Author Topic: Simon Logan v. Her Majesty The Queen  (Read 5977 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline gryphonv

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 10,790
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 345
Simon Logan v. Her Majesty The Queen
« on: December 07, 2019, 07:18:01 »
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. 

Offline ModlrMike

    : Riding time again... woohooo!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 228,644
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,053
    • Canadian Association of Physician Assistants
Re: Simon Logan v. Her Majesty The Queen
« Reply #1 on: December 07, 2019, 09:45:26 »
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.
WARNING: The consumption of alcohol may create the illusion that you are tougher,smarter, faster and better looking than most people.
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats. (H.L. Mencken 1919)
Zero tolerance is the politics of the lazy. All it requires is that you do nothing and ban everything.

Online Bruce Monkhouse

    Is a pinball wizard.

  • Lab Experiment #13
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 292,190
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,579
  • WHERE IS MY BATON?
    • http://www.canadianbands.com./home.html
Re: Simon Logan v. Her Majesty The Queen
« Reply #2 on: December 07, 2019, 10:08:13 »
Just from your summary that sounds pretty unwinnable. 
IF YOU REALLY ENJOY THIS SITE AND WISH TO CONTINUE,THEN PLEASE WIGGLE UP TO THE BAR AND BUY A SUBSCRIPTION OR SOME SWAG FROM THE MILNET.CA STORE OR IF YOU WISH TO ADVERTISE PLEASE SEND MIKE SOME DETAILS.

Everybody has a game plan until they get punched in the mouth.

Offline Brihard

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 330,430
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,828
  • Non-Electric Pop-Up Target
Re: Simon Logan v. Her Majesty The Queen
« Reply #3 on: December 07, 2019, 10:08:27 »
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:

Quote
"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.
Pacificsm is doctrine fostered by a delusional minority and by the media, which holds forth the proposition it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Offline Teager

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 41,515
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 884
    • Canada For Victory
Re: Simon Logan v. Her Majesty The Queen
« Reply #4 on: December 07, 2019, 15:57:53 »
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.

Quote
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; 

Offline dapaterson

    Halfway to being an idiot-savant.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 539,420
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,416
Re: Simon Logan v. Her Majesty The Queen
« Reply #5 on: December 07, 2019, 16:39:40 »
"Pay" is defined elsewhere in the policy.  In my opinion, this case has limited merit and will not succeed.
Putting the *** in acerbic.

Offline Teager

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 41,515
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 884
    • Canada For Victory
Re: Simon Logan v. Her Majesty The Queen
« Reply #6 on: December 07, 2019, 16:49:56 »
"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.

Offline captloadie

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 39,488
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 608
Re: Simon Logan v. Her Majesty The Queen
« Reply #7 on: December 09, 2019, 08:47:08 »
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"?

Offline PuckChaser

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 949,350
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,737
Re: Simon Logan v. Her Majesty The Queen
« Reply #8 on: December 09, 2019, 08:49:59 »
You're not taxed on your allowances? I sure as hell am.

Offline captloadie

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 39,488
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 608
Re: Simon Logan v. Her Majesty The Queen
« Reply #9 on: December 09, 2019, 08:55:39 »
You are right, my bad, it has been a while since I collected an environmental allowance.


Online SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 175,830
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,999
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: Simon Logan v. Her Majesty The Queen
« Reply #10 on: December 09, 2019, 09:51:01 »
Indeed it is and is very specific.

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

Offline Brihard

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 330,430
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,828
  • Non-Electric Pop-Up Target
Pacificsm is doctrine fostered by a delusional minority and by the media, which holds forth the proposition it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Offline PuckChaser

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 949,350
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,737
Re: Simon Logan v. Her Majesty The Queen
« Reply #12 on: March 24, 2020, 22:01:03 »
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.

Offline Brihard

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 330,430
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,828
  • Non-Electric Pop-Up Target
Re: Simon Logan v. Her Majesty The Queen
« Reply #13 on: March 24, 2020, 22:03:05 »
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.
Pacificsm is doctrine fostered by a delusional minority and by the media, which holds forth the proposition it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Offline dapaterson

    Halfway to being an idiot-savant.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 539,420
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,416
Re: Simon Logan v. Her Majesty The Queen
« Reply #14 on: March 24, 2020, 22:04:30 »
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:

Quote
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
Personnel except that while a member is on any period of service without pay, as
granted by the appropriate authority of the Canadian Forces, such rate of pay shall
be that which was in effect for the member on the last day of paid service
immediately preceding said period of service without pay.
(iii) "Reserve Daily Rate of Pay" shall mean the Reserve member's rate of pay
specified in QR and O Chapter 204 for Reserve Force personnel.
Putting the *** in acerbic.

Offline ballz

    ...

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 132,326
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,518
Re: Simon Logan v. Her Majesty The Queen
« Reply #15 on: March 24, 2020, 22:43:56 »
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.
Have you ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight?

Offline dapaterson

    Halfway to being an idiot-savant.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 539,420
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,416
Re: Simon Logan v. Her Majesty The Queen
« Reply #16 on: March 25, 2020, 18:58:51 »
Putting the *** in acerbic.

Offline Navy_Pete

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 49,035
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,133
Re: Simon Logan v. Her Majesty The Queen
« Reply #17 on: March 25, 2020, 20:55:07 »
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.

Offline Teager

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 41,515
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 884
    • Canada For Victory
Re: Simon Logan v. Her Majesty The Queen
« Reply #18 on: March 29, 2020, 11:13:57 »
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.

Offline PuckChaser

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 949,350
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,737
Re: Simon Logan v. Her Majesty The Queen
« Reply #19 on: March 29, 2020, 12:41:36 »
Like theatre allowances? Interesting...

Offline Teager

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 41,515
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 884
    • Canada For Victory
Re: Simon Logan v. Her Majesty The Queen
« Reply #20 on: April 01, 2020, 11:36:53 »
Like theatre allowances? Interesting...

From my understanding yes.

Offline Navy_Pete

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 49,035
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,133
Re: Simon Logan v. Her Majesty The Queen
« Reply #21 on: April 01, 2020, 15:03:56 »
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;

Quote

 $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).


Offline PuckChaser

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 949,350
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,737
Re: Simon Logan v. Her Majesty The Queen
« Reply #22 on: April 01, 2020, 18:02:36 »
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.

Offline dapaterson

    Halfway to being an idiot-savant.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 539,420
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,416
Re: Simon Logan v. Her Majesty The Queen
« Reply #23 on: April 01, 2020, 18:58:04 »
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.
Putting the *** in acerbic.

Online Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 200,330
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,723
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: Simon Logan v. Her Majesty The Queen
« Reply #24 on: April 01, 2020, 19:06:39 »
The Assaulter is now its own occupation: expect it to be constructed similar to SF Op.
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr