Class Action Suit against NVC & "Govt has no obligation to soldiers"

[Occam]

I really don't think that's the case. I don't think the top will include COLA increases.

The link in the other thread put out by VAC gives an example of someone at 25% getting around $11,000. If COLA  was included, it would be more.

My guess is they didn't mention the year because it's irrelevant. IOW, all vets pensioned at 100% get the same top up, regardless of year they got the DA. All vets pensioned at 95% Vet the same, etc.

The maximum top up, IMO, is $50,000, which would be given to vets @ 100%. You can extrapolate down from there.

The year it was awarded to them matters.  The retro award will be the delta between X% of $360K, less the award they got (which is X% of what the maximum was in the year it was awarded), where X is the disability rating.  There will be a bigger delta for those recipients who got earlier awards.  Section 100 (1) of the budget bill at http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&DocId=8206355 shows the math.

The largest top up will be to someone awarded $250K in 2006.  They will receive a $110K top up payment.

 

[Teager]

Occam are you able to post the math they use from that link you posted? I can't seem to find it or possibly just missed it by not understanding it. I've seen so many different calculations they may use to calculate the top up from other guys that I don't know what's what anymore.

 

[The Bread Guy]

... Your Liberal saviours voted for NVC As did every Tory in a Tory government, with no return to pensions even during a Tory majority government, and voted against the budgets that included no commitments to return to pre-NVC pensions, but an increase in services (PIA and ELB)  .

The REST of the story in green - all that said, I'm going to repeat something you said earlier as well:

The Liberals have 2 more budgets to fix the VAC issues. If they try to do anything on the 4th and final one, its a purely political move designed to save face and not lose support.

The Tories had nine budgets to fix it - let's see if the Liberals can do better than that.

 

[RobA]

Occam, I hope youre right, but I don't think so.  I've been trying to tease apart the legalese in the bill for a month now, and I can't come up with anything that suggests they'll add COLA in the top up.

From the bill (emphasis mine):

21 (1) The Minister must pay to a member or a veteran who received, in whole or in part, a disability award under section 45, 47 or 48 of the Act before April 1, 2017, and who is alive on April 1, 2017, an amount determined in accordance with the formula
A − B
where

A
is the amount set out in column 3 of Schedule 3 to the Act, as that Schedule read on April 1, 2017, that corresponds to the member’s or veteran’s extent of disability, as set out in column 2, for which the disability award was received, reduced — for every calendar year from2016 until the year in which the disability award was received — by a percentage calculated in accordance with the method of calculating the percentages by which the amounts set out in Schedule 3 to the Act are periodically adjusted; and

B
is the amount of the disability award that was payable to the member or the veteran under subsection 52(1) of the Act.

the word "reduced" means they take the number corresponing to your % and REDUCE it according to how long ago you got your DA. So yes, you're right in the sense that the year DOES matter. But it matters only insofar as the longer you got it, the more they reduce from the original number. And the "amount reduced by" sounds exactly like COLA.

So for someone at 100%, they'll take the new 100% number - $360,000 - and reduce it by the COLA since they got it. They'll end up with a new number. Let's say that number comes to $315,000 (obviously, this will depend on the year which they got it). So now they take $310,000 and subtract what they've ALREADY been paid. Let's say it's $260,000. The balance - $50,000 -  is what the top up will be. At least that's how it reads to me.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

How about we quit playing the blame game and the partisan politics and just stick to the facts of the new adjustments. People interested in what we're supposed to get have enough to think about without having to listen to who did what. I don't care what Trudeau, Harper, Martin did. I want to know where we're going cause I know where I've already been and you can't change the past. Let's look forward to the future and leave the personalities/ petty politics out of it.

'Nuff said. No more warnings.

---Staff---

     

 

[brihard]

How about we quit playing the blame game and the partisan politics and just stick to the facts of the new adjustments. People interested in what we're supposed to get have enough to think about without having to listen to who did what. I don't care what Trudeau, Harper, Martin did. I want to know where we're going cause I know where I've already been and you can't change the past. Let's look forward to the future and leave the personalities/ petty politics out of it.

'Nuff said. No more warnings.

---Staff---

   

I see nothing in the page code of conduct that prohibits civil discussion of the political history of certain public policy matters, such as veterans. Veterans benefits were a huge political hot potato coming into the election. The issue has been and remains heavily politicized by both parties. We talk politics on this site constantly where it impacts on us.

I see no problem here with people discussing the 'blame game' of poor veterans policy beyond you personally not liking it. If members are going to discuss this stuff without violating page rules, I for one would like to see something more solid as justification for staff action than 'last warning' resting on essentially 'because I said so'. We are all grown ups here. If you don't like the discussion and rules aren't being broken, then attempt to sway it by influence, or just stay out of it.

Just as a bit of an eyebrow raiser from within this very thread:

I hope the Opposition takes them to task on this one, during discussion of the Bill. However, I'm not holding my breathe. : One of the big things we've been asking is for a return to monthly payments and it looks like the Trudeau Liberals are trying to slide away from it unnoticed.

I trust we're done here and folks can carry on as they were?

---I have a Staff sig line too--

 

[Occam]

RobA, in retrospect I think you're correct.  I think that "reduced — for every calendar year from 2016 until the year in which the disability award was received — by a percentage calculated in accordance with the method of calculating the percentages by which the amounts set out in Schedule 3 to the Act are periodically adjusted" phrase refers to section 63 of the Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Regulations.

In other words, it looks like they'll reduce the $360K by the CPI for every year going backward until they reach the year you were originally given the LSA, and then pay the difference between that and what you already got.  Looking at the CPI tables, I think that would be 17.6% if you got your LSA in 2006.  Damn, that's a significant dent in the top-up.

 

[RobA]

Occam, yeah, I've been reading it through it and running some numbers. It looks like COLA won't be included. I'll give you an example using my own situation, along with the COLA tables that VAC uses:

2007 -2.2917%
2008 -2%
2009 -2.5%
2010 -3.25949%
2011 -3.346776%
2012 -2.8%
2013 -1.8%
2014 -0.9%
2015 -1.8%
2016 -1.2%

I got $260,212 in 2008, at 100%.

So if you take that number, and add all the COLA increases starting from 2009 until the present day, you end up with just over $310,000, which is of course the amount of 100% award today. The math holds up no matter which year you use. If you take, for example, someone who got 100% in 2010, and add in each years COLA increase, you end up at around $310,000.

Basically, according to VAC, the two numbers are equal. I.e. $260,000 in 2008 is the exact same as $310,000 in 2016, in terms of purchasing power. Which is another reason why I don't think we'll get COLA. Beause in the eyes of VAC, everyones been paid the same. Frankly, if they DO give us COLA, the more recent guys would have a valid grievance. $260,000 in 2008 plus $100,000 in 2017 is significantly more valuable then $310,000 plus $60,000 in 2017, even though both numbers total $360,000

I think the calculation will go like this (Ill use my situation, with my specific numbers in red):

"A
is the amount set out in column 3 of Schedule 3 to the Act, as that Schedule read on April 1, 2017, (100% on the new tables, i.e. $360,000) that corresponds to the member’s or veteran’s extent of disability, as set out in column 2, for which the disability award was received, reduced — for every calendar year from2016 until the year in which the disability award was received — by a percentage calculated in accordance with the method of calculating the percentages (this "reduction number" is $50,934, taking my existing DA of $260,000 and subtracting the difference between being paid out in 2016 and 2008) by which the amounts set out in Schedule 3 to the Act are periodically adjusted; and"

So in my case, A equals $309,066. B equals my existing payout of $260,212, which means my top up will be $48,854. A - B = $48,854/

If you run this method for every year under the assumption of 100%, you get pretty much the same number:

2009 award @ 100% (B): $266,717 (2008 award*2.5%)
Reduction number from $360k (A): $316,468 ($360,000-$49,751)
Top up (A-B): $49,751

2010 award @ 100% (B): $275,385 (2009 award*3.25%)
Reduction number from $360k (A): $327,395 ($360,000-$33,605)
Top up (A-B): $51,010

2011 award @ 100% (B): $286,726 (2010 award*3.34%)
Reduction number from $360k (A): $335,629 ($360,000-$24,371)
Top up (A-B): $48,903

2012 award @ 100% (B): $294,754 (2011 award*2.8%)
Reduction number from $360k (A): $343,200 ($360,000-$16,800)
Top up (A-B): $48,446

2013 award @ 100% (B): $300,059 (2012 award*1.8%)
Reduction number from $360k (A): $348,298 ($360,000-$11,702)
Top up (A-B): $48,239

If you keep going until 2016, you'll get the same thing: no matter what year you got paid out, everyone is more or less getting the same amount as everyone else with the same %, give or take a half a percentage point or so, depending on your specific circumstances. All 100%'ers will get roughly the same. All 90%'ers the same, etc.

That's why the example from VAC didn't give the year, because it doesn't really matter. The year matters in the sense that the calculations will be different. The MATH underneath your final number will be different from that of someone else. But effectively, it all ends up at the same place.

And yeah, that is a pretty big dent. Better then nothing, of course, but I was pensioned at age 25 nine years ago. If I was under the pension syste, I likely would have ALREADY been paid around $270,000 or so, and still have (god willing) another 50 years or so. The guy with the exact same injury as me only two years sooner got a pension worth probably around $1-$2 million. It's a little tough to swallow. I mean, yeah its better then nothing. But the discrepancy between being hurt in 2005 and being hurt in 2007 is astronomical.  I'm finding it a little tough to be overjoyed by the table scraps when the guy beside me gets a lifetime buffet. I don't begrudge any vet that got the pension, of course. But man....what the frig where they thinking when this got passed? Where the hell was the Legion? Where the hell was anyone?

 

[Occam]

That is some seriously sound math you have going on there.  ;D

My apologies for misinterpreting the legislation; the reduction threw me and I must've mentally ignored it, and it definitely makes a difference.

You're a textbook example of what Equitas is all about.  For what's supposed to be pain & suffering compensation that should've remained constant regardless of other factors, people like you got royally screwed by the NVC.  I have conditions under both schemes, and while the disability ratings for each are not that far apart, the difference between them should I live another 30-odd years to the average male life expectancy is night and day.  I'm still optimistic that the government hasn't pulled a fast one on us and is truly sincere about returning to a lifelong disability pension for all, and the only thing holding them back is making doubly sure that we return to one class of veteran.

 

[George Wallace]

So using RobA's math, Vets are now worse off and the fight must go on?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I see nothing in the page code of conduct that prohibits civil discussion of the political history of certain public policy matters, such as veterans. Veterans benefits were a huge political hot potato coming into the election. The issue has been and remains heavily politicized by both parties. We talk politics on this site constantly where it impacts on us.

I see no problem here with people discussing the 'blame game' of poor veterans policy beyond you personally not liking it. If members are going to discuss this stuff without violating page rules, I for one would like to see something more solid as justification for staff action than 'last warning' resting on essentially 'because I said so'. We are all grown ups here. If you don't like the discussion and rules aren't being broken, then attempt to sway it by influence, or just stay out of it.

Just as a bit of an eyebrow raiser from within this very thread:

I trust we're done here and folks can carry on as they were?

---I have a Staff sig line too--

Sorry, I think you missed the point. The whole Harper's/ Trudeau's fault stuff adds SFA to the conversation. That's the past. Let's focus on what is coming and how to deal with it.

No matter whose fault it is.

Rather than bury the meaning of the thread amongst accusations on which guy did better, let's stay with what we need, what is offered and how we are going to deal with it.

Instead of all the Harper/ Trudeau is trying to fuck us stuff.

Does that make things clearer to you?

 

[Occam]

So using RobA's math, Vets are now worse off and the fight must go on?

Sure, if you call getting a $50K top-up LSA cheque if you're 100% disabled (and proportionately less if you're disabled to a lesser degree) "worse off".

The end effect is the same - all the NVC veterans get a top-up to the 2017 rate.  Now they can move forward on the NVC vets rejoining the group of lifetime disability pension vets, once the details of that are sorted out.  Scary as it is, I can see their logic as they move forward, and it seems (to me, at least) they're exercising due diligence in not improving benefits to one group to the detriment of another.

 

[TCM621]

Just to play Devils advocate for a minute,  Rob. If you had invested that 260k at a conservative 4 percent it would be worth 1.85 Mil in 50 years.  So you received an equivalent amount of money,  you just got it up front.

I don't agree with the idea that giving a 25 year old 260k and saying live on this for life being a good idea but I can get logic behind the payout. It looked at it from a strict mathematical point of view and it looked good.

I don't think even giving the option of up front cash is a good idea. Giving some kid whose life just got ruined a quarter of a million dollars is a good way to end up with a poor, addicted veteran a few years down the road. Then you have to help him anyway or look like you are ignoring injured vets. For small sums it makes sense. I would rather take a one time payout for a small ankle injury but once you start getting into payments of more than a couple hundred a month, just force a pension on them.

 

[Occam]

It bears repeating that the Disability Pension and Disability Award are intended to compensate for the non-economic impact (pain and suffering) of an injury or illness.  It's not meant to "live on", since if one is disabled, one is expected to seek gainful employment, or if unable to work, there are other income replacement benefits meant to address that.

I see a need for both options (pension and LSA).  If you're 70 years old and have just recently been diagnosed with asbestosis caused by asbestos exposure during Naval service, are you really interested in a life-long monthly pension?

Loath as I am to use this analogy again, it's like the Cash for Life lotto.  You can choose either $2000/week for life, or $1.35 million lump sum payment.  If you're happy with only getting 13 years worth of payments (or don't expect to live 13 years), the lump sum is for you.  Otherwise, you are much, much further ahead selecting the weekly (monthly) payments for life.

 

[PuckChaser]

Our Liberal leopards have shown their spots, support for veterans only enough to get your votes:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/kent-hehr-veterans-court-benefits-1.3586013 (highlights are mine)

Ottawa's legal manoeuvre on veterans benefits called 'a betrayal'
Lawyer for injured Afghan veterans says court action turns 'Liberal election campaign into a lie'

By John Paul Tasker, CBC News Posted: May 17, 2016 5:02 PM ET Last Updated: May 17, 2016 5:12 PM ET

The federal government is taking veterans back to court to try to block certain benefits for injured and wounded soldiers, despite a Liberal campaign promise to better support them after an era of Conservative cuts.

"It's a betrayal," said Donald Sorochan, the lawyer representing the six Afghan war veterans who initiated a class-action lawsuit over pensions and other benefits.

"They have turned the Liberal election campaign into a lie. I sat at tables [during the campaign] with some of the people who are now in cabinet. Those ministers have been turned into liars by the Department of Justice," he said Tuesday, noting the election platform explicitly promised that no veteran would have to "fight the government" for the support and compensation they have earned.

A peace agreement of sorts reached by the previous Harper government and the veterans, the plaintiffs, expired Sunday. The two sides failed to reach an out-of-court settlement, and now government lawyers have informed the B.C. Court of Appeals that they will pick up the lawsuit where it left off.

The plaintiffs have argued in court that the government has a sacred obligation to its injured soldiers and that the lump-sum payment wounded veterans receive under the New Veterans Charter — as opposed to the pension that was previously offered to veterans before 2006 — is inadequate compensation, as they receive less money over the course of a lifetime.

They've also argued that it violates their rights — the right to life, liberty and security of the person — under Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

"The social covenant is this promise that our country, Canada, has promised service people they will be protected when they get maimed and their families will be looked after if they are killed," Sorochan said.

Government lawyers outraged veterans by asserting that the federal government has no extraordinary obligation to those who have fought for the country, and therefore the litigation has no merit.

The justice department lawyers tried to block the case during the Harper era by arguing that Canada does not have a social covenant with veterans, and that a "scheme providing benefits cannot be said to amount to a deprivation merely because claimant views the benefits as insufficient." They also said that the plaintiffs "seek to advance a pure economic interest."

Erin O'Toole, who was brought on by Harper to replace Julian Fantino on the veterans file, ultimately repudiated those arguments and tried to put an end to a political headache that had been dogging the Tories for months.

Moreover, all parties voted unanimously in favour of a motion introduced by NDP MP Fin Donnelly last May, which recognized a "stand-alone covenant of moral, social, legal and fiduciary obligation exists between the Canadian people … and members of the Canadian Armed Forces who have been injured, disabled or died as a result of military service."

O'Toole also removed the lead government lawyer, Paul Vickery, from the case and replaced him with Joel Watson, a litigator from the private sector and himself a former veteran.

But Sorochan told CBC News that the government lawyers have told him they will now revive the argument that the government does not have a sacred obligation to veterans — to try to kill the class-action lawsuit once and for all.

The Liberal government has also put Vickery back on the case.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Our Liberal leopards have shown their spots, support for veterans only enough to get your votes:

Or if it doesn't cost toooooooooooo much ...

 

[jollyjacktar]

Or you could cynically say that as the ABC crowd have been gulled and served their purpose, they can now be disposed of like a used Kleenex.  Business as usual for the Liberals...

 

[RobA]

It sounds like these DOJ lawyers are not in sync with the federal government. The Equitas lawyers said "these DOJ lawyers are making liars out of the Liberal government". That implies that the Equitas guys at least think that the DOJ is acting someone independently.

If they thought it was coming directly from the Trudeau government, he would say " the Liberal government ARE liars ".

This seems to me to be an obvious strategic move to play this out in the court of public opinion, which seems like a good idea to me.

I'm not too worried about lawyers wrangling during private meeting. That's what they do. The DoJ lawyers are trying to get a settlement that satisfies the olaintiffs while at the same time trying ti keep it as inexpensive as possible. And the plaintiffs are trying to squeeze every dime they can from the government. Thats how this works.

Let's talk when the government makes an official statement.

As for the " ABC" foolishness, you guys gave Harper 10 years to fix the mess that HE CREATED and now you want them back because Trudeau didn't snap his fingers and give us all pensions the day after the election? Grow up.

 

[jollyjacktar]

It sounds like these DOJ lawyers are not in sync with the federal government. The Equitas lawyers said "these DOJ lawyers are making liars out of the Liberal government". That implies that the Equitas guys at least think that the DOJ is acting someone independently.

If they thought it was coming directly from the Trudeau government, he would say " the Liberal government ARE liars ".

This seems to me to be an obvious strategic move to play this out in the court of public opinion, which seems like a good idea to me.

I'm not too worried about lawyers wrangling during private meeting. That's what they do. The DoJ lawyers are trying to get a settlement that satisfies the olaintiffs while at the same time trying ti keep it as inexpensive as possible. And the plaintiffs are trying to squeeze every dime they can from the government. Thats how this works.

Let's talk when the government makes an official statement.

As for the " ABC" foolishness, you guys gave Harper 10 years to fix the mess that HE CREATED and now you want them back because Trudeau didn't snap his fingers and give us all pensions the day after the election? Grow up.

Who said anything about supporting Harper?  Besides, the Liberals started the ball rolling with Martin.  They're all equally guilty of bringing it into being as it is.  Memories a little short, eh?  Don't let your jaw hit the floor if the present GoC does as they've all done in the past and back off commitments after they've got what they want from the voters. 

 

[The Bread Guy]

It sounds like these DOJ lawyers are not in sync with the federal government. The Equitas lawyers said "these DOJ lawyers are making liars out of the Liberal government". That implies that the Equitas guys at least think that the DOJ is acting someone independently.

I'd bet a $50 donation to a wounded vets' charity that DOJ does NOT act without government direction.  If the DOJ lawyers are correctly quoted, this government, no matter who's doing the talking, has clearly chosen to continue this litigation.

As recent history has shown, governments of all stripes can choose to start, continue or stop litigation - and can even complain about lawyers' fees for those forced to take the government to court in the first place. 

Also, the only commitment from the platform was ...

... We will re-establish lifelong pensions as an option for our injured veterans, and increase the value of the disability award ...

... with nothing mentioned about the NVC litigation that I can find - sneaky devils ...

Let's talk when the government makes an official statement.

Let me predict the essence of such a statement, which would come from someone asking about it, rather than the Minister or the Department issuing a news release saying, "yeah, we're going back to court against vets":

We are committed to establishing sound policy, and ensuring Veterans and their families get the services they need, and that they are served with care, compassion and respect.  Since the issue is before the courts, I can't comment further.

Don't let your jaw hit the floor if the present GoC does as they've all done in the past and back off commitments after they've got what they want from the voters. 

Zackly - which is also why some figure all politicians of all stripes/colours suck on this issue.