• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Simon Logan v. Her Majesty The Queen

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
588
Points
1,040
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

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
652
Points
1,060
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

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
2,387
Points
890
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

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Donor
Reaction score
974
Points
1,060
The Assaulter is now its own occupation: expect it to be constructed similar to SF Op.
 

blacktriangle

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
173
Points
630
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

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
2,387
Points
890
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.
 

PuckChaser

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
652
Points
1,060
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

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
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

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
652
Points
1,060
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

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
2,387
Points
890
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

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
173
Points
630
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

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
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

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
2,387
Points
890
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.
 
Top