

Cell- 499-0656
dmanuge@eastlink.ca
dennis.manuge@mobility.blackberry.net 





References



click on Court Number for additional information and 'RE' for Recorded Entry information 

Court Number 
 Style of Cause 
 Nature of Proceeding 
 'RE' 

T-296-09 
 DENNIS MANUGE v. AGC 
 S. 18.1 Application for Judicial Review 
 RE 


  

  

click on Court Number for additional information and 'RE' for Recorded Entry information 

Court Number 
 Style of Cause 
 Nature of Proceeding 
 'RE' 

T-463-07 
 DENNIS MANUGE v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN 
 Others - Crown (v. Queen) [Actions]


----------



## GAP

Top court to hear soldier's bid to recover insurance
Updated Thu. Jun. 18 2009 10:34 AM ET The Canadian Press
Article Link

OTTAWA -- A former soldier who returned his military medals in protest to the Governor General will get a chance to argue for his class-action lawsuit in the country's highest court. 

The Supreme Court of Canada says it will hear Dennis Manuge's case. 

Manuge of Porters Lake, N.S., and a handful of other veterans recently sent their Canadian Forces Peacekeeping Service Medals and NATO Service Medals to Gov. Gen. Michaelle Jean, the commander-in-chief, to protest the treatment of wounded soldiers. 

A military mechanic injured at the Canadian Forces base in Petawawa, Ont., Manuge had $10,000 of his disability pension clawed back by the federal government after he left the military. 

The military ombudsman investigated his case and declared the clawback "profoundly unfair." 

Manuge launched a class-action lawsuit, representing approximately 6,500 injured veterans, but the federal government won an appeal of the decision to certify the lawsuit. 

The high court will determine whether the case can proceed.
end


----------



## wildman0101

Veterans Rally Against SISIP Clawback

hi all,,
              recieved this from a friend on facebook and thought 
you all might be interested,,, best regards 

                         scoty b

Dennis Manuge    December 8 at 12:09pm  Reply
Urgent: Please distribute far and wide!!!

Veterans, Spouses, Family and Friends
http://www.facebook.com/l/90163;www.veteranvoice.info/bulletinboard.html

Veterans Rally Against SISIP Clawback - Jan 2010
By Admin on Wed 02 Dec 2009, 10:15

An idea has been proposed to hold a veterans rally on 21 Jan 2010, timings TBC, outside the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) bldg, Ottawa, Ont. The SCC will be hearing the SISIP Clawback Appeal. For more info check under VVi Latest News @ http://www.facebook.com/l/90163;www.veteranvoice.info/bulletinboard.html

This is a peaceful veterans rally.

Discussion has just begun on how to carry this out. If you have any ideas and/or you are interested in participating, please contact Dennis or Perry through veteran_rally@veteranvoice.info . All emails will be fwd to the Rally Organizers.

Those that are interested in participating and/or assisting in the planning and coordination of this relatively last-minute event, send an email to veteran_rally@veteranvoice.info and include the following:

First name or nickname
Your Location
Number from group to attend
Email Address
Phone number
See Notice Board below 'Veterans Rally Against SISIP Clawback' for further info and discussion.

VVi Publisher
CSAT Administrator
webmaster@veteranvoice.info

The above information has been sent to you by:

Dennis Manuge, Representative Plaintiff (Manuge Vs Her Majesty The Queen)
792 West Petpeswick Road
Musquodoboit Harbour, NS B0J 2L0

(902) 889-3230
dmanuge@eastlink.ca
--------------------


----------



## Representative Plaintiff

January 8, 2010



To: Mr. Peter Stoffer, NDP MP- Sackville Eastern Shore

2900 Hwy#2 
Fall River, N.S.  
B2T 1W4
Telephone:  902-861-2311 

or 1-888-701-5557
Fax: 902-861-4620



Dear Mr. Stoffer



SUBJECT: NEW VETERANS CHARTER AND DENIALS OF APPLICATIONS FOR BENEFITS AND SERVICES



Sir, thank you once again for your tireless efforts on behalf of Canada's veterans and former members of the RCMP. I would like to thank you as well for your continuous and regular updates to me personally. You are truly one of a kind.



In my humble opinion, I believe it is time to take the gloves off and challenge Veterans Affairs Canada directly with two forms of audit. 



The auditor general should do a complete review of the departments (VAC) books. This is to see exactly where money is going and if, in fact, there is enough money in the department's budget to ensure, all disabled veterans of the CF and former members of the RCMP, can have access to benefits and services based on need, not based on what is left in a budget. 


To parallel this financial audit, an independent medical board should be established to audit all files that have been turned down upon first application for benefits, and a review of the entire amount of files that have been appealed to the VRAB with negative results. 


Enough is enough. We owe it to the men and women who serve to ensure that every possible avenue is available for them to receive benefits and services from Veterans Affairs Canada based solely and entirely on their needs. There is more than enough proof to suggest that this is simply not the case. We also know that the introduction of the New Veterans Charter (NVC) is a cost cutting maneuver by the federal government and senior bureaucrats, both with-in the department of Veterans Affairs, and of course at the Treasury Board and PM's office.



The last thing I wish to ask for is; research be established to find out exactly where disabled veterans are spending their "lump sum" payments when approved for these benefits, under the NVC. How many are investing as VAC suggests they do? How many are paying off debt, mortgages, buying vehicles, paying for home repairs etc? How many are using the money to purchase drugs and alcohol to self-medicate? How much of their lump sum payments are left after one year, three years, and five years? Is there any money left? I believe these are fair and pertinent questions based upon the departments criteria for establishing the lump sum benefits as opposed to the monthly pension act payments.



In closing, Mr. Stoffer, I feel I must remind you that these audits need to be set up immediately. They should not be dependant on parliament sitting or being in session. There is no need for committee work to establish this kind of audit. 



Personally, I have no issue with going to the local malls and grocery stores and setting up a booth to ask the Canadian Public for money so that we Veterans can hire our own forensic accountants and medical experts. Perhaps a not for profit charity set up for this purpose will help enlighten those Canadians who do not know a family member or a friend who has been injured in the line of duty, only to have VAC's door slammed in their faces or better yet, not answered at all, just denied outright.



Let us find the truth.



Respectfully



Dennis Manuge

792 West Petpeswick Rd

Musquodoboit Harbour, NS B0J 2L0



(902) 889-3230

dmanuge@eastlink.ca


----------



## Representative Plaintiff

Dear Veteran and/or Veteran Supporter



We would like to thank you for your willingness to participate in a rally/news conference in Ottawa in support of the January 21st Supreme Court hearing on the Unfair Deductions from SISIP.



The response numbers for a possible rally were less than what we hoped for, due likely to the time of year and the winter weather. As such, we shall schedule a news conference to be held indoors in the Parliamentary Press gallery on January 20, 2010.  We shall confirm the exact time of this conference with those attending it.



For the press conference, we ask that you consider telling your personal stories as to how the Unfair Deductions from SISIP have affected you and/or your family. You can be either a veteran or a family of a veteran who has been directly affected by the Unfair Deductions.



We understand these are not easy stories to tell. We also know that nothing will likely change in government until the Canadian public is made aware of how the Unfair Deductions are directly affecting Canada ’s bravest and their courageous families.



This is where your willingness to either formally present or be willing to be interviewed by the media is key to all of us succeeding in informing Canadians about how our government is unfairly treating its veterans and their families.



In order to coordinate a successful press conference, we will need to know your stories beforehand. We will then invite perhaps two or three individuals to formally present at the conference for perhaps one to three minutes for each individual. Those that are not formally presenting will provide an equally valuable service by being willing to be interviewed by media should the news agency request to speak with you.



In both cases (formal presenters and those willing to be interviewed one-on-one), we would hand out your story in a package to be delivered to the media. We can help with the wording if need be.



Please send to us soonest  your personal stories described in 500 words or less to:

   

veteran_rally@veteranvoice.info



We will respond within a week or hopefully less to let you know how we believe your story will best contribute to a successful press conference. We will then discuss details as to how the schedule will proceed for the press conference on January 20, 2010.



Once again, we truly thank you for taking this brave step. We are all painfully aware that we veterans and our families have all given up far too much. We should not have to go to such measures to have bad veteran policies changed. Unfortunately, this is the reality in Canada and only by working together will we have a greater chance to succeed in making our government respect injured veterans and their families.



If you want to be part of the media conference, please let us know as soon as possible so that we can provide details of the location and time of the conference.  For those submitting personal stories, , we would like to focus upon the hardships incurred by having SISIP deduct VAC pension amounts. Your story is indeed important and for the purposes of the News Conference, we do not want to confuse the media with personal struggles to have disabilities recognized with the personal and family struggles to live on what the government provides.

An example would be:

Hi My name is Joe RCR and I served a tour in Bosnia and a tour in Afghanistan. I was medically released in 2003 as a result of my injuries in Afghanistan. It took more than a year for VAC to award any pension benefits. Meanwhile my lovely wife and kids lived on my reduced salary as I could not find work being disabled. My wife had a difficult time working full time as she had to take care of the kids and me.

We went through difficult times as I watched my kids deal with my disabilities and the stress of not receiving the support we needed to provide shelter and food for my family.  When VAC awarded me my pension, SISIP wanted all the money paid to me by VAC back in one lump sum. We were facing bankruptcy as I was getting little help and I did not know how to manage money very well in the midst of my illness.

I have lost more than $80,000 that SISIP unfairly deducted from me. This could have been used to help save for my kids college education or a help pay down our mortgage or get us out of the low quality housing we live in now.

My symptoms and expecially the financial stress has resulted in me drinking heavily and ignoring my family and friends. As a soldier, I was willing to die for Canada at any part of my career. When I see now how bureaucrats ignore Parliament, Ombudsman's offices and veteran organizations demands to stop the unfair deductions, I wonder was this the type of government I was willing to die for? Why was I willing to die to bring democracy to Afghanistan when our bureaucrats ignore our democracy... when our elected officials let the bureaucrats get away with ignoring democracy?




Our sincerest appreciation



Perry Gray and Sean Bruyea


----------



## Greymatters

_
Under the military insurance plan, injured veterans are entitled to a long-term disability pension that is a percentage of their former salary. On top of that, veterans also receive a veteran’s pension. 

The problem, says Manuge, is the plan treats the veteran’s pension as income and deducts the monthly payment from the long-term disability pension. _ 


Ive run into this issue again a couple of times over the last year, primarily in relation to insurance companies and their clients:  the VAC payments arent income, but most insurance companies look at it as a form of income.  What is the current legal description of a monthly VAC payment, one that is short, in laymans terms so it can be easily understand? 

I know we have discussed it on one of these threads before, but cannot think of where it was; anyone else have a better memory on this?


----------



## Representative Plaintiff

Federal treatment of disabled veterans disgraceful
 Government actions seem geared to deny what is justly owed to more than 4,000 injured soldiers
 By Sean Bruyea, FreelanceJanuary 27, 2010  It has become a sad truth that the path of an injured soldier to receive disability benefits in Canada is a minefield of obstacles. Last Thursday, the Supreme Court of Canada heard about one of those mine-fields.

When Canadian Forces members are injured on duty, they receive pain and suffering payments from Veterans Affairs while keeping their full salary. If soldiers are so disabled as to be unemployable, those soldiers are kicked out of the military and paid 75 per cent of their salary through a long-term disability plan held by the Canadian Forces. Then, in some seeming petty act of revenge, the Canadian Forces insurance plan deducts amounts for pain and suffering paid by Veterans Affairs.

No other long-term disability income plan in Canada is allowed to deduct Veterans Affairs payments for pain and suffering.

This is why Dennis Manuge has brought his case to the Supreme Court of Canada as his case represents more than 4,000 disabled soldiers similarly affected. I am one of the 4,000 disabled soldiers.

The National Defence Ombudsman has called the deductions "profoundly unfair" and said "the inequity might very well be serious enough to attract the protection of human rights legislation" including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, "which identify physical and mental disabilities as prohibited grounds of discrimination."

The Veterans' Ombudsman agrees.

As far back as 2003, the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs unanimously voted to stop the practice. Then members of the opposition, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Defence Minister Peter MacKay, ex-veterans affairs minister Greg Thompson and Treasury Board President Stockwell Day were all associate members of that committee.

In 2006, the majority of Parliament passed a motion which required the government to "eliminate the unfair reduction of SISIP." The Senate Committee on National Security and Defence voted unanimously in 2008 on the "unfair deductions" and recommended "that the government cease the practice immediately."

Yet the deductions continue. Government appeals have forced the case to the Supreme Court of Canada. Except Canada's highest court won't be making a final decision on the deductions. Instead, Canadian government lawyers are arguing a technicality as to whether Manuge can have his case proceed in court or whether he must seek other avenues first.

Manuge and his lawyer must now plead the removal of "artificial and costly legal barriers" placed by Canada in order "to shield itself from liability."

Unfortunately, decision-makers in Parliament and those uber-mandarins at Treasury Board and elsewhere in the bureaucracy who pull the strings of ministers, have often placed pay and benefits of disabled soldiers on the same chopping block as military equipment. Were the pay and benefits of the Federal Public Service in question, it is unlikely that bureaucrats and their strong unions would vote themselves pay freezes or discriminatory benefits.

There's the rub: the military does not have a union. When the uniform comes off, there is no 'top general' of the veteran community or union to defend the rights of a disabled veteran.

In budget terms, life-saving equipment for a soldier in Afghanistan seems imminently more important than the income loss of a few thousand disabled and mostly silent veterans. But for the disabled veterans, life-saving benefits are just as important as the flak vest for a soldier on patrol in Kandahar.

It's not that veterans' benefits have become a political hot potato. It is that veterans' benefits are not publicly debated at all. Canada's top mandarins have excluded the overwhelming majority of veterans, especially the disabled, from any public and meaningful influence as to their destiny.

The bureaucracy presents changes to veteran programs as a fait accompli, a done deal for politicians, the military, veterans and their families.

Essentially, bureaucrats are acting unilaterally, pulling the strings of politicians while telling veterans and their families what they need. This is the reverse of what the 'social contract' should be between Canada and its veterans.

This breach of the 'social contract' is at the core of why many veterans feel abandoned by their country. It is why our disabled and once proud warriors must fight battles in the courts of this land rather than live their remaining years in peace.

Who's at fault? Certainly, the senior bureaucrats who refuse to implement Parliament's will. But what about the parties in power that are unwilling or unable to force bureaucrats to do what Parliament and Canadians have demanded?

In combat, no matter how overwhelming the odds against our soldiers, our men and women in uniform have followed the orders of our government. No matter how powerful the bureaucrats may be, the Harper government like all before it was elected in good faith to order the bureaucracy to implement the will of the people.

Did Stephen Harper not run and become elected on a platform to hold government accountable? Shouldn't his government's commitment to "support the troops" apply to disabled soldiers and extend beyond platitudes?

More than a million Canadians in uniform have followed orders which could and, for more than 100,000, did bring them to their deaths. Why is it that bureaucrats can ignore disabled veterans, their families, oversight agencies, both the House and the Senate, as well as the Canadian Charter, to place absurd obstacles in the path of disabled veterans being compensated justly and fairly?

What does it say to our soldiers dying to bring democracy to Afghanistan when the federal bureaucracy ignores our democratic institutions and continues to discriminate against disabled veterans?

The actions of Canada's government whether it be their lawyers, elected officials or senior bureaucrats appear to seek one goal: to place as many obstacles so that Canada never has to pay what is justly owed to more than 4,000 disabled soldiers.

The risk is that citizens' willingness to sacrifice for a selfish government may diminish in the face of such unfair actions.

How tragic that government treats our disabled soldiers as a fiscal liability and a nuisance instead of being viewed as brave and selfless, the way most Canadians see our veterans.

Sean Bruyea is an Ottawa-based freelance journalist and advocate for the rights of disabled veterans and their families. He served 14 years in the Canadian Air Force as an intelligence officer. He is one of the 4,000 soldiers represented in the class action

© Copyright (c) The Edmonton Journal


----------



## Representative Plaintiff

*Class Action Suit – Reduction of S.I.S.I.P. Long Term Disability Benefits by the Amount of Pension Act PaymentsManuge v. Her Majesty the Queen 
Court No. T-463-07*

The Federal Court of Canada has certified the above case as a class action. If you are a former member of the Canadian Forces whose S.I.S.I.P. Long Term Disability plan benefits ("SISIP LTD") have been reduced by the amount of your monthly VAC Disability Pension payable under the Pension Act, you may be a member of the class in this action. If the action succeeds or is settled, your entitlement to an award will depend upon your individual circumstances. 

What is the action about?
Under the terms of the SISIP LTD plan, an amount equal to 75% of the disabled former member's pay at release is payable, but is reduced by payments received from the VAC disability pension. 

The class action challenges the authority of the Government of Canada to lawfully reduce SISIP LTD benefits by the amount of VAC disability benefits payable, and further challenges the reduction as being discriminatory, contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The claim also alleges breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, breach of public duty and bad faith on the part of the Government of Canada. 

The class action seeks, among other things, a declaration by the court that the Government of Canada acted improperly in reducing the SISIP LTD benefits, and repayment of the amounts reduced, as well as punitive, exemplary, and aggravated damages. 

All class members will be bound by the judgment, whether favourable or unfavourable, in the class action. 

Who are the class members?
The class has been defined by the Federal Court, by Order dated May 20, 2008, as follows:

"All former members of the Canadian Forces whose long term disability benefits under S.I.S.I.P. Policy No. 901102 were reduced by the amount of their VAC disability benefits received pursuant to the Pension Act from April 17, 1985 to date." 

The person who brought the lawsuit and who is a class member and the representative plaintiff in the class action is Dennis Manuge, c/o Peter Driscoll, McInnes Cooper, 1300 - 1969 Upper Water Street, Purdy's Wharf Tower II, PO Box 730, Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3J 2V1. 

What do I need to do to take part in the class action:
All class members have a right to participate in the class action. You do not need to do anything to participate. You are automatically included in the class action. If you do not want to participate you must opt-out, by completing an opt-out notice available from McInnes Cooper. If you elect not to participate, your opt-out notice must be received by the offices of McInnes Cooper by no later than December 8, 2008. McInnes Cooper can help you confirm whether you are a class member. McInnes Cooper can be reached at the following address: McInnes Cooper, 1300 - 1969 Upper Water Street, Purdy's Wharf Tower II, PO Box 730, Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3J 2V1 

Tel902) 425-6500 
Fax: (902) 425-6350 
E-mail: SISIPclassaction@mcinnescooper.com 

When contacting McInnes Cooper, please provide:

•Your name;
•Your address;
•Your dates of service in the Canadian Forces;
•Your date of medical release from the Canadian Forces;
•The date upon which you commenced receiving a VAC disability benefit under the Pension Act;
•The date you commenced receiving S.I.S.I.P. Long Term Disability plan benefits
•The amount by which your SISIP LTD benefits were reduced by your VAC Disability benefits.
Do I need to pay anything?
You do not have to pay any direct legal fees out of your own pocket. If the case is not successful, no legal fees will be charged. 

By agreement with the representative plaintiffs, counsel fees may be calculated at 30% of any amounts recovered. If a settlement, judgment, voluntary payment or execution or other benefit is obtained, the lawyers will apply to court for approval of a fee that is consistent with the terms of this agreement, or some lesser amount. The court will decide what amount is fair. 

This arrangement compensates the lawyers for the risk they have assumed in advancing the case and performing the legal work. The lawyers do not receive any money unless the case is successful. Even if the class action does not succeed, class members are not responsible for the fees of any of the lawyers involved in the case. 

Who are the laywers for the class?
Peter Driscoll, McInnes Cooper, 1300 - 1969 Upper Water Street, Purdy's Wharf Tower II, PO Box 730, Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3J 2V1

Ward Branch, Branch MacMaster, 1210 - 777 Hornby Street, Vancouver, BC, V6Z 1S4

Whom do I contact for more information?
For more information or to opt out of the class action, please contact McInnes Cooper at the address set out above. You can also monitor the McInnes Cooper website at www.mcinnescooper.com (Opens in a New Window).


----------



## Representative Plaintiff

Federal treatment of disabled veterans disgraceful
 Government actions seem geared to deny what is justly owed to more than 4,000 injured soldiers
 By Sean Bruyea, FreelanceJanuary 27, 2010  It has become a sad truth that the path of an injured soldier to receive disability benefits in Canada is a minefield of obstacles. Last Thursday, the Supreme Court of Canada heard about one of those mine-fields.

When Canadian Forces members are injured on duty, they receive pain and suffering payments from Veterans Affairs while keeping their full salary. If soldiers are so disabled as to be unemployable, those soldiers are kicked out of the military and paid 75 per cent of their salary through a long-term disability plan held by the Canadian Forces. Then, in some seeming petty act of revenge, the Canadian Forces insurance plan deducts amounts for pain and suffering paid by Veterans Affairs.

No other long-term disability income plan in Canada is allowed to deduct Veterans Affairs payments for pain and suffering.

This is why Dennis Manuge has brought his case to the Supreme Court of Canada as his case represents more than 4,000 disabled soldiers similarly affected. I am one of the 4,000 disabled soldiers.

The National Defence Ombudsman has called the deductions "profoundly unfair" and said "the inequity might very well be serious enough to attract the protection of human rights legislation" including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, "which identify physical and mental disabilities as prohibited grounds of discrimination."

The Veterans' Ombudsman agrees.

As far back as 2003, the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs unanimously voted to stop the practice. Then members of the opposition, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Defence Minister Peter MacKay, ex-veterans affairs minister Greg Thompson and Treasury Board President Stockwell Day were all associate members of that committee.

In 2006, the majority of Parliament passed a motion which required the government to "eliminate the unfair reduction of SISIP." The Senate Committee on National Security and Defence voted unanimously in 2008 on the "unfair deductions" and recommended "that the government cease the practice immediately."

Yet the deductions continue. Government appeals have forced the case to the Supreme Court of Canada. Except Canada's highest court won't be making a final decision on the deductions. Instead, Canadian government lawyers are arguing a technicality as to whether Manuge can have his case proceed in court or whether he must seek other avenues first.

Manuge and his lawyer must now plead the removal of "artificial and costly legal barriers" placed by Canada in order "to shield itself from liability."

Unfortunately, decision-makers in Parliament and those uber-mandarins at Treasury Board and elsewhere in the bureaucracy who pull the strings of ministers, have often placed pay and benefits of disabled soldiers on the same chopping block as military equipment. Were the pay and benefits of the Federal Public Service in question, it is unlikely that bureaucrats and their strong unions would vote themselves pay freezes or discriminatory benefits.

There's the rub: the military does not have a union. When the uniform comes off, there is no 'top general' of the veteran community or union to defend the rights of a disabled veteran.

In budget terms, life-saving equipment for a soldier in Afghanistan seems imminently more important than the income loss of a few thousand disabled and mostly silent veterans. But for the disabled veterans, life-saving benefits are just as important as the flak vest for a soldier on patrol in Kandahar.

It's not that veterans' benefits have become a political hot potato. It is that veterans' benefits are not publicly debated at all. Canada's top mandarins have excluded the overwhelming majority of veterans, especially the disabled, from any public and meaningful influence as to their destiny.

The bureaucracy presents changes to veteran programs as a fait accompli, a done deal for politicians, the military, veterans and their families.

Essentially, bureaucrats are acting unilaterally, pulling the strings of politicians while telling veterans and their families what they need. This is the reverse of what the 'social contract' should be between Canada and its veterans.

This breach of the 'social contract' is at the core of why many veterans feel abandoned by their country. It is why our disabled and once proud warriors must fight battles in the courts of this land rather than live their remaining years in peace.

Who's at fault? Certainly, the senior bureaucrats who refuse to implement Parliament's will. But what about the parties in power that are unwilling or unable to force bureaucrats to do what Parliament and Canadians have demanded?

In combat, no matter how overwhelming the odds against our soldiers, our men and women in uniform have followed the orders of our government. No matter how powerful the bureaucrats may be, the Harper government like all before it was elected in good faith to order the bureaucracy to implement the will of the people.

Did Stephen Harper not run and become elected on a platform to hold government accountable? Shouldn't his government's commitment to "support the troops" apply to disabled soldiers and extend beyond platitudes?

More than a million Canadians in uniform have followed orders which could and, for more than 100,000, did bring them to their deaths. Why is it that bureaucrats can ignore disabled veterans, their families, oversight agencies, both the House and the Senate, as well as the Canadian Charter, to place absurd obstacles in the path of disabled veterans being compensated justly and fairly?

What does it say to our soldiers dying to bring democracy to Afghanistan when the federal bureaucracy ignores our democratic institutions and continues to discriminate against disabled veterans?

The actions of Canada's government whether it be their lawyers, elected officials or senior bureaucrats appear to seek one goal: to place as many obstacles so that Canada never has to pay what is justly owed to more than 4,000 disabled soldiers.

The risk is that citizens' willingness to sacrifice for a selfish government may diminish in the face of such unfair actions.

How tragic that government treats our disabled soldiers as a fiscal liability and a nuisance instead of being viewed as brave and selfless, the way most Canadians see our veterans.

Sean Bruyea is an Ottawa-based freelance journalist and advocate for the rights of disabled veterans and their families. He served 14 years in the Canadian Air Force as an intelligence officer. He is one of the 4,000 soldiers represented in the class action

© Copyright (c) The Edmonton Journal


----------



## Kat Stevens

I know you're all excited about this article, but does it really need to be posted in every single thread you post to?


----------



## Representative Plaintiff

Hi All

i am not trying to beat a dead horse with another topic related to the SISIP LTD Clawback of VAC disability monies. I am offering my contact information for those of you who still do not understand the claim-class action, or for those who simply wish to get some `more and updated info from the one source who can give you folks the straight goods. Me!

Respectfully

Dennis Manuge
(902) 889-3230
dmanuge@eastlink.ca


----------



## Representative Plaintiff

Hi Kat

Sorry to trouble you with important and current info. That is why I started a new topic. My apologies. I will only post on here from now on.

Thanks


----------



## Kat Stevens

You weren't troubling me, and I agree it is very important info.  I was trying to help you out, as multiple postings of the same message to different threads is frowned upon. Good luck in court, I'm cheering for you.


----------



## Greymatters

This type of article is in sharp contrast to the articles I see in the newspaper that the VA mails me every month.  According to that source, everything is great and getting better...


----------



## pyretta_blaze

is there any updates on this law suit? my dad is one of the soldiers involved in the class action and the most recent letter he has received gave 5 months for this to be over with, which would be this month. He was medically discharged in '99, and has never used a computer so im here on his request. can anyone help with some info


----------



## parafire

would really like to know what is happening. according to the supreme court  the case is closed and a settlement made. but nobody seems to know what is happening last we heard from the lawyers that a decision would be about 6 months time is up and still nothing. even the mines-copper site has not had any update since last year . can anybody tell use what is going on please


----------



## pyretta_blaze

well i can tell you one thing
the case isnt closed, there has been no settlement
my dad has been waiting 11 years,  hopefully they would contact him directly, but this IS the government


----------



## Onepostdude

McInnes Cooper said the case is still ongoing.  They are still waiting for a decision from the Supreme Court of Canada.
Once they have a decision (hopefully in the fall) they will email their members.
This was the word I received today from that office, best of luck to all concerned.


----------



## noneck

Gnr Morton PM sent. Good to hear from you again.


----------



## Occam

1stmotors said:
			
		

> Both my wife and I are retired Primary Reserve personel.  We are both receiving disability pensions for Service related injuries.  She is at 15% and I at 10%, both of which were under the old system. We both are currently applying for a higher disability rate due to other problems, mine being a new claim and her's consequential to the original.  How are these new claims affected under the new Veterans charter.



Can't speak to the rest of your post, but as far as the new claims go - if yours is a new claim unrelated to the original claimed condition, it will come under the new charter.  If your wife's claim is a consequential, then it will be actioned under the Pension Act.


----------



## Greymatters

Gnr Morton said:
			
		

> we will hide the sounds of protest with the appluase of praise.



Hmmm... very Orwellian!


----------



## krustyrl

This C-A Suit has been rather quiet, anyone hear ANYTHING re any update?


----------



## Bin-Rat

I usually don't post anything without a link to back me up, but This update comes from a Post on the Veterans Voice info forums
So I would believe the Post is 100% True and correct, I'll see if I can find the link but this is what was posted.

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA -- JUDGMENTS TO BE RENDERED IN APPEALS

OTTAWA, 2010-12-20. THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA ANNOUNCED TODAY THAT JUDGMENTS IN THE FOLLOWING APPEALS WILL BE DELIVERED AT 9:45 A.M. EST ON THURSDAY, DECEMBER 23, 2010.

FROM: SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (613) 995-4330

Dennis Manuge v. Her Majesty the Queen (F.C.) (33103)

Okay I found the Link Whew, hate posting with out a link for backup
JUDGMENTS TO BE RENDERED IN APPEALS


----------



## Bin-Rat

Veterans' pension lawsuit OK'd by top court
Full Story

And the Supreme Court of Canada Site
Decision
Quote [24]                          I would allow the appeal and reinstate the order of the Barnes J. certifying Mr. Manuge’s class action.  

So it's a Go.... And we're off to the Races again


----------



## wildman0101

Way to go Dennis,,, (Congrats)
Scoty B


----------



## Representative Plaintiff

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/supreme-court-backs-veterans-class-action-over-pension-clawbacks/article1848203/?cmpid=rss1

Supreme Court backs veterans’ class action over pension clawbacks 
Mike Blanchfield 
Ottawa— The Canadian Press 
Published Thursday, Dec. 23, 2010 10:30AM EST
Last updated Thursday, Dec. 23, 2010 1:17PM EST
90 comments Email  Print Decrease text size 
Increase text size  The Supreme Court of Canada knocked down a legal roadblock on Thursday and paved the way for a class-action lawsuit over military veterans' pensions.

Military mechanic Dennis Manuge filed the suit on behalf of about 6,500 injured veterans and it was certified by the Federal Court. But that certification was later rejected by the Federal Court of Appeal.

The Supreme Court reinstated the original decision in one of six related rulings on a technical legal issue that has real-life implications for how lawsuits are allowed to move through the courts.

In Mr. Manuge's case and five others, seven justices of the court unanimously agreed that parties in the various court actions should not be forced to jump through procedural hoops in their quest for justice.

Mr. Manuge, of Porters Lake, N.S., was injured in 2002 at Canadian Forces Base Petawawa. The government later decided to take back $10,000 of his disability pension after he left the military. Mr. Manuge filed suit and got Federal Court approval for a class action.

But the government appealed and won a stay of proceedings. The Federal Court of Appeal rejected Mr. Manuge's class action, ruling he should have applied for “judicial review” of the pension clawback at the Federal Court, instead of opening a full-fledged lawsuit.

Wrong, said the Supreme Court.

“In my view, with respect, the discretion to grant a stay should not be exercised in this case,” Justice Rosalie Abella wrote on behalf of the Supreme Court.

Previously, an investigation by the military ombudsman found the clawback “profoundly unfair.”

New Democrat MP Peter Stoffer said the case never should have wound its way all the way up to the Supreme Court. He urged the government to sit down with the veterans and settle the matter.

“The choice is very clear,” said Mr. Stoffer, his party's veterans affairs critic. “You can spend millions and millions of dollars fighting this in the courts, or you can spend those millions dealing with the disabled veterans in a fair and reasonable manner.”

The government had no immediate comment.

The principle at play in Mr. Manuge's case was decided in one of the companion rulings that involved a $250-million lawsuit filed by TeleZone Inc., against Industry Canada.

The consortium of telephone companies accused the government of unfairly denying it a licence for wireless communication services.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice allowed the legal action, saying it wasn't necessary for TeleZone to seek “judicial review” at the Federal Court. In this case, the Ontario Court of Appeal agreed, and so did the Supreme Court, which rejected the federal government's last appeal.

“This appeal is fundamentally about access to justice,” Justice Ian Binnie wrote on behalf of the court in the TeleZone ruling.

“People who claim to be injured by government action should have whatever redress the legal system permits through procedures that minimize unnecessary costs and complexity. The court's approach should be practical and pragmatic with that objective in mind.”


----------



## CallOfDuty

BUMP.........is there anything new going on with the case?


----------



## parafire

has any one heard whats up. government said they were going to take time and review there options. seems almost too quiet do we need to start something to get or name in the news again . especially if we are looking at an election coming soon.
Paul


----------



## Bin-Rat

This was posted on VeteransVoice.info site a couple day's ago...

The original Federal Court justice who Certified [originally in 2008] our case as a class action has been re-appointed to the case.
http://cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/IndexingQueries/infp_RE_info_e.php?court_no=T-463-07



COURT INDEX AND DOCKET  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   RECORDED ENTRY (IES) FOR T-463-07 (Close)  

 Court Number : T-463-07

Style of Cause : DENNIS MANUGE v. HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Proceeding Category : Actions Nature : Others - Crown (v. Queen) [Actions]

Type of Action : Ordinary

 Doc Date Filed Office Recorded Entry Summary

- 2011-03-08 Halifax Letter from Defendant dated 08-MAR-2011 "As directed during the Case Management Conference with Mr. Justice Barnes of february 23, 2011, the Defendant respectfully submits the enclosed draft litigation schedule for the consideration of the Court and the Plaintiff." received on 08-MAR-2011

 - 2011-03-01 Ottawa Letter from Plaintiffs, Dennis Manuge and A. Gerard Buote dated 01-MAR-2011 enclosing minutes of their February 23, 2011 teleconference. received on 01-MAR-2011

- 2011-02-23 Ottawa Ottawa 23-FEB-2011 BEFORE The Honourable Mr. Justice Barnes Language: E Before the Court: Case Management Conference Result of Hearing: The plaintiff is to submit for filing minutes of this CMC; the next CMC is scheduled to proceed in person at Halifax on March 25, 2011 at 2:00 p.m. (Halifax time) with co-counsel for plaintiff, Mr. Branch to appear via teleconference from Vancouver held by way of Conference Call in chambers Counsel appearing in their respective offices in Halifax and Vancouver Duration per day: 23-FEB-2011 from 12:57 to 01:33 Courtroom : Judge's Chambers - Ottawa Court Registrar: Pauline Chartrand Total Duration: 36min Appearances: Daniel Wallace 902-444-8630 representing Plaintiffs: Dennis Manuge and A. Gerard Buote Ward K. Branch 604-654-2966 representing Plaintiffs: Dennis Manuge and A. Gerard Buote James M. Gunvaldsen-Klaassen, Susan Inglis, Lori Rasmussen 902-426-0020 representing Defendants: HMQ and AGC Comments: Heard together with T-296-09, T-889-08 and T-479-09; original minutes taken on T-463-07 Minutes of Hearing entered in Vol. 838 page(s) 295 - 299 Abstract of Hearing placed on file 

- 2011-02-21 Ottawa Letter from Plaintiff dated 21-FEB-2011 Further to Court's request the parties propose the following agenda for the case management conference on Feb. 23/11 (scanned to Barnes, J.) received on 21-FEB-2011

- 2011-02-10 Ottawa Oral directions received from the presiding judge dated 10-FEB-2011 directing that "A case management meeting will take place via teleconference on Wednesday, February 23, 2011, at 2:00 p.m. Halifax time for a duration of 90 minutes. Parties may remain in their respective offices"; placed on file on 10-FEB-2011 Confirmed in writing to the party(ies) 

36 2011-02-03 Ottawa Order dated 03-FEB-2011 rendered by Chief Justice Lutfy Matter considered without personal appearance The Court's decision is with regard to Letter from Plaintiff dated 11-JAN-2011 Result: It is ordered pursuant to Rule 383 that Justice Robert L. Barnes is assigned as Case Management Judge in place of Justice Russell W. Zinn. Filed on 03-FEB-2011 certified copies sent to parties Transmittal Letters placed on file. entered in J. & O. Book, volume 1113 page(s) 224 - 224 Interlocutory Decision 

  

Dennis Manuge
(902) 889-3230
dmanuge@eastlink.ca


----------



## CallOfDuty

...on a side note, Jack Layton of the NDP is promising to get rid of the sisip clawback in his campaing for PM...


----------



## CallOfDuty

If there's anyone out there who's used sisip LTD, could you send me a quick PM.  I'd like to ask a couple of questions about them and monies they deduct etc...
Thanks
Steve


----------



## CallOfDuty

Bigrex said:
			
		

> Yes, if you are under the "class", then if it is certified as a class action, and won, all in the class will benefit, unless they opt out of the lawsuit. I think the database they have created is more for their records, maybe to present in court, as further proof that this affects a great deal of disabled/ medically released veterans, not just Dennis Manuge, he only had the willingness to take it to court first. Contacting the layers doesn't mean you will be subpoenaed or anything, so it cannot hurt.  Those who do contact them will be notified via email of all important information from the lawyer, or it can usually be read shortly afterwards at veteransvoice.info, so it's up to you.
> 
> Also I'm alot better off than some of the young privates that have been injured in Afghanistan, if they were severely injured and unable to return to work and relied on SISIP to give them money to live off, all that their ruined lives are worth is between $1861.00 and $2735.00 per month plus 2 % each year until 65. So a 20year old who went to Afghanistan , right after battle school, gets injured to the point where he can no longer work, and goes on SiISIP LTD, in 45 years, his monthly earning will go from a max of $1861.00 to $2996.00, just over the unofficial poverty line for a household. And while on SISIP LTD, he cannot seek any additional income other than employment, he cannot apply for CPP disability, because that would get deducted from his sisip cheque 100%, he cannot get any money from VAC, including extra money for dependants, other than the new disability awards, which aren't that big of an amount if you need to make it last all your life. So that 20 year old, injured while serving his country will possibly never own his own house, probably never know the feeling of purchasing a brand new car, never afford to give his children a decent Christmas, or take them to Disneyland, all because of SISIP and greedy uncaring bureaucrats. If we get this settlement, and SISIP stops clawing back our money, people will not get rich, like one guy thinks, and there is a big difference between getting rich and being financially comfortable.



.....And this, I believe, is what it's all about folks.  We need to get together and make this ridiculous crap stop!!  Good luck Mr. Manuge and every other injured person who is looking for our government to do the right thing.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Don't believe what any politician says let alone Taliban Jack



			
				Steve-O- said:
			
		

> ...on a side note, Jack Layton of the NDP is promising to get rid of the sisip clawback in his campaing for PM...


----------



## the 48th regulator

Leave No Vets Behind

Site dedicated to the class action suit

dileas

tess


----------



## CallOfDuty

.......I saw this on the site......"

The Government acknowledged this unfairness by removing this claw back for future veterans. However, veterans wounded before April 2006 continue to see their disability pension clawed back."

  I never heard about this.  Does this mean that, being injured in '09, I won't have my VAC money clawed back from SISIP?  That's huge, as it's been quite a distressor of mine.


----------



## The Bread Guy

> After almost five years of legal wrangling, Dennis Manuge says he's relieved that Canada's disabled veterans are finally getting their day in court.
> 
> "How I feel about it is a little bit of relief and absolute faith in the justice system that we are going to begin to have our case (heard)," he said Tuesday.
> 
> Manuge, of Musquodoboit Harbour, N.S., is the representative plaintiff in a lawsuit against the federal government that alleges it is illegally clawing back the long-term disability insurance benefits of injured veterans.
> 
> The Federal Court in Halifax will begin hearing arguments Wednesday in the class action, which could potentially affect the benefits of as many as 6,000 injured veterans ....


The Canadian Press via CP24, 16 Nov 11


----------



## Rifleman62

It is a step. The government will appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. A long way to go yet.


----------



## OldSolduer

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> It is a step. The government will appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. A long way to go yet.



The government lawyer was on TV last night and expressed concern that the taxpayer will be stuck with the bill - who else would be?

Besides - it was the government, elected by taxpayers, that sent us to weird and exotic places - we didn't go on our own.


----------



## Rifleman62

Of course the taxpayer will be "stuck" with the bill. A sound bite to attract attention.

The tax payer was stuck with the bill for Adscam, the gun registry, WWII .........


----------



## krustyrl

This wheel of bureaucracy is moving very slowly.......


 :crickets:


----------



## dogger1936

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> The government lawyer was on TV last night and expressed concern that the taxpayer will be stuck with the bill - who else would be?
> 
> Besides - it was the government, elected by taxpayers, that sent us to weird and exotic places - we didn't go on our own.



Yep. The same taxpayers voted in their representatives to send us all over the freakin world to do their killing/protecting...and now a lawyer has the gall to use "the tax payers" as a defense? I didn't ask to go anywhere...but stood ready to if the COUNTRY decided I should. The tax payers paid for each bullet I fired and each line of fire we had to place ourselves in. They also paid to bury the boys and girls who gave their all to the tax payers of a great country.

To have a person representing OUR government say this leaves a bad taste in my mouth.





			
				krustyrl said:
			
		

> This wheel of bureaucracy is moving very slowly.......
> 
> 
> :crickets:



Their waiting for


----------



## kstart

Taxpayers. . . I can't believe the obscene amounts of $s this government is spending fighting against it's own disabled Veterans and their families, feeding these bottom-feeding lawyers.

Yes, when we send our forces out to war, onto missions of risk for injuries, exposures-- we are automatically assume our duty to care for those who've been injured, disabled, and care of the families affected by that.


----------



## The Bread Guy

.... in an announcement from the Minister:


> The Honourable Peter MacKay, Minister of National Defence, is proud to announce enhancements to the minimum benefits paid under the Canadian Forces (CF) Long Term Disability (LTD) program to medically released CF personnel. With an investment of nearly $113 million, these enhancements are now in line with the Earning Loss Benefits (ELB) offered by Veterans Affairs Canada (VAC) to disabled veterans.
> 
> “Canadians and the Government of Canada have been clear; they want our Veterans and our men and women in uniform to receive the care, the support, and the recognition they earned in the service of their country,” said Minister MacKay. “From now on retroactive to October 3rd, 2011our ill and injured veterans will receive a minimum pre-tax income of $40,000 a year while continuing to have access to vocational rehabilitation training. This financial support will help ill and injured CF Veterans focus on what matters most - their wellness,” added Minister MacKay.
> 
> The CF LTD is a disability group insurance plan administered by Service Income Security Insurance Plan (SISIP) Financial Services, which provides CF members with replacement income protection if they are released from the CF for medical reasons or take a voluntary release but are deemed as being totally disabled. The enhancements to the plan will see an increase to the minimum gross monthly benefit climb to 75% of the basic salary rate of a Corporal, which is currently $4,554/month. Previously, the minimum benefit calculation was based on the salary rate of a senior private. In addition, the minimum benefit for the Primary Reserve Force members on short-term class of service who are medically released, or take a voluntary release but qualify as being totally disabled will increase to 75% of the deemed salary of $2700/month from the previously used $2000/month rate.
> 
> The changes to the SISIP LTD program announced today will not impact the premiums paid by insured CF members. Retroactive payments will be issued starting immediately.



More in the Backgrounder here


----------



## ModlrMike

Until the fix the "income from all sources", which includes non-taxable DVA pension, it's not much of a solution.


----------



## krustyrl

My sentiments EXACTLY.!!        :+1:


----------



## The Bread Guy

More tea leaves to read on this one - the Minister's speaking notes from last week's announcement:


> Thank you for joining me today on this important occasion.
> 
> It is a great pleasure to announce new measures in support of the military families who make such great sacrifices in their service to Canada.
> 
> The government knows that the well-being and security of our country rests in large part on the work of our military personnel.
> 
> And we know that it is our duty to make sure that both they – and their loved ones – have what they need to accomplish what we expect of them.
> 
> This goes beyond making sure that our personnel are properly equipped.
> 
> We must also ensure that the men and women of the Canadian Forces, Veterans and their families get the support they need and they deserve.
> 
> Since 2006, the Government has introduced a number of new initiatives that reflect the complex and changing needs of our military personnel, our veterans and their families…
> 
> … and together, they form an integrated support system that helps our people as they work through the successive phases of recovery, rehabilitation and reintegration.
> 
> Programmes like Soldier On, which has been active since 2006 and uses physical fitness, sports and healthy living to enhance the quality of life for Canadian Forces members who have been seriously injured while serving in the military.
> 
> Or the establishment of Legacy of Care, announced in 2010 – a series of five new initiatives that assist in the recovery and rehabilitation of our injured soldiers, sailors and air personnel, as well as their eventual reintegration, along with their families, back into military or civilian life.
> 
> Or the introduction of the Shoulder to Shoulder initiative in 2011 – a programme that links the families of fallen Canadian Forces members with the many resources and compassionate services developed to meet their unique needs for as long as support is required.
> 
> Or through the creation of the Joint Personnel Support Unit, whose mandate is to provide streamlined “one stop” access to important services for all personnel – regardless of their situation – through a network of 24 Integrated Personnel Support Centres across the country.
> 
> This comprehensive framework and approach to effectively treat our ill and injured personnel are detailed in a newly-released publication entitled Caring for our Own.
> 
> But while our programs are extensive and wide-ranging, we recognize that National Defence shares responsibility with Veteran Affairs to support our ill and injured personnel who retire or are medically released after years of distinguished service.
> 
> Last fall, the Minister of Veterans Affairs announced enhancements to the New Veterans Charter, which will increase Earning Loss Benefits payments for ill and injured Veterans.
> 
> Today, I am pleased to announce nearly 113 million dollars in new funding to bring the Canadian Forces Long Term Disability benefit into alignment with this program.
> 
> As some of you will already know, the Long Term Disability group insurance plan for Canadian Forces members is administered under the Service Income Security Plan, or SISIP.
> 
> Depending on the nature of their disability, some members receive SISIP benefits up to the age of 65.
> 
> In other cases, members receive payments on a short-term basis before transferring to the Earning Loss Benefits plan under Veterans Affairs Canada.
> 
> Today’s announcement will ensure that the benefit payments to our ill and injured veterans are consistent – regardless of which program they fall under.
> 
> It will also ensure that our ill and injured veterans receive a minimum pre-tax income of $40,000 a year, and that they have the opportunity to participate in vocational rehabilitation training.
> 
> I am proud to say that these enhancements will benefit up to 2000 Canadian Forces members.
> 
> And although financial benefits cannot fully compensate our ill and injured personnel for their sacrifices…
> 
> …we certainly hope that with this support in place, injured and ill Canadian Forces Veterans will now be able to focus on what matters most – their recovery.
> 
> Canadians have been clear: they want to see our Veterans and our men and women in uniform receive the care, the support and the recognition they’ve earned.
> 
> This Government is dedicated to meeting this commitment.
> 
> That is why we are working to ensure that our long-term disability plan continues to meet the evolving needs of our veterans and our serving men and women in uniform.
> 
> Ladies and Gentlemen, the men and women of the Canadian Forces are some of this country’s finest citizens.
> 
> They are the people who regularly put themselves in harm’s way in the service of our country.
> 
> With all that they give on our behalf, we must be prepared to give back.
> 
> They deserve nothing less.
> 
> Thank you.


----------



## Pieman

> Depending on the nature of their disability, some members receive SISIP benefits up to the age of 65.
> 
> In other cases, members receive payments on a short-term basis before transferring to the Earning Loss Benefits plan under Veterans Affairs Canada.
> 
> Today’s announcement will ensure that the benefit payments to our ill and injured veterans are consistent – regardless of which program they fall under.
> 
> It will also ensure that our ill and injured veterans receive a minimum pre-tax income of $40,000 a year, and that they have the opportunity to participate in vocational rehabilitation training.



This all looks really good to me (on paper). Who is getting left out from this program? I hear so much negative stuff about VAC and SISIP, then I talk to a few people I know who are quite happy with the help they are getting. 



> Until the fix the "income from all sources", which includes non-taxable DVA pension, it's not much of a solution.


Are soldiers getting nothing because they get money out of DVA?


----------



## krustyrl

> Quote
> Until the fix the "income from all sources", which includes non-taxable DVA pension, it's not much of a solution. Are soldiers getting nothing because they get money out of DVA?





I believe SISIP considers a non-taxable monthly pension from DVA as "Income" and it is offsetting the amount to a maximum of 75% of your release salary


----------



## Pieman

> I believe SISIP considers a non-taxable monthly pension from DVA as "Income" and it is offsetting the amount to a maximum of 75% of your release salary


Okay, thanks for that.


----------



## The Bread Guy

The summary:





> A class proceeding was brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of approximately 4,500 former members of the Canadian Forces regarding the legality of the Defendant’s policy of reducing long-term disability (LTD) benefits payable to disabled Canadian Forces members under the Service Income Security Insurance Plan (SISIP) by the monthly amounts payable to those members under the Pension Act. *Upon review, the Court concludes that the Defendant’s offset of Pension Act disability benefits from LTD income payable under SISIP is not contractually justified.*


The full decision is attached.


----------



## krustyrl

So, in "Layman's Terms"  set aside the legal jargon , and if I'm reading this correctly, deducting a members "compensation" awarded him/her from the *Pension Act * is not to be considered as income under SISIP Act.?


----------



## Occam

krustyrl said:
			
		

> So, in "Layman's Terms"  set aside the legal jargon , and if I'm reading this correctly, deducting a members "compensation" awarded him/her from the *Pension Act * is not to be considered as income under SISIP Act.?



That's what it says: 

*THIS COURT ORDERS that the Defendant’s offset of Pension Act disability benefits
from the SISIP LTD income payable to the Plaintiff and to the other members of the Class is in
breach of Article 24(a)(iv) of the SISIP policy.*

The government lost.  Good.


----------



## OldSolduer

Question:

Will the government appeal this decision?

If it does, how long before the appeal is heard?


----------



## dapaterson

An appeal to the superior court would probably add another 12-18 months; an appeal beyond that to the Supreme Court, another 2-3 years.  Very rough estimates (in the WAG category).


----------



## PuckChaser

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Question:
> 
> Will the government appeal this decision?
> 
> If it does, how long before the appeal is heard?



Or how long until they change the contract without our consent to include items under the Pension Act specifically as income? From the parts I read, it seems like they could quite possibly just do that and only have to pay the older plaintiffs.


----------



## OldSolduer

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Or how long until they change the contract without our consent to include items under the Pension Act specifically as income? From the parts I read, it seems like they could quite possibly just do that and only have to pay the older plaintiffs.



Or appeal it to death....literally...


----------



## Kat Stevens

The lawyers that will finally lose all the appeals that will be filed in this case aren't even born yet.  everyone in the suit will be in the ground before it's settled.


----------



## Sythen

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20120501/federal-court-rules-ottawa-should-stop-clawingbackveterans-disability-benefits-120501/



> The federal government should stop clawing back disability benefits paid to thousands of former Canadian Forces members, the Federal Court of Canada has ruled.
> 
> About 4,500 disabled veterans launched the class-action lawsuit against the government, arguing it was unfair that long-term disability payments for pain and suffering were being deducted from their Service Income Security Insurance Plan (SISIP) pension.
> 
> 
> 
> Read more: http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20120501/federal-court-rules-ottawa-should-stop-clawingbackveterans-disability-benefits-120501/#ixzz1tf0Yit1v



More on link


----------



## The Bread Guy

.... on the court decision, via his blog:


> Mr. Dennis Manuge and approximately 4500 former members of the Canadian Forces were given positive news today from the Federal Court, which ruled that the offset of Pension Act disability benefits from the Service Income Security Insurance Plan - Long Term Disability Plan (SISIP LTD) contravened the SISIP policy.
> 
> In 2003, the National Defence and Canadian Forces Ombudsman conducted an investigation into the SISIP LTD and issued a report entitled Unfair Deductions From SISIP Payments to Former CF Members. After a thorough investigation, the National Defence and Canadian Forces Ombudsman concluded that it was an unfair practice for SISIP LTD to consider Pension Act disability pensions as income and to deduct them from SISIP LTD benefits.
> 
> In 2008 the Senate Standing Committee on National Security and Defence reconfirmed the findings of the National Defence and Canadian Forces Ombudsman in their own report on the subject by concluding that the practice was unfair and stating:  "In fact, all witnesses who appeared before us, with the exception of witnesses from the Department of National Defence, felt the reductions were indeed unfair."
> 
> The Office of the Veterans Ombudsman hopes that the Government of Canada responds quickly to resolve this unfairness.
> 
> The Office wishes to acknowledge the efforts of Mr. Manuge and the pro bono legal services provided by McInnes Cooper. Well done!


----------



## Greymatters

Good news!


----------



## Cdnleaf

That is really great news; thanks for posting.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Thank you for your 'never give up' attitude Dennis Manuge.

Injured Veterans all over Canada owe you a slap on the back and a hearty handshake.

BZ to you


----------



## krustyrl

Agreed... and a personal thanks.!     :+1:


----------



## dogger1936

Guys just a quick question in regards to this.

For a guy like myself under the new charter what does this all mean? Does this mean I get 75% of my military pay and SISIP LTD ontop of that?

Little confused as many of the stories I'm reading are IRT the pension act.


----------



## Occam

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> Guys just a quick question in regards to this.
> 
> For a guy like myself under the new charter what does this all mean? Does this mean I get 75% of my military pay and SISIP LTD ontop of that?
> 
> Little confused as many of the stories I'm reading are IRT the pension act.



It means nothing to anyone who has a condition under the New Charter.  When they implemented the lump sum payment and rescinded the monthly pension, the issue of whether the VAC disability pension was classified as "monthly income" became moot, since the lump sum is a disability _*award*_.


----------



## Greymatters

Occam said:
			
		

> It means nothing to anyone who has a condition under the New Charter.  When they implemented the lump sum payment and rescinded the monthly pension, the issue of whether the VAC disability pension was classified as "monthly income" became moot, since the lump sum is a disability _*award*_.



I would disagree as this has an impact on other forms of insurance; if for example you are receiving unemployment insurance, workers compensation, or compensation from an auto insurance company after a car accident, then the veterans pension is often considered a form of income that has to be declared and just as often can be deducted off of support payments, just like the SISIP program.  

This case could set the standard for preventing these kinds of deductions across the board in all insurance-related cases where a member receives a veterans pension.


----------



## Occam

Greymatters said:
			
		

> I would disagree as this has an impact on other forms of insurance; if for example you are receiving unemployment insurance, workers compensation, or compensation from an auto insurance company after a car accident, then the veterans pension is often considered a form of income that has to be declared and just as often can be deducted off of support payments, just like the SISIP program.
> 
> This case could set the standard for preventing these kinds of deductions across the board in all insurance-related cases where a member receives a veterans pension.



Yes, if you're getting a monthly pension, then you're getting it under the Pension Act - which is why I said this case doesn't have any bearing on people who are under the new charter, as they receive a Disability Award and not a pension under the Pension Act.  

This case may indeed have an impact on the status of Pension Act pensions, in that it may serve to clarify whether it may be counted as income in other situations outside that of SISIP LTD.


----------



## Kat Stevens

Greymatters said:
			
		

> I would disagree as this has an impact on other forms of insurance; if for example you are receiving unemployment insurance, workers compensation, or compensation from an auto insurance company after a car accident, then the veterans pension is often considered a form of income that has to be declared and just as often can be deducted off of support payments, just like the SISIP program.
> 
> This case could set the standard for preventing these kinds of deductions across the board in all insurance-related cases where a member receives a veterans pension.



VAC disability pensions are not considered income for EI purposes, but a CFSA pension is.  I should know, I'm one of those system abusing tax payer raping deadbeats, for the moment.


----------



## Bigrex

Actually, the judge stated that the contracting parties to an insurance plan can have whatever deductions they want, but it has to be written down in clear language in the policy so that no interpretation of what is included is required. Our case won because the CDS used the term "Income benefit" so therefor our pension act payments for pain and suffering are excluded because they are not income. he even cited VAC's Earnings Loss Benefit that legally includes PA pensions because it does not use the quantifier of Income in their exclusion clause. I wish it had been stated that nobody can reduce any insurance payment to a Vet based on them receiving PA payments, but that is not the case, so far. Fortunately, the judge said that most insurance policies do not reduce claims for income replacement due to non indemnity payments such as the PA pensions, out of fairness. 

The judge also questioned if the government understood the legality of reducing a claim by amounts not stated in the policy, like workers compensation or automobile insurance payments. Currently, if you were released and pensioned for a bum knee, SISIP would deduct the PA pension received for that knee, rightly or wrongly. But if you went on and worked somewhere else and injured your back and was awarded a workers compensation award, SISIP would try to reduce their liability by that amount as well, and the courts have said that is wrong. I wouldn't be surprised if they don't sit down and rewrite the entire policy over again based on the court decision.


----------



## dogger1936

Occam said:
			
		

> It means nothing to anyone who has a condition under the New Charter.  When they implemented the lump sum payment and rescinded the monthly pension, the issue of whether the VAC disability pension was classified as "monthly income" became moot, since the lump sum is a disability _*award*_.



Ok thanks for confirming what I had thought. Congrats to all those under the pension act!! Glad to see some vet's getting what they deserve.


----------



## Greymatters

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> VAC disability pensions are not considered income for EI purposes, but a CFSA pension is.  I should know, I'm one of those system abusing tax payer raping deadbeats, for the moment.



Glad to hear its not a problem with EI, but it is an issue with other forms of insurance, when the insurance company member doesnt understand the difference between a military pension and a disability pension...


----------



## kstart

If anyone is in the Ottawa area tomorrow, I notice that Dennis Manuge will be attending Question Period, House of Commons, 13:00hrs.

http://canadianveteransadvocacy.com/Board2/index.php?board=87.0

I sincerely hope the Federal Government cease and desist on pursuing appeal of the Federal Court decision.  Honour where honour is due: these people have fought long and hard.  I'm writing my MP; Rob Nicholson; Peter MacKay. . .


----------



## The Bread Guy

Two tidbits:

1)  During Question Period yesterday, this question was asked, but Hansard shows no answer appears to have been given.....





> Mr. Sean Casey (Charlottetown, Lib.):  Mr. Speaker, I would hope that by now we could assume that the minister has finally completed his homework and is up to speed on the 31-page Federal Court decision on veterans pensions.  With only a few days before the Conservatives must decide whether to appeal this very clear ruling, is the government now in a position to tell the House and thousands of affected veterans what action it intends to take?



2)  The Ministers of Defence and Veterans Affairs are going to speak to media just after noon today (29 May 12) about - guess what?





> .... The Honourable Peter MacKay, Minister of National Defence, and the Honourable Steven Blaney, Minister of Veteran’s Affairs, will discuss *long term disability benefits for Canadian Forces members and veterans*.
> 
> When:
> Tuesday, May 29, 2012 at 12:15 p.m. (EST)
> 
> Where:
> Conference Room D, 2 North Tower
> National Defence Headquarters
> 101 Colonel By Drive
> Ottawa, Ontario
> 
> -30-
> 
> Notes to editor / news director:
> 
> Media representatives are asked to arrive at 11:45 a.m. (EST). Entrance will be through the Nicholas Street security gate. Please note there is limited Sat Pad parking space available.
> 
> Media may listen to the news conference by telephone at the following numbers: 1-877- 974-0445 toll free, or 1-416-644-3415 for local calls ....


----------



## The Bread Guy

> The federal government will not a appeal a Federal Court of Canada ruling that rejected clawbacks from the pensions of disabled veterans.
> 
> The Canadian Press has learned a formal announcement will come this afternoon from Veterans Affairs Minister Steven Blaney and Defence Minister Peter MacKay.
> 
> The ruling earlier this month was a victory for veterans five years in the making.
> 
> The class action was filed in March 2007 on behalf of Dennis Manuge and 4,500 other disabled veterans whose long-term disability benefits are reduced by the amount of the monthly Veterans Affairs disability pension they receive.
> 
> The court said the clawback was unfair under the Pension Act and violated the reasonable expectations of disabled vets.
> 
> While the government won't appeal the ruling, sources say details of the settlement, including how far back pension repayments might extend, are still being worked out.
> 
> Manuge has said in the past that as much as $320 million was at stake in the court fight.
> 
> Senior defence sources say the final pay-out figure is "likely in the hundreds of millions of dollars" but that will be determined in negotiations with the plaintiffs.
> 
> A government source said one internal estimate sees the figure go as high as $600 million, depending upon the negotiations ....


The Canadian Press, 29 May 12


----------



## dogger1936

Good news for those affected.

Now will they even the playing field and make one veteran on standard? I'm dismayed they didnt take the right action and move forward to bring back pensions for us injured after 2006.

Next lawsuit proceeds I guess.


----------



## Grapeshot

See the CBC website for the story.

Ottawa won't appeal veterans' court victory on pensions -  The Canadian Press 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/05/29/pol-mackay-blaney-veterans-pensions-clawbacks.html

This appears to be great news for those 6000 personnel who won the lastest court battle. Finally, it appears that the government of the day will be doing the right thing!  BZ


----------



## The Bread Guy

Seems to be confirmed:





> *The federal government will not a appeal a Federal Court of Canada ruling that rejected clawbacks from the pensions of disabled veterans.
> 
> Veterans Affairs Minister Steven Blaney and Defence Minister Peter MacKay made the announcement in Ottawa on today (sic), saying they had sought and received a clear opinion from the court on the payments.*
> 
> The ruling earlier this month was a victory for veterans five years in the making.
> 
> The class action was filed in March 2007 on behalf of Dennis Manuge and 4,500 other disabled veterans.
> 
> Their long-term disability benefits are reduced by the amount of the monthly Veterans Affairs disability pension they receive.
> 
> *MacKay says there is no reason to delay the benefits of those who are suffering as a result of their military service.*
> 
> He says it isn't clear how much it could cost the federal government or how far back the payments would go, adding they will continue talking to the parties involved ....


CP via Global News, 29 May 12


----------



## krustyrl

A huge pat on the back and "thank you" to Mr Denis Manuge for his persistence in what he believed in and taking on the big machine.           

THANK YOU.!

note:  thank you also to Mr MacKay and Mr Blaney for doing the right thing for ill and injured CF Members.


----------



## The Bread Guy

> Following a long five-year class action lawsuit between disabled veterans and the Government of Canada, disabled veterans expressed relief that the Federal Court of Canada decision in their favour will not be appealed.
> 
> "This has been a long five-year class action lawsuit between disabled veterans and the Government of Canada and its is great to see that they are doing the right thing," said Canadian veteran and lead plaintiff Dennis Manuge. "They have listened to Canada's disabled veterans, and clearly they wanted to do the right thing."
> 
> (....)
> 
> "The Federal Court of Canada ruling and the acceptance of the ruling by the Government of Canada, provides hope for Canada's disabled, ill and disadvantaged veterans who have been taken advantage of for far too long," said Manuge. "This has been a very difficult experience for Canada's disabled veterans, including me, on a personal, emotional and financial level and it is a relief to know that we are one step closer to being reimbursed."
> 
> In the near term, Mr. Manuge's legal counsel, Peter Driscoll and Daniel Wallace with McInnes Cooper and Ward Branch with Branch MacMaster, will work with the Federal Government to finalize details of the class action decision.
> 
> "We don't know the full scope of this announcement yet, but we're confident it soon will put the money into the hands of all affected disabled veterans - many of whom have been waiting a very long time and need this support very much," said lead counsel Peter Driscoll with McInnes Cooper. "We look forward to sitting down with federal representatives to implement the decision."
> 
> Minister MacKay and Minister Blaney also announced today that as a result of this court decision, the Government of Canada will change the Earnings Loss Benefit (ELB) to be aligned with the SISIP decision, so that ELB benefits are not reduced by the amount of VAC disability payments.
> 
> "This ELB decision will put much needed money in the hands of disabled veterans," said Driscoll.
> 
> (....)
> 
> For more information visit www.leavenovetbehind.ca or www.mcinnescooper.com.


McInnes Cooper news release, 29 May 12

Still nothing at the DND or VAC site yet with more details.

Edited to add this from DND:





> The Honourable Peter MacKay, Minister of National Defence, and the Honourable Steven Blaney, Minister of Veterans Affairs, today announced that the Government of Canada will not appeal the Federal Court’s May 1, 2012 decision regarding the offset of Pension Act disability benefits from the Service Income Security Insurance Plan (SISIP).
> 
> “The men and women who serve and sacrifice in Canada's name need to know that their Government will stand behind them and provide the benefits they need when their service is complete,” said Minister MacKay. “I am pleased to announce our government will discontinue the offset for Long Term Disability benefits.”
> 
> Since 2006, the Government of Canada has put in place a wide range of programs and benefits to support ill and injured Veterans, military personnel and their families. These complement the Long Term Disability group insurance plan for Canadian Forces (CF) members that is administered under SISIP. This program has done a tremendous amount of good by giving veterans with a long-term disability a benefit equal to 75 per cent of their pre-release salary.
> 
> “I am happy to announce that our Government is taking action to harmonize our disability benefits at Veterans Affairs to reflect the planned changes to SISIP,” said Minister Blaney. “With these changes, Veterans Affairs’ disability pension will no longer be deducted from the Earnings Loss Benefit, as will be the case with the War Veterans Allowance and the Canadian Forces Income Support Benefit. This is a very positive change for our men and women injured in service to Canada who will now receive the benefits and services they are entitled to. Our Government will continue to stand up for them the same way they have stood up for our great country.”
> 
> The CF Long Term Disability (LTD) Income Replacement program is a disability group insurance plan administered by SISIP Financial Services that provides CF members with replacement income protection and vocational rehabilitation if they are released from the CF for medical reasons or take a voluntary release but qualify as being totally disabled.
> 
> “Today's decision ensures that our Government's strong record of delivering for our men and women in uniform continues to meet the needs of those who need these benefits,” said Minister MacKay. “The Government acted in support of our members, past and present, because we believe that it is the right thing to do.” ....


----------



## Representative Plaintiff

To all the doubters and haters on here, one individual with some luck and a kick ass legal team (pro bono) can make a difference and change the law!

To all the supporters, many thanks

*For more info on our voctory, pleasse see:*

http://leavenovetbehind.ca/home

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." 
THEODORE ROOSEVELT
(Paris Sorbonne,1910)


----------



## dogger1936

Representative Plaintiff said:
			
		

> To all the doubters and haters on here, one individual with some luck and a kick *** legal team (pro bono) can make a difference and change the law!
> 
> To all the supporters, many thanks
> 
> *For more info on our voctory, pleasse see:*
> 
> http://leavenovetbehind.ca/home
> 
> "It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat."
> THEODORE ROOSEVELT
> (Paris Sorbonne,1910)



Absolutely. To all the loud angry people speaking up; Thanks!!


----------



## krustyrl

Any news from those currently on LTD ( or anyone.?), wether or not any VA Pension is still being deducted from their LTD.?


----------



## The Bread Guy

krustyrl said:
			
		

> Any news from those currently on LTD ( or anyone.?), wether or not any VA Pension is still being deducted from their LTD.?


The latest from The Canadian Press:





> The federal government will stop the clawback on pensions of disabled veterans starting on July 1, but it's still negotiating retroactive payments to those covered by a Federal Court ruling.
> 
> Defence Minister Peter MacKay announced an end to the clawbacks in a statement on Friday, two weeks after the Harper government decided not to appeal a court ruling that sided with veterans.
> 
> A class-action lawsuit was filed in March 2007 on behalf of Dennis Manuge and 4,500 other disabled veterans whose long-term disability benefits are reduced by the amount of the monthly Veterans Affairs disability pension they receive.
> 
> MacKay called Manuge to tell him about the end to the deductions.
> 
> But the minister said in his statement that federal lawyers are still working to obtain a "mutually acceptable settlement" for repayment of benefits that have been clawed back, in some cases for decades.
> 
> It is unclear how much that will cost or how far back the payments will go.
> 
> Manuge, at point, estimated as much as $320 million was at stake.
> 
> But senior defence sources say the figure could run as high as $600 million, depending upon the negotiations ....


----------



## krustyrl

Thanks milnews.ca.  

Upon reading the link I seen this come up.



> Among the matters under discussion is whether the benefit will be taxed.


----------



## Kokanee

I am curious to know whether this will also apply to those recently released vets on LTD while going back to college for their two year education period. Currently your CF pension counts towards the 75% during that time.


----------



## dogger1936

Kokanee said:
			
		

> I am curious to know whether this will also apply to those recently released vets on LTD while going back to college for their two year education period. Currently your CF pension counts towards the 75% during that time.



I don't believe so. This is concerning your disability pension; which if your under the NVC you no longer get.


----------



## Nemo888

Now on to something important, 

The SISIP plaintiff Dennis Manuge fired this off to the CDS. Maybe we should send him a few more letters. 

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Dear General

I am wondering why we, the SISIP Class, have not heard from you at all since May 1, 2012 [decision day] and since the Federal Government has decided not to appeal the Federal Court Decision in the SISIP class’ favour.

As the current CDS and SISIP policyholder, and as the uniformed leader of the CF, your silence and your lack of looking after the troops on this issue are quite perplexing.

You are most likely aware of the delays going on  from your side’s part to this point in addressing the remaining disabled veterans of the class that have been looked after yet. This would be in terms of having their SISIP LTD reinstated, nor have any of the class been advised or has the DOJ let us know how they intend to provide our retroactive payments back to 1979, interest, possible damages, etc.

If you are unaware of the delays, such as DOJ lawyers telling our legal folks they are taking the first weeks of July off for vacation, rather then sitting down with our legal team, that perplexes me even more. Sir, I am asking you to demonstrate some leadership on this issue and light a fire under DOJ and senior bureaucrats to get the ball rolling. Luckily, our legal staff convinced DOJ to sit down in Ottawa next Wednesday and start some discussion, rather than us starting to file court motions on the remaining and outstanding issues.

May I remind you Sir, that the folks that have not had their SISIP LTD payments reinstated yet are the most seriously disabled members of the Class and the most disadvantaged due to the claw back.

How about starting retirement soon knowing you did all you can for your troops who have gone down in the line of duty! I am sure you have the ability to address the media at your leisure and we the class would sure appreciate some uniformed leadership and support. It is funny how a disabled Corporal Vehicle Technician (medically released) has been the one to look after the troops regarding this issue. I have never heard from one flag officer or anyone above the rank of Major in the 9 years I have been advocating and battling legally. Pretty much sums things up as to why it took a Federal Court Justice to come to our rescue. Where are the senior leaders?

Respectfully

Dennis Manuge
Representative Plaintiff, SISIP Class


----------



## The Bread Guy

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> The latest from The Canadian Press:
> 
> 
> 
> The federal government will stop the clawback on pensions of disabled veterans starting on July 1, but it's still negotiating retroactive payments to those covered by a Federal Court ruling.
> 
> Defence Minister Peter MacKay announced an end to the clawbacks in a statement on Friday, two weeks after the Harper government decided not to appeal a court ruling that sided with veterans.
> 
> A class-action lawsuit was filed in March 2007 on behalf of Dennis Manuge and 4,500 other disabled veterans whose long-term disability benefits are reduced by the amount of the monthly Veterans Affairs disability pension they receive ....
Click to expand...

More of the latest from CP:





> Some of Canada's most severely injured veterans say they are still seeing their military pensions clawed back despite a court ruling that found the practice illegal and a decision by Ottawa not to appeal the ruling.
> 
> Veterans with debilitating injuries said they thought their payments would increase when the federal government announced in May that it wouldn't challenge the Federal Court decision on the so-called clawbacks.
> 
> The court found the government was acting illegally by reducing veterans long-term disability benefits because they were receiving pain and suffering payments and other awards.
> 
> Defence Minister Peter MacKay said the clawbacks would end July 1.
> 
> But many vets are still having thousands of dollars withheld, reducing their disability payments to nothing.
> 
> Ron Cundell, who receives a Canada Pension Plan disability benefit, a military pension and a pain and suffering award from Veterans Affairs, said his long-term disability payment has not been reinstated.
> 
> "The most severely injured — we're getting squat," he said from his home in Angus, Ont.
> 
> "It's being used as a negotiation piece between the law firm and the Department of Justice. The most severely injured Canadian soldier is a pawn."
> 
> ( .... )
> 
> Peter Stoffer, the NDP's veterans affairs critic, said the federal government could easily start the payments that he says the former military members are due.
> 
> "The government should be saying whatever it takes to fix this system, fix it," he said.
> 
> In an email to The Canadian Press on Friday, a spokesman for National Defence said the government "has begun discussions with the claimants' legal team to resolve all outstanding issues." ....


----------



## The Bread Guy

From the Veterans Ombudsman's blog with a bit of the latest....





> .... to help overcome the current information void, I thought I should share a few points from our discussions with the Department (of Veterans Affairs):
> 
> The Department is committed to ending as quickly as possible the practice of offsetting Pension Act disability pensions from its programs, namely the War Veterans Allowance, the Canadian Forces Income Support Benefit and the Earnings Loss Benefit.
> Unlike the Canadian Forces, which can quickly change the wording of the SISIP policy, Veterans Affairs Canada has to work through the “machinery of government” to change the regulations. This takes some time. The Minister has committed to communicating the way forward and I will continue to press for the clear and timely release of information.  I would expect that regardless of when the revised regulations come into effect, there would be retroactivity to the date at which SISIP stopped the practice of reducing long term disability (LTD) benefits payable to disabled Canadian Forces members under the SISIP policy by the monthly amounts payable to them under the Pension Act. The Department was very receptive to communicating their timelines to the Veterans community.
> The Office is aware that payments under both SISIP LTD and the Department’s Earnings Loss Benefit are reduced to zero as a result of offsetting, in cases where a Veteran’s disability pension and/or military pension (under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act) exceeds 75% of his or her salary at release. In such cases, referred to as ‘zero sum clients’, there is no requirement for SISIP or Veterans Affairs Canada to provide for income loss. (Note that the offset of payments under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act will continue).
> The Office has confirmed that SISIP has, on a go forward basis, made the payment adjustments resulting from the Federal Court decision to LTD claimants who are receiving payments and to ‘zero sum clients’ who applied for LTD benefits within the last 24 months. However, SISIP has also decided that zero sum clients who applied for LTD benefits more than two years ago will have to wait until the negotiations are settled before receiving a monthly payment. This means that all those under SISIP LTD receiving maximum disability pensions, which are the most seriously disabled individuals, will have to wait the outcome of the negotiations while the less seriously disabled individuals benefit immediately. On a positive note, Veterans Affairs Canada anticipates that ALL ‘zero sum clients’ under the Earnings Loss Benefit will be paid on a “go forward” basis irrespective of when the class action negotiations are completed.
> I expect that Veterans Affairs Canada will be communicating with the Veterans community shortly and I will continue to encourage the Department to do so regularly.


----------



## dogger1936

I'm a little lost here on the wording honestly (it's a huge issue of mine my reading comprehension is ****ed) How does this decision affect veterans who applied 2 years ago when they would have fallen under the NVC? 

Confused and if someone can dumb it down a little it would be great.

Cheer's


----------



## Occam

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> I'm a little lost here on the wording honestly (it's a huge issue of mine my reading comprehension is ****ed) How does this decision affect veterans who applied 2 years ago when they would have fallen under the NVC?
> 
> Confused and if someone can dumb it down a little it would be great.
> 
> Cheer's



It doesn't.  It only affects those under the Pension Act.


----------



## krustyrl

Can someone who is recieving a VA Pension *and*  on SISIP LTD let us know if the monthly VA Pension was in fact NOT factored in for this month and recieved on top of the LTD.?


----------



## krustyrl

UBC negotiator appointed.                         :



http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/negotiator-appointed-to-service-income-security-insurance-plan-class-action-suit-1685835.htm


----------



## The Bread Guy

More from The Canadian Press:





> The federal government has appointed the president of the University of British Columbia to help resolve a dispute with Canadian Forces veterans over long-term disability benefits.
> 
> Stephen Toope, a former dean of law at McGill University, will serve as the federal representative in talks to resolve a class-action lawsuit that aims to stop federal benefit clawbacks.
> 
> "The well-being of both our serving and retired members is important for our government," MacKay said in a statement.
> 
> "This appointment further underlines our intent to work towards a positive resolution in this matter."
> 
> A Federal Court ruling in May found Ottawa was acting illegally by clawing back long-term disability benefits from veterans who were also receiving pain and suffering payments and other awards.
> 
> But while MacKay said the clawbacks would end in July, some veterans whose extra payments exceeded the limit of 75 per cent of their military salary — often those who were most severely injured — have complained their benefits were still being reduced.
> 
> Advocates for veterans rights have said those former soldiers with the most grievous injuries should see an immediate reinstatement of the benefits, particularly since many can't work and rely solely on pain and suffering awards ....


----------



## bison33

krustyrl said:
			
		

> Can someone who is recieving a VA Pension *and*  on SISIP LTD let us know if the monthly VA Pension was in fact NOT factored in for this month and recieved on top of the LTD.?



My July SISIP payment was indeed higher, by the same amount as my monthly VAC payment.


----------



## krustyrl

Certainly good news.!


----------



## The Bread Guy

> There's growing concern among veterans a big chunk of a planned multi-million settlement over the clawback of military pensions could be gobbled up by legal fees.
> 
> One member of a class-action lawsuit has written to Defence Minister Peter MacKay, asking that the federal government pay the cost of lawyers over and above any out-of-court compensation that arises from upcoming negotiations.
> 
> "I hope that you make a separate reasonable payment to lawyers in accordance with the reasonable fees set by precedent in the courts," wrote Louise Gagnon, a retired major.
> 
> "This payment should not come from the monies contractually and honourably owed us."
> 
> (....)
> 
> Information from Veterans Affairs Canada suggests legal fees could be included in whatever final agreement is made.
> 
> "By agreement with the representative plaintiffs, counsel fees may be calculated at 30 per cent of any amounts recovered,"said the department's website.
> 
> "If a settlement, judgment, voluntary payment or execution or other benefit is obtained, the lawyers will apply to court for approval of a fee that is consistent with the terms of this agreement, or some lesser amount. The court will decide what amount is fair." ....


The Canadian Press, 13 Aug 12


----------



## The Bread Guy

How much did the Manuge case cost the Government (legal costs)?

$750,462.74, from a Sessional Paper filed in the House of Commons last week - shared for personal information/research only.


----------



## dogger1936

The next lawsuit regarding the NVA will be fired up here shortly. I HOPE to see the govt not fighting this one tooth and nail.


----------



## krustyrl

> Posted by: dogger1936
> « on: Today at 22:26:01 »
> 
> Insert Quote
> 
> 
> The next lawsuit regarding the NVA will be fired up here shortly. I HOPE to see the govt not fighting this one tooth and nail.




Would you be referring to the NVC.?


----------



## dogger1936

krustyrl said:
			
		

> Would you be referring to the NVC.?



Sorry yes the NVC.


----------



## krustyrl

Just makin' sure.!


----------



## The Bread Guy

Meanwhile ....


> Compensating disabled veterans for the clawback of their military pensions could cost more than expected because the federal government is now considering retroactive payments going back almost four decades.
> 
> Internal government estimates have suggested the settlement could run to $600 million, a figure that may turn out to be low.
> 
> Late last week, lawyers representing ex-soldiers revealed that federal negotiators were still crunching numbers for the total compensation package and it was being “complicated by the fact the proposed amounts may go back to the start of the offset in 1976,” according to a letter obtained by The Canadian Press.
> 
> One of the veterans affected by the lawsuit said the federal government has only itself to blame.
> 
> “I can’t see it going to $1 billion, but if it does, the government was really stupid to let this go as long as it did over 40 years,” said Ron Cundell, a former sergeant and disabled veteran living near Barrie, Ont ....


The Canadian Press, 1 Oct 12


----------



## Greymatters

I believe this will be the next big case - more recently knonw as Bill C-215

http://openparliament.ca/bills/41-1/C-215/  
http://openparliament.ca/bills/41-1/C-215/?page=2


----------



## The Bread Guy

Wonder how "important" it'll be....


> Valcartier, QC — The Honourable Steven Blaney, Minister of Veterans Affairs, will make an important announcement about financial benefits for Veterans.
> 
> Location: Valcartier Garrison
> 100 rue Dubé, Courcelette, Québec
> 
> Date: Wednesday, October 10, 2012
> 
> Time: 10:00 a.m.
> 
> Parliamentary Secretary Eve Adams will also make an important announcement about financial benefits for Veterans.
> 
> Location: Cartier Square Drill Hall
> 2 Queen Elizabeth Drive
> Ottawa, Ontario
> 
> Date: Wednesday, October 10, 2012
> 
> Time: 10:00 a.m. ....


VAC Info-machine, 9 Oct 12

Will shift into existing thread - if it fits better - once we hear more.


----------



## Pieman

Free T-Shirts and a Hoodie for any injuries? *fingers crossed*


----------



## PuckChaser

Another claim to remove red tape probably...


----------



## The Bread Guy

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Another claim to remove red tape probably...


Maybe, maybe not - they're using the phrase "financial benefits" in this media advisory.  

The last time VAC previewed a "less red tape" announcement, it mentioned "the improvement of service for Veterans" in the media advisory.


----------



## Wayne7799

Hopefully its good news as my application is in PEI as we speak


----------



## dapaterson

http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/department/press/viewrelease/1578

The Honourable Steven Blaney, Minister of Veterans Affairs, and Eve Adams, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, announced today that effective immediately, the Government of Canada will deliver increased benefits to Canadian Forces Veterans. This will be accomplished by ending the deduction of Veterans’ disability pensions when calculating their Earnings Loss and Canadian Forces Income Support benefits. 

“We have worked quickly to make changes to Veterans’ benefits to put more money in the pockets of Veterans and their families, including some who haven’t been receiving these benefits until now,” said Minister Blaney. “We are also working quickly to make the necessary changes to the War Veterans Allowance Act so a disability pension will no longer be considered when calculating the War Veterans Allowance benefit.”


----------



## The Bread Guy

dapaterson said:
			
		

> http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/department/press/viewrelease/1578
> 
> The Honourable Steven Blaney, Minister of Veterans Affairs, and Eve Adams, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, announced today that effective immediately, the Government of Canada will deliver increased benefits to Canadian Forces Veterans. This will be accomplished by ending the deduction of Veterans’ disability pensions when calculating their Earnings Loss and Canadian Forces Income Support benefits.
> 
> “We have worked quickly to make changes to Veterans’ benefits to put more money in the pockets of Veterans and their families, including some who haven’t been receiving these benefits until now,” said Minister Blaney. “We are also working quickly to make the necessary changes to the War Veterans Allowance Act so a disability pension will no longer be considered when calculating the War Veterans Allowance benefit.”



The bit that jumps out at me from the news release:


> .... Earnings Loss Benefit and Canadians Forces Income Support Benefit recipients who are also in receipt of a disability pension from Veterans Affairs Canada may see a significant increase in their payment in the coming weeks. All affected recipients will be notified in writing with details of the recalculation and change to their payment ....


----------



## krustyrl

Unless I missed something, I wonder if the Gov't who wants to "put more money in the Veterans pockets" will soak up the legal costs of the recent SISIP Class Action Suit.?


----------



## Pieman

So wait, no T-shirts or Hoodies?

*Sounds* like good news overall.


----------



## The Bread Guy

CBC.ca:


> Veterans Affairs is ending clawbacks for two more types of income support benefits, in the wake of last spring's federal court decision that said the federal government shouldn't be deducting from veterans' long-term disability benefits when they also receive a disability pension.
> 
> Veterans Affairs Minister Steven Blaney announced Wednesday that effective immediately, veterans will no longer have the amount of their earnings loss benefit and their Canadian Forces Income Support benefit reduced because they're also receiving a disability pension.
> 
> Blaney told reporters that the government is going "even farther than what the court required," saying the Harper government had "no obligation" to make today's move but it is committed to "harmonizing" its system and ending deductions for complentary programs.
> 
> The changes will cost the government $177.7 million over the next five years and are expected to affect an estimated 2,500 veterans and families.
> 
> Blaney also said the government is working to change legislation so the war veterans allowance won't be clawed back in the future.
> 
> (....)
> 
> Veterans have been complaining about the clawback of various benefits since a new Veterans Charter was introduced in 2006.
> 
> A group of veterans won a class action lawsuit in Federal Court last May, arguing that it was unfair to reduce long-term disability benefits by the amount of the monthly Veterans Affairs disability pension.
> 
> When MacKay and Blaney said they would not appeal the decision, they said they would move to make changes to other benefits not directly involved in the court decision so they weren't clawed back either.
> 
> A government-appointed negotiator, Stephen Toope, the president of the University of British Columbia, is working with lawyers representing the 4,500 veterans on a settlement for the class action lawsuit.
> 
> The settlement could run as high as $600 million, depending on the cut-off date negotiated.
> 
> (....)
> 
> It's not clear whether Wednesday's changes will also be made retroactive. For now, revised monthly payments will start in November, and additional cheques will be issued to make up for the clawback in October ....



The Canadian Press:


> Canada’s Department of Veterans Affairs has ended its long-standing, controversial policy of clawing back the benefit payments of disabled soldiers, sailors and aircrew — a move critics say has been far too long in coming.
> 
> Effective immediately, the Harper government will no longer deduct the amount of a veteran’s pension from benefits for lost earnings and Canadian Forces income support, which were introduced in 2006 under the New Veterans Charter.
> 
> Veterans Affairs Minister Steven Blaney made the announcement Wednesday at a news conference at Valcartier Garrison, outside Quebec City.
> 
> “We have worked quickly to make these changes to put more money in the pockets of veterans and their families, including some who haven’t been receiving these benefits until now,” Mr. Blaney said.
> 
> The move is a consequence of last spring’s Federal Court ruling, which rejected the clawback of disability benefits from eligible veterans in a case waged against the Department of National Defence.
> 
> Back in July, Defence Minister Peter MacKay ended the deduction for most disabled soldiers, but it took a special cabinet order passed just recently to get the measure enacted for those affected under the veterans affairs system.
> 
> Ending the clawback immediately will cost the federal treasury $177.7-million over the next five years.
> 
> Depending upon the severity of the injury and whether they receive the earnings loss or the income support benefit, the change could mean between $1,100 and $1,500 per month to individual veterans ....



And with this, stand by for a merge back to the SISIP thread....


----------



## maniac

OTTAWA - Canada's Department of Veterans Affairs has ended its long-standing, controversial policy of clawing back the benefit payments of disabled soldiers, sailors and aircrew — a move critics say has been far too long in coming.

Effective immediately, the Harper government will no longer deduct the amount of a veteran's pension from benefits for lost earnings and Canadian Forces income support, which were introduced in 2006 under the New Veterans Charter.

Veterans Affairs Minister Steven Blaney made the announcement Wednesday at a news conference at Valcartier Garrison, outside Quebec City.

"We have worked quickly to make these changes to put more money in the pockets of veterans and their families, including some who haven't been receiving these benefits until now," Blaney said.

The move is a consequence of last spring's Federal Court ruling, which rejected the clawback of disability benefits from eligible veterans in a case waged against the Department of National Defence.

Back in July, Defence Minister Peter MacKay ended the deduction for most disabled soldiers, but it took a special cabinet order passed just recently to get the measure enacted for those affected under the veterans affairs system.

Ending the clawback immediately will cost the federal treasury $177.7 million over the next five years.

Depending upon the severity of the injury and whether they receive the earnings loss or the income support benefit, the change could mean between $1,100 and $1,500 per month to individual veterans.

More changes are on the way, affecting those veterans who entered the system prior to the introduction of the updated veterans charter.

"We are also working quickly to make the necessary legislative changes to the War Veterans Allowance Act so a disability pension will no longer be considered when calculating the War Veterans Allowance benefit," Blaney said.

New Democrat veterans critic Peter Stoffer said he was pleased with the decision, but irritated by the government's blatant politicking — including the claim it has "worked quickly" to help affected veterans.

The Conservative government could have implemented Wednesday's changes years ago, Stoffer said.

"It's hard to criticize them when they do the right thing, but these problems have been around a lot longer than the current government and it is something they should have done when they came to office," he said.

"They're not doing this out of the goodness of their heart. They're doing it because a judge ordered them to."

The changes announced Wednesday are separate from ongoing negotiations meant to establish retroactive compensation for disabled military veterans, many of whom have had their pensions deducted since 1976.

Some internal government estimates suggest that settlement could run as high as $600 million, depending upon the cut-off date established through negotiations involving lawyers for 4,500 veterans who launched a class-action lawsuit and federal negotiators led by Stephen Toope, the president of the University of British Columbia.

Veterans affairs officials, speaking on background, said the issue of retroactivity as it relates to Wednesday's announcement will be dealt with "at another point down the road."

Going forward, the veterans department will increase monthly payments starting in November, but issue cheques to make up for the deduction in October.

Groups representing ex-military members, including the Canadian Peacekeepers Association and the Royal Canadian Legion, are generally pleased with the decision.

But the question of money still owing looms large.

"All that is left for Minister Blaney to do is address the retroactive money owed to these veterans back to 2006, when the (New Veterans Charter) was enacted by Parliament," said Ron Cundell, a former sergeant and disabled veteran who runs the website veteranvoice.info.

Wednesday's announcement will have a major impact on modern-day soldiers, Cundell said.

"The Afghan vets who were severely injured and are unable to work will now be able to live a more financially comfortable life."

Stoffer called on the government to settle a separate lawsuit launched by members of the RCMP who've also had their disability pensions clawed back.

The government should also halt deductions for all federal employees whose Canada Pension Plan disability benefits are deducted dollar-for-dollar from their superannuation payments, he added.

Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Ottawa+ends+clawback+veterans+affairs+pensions+after+Federal/7368500/story.html#ixzz28vysc0tT


----------



## JorgSlice

About damn time. Now they just need to stop taxing military pensions.


----------



## the 48th regulator

IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR ZERO SUM CLIENTS

Peter Driscoll October 9, 2012

VVi 9 Oct 2012 db

Class Members:

We understand there has been confusion with respect to the commencement of the processing of “zero sum” claims on October 9th by Manulife Financial on behalf of SISIP. We have just received the following from the Department of Justice confirming what steps will be taken, beginning today,
to process “zero sum” member benefits:

“Beginning today, October 9, 2012 Manulife Financial has started the processing for qualifying "zero sum" class members (those members of the Class who received nothing from SISIP LTD due to the deduction of their VAC disability payments).

We require that you provide your current contact information so that we can send you an information package requesting a status update on your medical condition and financial circumstances since your file was closed with Manulife Financial.”

What this means is that SISIP/Manulife is “open for business” for “zero sum” members whose file has been closed. As you can imagine, some class member files are more complete than others. Some members may not have been in contact with SISIP/Manulife for some time, and some may be in regular contact and have up to date information on file. What is being required from members above is what is required under the terms of the SISIP LTD policy. If you have an “open file” with SISIP/Manulife your case manager may be able to assist you.

Manulife may be contacted by using toll free 1-855-370-0025.

Please keep in mind this is just the initial manner in which we are attempting to get benefits into the hands of zero sum class members. As outlined in the memorandum concerning the negotiations, we are still in the process of finalizing proxies (such as a determination of total and permanent disability under CPP, for example) and an independent adjudication process as ways members can qualify for benefits outside of the normal process required under the SISIP LTD Policy. We will update you further as soon as we are able.


----------



## brihard

PrairieThunder said:
			
		

> About damn time. Now they just need to stop taxing military pensions.



How do you figure that? We already have one of the best pension plans to be found anywhere in the country, derived from a pretty damned decent salary and benefits. Why should we not continue to pay tax on income after retirement?


----------



## JorgSlice

Brihard said:
			
		

> How do you figure that? We already have one of the best pension plans to be found anywhere in the country, derived from a pretty damned decent salary and benefits. Why should we not continue to pay tax on income after retirement?



I always thought that taxing the pension of Veterans was wrong. That's all. For the 20-25 years of selfless service and unlimited liability to your country that is required to qualify for a full pension, it just seems wrong for the government to continue to scrape money out of Veterans.

One could go work for CATSA for 30 years by sitting on their rump and walk out with larger pension payments than the CF, but I'm not in it for the money.


----------



## brihard

PrairieThunder said:
			
		

> I always thought that taxing the pension of Veterans was wrong. That's all. For the 20-25 years of selfless service and unlimited liability to your country that is required to qualify for a full pension, it just seems wrong for the government to continue to scrape money out of Veterans.
> 
> One could go work for CATSA for 30 years by sitting on my rump and walk out with larger pension payments than the CF, but I'm not in it for the money.



Unlimited liability and physical hardship (relatively little of either of which most military members actually ever face) are accounted for by the 'military factor' applied in deriving our salaries from the public service. We're already paid very good salaries to account for this. We're well comped for our 'selfless service'. There's no reason for us not to face the same tax burden as the rest of Canadians; we aren't particularly special.

We get a lot out of our country, we make a very good income serving it, and we in turn pay back in proportionately.


----------



## JorgSlice

Brihard said:
			
		

> Unlimited liability and physical hardship (relatively little of either of which most military members actually ever face) are accounted for by the 'military factor' applied in deriving our salaries from the public service. We're already paid very good salaries to account for this. We're well comped for our 'selfless service'. There's no reason for us not to face the same tax burden as the rest of Canadians; we aren't particularly special.
> 
> We get a lot out of our country, we make a very good income serving it, and we in turn pay back in proportionately.



And thus, my perspective has changed. Thanks, Brihard


----------



## mariomike

PrairieThunder said:
			
		

> For the 20-25 years of selfless service and unlimited liability to your country that is required to qualify for a full pension,



That is for an unreduced pension.

Full ( maximum ) pension requires 35 years of pensionable service. 
http://pensionetavantages-pensionandbenefits.gc.ca/act/evnvie-lfevnt/nvempfp-newps-eng.html#a6


----------



## wildman0101

Just heard this new's through the Canadian Veteran's Avocacy. Bout Bluidy time.
Look's like I have a pile of money coming back... Woo Hoo. Sorta. I'll believe it 
when I see the cheque. The deduction was B/S. And we proved it through the 
Supreme Court. So as far as I'm concerned Federal Gov,,SCR@@ Y@@. 
Just my rant. Cheer's all,, Best Regard's. Scoty B


----------



## maniac

They corrected a wrong and when that is done, they should be commended.  

Just one vet to another!
FYI - disability income aside. when you stop paying taxes on legit income including CFSA pensions is when you stop becoming a citizen. Is every pensioner suppose to enjoy your utopia or just us vets?  REALLY, Try and push that through the government!


----------



## The Bread Guy

> A Halifax veteran who launched a class-action lawsuit against Ottawa over the clawback of military pensions says a settlement has been reached.
> 
> Dennis Manuge says the settlement is expected to be made public Wednesday following a teleconference call between lawyers representing veterans and Ottawa.
> 
> The class-action lawsuit was filed in March 2007 on behalf of Manuge and 4,500 other disabled veterans whose long-term disability benefits were reduced by the amount of the monthly Veterans Affairs disability pensions they received.
> 
> Last May, the Federal Court ruled that Ottawa should stop that practice and weeks later, the federal government said it would not appeal that decision.
> 
> The government appointed Stephen Toope, the president of the University of British Columbia, to negotiate a settlement with Manuge’s legal team.
> 
> The Federal Court will have to approve any agreement, and a two-day hearing for that is scheduled to begin in Halifax on Feb. 14 ....


The Canadian Press, 8 Jan 13


----------



## Towards_the_gap

Brihard said:
			
		

> Unlimited liability and physical hardship (relatively little of either of which most military members actually ever face) are accounted for by the 'military factor' applied in deriving our salaries from the public service. We're already paid very good salaries to account for this. We're well comped for our 'selfless service'. There's no reason for us not to face the same tax burden as the rest of Canadians; we aren't particularly special.
> 
> We get a lot out of our country, we make a very good income serving it, and we in turn pay back in proportionately.



^^^^GOOD POST ^^^^^^Highlighted bit very true.


----------



## The Bread Guy

> The Honourable Peter MacKay, Minister of National Defence, today announced that, pending court approval, the Government of Canada, through the Department of Justice, and the counsel for members of the class action have concluded discussions to resolve the issues raised in the class action of Dennis Manuge v. Her Majesty The Queen.
> 
> “The well-being of both our serving and retired members is very important for the Government of Canada,” said Minister MacKay. “Acting quickly and fairly to resolve this matter is of the utmost importance, and I am pleased an agreement in principle has been reached.”
> 
> Today the Federal Court approved a notice to inform the class members that an agreement in principle had been reached regarding the reduction of Pension Act disability benefits from SISIP Long Term Disability benefits. A Federal Court hearing for approval of the agreement will be held on February 14, 2013 in Halifax ....


DND/CF Info-machine, 9 Jan 13


----------



## Occam

Details on the agreement can be found at http://leavenovetbehind.ca/proposed_agreement.


----------



## bigcletus

I'm just starting to fill in the app for LTD.  I read it over in full before I'll complete it and notice that SISIP are asking what VAC pension/Awards have been received.  With the court case last year eliminating the SISIP claw-back, has anyone just ignored that portion of the info ??  I don't want to stop the process by refusing to provide the info, but really VAC benefits have no bearing on SISIP LTD now...or does it ??   I'm just trying to get a feel for what others have done recently with this.

Thanks


----------



## ArmyGuy99

Its the same old case of the paper work not catching up with reality.  I wouldn't worry about it.  I just did mine.  I left it blank, or I ball parked it (I can't remember).  I've been getting my awards in tidbits as I fight and I've lost count of the actual amount.


----------



## bigcletus

Thanks Med...that's the way I'll go too (and that what my initial plan was lol)

Cheers


----------



## The Bread Guy

Latest from the Federal Court:


> T-463-07; DENNIS MANUGE v. HMQ Federal Court Hearing will take place at the World Trade and Convention Centre, 1800 Argyle Street, Halifax, NS on February 14 and 15, 2013 at 10:00 a.m.


----------



## Nemo888

Slightly off topic but 100% LTD related.

When you are receiving LTD in the first 2 years of your rehab before you can get VAC voc rehab are you eligible for the earnings loss benefit and the 40k per year minimum?


----------



## The Bread Guy

This just out from the Minister of Defence on how much the lawyers'll get....


> “Our Government has enormous respect for the men and women who have sacrificed in service of their country. Government officials have concluded discussions with the class’ legal team to come to an agreement in principle in the class action of Dennis Manuge v. Her Majesty the Queen regarding the offset of Pension Act disability benefits from the Service Income Security Insurance LTD Plan (SISIP). The current estimated value of the settlement is approximately $887.8 million.
> 
> Obviously, in settling the case, we expect that as much of that settlement as possible reaches its intended beneficiaries, the veterans themselves. The Crown informed the judge that the Government of Canada will oppose the amount of legal fees ($66.6M) being sought by class members as excessive and unreasonable. Class counsel are entitled to recover reasonable legal fees for their work; however, the legal fees sought, which equates to a top hourly rate of $13,487.50, are so far beyond what can be characterized as reasonable as to be grossly excessive.
> 
> The Crown has filed submissions oppose the amount of legal fees that are being sought by class counsel on the basis that they are excessive. The issue of legal fees for class counsel was not part of the settlement agreement and will be decided separately by the Court. Our government continues to reflect and improve upon its programs dedicated to supporting Canada’s ill and injured military personnel and veterans, and to provide the care that our personnel and their families deserve.”


----------



## Privateer

In fairness, the *proposed* amount for legal fees was discussed in detail in the notice to class members approved by the Court.  Details were also posted online, here: http://leavenovetbehind.ca/proposed_agreement

It's not like the lawyers were keeping the proposed fee (which has to be approved by the Court) a secret.

The Government fought this claim all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada on certification, and then on the merits.  Their claim that they are now concerned for the rights of veterans is, frankly, ballsy BS at this point.  A desperate attempt at seeking some good optics at the end of the process.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Privateer said:
			
		

> In fairness, the *proposed* amount for legal fees was discussed in detail in the notice to class members approved by the Court.  Details were also posted online, here: http://leavenovetbehind.ca/proposed_agreement
> 
> It's not like the lawyers were keeping the proposed fee (which has to be approved by the Court) a secret.
> 
> The Government fought this claim all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada on certification, and then on the merits.  Their claim that they are now concerned for the rights of veterans is, frankly, ballsy BS at this point.  *A desperate attempt at seeking some good optics at the end of the process.*


Or to hang on just a liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitle bit longer?

How cynical of me ....


----------



## BeyondTheNow

Veterans relieved
CBC News
Last Updated: Feb 14, 2013 8:55 PM ET

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2013/02/14/ns-disabled-vet-clawback-hearing-day-1.html

"Veterans have fought and won a six-year battle to get money for comrades who have been disabled in a conflict zone or at home. CBC

Alisa Sellar, whose husband is a veteran who suffers from MS, says the settlement will change her family's life. CBC

Dennis Manuge, the lead plantiff in a class-action lawsuit against the federal government, is a former mechanic who was injured in 2003. CBC

An almost $900-million class-action settlement over the clawback of military pensions is expected to be completed over the next two days in Halifax. 

On Thursday, dozens of the 7,500 disabled veterans involved in the suit attended a hearing, which is the last step in the Federal Court process that has taken more than six years.

Many people at the hearing said they are relived the ordeal will soon be over.

The veterans sued the federal government because their long-term disability benefits were being reduced by the amount of their disability pensions, with some of the most gravely injured not receiving any of their pension.

Veterans have been complaining about the clawback of various benefits since the new Veterans Charter was introduced in 2006.

Alisa Sellar, whose husband is a veteran with multiple sclerosis, said this deal will finally give her family their life back.

"We don't have to sell our house anymore is what this means," she said.

"And my husband is very, very happy because he doesn't have to worry about me and the kids. He's been in a nursing home for six years. He's had MS for 25 years. His main concern is us and this to him means he won't have to worry about us anymore."

The lead plaintiff in the case is Dennis Manuge, a former solider who was injured in 2003. He has fought in the courts for more than six years to get money for veterans who have been disabled in a conflict zone or at home..."

(Cont'd in link...)


----------



## Teager

So I'm just putting this out there to see if anyone else feels theres some unfairness or maybe you think it is fair.

Currently if you are a res on CL C service and are injured on duty and released you recieve 75% of your pay AT TIME OF INJURY or the minimum of 40k.

If you are Reg force you recieve 75% of your pay AT TIME OF RELEASE.

For my own case this is hard for me because I am a res soldier currently still on CL C. At the time of injury I was a pte on tour. I am now a cpl 4 and still waiting for release. In my opinion they should make it the same for both reg and res soldiers on CL C service.

Anyone else think this or differently?

Teager


----------



## stokerwes

I think that as long as there was no break in service the rate should be the same for Reg and Res force.


----------



## dapaterson

Policy never exists in a vacuum.  I suspect that, when written, the policy assumed that an individual would be released quickly.  Current CF policy provides for increased periods of retention following injury.

This does highlight that the policy needs to be reviewed.

I would suggest starting the ball rolling with a memo up your chain of command, pointing out the discrepancy, and requesting that they go up, through their chain of command, to seek an explanation.


----------



## Teager

Well at least we know policys can be changed  :nod: 

As for the chain of command I would use that method but for myself theres issues with it which I won't discuess here but if you want to know the issues send me a msg. 

I'd prefer to go to my local MP as SISIP changes would come from the MND who is the insurance policy holder. My point though was to see if anyone here was also feeling the same way or is satisfied with the way things are currently.

Cheers,

Teager


----------



## Nemo888

There is no 40k minimum on SISIP rehab, but I do believe it is 75% of your rank on release. A Cpl would have to live on 1600$ after taxes every month. After that is exhausted you start VAC rehab with the 40k minimum. No idea about LTD. That would come after they are exhausted. The systems have gotten so much better since 2005 when the cost cutting New Veterans Charter was introduced.


----------



## Teager

Nemo MND announced that to stay in line with VAC he was bumping the minimum of SISIP LTD to 40k before taxes. I don't have an article off hand but can provide with the announcement. It was only announced within the last year so it is fairly new.


----------



## Nemo888

Currently there is no 40 k minimum. SISIP has no time frame for it to be introduced. In February they stated that only VAC has the top up while on rehab. You get 24 months on SISIP rehab, then 24 months on VAC rehab. If the changes are coming no one has told the front line pers at SISIP.

If you are currently a reserve Cpl and went on SISIP voc rehab today you would only get 1600$ a month to live on. MND makes many promises but only keeps a few.


----------



## Teager

Nemo this article is linked on the SISIP page.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/news-nouvelles/news-nouvelles-eng.asp?id=4138

MND says “From now on retroactive to October 3rd, 2011 our ill and injured veterans will receive a minimum pre-tax income of $40,000 a year while continuing to have access to vocational rehabilitation training."

From my understanding the article is dated April 10, 2012 that from then on retroactive to October 3, 2011 the 40k would kick in.

If this is not the case and you know first hand then this is a major issue that needs to be brought to light. What I'm going to do first is call SISIP and confirm if they have implemented what the MND says or not and go from there.

Cheers


----------



## Nemo888

As far as I know that only applies to LTD, permanent long term disability with no ability to be retrained. SISIP vocational rehab, which is what most get, is 75% of rank. The best plan is to look for a course now as the retraining programs are pretty awesome. They will pay up to 26k for that and throw in some expenses too. I missed the boat on that, but whatever. Compared to 2005 getting some time off and being able to rock the physio and gym makes me grateful as hell. I don't even like remembering how much pain I was in and what a struggle it was to get proper medical treatment.


----------



## Nemo888

I had dealings with Peter MacKay for a few years. Smart guy. I met him a few days after he became MND. I thought he would make a good Prime Minister and really wanted to help Vets. I have emails where he made many promises. Turns out he is usually full of shit and completely untrustworthy.

"The minimum benefit for the Primary Reserve Force members on short-term class of service who are medically released, or take a voluntary release but qualify as being totally disabled will increase to 75% of the deemed salary of $2700/month from the previously used $2000/month rate."

On LTD $2700 and only $2000 if you are on vocational rehab. I made twice that much on civvie street and lost the ability to work full time due to my injury.


----------



## Nemo888

Need to edit. Got out the form.
75% of 2700$=2025$-400 in taxes taken off=1625$ monthly.

Is there any way to get the edit post function back?


----------



## Teager

Nemo tried to PM you but your inbox is full lol. Got a bunch of questions for you if you don't mind.


----------



## Nemo888

I emptied it. Should be fine now.


----------



## The Bread Guy

From the Federal Court of Canada:


> The Federal Court approves a negotiated settlement of a class action brought on behalf of former members of the Canadian Forces.
> 
> (....)
> 
> The Court approves the proposed settlement finding that it represents a fair and reasonable compromise that is in the best interests of the class as a whole. With respect to the request made by counsel for the class to approve their claim to legal fees, the Court approves legal fees in an amount equal to 8% of the retroactive refunds payable to class beneficiaries. This figure is approximately 4% of the total value of the settlement ....


Summary, Docket: T-463-07, 4 Apr 13

Reasons for decision here or attached


----------



## Teager

If theres anyone else with or without SISIP experience please feel free to give your thoughts. I'd especially like to know about the 40k minimum if anyone has experienced what Nemo has.

Cheers,

Teager


----------



## maniac

The only addition I would have is to contact the DND Ombudsman and explain your situation.  They may decide to address the issue at ministerial level as unfairness to reserve pers.


----------



## kratz

I'm reading VAC's - "The New Veterans Charter" pamphlet that arrived in the mail.

In this document is clearly states $40,000 pre-tax minimum for those qualified, as an enhanced Earnings Loss Benefit 
for Veterans participating in Rehabilitation program or unable to be gainfully employed.

I double checked this against the VAC website and found this link quoting the same information,
under the Earning Loss Benefit.

The VAC link also indicates it applies to certain Reservists as well.


----------



## Teager

"unable to be gainfully employed."

To bad VAC never defines "gainfully employed". I'm sure theres lots of vets that are employed but not gainfully but VAC believes any job is gainfull in my opinion.


----------



## Nemo888

kratz said:
			
		

> I'm reading VAC's - "The New Veterans Charter" pamphlet that arrived in the mail.
> 
> In this document is clearly states $40,000 pre-tax minimum for those qualified, as an enhanced Earnings Loss Benefit
> for Veterans participating in Rehabilitation program or unable to be gainfully employed.
> 
> I double checked this against the VAC website and found this link quoting the same information,
> under the Earning Loss Benefit.
> 
> The VAC link also indicates it applies to certain Reservists as well.



That is for your VAC rehab. You get two years of SISIP rehab first. You can't get VAC rehab until you have exhausted the SISIP.


----------



## heavy reader

Folks:

I'm advocating for a Veteran in BC, who's ex was financially abusing him. Since their divorse, several years ago, it appears she has been tracking the SISIP class action and has initiated an action against this veteran with the hopes of getting a share of the prospective SISIP monies.

I am asking for any insight, links, legislation or experience with BC Divorce act, or any national act that protects veterans in this situation (i.e. protection of funds as a result of service disability, from an ex). I know I had read a statute on this before, but I cannot locate it.

Your assistance is appreciated.


----------



## Puzzletree

Hope you have received a response offline sooner, but for information purposes this is covered under clause 85(1) of the the Family Law Act in BC (each province is somewhat different) at http://canlii.ca/en/bc/laws/stat/sbc-2011-c-25/latest/part-6/sbc-2011-c-25-part-6.html.  There is also a good summation of exceptions and variety in application on pension.ca at http://www.pension.ca/Disability%20Benefits%20&%20FL.pdf.  This page also provides examples of some court decisions that may be of help.


----------



## 411_Rocket

Teager said:
			
		

> If theres anyone else with or without SISIP experience please feel free to give your thoughts. I'd especially like to know about the 40k minimum if anyone has experienced what Nemo has.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Teager



I have been on SISP LTD w / Rehab, since 17 Nov 2012 & getting just under $3,000 per month, AFTER TAXES. I released from the Pres, as a result of eventulally going on a Pcat, from a injury in Bosnia late 2000. I was on class "C", at the time of injury. It took about 6 months, for SISIP to kick in. Another Pres member, I worked with in Wainwright, is also getting the same scale on SISIP.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Bump with the very latest ....


> A Federal Court judge has approved a $38.6-million settlement for Canadian military veterans with disabilities who won a lawsuit with Ottawa last year, lawyers for the veterans said Thursday.
> 
> The veterans were originally awarded $887.8-million over the long-standing federal practice of clawing back the military pensions of injured soldiers by the amount of disability payments they received.
> 
> The latest amount approved was for a settlement on the cost of living provisions in that agreement.
> 
> The lawyers for the veterans said they found a miscalculation in the way the federal government determined the cost of living allowance for military veterans.
> 
> The original class action was initiated in March 2007 on behalf of representative plaintiff Dennis Manuge and other disabled Canadian Forces veterans affected by the clawbacks.
> 
> The lawsuit started with 8,000 people, but the $38.6-million settlement includes another 6,000 veterans who were not subject to a wrongful offset of their benefits, but whose cost of living allowances were also miscalculated ....


----------



## bigcletus

I was med released in Oct 2013.  I was granted the 2 year SISIP benefit, & was told by SISIP that at the end of that 2 year period, I'd have to apply for CPP Disability if still disabled.  In 6 months I turn 60.  Am I forced to apply for regular CPP at that time, so SISIP can claw-back their equal funds ??  Or can I delay until a year later, hopefully no claw-back, and maybe a touch higher CPP (61 yrs of age, vs 60) ??

I haven't contacted SISIP as I don't want them to catch this if they haven't already.  

Tnx

Jack


----------



## newwifey

You don't have to apply for CPP until you're 65 if you choose to wait that long.


----------



## dapaterson

Investigate the rules concerning CPP disability payments (which are different from the regular CPP rules and payments).

CPP disability benefits are not the same as retirement benefits.

http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/eng/services/pensions/cpp/disability/benefit/index.shtml?utm_source=campaign%20URL&utm_medium=twitter&utm_content=000050,%2003122013,%20Eng&utm_campaign=disability%20benefit


----------



## kratz

bigcletus,

Thank you for posting and for everyone's reply.

There are too many posts asking for how to enter the CAF, 
but far too few on how to deal with exiting our organization.


----------



## Teager

Once the 2 years with SISIP is over is there a program from VAC that kicks in if you are unemployed/disabled before CPP?


----------



## bigcletus

I was told by SISIP, shortly before releasing, that at the 2 year mark, if my medical practitioner stated I was still disabled, I'd have to apply for CPP Disability.  If I was turned down, SISIP would continue (for how long, I have no idea). 

So from these responses, it appears I can delay, buy 1 year, +/-, on apply for regular CPP.  If thats true, it works for me.


----------



## bigcletus

I took the plunge and contacted my SISIP case manager.

Good news, so it appears...Maybe some others who are affected can glean some valuable info (and dollars) from this response:

'Certainly.  We would only deduct for _CPP Disability_.  Should you decide to take C*PP retirement you would receive it in addition to our benefit*.  If you defer CPP retirement to 61 you will still receive the benefit from us.  *Either way there is no impact to the benefit you currently receive from us.    It would be CPP Disability that would affect your SISIP benefit*.

I hope this answers your question but if not let me know.

Regards,"


----------



## 44inchStone

Hey all,

Yes this is my first post. Served 25 years in the CF. Was released on a 3(B) medical back in 2004. Was NOT entitled to SISIP OR VOC REHAB.
With all the NEW programs out there I thought that because I was one of the lucky guys that was not entitled to these benefits back then, thought I'd be entitled to them now.
It was only actually after a chief I knew was releasing told me of all his entitlements after his release such as VOC rehab. 
Could not actually believe that the CF paid 30K for his tuition for a heavy equipment course and this was without actually releasing medically. He said that it was an entitlement to retrain CF members after their release. I mean good on the CF now finally supporting our troops after release. Forgive my ignorance as I have been out for a while but I really wanted to take the same course but was told by SISIP that I have been out for too long and the military said that the NEW VOC rehab is for NEW releasing members.
Am I missing something here??
Am I not talking to the right people. Just think that this is VERY wrong. Served my country as many other past veterans and would like some of the same benefits that are available now as there was NOTHING for us back then.
Can someone please help? and is anyone else in the same situation?
"Dirty Patricia"


----------



## X Royal

Giving you this benefit wouldn't allow Veterans Affairs to return $1.1 Billion to the general fund.
If they can find reasons not to spend it they can return it.


----------



## PuckChaser

I find it odd you wouldn't be entitled. My father was a 3b in 2002 and got his VOC rehab covered.


----------



## 44inchStone

The reasons why they said I was NOT entitled to it was because my Military Pension combined with my CF Pension equaled more than the 75% if my pay. If it were less then SISIP would have given me the assistance.
AND even if I had the option of VOC rehab(Which is only good up until 2 years after your release), there would have been no assistance from SISIP. They screwed me BIG. 
SO, in turn I had to find myself a substandard job. Still had to pay for a mortgage and support my family. I just could not wait for the months of back and forth fighting from DVA, SISIP and myself. Hoping that they would retrain me in something that I actually wanted to do.
In the past 9 years I've jumped from job to job. Just wish I could have chosen a new career path after the CF, something I really wanted. The same as what soldiers are given the option of doing now, even not released medically.
Things just don't seem right.
Pro Patricia!!


----------



## George Wallace

> Military Pension combined with my CF Pension equaled more than 75% of my pay.



I assume that means that you are getting a Tax Free Medical Pension from the CAF and then your taxable CAF Pension.   

SISIP clearly states how they calculate their entitlements to the member.  You are not being wronged by SISIP if their calculations indicate you are getting more from other sources.   You are not being screwed.


----------



## blackberet17

VAC Vocational Rehabilitation policy:

http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/about-us/policy/document/1209

From a handout (http://www.veterans.gc.ca/pdf/publications/nvc/canvet.pdf):

"If you are medically releasing for any reason or are a released CF Veteran with a service-related injury or illness, you may be eligible for rehabilitation services. In certain cases, spouses, common-law partners and survivors may also access vocational services."

Further:

Do I qualify?
You may qualify for rehabilitation services if you are a Veteran of the Canadian Armed Forces who: 

• has medically-released within the last 120 days;* or *
• has any health problem resulting from your military service that is making it difficult for you to adjust to life at home, in your community or at work.

If you fall under the second point, you may qualify. Suggest you contact VAC (if not already done) at 1-866-522-2122 (toll-free) Monday to Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, local time.


----------



## 44inchStone

So it sounds that SISIP and VOC Rehad are of course 2 different entities.
Soldiers can retire on a NON medical release after a certain number of years and be given 30K worth of re-education, ALSO collect a TAX FREE DVA pension and a TAXED Military Pension.
And yes serving members release on a non 3(B) release but collect tax free DVA pensions in which they deserve.
It's tough not to be frustrated. I would just like us "Old School" soldiers the same opportunities as new releasing soldiers. To me there are two sets of rules.
Decisions made by civilians with not a day in uniform!
Hoping I can get answers elsewhere.


----------



## George Wallace

The different types of VAC benefits are described in another thread.

This thread may be of interest to you:  http://army.ca/forums/threads/115735/post-1318812.html#msg1318812


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

44inchStone said:
			
		

> It's tough not to be frustrated. I would just like us "Old School" soldiers the same opportunities as new releasing soldiers. To me there are two sets of rules.



So what you're actually saying is you're pissed off because things have improved for releasing members compared to back in our day??
.....and the 'new beat' goes on.


----------



## kratz

Under the current system, there are Voc Rehab benefits eligible members can access pre and post release.
Depending on when you access the benefits, SISIP will be the initial source and when those are exhausted,
depending on your case, VAC may extend their version of Voc Rehab to the veteran.

I am no SME on this, just currently going through the process.

One of the best sources for accurate information is your local JPSU.
At least they can direct you to the relevant SMEs.


----------



## WinnieThePooh

"The reasons why they said I was NOT entitled to it was because my Military Pension combined with my CF Pension equaled more than the 75% if my pay. If it were less then SISIP would have given me the assistance."

To the best of my knowledge, one does not equate to the other. Regardless of income, training by SISIP for Item 3(a)/3(b) for 2 years after (and in some cases can be extended), has nothing to do with income. I have never heard of anyone receiving rehabilitation trg/funding on any release item other than medical.


----------



## Greymatters

When you were released on 3b, were you not provided with a SISIP representative?


----------



## 44inchStone

There's lots to reply too.
Bruce Monkehouse thinks I'm pissed because things have improved. What are you talking about? I'll start by saying how happy I am that things have improved for the troops. Over the many years the troops were getting screwed. They have come along way but I still think there is much room for improvement. I joined in 84 and YES things have improved.
As for rehabilitation training other than a medical release, NON medical releases fall under VOC rehab. And yes it runs into the thousands. As I said. A person I know released NON-medically and was retrained through a course that added up to over 30K.
SISIP back then was to be used within two years. YES I was given a SISIP rep.
And yes I was told that I was pretty well entitled to nothing because my military pension and my VAC pension was equal to the 75% required in order for me to collect SISIP.
I do agree that the passage of information for benefits are far better than what they were also. They did NOT volunteer benefits 10 years ago. 
Most benefits that I heard I was entitled to pretty well was found out through word of mouth, in recent years.
Programs are much better and forums such as this help soldiers with the information they require to obtain these benefits.
The programs and benefits now are better. Better than what was available.
Now if they can fix the monthly VAC pension problems.
Pro Patricia!


----------



## Greymatters

In your OP, do you mean that the CWO wasnt a 3B?  Or that he got VOC rehab while still in before he got released as 3B?  If so, that matches what I got; put on category 3B in 2002, went on VOC starting in 2004, released as 3B in 2005.  

If you were told you couldn't get any VOC due to the amount of money you were receiving, then hopefully you have some piece of paper where they say this.  

Otherwise, have to go with Winnie, I never heard of anyone getting VOC unless they were 3B, and even then that was before the crackdown on people abusing the process.


----------



## 44inchStone

The person I am speaking of was not released on a 3(b) or any other kind of medical release. He just released. 
He just completed his courses adding up over 25k. 
Pretty good deal for him. 
It was part of the new program where your are retrained or educated in what you choose, after release. 
Again. He paid nothing. What an awsome deal that was for him


----------



## Teager

44inchStone said:
			
		

> The person I am speaking of was not released on a 3(b) or any other kind of medical release. He just released.
> He just completed his courses adding up over 25k.
> Pretty good deal for him.
> It was part of the new program where your are retrained or educated in what you choose, after release.
> Again. He paid nothing. What an awsome deal that was for him



I believe I know what you are speaking of. For Reg Force members that retire they can upgrade there education to civilian equivalent  as long as it has to do with there trade. I don't know much about this program or if its still in effect. Perhaps someone else that knows of this program can inform 44inchstorm of the details.


----------



## Petard

44inchStone said:
			
		

> Hey all,
> 
> Yes this is my first post. Served 25 years in the CF. Was released on a 3(B) medical back in 2004. Was NOT entitled to SISIP OR VOC REHAB.
> With all the NEW programs out there I thought that because I was one of the lucky guys that was not entitled to these benefits back then, thought I'd be entitled to them now.
> It was only actually after a chief I knew was releasing told me of all his entitlements after his release such as VOC rehab.
> Could not actually believe that the CF paid 30K for his tuition for a heavy equipment course and this was *without actually releasing medically*. He said that it was an entitlement to retrain CF members after their release.



There's something about your chief's story that's not adding up; generally, the only program available for someone to receive vocational training, that is not releasing medically, is through a program to upgrade their military skills to a civilian equivalent
The limit is $5400, once, as described below in CBI 210.802
www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-benefits/ch-210-misc-entitlements-grants.page

Note they have to still be serving, and they need to have prior approval of their Individual Learning Plan, something that is becoming more onerous to do since this type of vocational training has to relate to their current trade, and justify how it benefits the Forces.

It sounds more like the chief got out medically, or perhaps it was awhile ago when the Personal Enhancement Plan was still around. PEP granted up to $20000 for 20 yrs service, for vocational training. During a SCAN seminar in 2001 we were told PEP was eliminated largely due to gross misuse identified by TB audits; a good program ruined by a few selfish a**holes.

Your case is different, and whether you're entitled to voc rehab benefits or not, I would suggest you reach someone at one of the contact sites given below, to find out if anything is available to you.
Won't hurt to ask

www.forces.gc.ca/en/contact.page#benefits


----------



## ueo

My wife retired some years back and was offered and took membership in this plan. Rates have continually escalated and we asked Manulife what happens at age 75. Their response was the policy dies and any accrued funds are lost to us as this is a "term" policy. Can someone please offer advice/comments on this as we are completely at sea. If its elsewhere please advise. 

For Mods: If this subject has come up elsewhere, feel free to move this.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Paid into it for years also. When I retired, they wanted to switch me over. I have insurance already. Given that anyone who has had dealings with SISIP appears to have as much trouble with them as VAC, I said "no thanks" and kept my $60\ month.


----------



## dapaterson

Term insurance, regardless of the insurer, has zero residual value.

The SISIP term insurance has decent rates; its one compelling factor for military members is that it does not have an exclusion for death due to an act of war; other policies generally do.

I am not a financial advisor or insurance advisor.  I would suggest you find a good financial advisor to determine what insurance would be appropriate for you at this point in your life.  If you're debt free with no dependants, it may not be necessary to continue to carry coverage; that's a decision you should make in consultation with a trusted advisor.


----------



## ueo

Thanks for the info. Contacted a financial manager and got pretty much the same. As we're mortgage free, I think we'll let this lapse next spring. We have other insurance and this is just an annoyance.


----------



## Wookilar

Ok,

Looking for some info. Currently trying to get VAC Voc Rehab to actually _plan_ my switch from SISIP to Voc Rehab (CanVet) and am getting pushback from my Voc Rehab case manager.

She says CanVet will not talk to me until I am done with SISIP. Problem with that is, I switch on Sep 12, 2015. School starts the week before and I need approval from VAC well before then so I can get registered.

SISIP has so graciously allowed me to try a few courses, under my Dr.'s care of course (actually, the Doc wrote SISIP a rather stern letter insisting that I be authorized), and I really want to continue.

Now, according to the MOU between DND/SISIP/VAC wrt transitions (I have a hard copy around here somewhere), it seems clear to me that, administratively at least, there is no reason why I cannot plan the way I need to.

But what do I know, I'm just an old Log O  

Oh and the clowns refuse to authorize my ELB before then either.

Anyone have any advice on which buttons to push or which secret words I need to use on this one? "Red zone" does not work in this case apparently.

Thanks.

Wook


----------



## TCBF

- What is Can Vet? I met with Rehab Counselor and the follow up letter was on SISIP-RARM Manulife Financial letterheads, and the signature block is Manulife Financial based.

- I had to divide my SISIP files into three: IRM (insurance), LTD Voc Rehab, and LTD financial.


----------



## Teager

TCBF said:
			
		

> - What is Can Vet? I met with Rehab Counselor and the follow up letter was on SISIP-RARM Manulife Financial letterheads, and the signature block is Manulife Financial based.
> 
> - I had to divide my SISIP files into three: IRM (insurance), LTD Voc Rehab, and LTD financial.



CanVet VR Services has been contracted by VAC to provide vocational rehabilitation and vocational assistance services to help clients meet their vocational goals.

http://www.canvetservices.com/about-eg.html


----------



## Teager

Wook, maybe see if SISIP will provide something like a letter explaining your situation to VAC and that you will need VAC approval ahead of time to continue with your education as the SISIP funding will cease. Hope VAC gets themselves sorted out for you. I'm about to venture into voc rehab myself.


----------



## TCBF

- My counsellor was a retired Medic working for SISIP, Manulife as the insurer provides program funding. VAC doesn't enter into my Voc Rehab. Are we talking two different programs here?


----------



## Teager

TCBF said:
			
		

> - My counsellor was a retired Medic working for SISIP, Manulife as the insurer provides program funding. VAC doesn't enter into my Voc Rehab. Are we talking two different programs here?



Yes, they are two different programs. SISIP provides 2 years of education from date of release with the ability to get 6 months education before release. SISIP may extend the benefit an extra month or 2 due to timing of school programs. However there are situations where vets can't start school upon release and may start the SISIP voc rehab a year into it or even after the 2 years has passed. This would mean SISIP will only pay for the remaining year and VAC should pick up whatever is remaining for your education under there voc rehab program. You must use the SISIP voc rehab benefit first before being able to use VACs voc rehab education benefit.

Hopefully I have that all correct as I'm learning all this as I jump into it as well.


----------



## TCBF

- Thanks for the information. Good to know.


----------



## Teager

Wookilar have you managed to get any word on this issue?


----------



## Wookilar

Sorry for the delay, it's been exam time and this old dog needs the study time.

Teager, you are correct wrt SISIP and VAC programs. SISIP is very concrete and quite straightforward, rather easy to navigate. Their requirements for their program, while quite strict (and I do not agree with them) are at least understandable. VAC, and it will come as no surprise, is extremely vague in everything it does.

I have spoken to the VAC Ombudsman's people at length; they have given me a way forward.

Basically, I need to start the official transition process between SISIP Voc Rehab Councillor and my VAC Case Manager directly. I have to ask for this as it is not done automatically for some unfathomable reason. Once I get that ball rolling, and I get the refusal from CanVet that I have been told I will receive, then I can start that wrangling.

From what I understand, CanVet refuses to speak with any Vet still on SISIP and the case managers know this so they just do not bother trying. There is an MOU between DND/VAC/SISIP that I am still waiting for (I have an amendment to it from 2012, but not the MOU itself) that deals specifically with the transition from one to the other and how it is supposed to happen. The complaint process and who speaks to whom is in that.

I am waiting for a call back from my VAC case manager. I know her workload so I know it will not be quick.

Watch and shoot. I'll keep updating as I get any info.

Wook


----------



## Teager

Alright I figured I would share some pieces of info that may be useful to some people. Please share any other tips you might think are useful.

I am currently using SISIP and I inquired how one would report income to them if I owned my own online business. If I did the majority of transactions would be by PayPal then deposited to my bank account. I was told by SISIP that I can show my monthly bank statement of deposits or come to an agreed average that they deduct. The third option is most interesting. If you get your business incorporated you show SISIP the certificate and it will NOT affect your benefits because your business is now its own entity.

Now the other piece of info has to do with VACs Voc Rehab. In no way am I telling people to abuse the system. If you are releasing medically from the CAF and are wanting to go to university and not college due to your career choice you have that option depending on circumstances. You do not have to opt for college through SISIP however to go to university through VAC you would have to wait the 2 years of SISIP out before VAC will pay. A case manager cannot and will not tell you this however one has told me that this has been done before.


----------



## ArmyGuy99

There are many ways to hide income from SISIP and others tracking your income...Some legal...others uh not so much...The easiest way to ask if your income will be deducted is to just ask.  I know it's almost impossible for those of us on ELB/SISIP to get ahead but losing everything because you lied won't help either.

As for the education...It is a HUGE disservice to not allow us to choose either the 2 year college funding with SISIP or the 4 year Funding from VAC.  I understand WHY you can't access BOTH but give us a choice please.


----------



## koreankid

You may also be able to buy and sell property hold a year so you don't pay capital gains. This is a source of investment income, but is not a working income and is not tax deductible. worth checking into.


----------



## bigcletus

Can someone tell me if SISIP LTD is indexed?  Or do they actually claw back an amount based on our CFSA indexing increase, based on the 75% principle ??

Thanks


----------



## bigcletus

Apparently with 182 reads, no one has the answer to this relative simple question??


----------



## George Wallace

Have you bothered to go talk to a SISIP Rep and ask your questions?


----------



## bigcletus

To be honest, I'd rather pull my teeth out than talk to them....hence I'm here


----------



## bigcletus

Can someone tell me why SISIP LTD is terminated at age 65 ??   Is that just an arbitrary age or based on the 1960's "old age" ??

With most people living well beyond 65, this creates a genuine hardship for those disabled when they need it most...(considering most vets also get their claw-back at that age as well)- a double hit...

Any comments/info greatly appreciated...

Thanks


----------



## Pusser

My guess would be that LTD coverage stops at 65 because this is what most people consider "retirement" age.  Since LTD is designed to provide an income in lieu of a salary when one is disabled and unable to work, it only makes sense that LTD coverage would no longer be required once a person is retired and no longer working for a salary.  Presumably (hopefully), the retiree would then have his/her retirement income (pension, CPP, etc) and would no longer require LTD coverage because retirement income is not lost due to disability.

As an aside, there is no "clawback" due to CPP.  What happens is that the bridging benefit contained in the CFSA terminates at age 65, when most folks begin to collect CPP.  The CFSA was designed this way (as are the PSSA and RCMPSA).  There has been much discussion on this in this forum.

I wonder if anyone has discussed the fact that the normal entitlement age for CPP is soon to be 67 and whether it affects these things...


----------



## dapaterson

Pusser,

It's OAS, not CPP, that's transitioning to age 67 for eligibility.


----------



## bigcletus

Pusser said:
			
		

> As an aside, there is no "clawback" due to CPP.  What happens is that the bridging benefit contained in the CFSA terminates at age 65, when most folks begin to collect CPP.  The CFSA was designed this way (as are the PSSA and RCMPSA).  There has been much discussion on this in this forum.


You're correct, I just used "claw-back" for simplicity
Thanks


----------



## Szczep

Why? because it is an INSURANCE company


----------



## Pusser

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Pusser,
> 
> It's OAS, not CPP, that's transitioning to age 67 for eligibility.



My mistake.  Thank you.


----------



## dapaterson

Pusser said:
			
		

> My mistake.  Thank you.



I'd rather give you good news and more money than bad news about less money later, but you're welcome.


Changing CPP in that way would require an overhaul of any combined pension - so the CFSA, PSSA and RCMPSA would require amendment and would become even more complex.


----------



## Blackadder1916

bigcletus said:
			
		

> Can someone tell me why SISIP LTD is terminated at age 65 ??   Is that just an arbitrary age or based on the 1960's "old age" ??
> 
> With most people living well beyond 65, this creates a genuine hardship for those disabled when they need it most...(considering most vets also get their claw-back at that age as well)- a double hit...
> 
> Any comments/info greatly appreciated...
> 
> Thanks




It is not just SISIP.  Generally, all "Long Term Disability" insurance products in Canada have the same feature.  Benefits end at age 65.

http://www.benefitsconsultant.ca/group-benefits/long-term-disability-insurance.html


> Long term disability (LTD) benefits typically contain the following characteristics:
> 
> Benefits are payable after the expiration of a qualifying period in which the employee is typically receiving benefits under a salary continuance plan, short term disability (STD) plan, or employment insurance
> Definitions of disability are tied to the employee’s ability to perform their own job or any job
> The monthly LTD benefit is a percentage of pre-disability earnings
> The benefit period ends at age 65


----------



## Pusser

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Changing CPP in that way would require an overhaul of any combined pension - so the CFSA, PSSA and RCMPSA would require amendment and would become even more complex.



Agreed.  That's why I was wondering how it would work out (but apparently it doesn't have to  ).  I'm actually out of the country right now, so some things occasionally get lost in translation.

As for OAS, since I am unlikely to get any real benefit out of it, when it starts is of no real concern to me.


----------



## Ebo

I have been pre approved for SISIP. I really don't understand the difference between LTD, ELB etc...  I have a very difficult time following things now, while working I could handle 8 projects at once and loved it!

BG: I was bullied & harassed, had a breakdown, med released, still trying to recover. I trust NO ONE in the system
Situation: I use art as therapy and have sold some artwork. I would like to go pro and market etc.. But am limited in concentration, abilities, depression, panic etc...so need a safety net. I take meds.

If I sell art, is that considered work? I have been authorized by the MO to work up to 8 hours per week. Does SSIP consider that?

I don't trust anyone enough at SISIP to ask ( because of my complicated history) . I don't want SISIP in my business, I keep hearing people say that we paid into it, you're entitled to it, but it comes with conditions. One is, you can never improve yourself financially or they will dock you. Because of my skillset I can work temporarily and make more in a week than they give me in a month. But it comes at a price... The panic, anxiety etc return. But work is still good for me because it gives me a reason to get out of bed.

Please don't take this wrong, but I know many people on SISIP and they are exactly the same years after. They can't move forward or they're afraid to lose their monthly cheque. Afraid to take the chance and crashing. But I can't live on that allowance, I have debts, family and no savings.


----------



## Teager

There is a way to collect your money from SISIP and work. You need to Incorporate your business. If you show SISIP that your Incorporated they won't touch the money you make. I asked them this myself and that's what I was told. 

If you work and make money it has to be reported to SISIP. They will deduct whatever you make from what they give you per month unless you do what I said above. 

Also note that you can tell SISIP to contact you by e-mail if you prefer. That's how I've been in touch with them for most things.


----------



## sarahsmom

You only get SISIP for the first 2 years. You can reapply but they may deem you "healthy/better" (not the right word but it makes the point).
SISIP tops you up to 75% of your pre-release pay.So if you make lots of money, you get nothing from SISIP that month. But if you have a hard month and are unable to work, at least you still get a paycheck so it's one less stress to worry about.

source: hubby medically released 3 years ago and qualified for and got SISIP.


----------



## gryphonv

The best thing to do with SISIP LTD(Which is administered by Manulife) Is to stay on top of things. If you don't get a quick response to questions, follow up in a day or two. I was a very squeaky wheel when I started my process with them because of my OCD and wanting to stay on top of things. 

Once things started to pick up with them and move along they assigned me to one of their managers because I guess I was a little difficult ( I was never rude but I definitely kept pushing for info). The manager told me he prefers to see that in members. He has seen a lot of people who assume its ok to just wait for things to happen. So if something does mess up like an undelivered email or something, that is time you will lose. He promised me if I send him an email if I don't get some sort of a reply that day or the next business day to give him a call. 

Now with all that said. The 2 year SISIP LTD is really not truly accurate. Everyone that is medically released is auto approved for 2 years, you still have to get the right forms done, but you are approved. 

Once the 2 years expires, if you are unable to gain employment that replaces at least 75% of your pre release income because of medical reasons you can get the LTD extended. You need a Dr. to sign off on this and you will need regular follow ups, but the 2 year limit isn't a hard end date for all members. It depends totally on your medical situation. 

Also they do encourage people to earn supplementary income while on LTD. For every $ you earn will lose 50c towards the LTD. So while it isn't as bad as a 1:1. It still encourages people to stay active if you can. Which is arguably the most important thing about transition. Now there is a point if you make over 75% of your pre release pay you won't get any LTD for that period. But a little supplementary income won't hurt you with LTD.

Now I am no Medical expert, but if your Doc recommends no more than 8 hrs a week there may be a good cause once the 2 years is up and a reassessment  is done you will be approved for more than 2 years. The best way to look at LTD is a security net. You know you will always make at least a certain amount of money per month. If you can make more great, if you can't you will never make less than 75%. 

I don't know enough about the accounting side of things, incorporation and such. But you deserve the LTD as any CAF member who medically releases does. Don't let anyone convince you otherwise.


----------



## Ebo

Thank you everyone for your great replies. I might call them and talk to someone next week. Any DND related contact just sends me into a downward spin. I keep thinking it will go away but obviously not. 

Thanks for giving back and caring about another buddy. It means a lot.


----------



## gryphonv

I'm curious what deductions can I expect on my LTD payments vs regular pay? I know some things like mess dues will cease, but I am wondering if deductions like C.P.P. and E.I. are still deducted.

Cheers,


----------



## Teager

I believe only federal taxes are deducted from LTD and any income that you make would also be deducted.


----------



## gryphonv

Teager said:
			
		

> I believe only federal taxes are deducted from LTD and any income that you make would also be deducted.



Thank you, this is what I was suspecting also. I've always heard how 75% ltd roughly matches your pay for take home pay for the month. I figured it was because of less deductions.


----------



## Teager

Be prepared that SISIP LTD will take into account how much you have made this year already if you haven't fully released yet.


----------



## gryphonv

For taxes paid or for income? I would understand the taxes paid, but hopefully its not income and they say something like... oh he's already made 70% of his 75% for the year. We only need to top him up to 5%.


----------



## Teager

gryphonv said:
			
		

> For taxes paid or for income? I would understand the taxes paid, but hopefully its not income and they say something like... oh he's already made 70% of his 75% for the year. We only need to top him up to 5%.



I was released 10 days into the year and didn't think much of it when I started receiving LTD. Then the next year I noticed I was getting more so I did the math and they had taken the 10 days worth of pay I got. Someone with a little more insight might have to answer this but I'm pretty sure they take the income you got for the year already and deduct that.


----------



## gryphonv

Yeah nothing I have had with my sisip manulife manager mentioned this. The disclosure he gave me was 75% of my monthly salary on release. I hope this isn't the case. I'm hoping you were just indexed at inflation. Time will tell, but the long and short, its going to be a tight few months if what you say is true. I'll be looking at $10k income for the rest of the year (before tax) vs 18k.


----------



## Teager

True but then there's that ELB 90% come October but no one knows what's happening with that in regards to SISIP.


----------



## gryphonv

Good Point.

After ELB at 90% you will be technically taking home more a month. I'm pretty sure its going to be a cluster though, nobody has officially stated who pays it (manulife or VAC). Like the disability award top up next year. I hope nobody is expecting to see any money in April, I think a more realistic estimate would be December.


----------



## sarahsmom

SISIP also only deducts the bare minimum in taxes each month. So unless you are on top of your stuff, be prepared to owe some money at tax time. We learned that the hard way ($3000 lesson)


----------



## gryphonv

Thank you, that is good food for thought.


----------



## W.jones

I retired from the army to become a financial adviser and insurance agent. I am a licensed broker within Alberta, and my company has agents licensed in every province, as well as two of the territories. I would gladly help anyone in getting in touch with someone who can answer their questions, as well as answer any here anyone might have.

T-75 insurance is like renting. You pay for it, but don't own it. Permanent insurance is like owning it. You pay into it, and you get to keep it. You can take out policy loans, and even cash it in when you want.

There are several types of insurance available, and unless you cannot afford permanent insurance, there really isn't much reason to go with term as a form of wage replacement. Term is a great option for things like a mortgage, or any major purchase that you only need to cover for a set period of time, and don't want to pay higher rates. You can also do a Renewable and Convertable rider on term insurance, so that you can convert it to permanent insurance without having to prove insurability. This makes term insurance a great option for younger people who need the coverage, but cannot afford the premiums for permanent. This way, they confirm that they will not get denied insurability in the future due to any diagnosis. Alternatively, you can also add a term rider to permanent insurance to add coverage for a mortgage, etc. if you want permanent, but need additional coverage for major purchases. 

Anyways, there are many more options available, and surprisingly, many with extremely great rates. I suggest anyone wanting to know what they need sit down with a broker, not just an agent, some time. A broker has access to multiple companies, instead of just one. This means they can compare insurance from multiple companies and find the best rates and coverage for you.


----------



## W.jones

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Term insurance, regardless of the insurer, has zero residual value.
> 
> The SISIP term insurance has decent rates; its one compelling factor for military members is that it does not have an exclusion for death due to an act of war; other policies generally do.
> 
> I am not a financial advisor or insurance advisor.  I would suggest you find a good financial advisor to determine what insurance would be appropriate for you at this point in your life.  If you're debt free with no dependants, it may not be necessary to continue to carry coverage; that's a decision you should make in consultation with a trusted advisor.




As an adviser, I would definitely recommend consulting with an adviser as well. Even if you are debt free with no dependents, there very well may be, and often is, a need for insurance still. Estate planning can be very tricky if you do not consider the result of taxation of the estate after death, as well as any other factors, such as businesses owned, or property. The only way to know what kind of coverage is right for you is to sit down and calculate all your assets and debt, and see what the result will be after taxation.


----------



## Renegade68

Hi all long time lurker, first post! I have gained some really good info from this site and despite having looked around could not find  an answer to the question I have about SISIP.
I was 3B released on 25 Aug/16, I applied to SISIP and they have received my forms etc, however they are still awaiting my med file. My question is this, when SISIP approve me for payment will they start from approval date or application date? In other words will I receive something for September, if claim is approved in October?.
I read elsewhere on this forum that SISIP takes  about 6 weeks , so I am still on track I suppose. Case worker at SISIP has been very receptive to my calls and has expressed frustration at delay in my release documentation.

VAC have already told me that I will receive the top up to 90% on the ELB as soon as SISIP  is in place.
The experience I have had with VAC so far has been quite good, my ELB and Rehab were approved within 3 weeks of application. Still awaiting word on disability awards.
Thanks in advance for any insight you can give me.
Cheers,


----------



## Teager

If SISIP approves you they will back date your pay to 26 Aug/16.  Expect your pays to be around the 20th of each month give or take.


----------



## Renegade68

Thanks, for the reply Teager. Good to know about payment dates for future.


----------



## Renegade68

Currently, if you phone the SISIP 1 800-565-0711 number, you will receive a message saying " if you are calling about the 2014-2017 pay increases, please note we are continuing to await further direction before making retroactive adjustments. Once adjustments have commenced this message will be updated" (or words to that effect)
Does anyone know why the direction on these adjustments is taking so long?


----------



## PMedMoe

Could be the same as the severance pay where they have to do it individually.


----------



## AIRFORCE26

Good day everybody I have a chronic Illness which I am degenerating , I am currently on LTD I just have a question. How does it work if My wife and I want to get a second home. Do i have to declare that as income ? will my monthly LTD Payment decrease. I hope somebody can help me.

Thank you 

I appreciate this site and everybody who has served and is currently serving.


----------



## Teager

If you are planning on renting one of the homes then yes this will be seen as income. If the home is in your wife's name and the income goes to her then it will have no effect on you or LTD.

If you have a second home and use it for yourselves with no income being made from it then your LTD would not be clawed back.


----------



## PuckChaser

AIRFORCE26 said:
			
		

> Good day everybody I have a chronic Illness which I am degenerating , I am currently on LTD I just have a question. How does it work if My wife and I want to get a second home. Do i have to declare that as income ? will my monthly LTD Payment decrease. I hope somebody can help me.
> 
> Thank you
> 
> I appreciate this site and everybody who has served and is currently serving.



You don't need to post the question more than once, especially since you already have an answer here.


----------

