# Simon Logan v. Her Majesty The Queen



## gryphonv (7 Dec 2019)

Just got a letter the other day addressed to me with no cover letter, no return address, etc. 

Before I opened it, it looked like one of those generic credit card letters.

It appears to be a class action lawsuit run by the law firm McInnes Cooper, for former Members of the CAF who on or after July 17, 2012 received long term disability benefits and/or dismemberment benefits  under division 2, part III(B) of SISIP  Policy 001102, and had an allowance from the CAF in effect on the date of their release from the CAF or, in case of a Class 'C' member, when the injury was incurred or the illness was contracted. ("Class")

It also says all participants are automatically opted in. And you have to opt out if you dont want to be included.


I have left a lot of the letter out mostly because I'm trying on my phone. But has anyone else got such a letter, or know more info about this.

I've never recieved anything like this before. But the letter itself seems unprofessional as it just is pretty much an information pamphlet with a bit of legal jargon and no introduction.


----------



## ModlrMike (7 Dec 2019)

Here's a link to the firm handling the case:

https://www.mcinnescooper.com/services/sisip-ltd-allowances-class-action/

The case arguments:

http://cbaapp.org/ClassAction/PDF.aspx?id=9357

Summary: the claimant is alleging that the Crown acted improperly by not including allowances in his total income at the time of release, thereby reducing his injury pension entitlement.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (7 Dec 2019)

Just from your summary that sounds pretty unwinnable.


----------



## brihard (7 Dec 2019)

Bottom line up front: The lawsuit contends that a member who is medically released and received SISIP LTD should have any environmental or specialist allowances included in their calculation of pre-release income. That would have a potentially significant impact, from hundreds to thousands a month in additional Long Term Disability income.

Basically, he was a serving member up until 2016, and was then medically released. While serving he received a $3730/mo allowance, $65.50/mo in PLD, and $68.50/mo in civilian dress allowance; I'm inferring from that that he was CANSOFCOM. When he released and began receiving LTD benefits, those were calculated as 75% of his base salary as a WO. 

My quick math, he went from about $10665 in monthly pay and allowance before release to about $5100 a month (versus $7998 if allowances were included). So his lawyer is arguing that functionally his allowance(s) should have been included as part of his income when they calculate what you receive in benefits after release. He's arguing he got short changed just under $3k a month.

The 'class' - that's everyone covered by the lawsuit - includes:



> "All former members of the Canadian Armed Forces who receive, or have received, long term disability benefits and/or dismemberment benefits under Part 111(8) of SISIP Policy 901102, and had an allowance, benefit and/or other payment from the Canadian Armed Forces in effect on the date of their release from the Canadian Armed Forces or, in the case of a Class "C" member, when the injury incurred or the illness was contracted. "



The letter you received basically says that you are a part of this class unless you explicitly opt out. That means that if there is a settlement or a verdict in favour of the plaintiff resulting compensation, you automatically fall under that compensation scheme, and you are not able to separately pursue your own lawsuit against the crown or any other legal action. If you want to opt out of the class action so that, for instance, you can lawyer up and pursue your own separate claim, you have to do so before I think some time in February. This is pretty typical of class actions, in order to prevent people from filing their own barrage of separate lawsuits late in the game if it looks like there's a verdict in favour of the claimant. I'm guessing the letter went out to everyone who has received SISIP LTD.

It's an interesting lawsuit, but I doubt it's going to turn out in his favour. Troops are told pretty much from day 1 that any allowances you get shouldn't be relied on long term, because the fickle fingers of fate or the Career Manager can change your job and you lose them.

That said I do have a certain amount of sympathy for the man based on the 'you break it, you buy it' principle that I generally apply to cases of compensation disability for those in Her Majesty's service. Suddenly going to half income would suck.


----------



## Teager (7 Dec 2019)

If this ends up winning due to the fact that for class C reservist it goes back to time of injury and not release I'm wondering if that includes all the oversease allowances like risk and hardship? If it does then that's going to have a massive impact on reserve guys injured oversease.

Heres part of the SISIP policy they are arguing. I'm wondering if it's the wording that is being interrupted differently. SISIP uses the words "monthly pay" which could be argued to include allowances as it is not specific enough in terms of salary. Just my opinion/guess though.



> Subject  to Section 1.g.(iv)  and Section 24, the  monthly  income  benefit  shall  be  75%  of the  member’s  monthly  pay  in  effect  on the  date  of  release from  the Canadian  Forces  or, in the  case  of  a  Class  “C”  member, 75%  of  the  monthly  pay  in effect  when  the  injury  was incurred  or  the illness  was  contracted;


----------



## dapaterson (7 Dec 2019)

"Pay" is defined elsewhere in the policy.  In my opinion, this case has limited merit and will not succeed.


----------



## Teager (7 Dec 2019)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> "Pay" is defined elsewhere in the policy.  In my opinion, this case has limited merit and will not succeed.



Indeed it is and is very specific.


----------



## captloadie (9 Dec 2019)

If this were successful, could anyone else see the 2nd order effect that all allowances become taxable, as they are not part of our "pay"?


----------



## PuckChaser (9 Dec 2019)

You're not taxed on your allowances? I sure as hell am.


----------



## captloadie (9 Dec 2019)

You are right, my bad, it has been a while since I collected an environmental allowance.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (9 Dec 2019)

Teager said:
			
		

> Indeed it is and is very specific.



Yup- which is why it is always referred to as Pay and Allowances.


----------



## brihard (24 Mar 2020)

Hot damn, he won his case.

https://globalnews.ca/news/6728075/payments-injured-veterans-canada-federal-court/?fbclid=IwAR292Y0-ZGCObXc3d8XfYtStUF9IF1LIl-loGNzwzU2fdnDJ35x-KMqK0gM


----------



## PuckChaser (24 Mar 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Hot damn, he won his case.
> 
> https://globalnews.ca/news/6728075/payments-injured-veterans-canada-federal-court/?fbclid=IwAR292Y0-ZGCObXc3d8XfYtStUF9IF1LIl-loGNzwzU2fdnDJ35x-KMqK0gM



Nice. Could this now have long reaching implications for the new screw the injured removal of allowances while on TCat policy? Perhaps even for our pensions?

I'm certain this will go to the Supreme Court though. We're asking for more than the Liberals can give right now.


----------



## brihard (24 Mar 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Nice. Could this now have long reaching implications for the new screw the injured removal of allowances while on TCat policy? Perhaps even for our pensions?
> 
> I'm certain this will go to the Supreme Court though. We're asking for more than the Liberals can give right now.



They can ask to appeal. The SCC doesn’t have to hear it.

Implications for cessation it benefits while on category? Interesting thought.


----------



## dapaterson (24 Mar 2020)

Not on CANLII yet. Link to Federal Court Decisions https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/

For those interested, the policy is at: https://www.sisip.com/getmedia/878dffcf-9bd7-4564-a1ad-a70e3cd10e6a/SISIP-POLICY-901102-Jun2019.pdf.aspx

And the definition of "pay", per the policy, reads:



> i. (i) "Monthly pay" or "monthly salary" shall mean the member's rate of pay specified
> in QR and O Chapter 204 pay tables for Regular Force Personnel.
> (ii) "Annual pay" shall mean the member's actual annual rate of pay being paid within
> the ranges specified in QR and O Chapter 204 pay tables for Regular Force
> ...


----------



## ballz (24 Mar 2020)

captloadie said:
			
		

> If this were successful, could anyone else see the 2nd order effect that all allowances become taxable, as they are not part of our "pay"?



Notwithstanding that it's been mentioned above already that allowances are already taxable, the answer to this would be no. It's the income tax act that provides the law which determines what is taxable and what is not. CRA administers the income tax act, and you can even challenge them in court if you think they are wrong. Long story short, the DND can't arbitrarily make things taxable or not taxable.

Which to be honest what I thought the legal argument would be based on that income is income, calling it "pay" vice "allowances" is not a real thing. However, looks like his legal team took a different approach.


----------



## dapaterson (25 Mar 2020)

Judgement is now online at: https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2020/2020fc404/2020fc404.html


----------



## Navy_Pete (25 Mar 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Judgement is now online at: https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2020/2020fc404/2020fc404.html



Wow, so all monthly allowances are included in the medical release calculation.  For most people, does that not make almost no real difference unless you were somewhere with a big PLD?  Thought you lost most environmental allowances when transferred to JPSU, but think it's a completely fair and reasonable arguement to make for something like the spec op allowance or similar for other specializations (if they exist) when Doctors, dentists, pilots etc have their own pay scale for their specialized skills, and some trades get spec pay.

Curious to see what the legal costs plus the staff time for all the briefings up the chain through DND, TBS etc cost compared to the actual payments.  It seems like they'll happily spend years and tens of millions in staff time to not pay things out.


----------



## Teager (29 Mar 2020)

I contacted the law firm in regards to reservists on class C injured oversease. The response was if you received one of the letters saying your apart of the class action then the allowances you were receiving are eligible. They mentioned that they will be compiling a list of allowances that are considered for this.


----------



## PuckChaser (29 Mar 2020)

Like theatre allowances? Interesting...


----------



## Teager (1 Apr 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Like theatre allowances? Interesting...



From my understanding yes.


----------



## Navy_Pete (1 Apr 2020)

It was pretty specific that it was the pay and monthly allowances you are getting at *time of release*.  Aside from his base pay, this was what was in the complaint;



> $3730.00 Special Operations Assaulter Allowance;
> 
> $65.50 Post Living Differential; and
> 
> $68.50 Civilian Dress Allowance.



If you read the claim, the argument included that the spec ops allowance was given because of their special skillset and risks, so is similar to the separate payscales for the doctors, pilots etc. That's completely reasonable to me, but looks more like someone put this in place to give them something equivalent to spec pay, but probably had quicker/different approval levels.  75% of PLD is pretty much nothing for most people (or actually nothing), but for almost $4k a month for the spec op assaulter allowance that's a huge difference.

Not sure how you would still be receiving theatre allowances, field/sea pay etc when you get released, but there are probably a bunch of similar allowances like this where it will make a difference for a lot of people. Things may have changed, but thought things like sea pay cease when you are transferred over to JPSU.  I can see GoC changing all the allowances after this so that most of those stop as soon as you are posted to JPSU on the way out, but they can't make that affect those that have already been released.

For the assaulters that would be pretty insulting; kind of BS to run them that hard and break them early but cut them out of the medical release benefits. Would personally chalk it up to the cost of doing business and having those kind of high tempo units, but bean counters and lawyers will find a way to screw people (even though the staff costs are probably pretty significant to do so).


----------



## PuckChaser (1 Apr 2020)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> For the assaulters that would be pretty insulting; kind of BS to run them that hard and break them early but cut them out of the medical release benefits. Would personally chalk it up to the cost of doing business and having those kind of high tempo units, but bean counters and lawyers will find a way to screw people (even though the staff costs are probably pretty significant to do so).



Assaulters and SF Ops allowances also are not pensionable. So even if they're not injured when they release, they're getting a basic rank level pension.


----------



## dapaterson (1 Apr 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Assaulters and SF Ops allowances also are not pensionable. So even if they're not injured when they release, they're getting a basic rank level pension.



Except SF Op, as an occupation and not a managed specialty, receive spec pay, which means their pensions will be higher.


----------



## Infanteer (1 Apr 2020)

The Assaulter is now its own occupation: expect it to be constructed similar to SF Op.


----------



## blacktriangle (1 Apr 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Except SF Op, as an occupation and not a managed specialty, receive spec pay, which means their pensions will be higher.



Is this a recent change? I know CBRN Op gets Spec 1...did not know SF Op was getting it now. 

As for the court case, I'm glad to see the decision on this was a thumbs up...although I think it would be a mistake to include PLD in the new calculations. Hopefully just environmental allowances.


----------



## dapaterson (1 Apr 2020)

I may have misspoke - the last list of occupations in receipt of Spec Pay I can find (http://www.forces.gc.ca/assets/FORCES_Internet/docs/en/caf-community-pay/reg-force-res-force-class-c-spec-pay-table-12-sept-2019.pdf) does not include SF Op.

And I was not aware that the Assaulter MESIP had been implemented.


----------



## blacktriangle (1 Apr 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I may have misspoke



You rarely do, so I think we can let this one slide.  ;D


----------



## PuckChaser (1 Apr 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Except SF Op, as an occupation and not a managed specialty, receive spec pay, which means their pensions will be higher.



A lot of people think that, and then they VOT to SF Op and realize they're being paid the same as a Signaller (sometimes less if that Signaller has Spec Pay). ACISS (or whatever we'll be next year) was to undergo a new pay review system that DPPD has developed, and I have a sneaking suspicion that SF Op and Assaulter will be first in line for pay reviews.


----------



## Teager (2 Apr 2020)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> It was pretty specific that it was the pay and monthly allowances you are getting at *time of release*.



For Reserve members on Class C everything is dated to time of injury not at time of release.


----------



## PuckChaser (2 Apr 2020)

Teager said:
			
		

> For Reserve members on Class C everything is dated to time of injury not at time of release.


Yikes what a soup sandwich. That would flip the tables where a reservist and reg force member injured on the same tour in the same way would get drastically different pensions.


----------



## dapaterson (2 Apr 2020)

Incorrect.  The Logan lawsuit deals only with LTD payments.  Pensions under the CFSA continue to be based on pay (per the CFSA and CFSR).


----------



## blacktriangle (2 Apr 2020)

I think what PuckChaser was getting at is that you could have two dudes/dudettes in the same section, both hit by the same IED with the same injuries, both medically released and can't work again. Yet they would have differing LTD payment amounts. Sounds like another lawsuit waiting to happen. The same standard should be applied across the board. 

I'm hoping this works out equally for both injured Reg and Res pers. I don't think we've always done the best job of taking care of injured soldiers, but I suspect things have been worse for reservists specifically. Who gives a crap whether a soldier injured on deployment is from The RCR or The QOR. If they both did their jobs and paid a price, they should be properly cared for and compensated.


----------



## Teager (21 May 2020)

Recieved an update on this.  It can be found on the website.

https://www.mcinnescooper.com/services/sisip-ltd-allowances-class-action/



> WHAT HAPPENS NEXT? DO I NEED TO DO ANYTHING?  The parties will now enter negotiations in an attempt to resolve the remaining issues in this class action. These issues may include such things as an applicable interest rate and the administrative process for paying Class Members. If the parties are unable to resolve these issues through negotiation, they will seek the Court’s direction.  You do not have to do anything at this time. This notice is provided for your information only. You will be receive a further notice following the resolution of the remaining issues.



Would this mean the government is not appealing the decision?


----------



## dapaterson (21 May 2020)

Looking at the document properties, it was produced by the law firm (the document creator is someone identified as an admin assistant at the law firm).  It's not a court document, and there is nothing in it to indicate one way or the other what approach the Crown intends to take; I have been unable to find anything in the press or on Government of Canada websites on whether or not the judge's decision will be appealed.


----------

