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

[Lightguns]

He's still a member of the CAF, in the Naval Reserve in Winnipeg. I just looked him up on the GAL based on a Wikipedia entry. How that's allowed, I don't know.

I seem to recall that he is in the band on that stone frigate, so I doubt his participation in politics will affect the unit in any way. 

 

[The Bread Guy]

I seem to recall that he is in the band on that stone frigate, so I doubt his participation in politics will affect the unit in any way. 

Nonetheless, the appearance of issues is often enough, even in the absence of real issues.  If the Minister had to quit, one would think the same rule applies for everyone, right?

EQUITAS COURT DATE
FRIDAY JUNE.17/2016 8:30AM
BC SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL

Going around on FB.

Thanks for sharing.

 

[Teager]

Mostly a recap.

Veterans say government is breaking election promises by taking them back to court.

OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail
Published Monday, Jun. 13, 2016 8:31PM EDT
Last updated Monday, Jun. 13, 2016 11:52PM EDT

Wounded veterans will be back in court this week to fight the federal government’s contention that it has no special obligation to former soldiers in a case that has been reopened by the Justice Department to the chagrin of veterans’ groups across the country.

In documents filed with the British Columbia Court of Appeal on Monday, the lawyer for the six veterans involved in the lawsuit is asking the court to refuse the government’s request that the court rule on an appeal in the case. He says the Liberal government is returning to arguments that it campaigned against, and is breaking promises that helped get it elected. The case has been on hold for a year.

The central issue in dispute – the assertion that there is no “social covenant or social contract” between veterans and the Canadian government – inflamed veterans when it was first advanced in the B.C. Supreme Court by the previous Conservative government.

The Liberal government is abandoning promises to settle matters, said Don Sorochan, the lawyer for the vets whose firm, Miller Thomson, has agreed to let him do the work pro bono. The Liberals “are not keeping that commitment,” he said, “nor are they keeping their platform commitments,” which are reiterated in ministerial mandate letters.

Bruce Moncur, a veterans’ advocate from Windsor, Ont., is urging veterans to show up at the courthouse wearing their medals to support those involved in the lawsuit. “It is a stab in the back,” Mr. Moncur said. “A lot of vets saw the Liberal platform and voted for it because it was the best one.”

The six wounded veterans launched the suit against the government in 2012, with the thought of eventually turning it into a class action. They said they should not be forced to accept less compensation for their injuries than what they would have received through the civil courts or workers’ compensation.

Among other things, they wanted a reinstatement of the lifetime pensions for wounded veterans that had been replaced in 2006 by the New Veterans Charter that relies largely on lump-sum payments.

Justice Department lawyers responded by saying there is no extraordinary social covenant owed to veterans, other than what Parliament decides to give them, and filed a motion asking for the case to be dismissed. The court ruled against that motion and the government appealed.

That set off a firestorm, both in the veterans’ community and in the Commons where the opposition decried the government’s treatment of those who were permanently disabled in the military service of Canada. Justin Trudeau, who was then Liberal leader, asked the government “to live up to our sacred obligation, end this court battle, and start giving our veterans the help they deserve.”

The Conservative government agreed to put its appeal on hold in May, 2015, and the two sides tried to find a private resolution.

In the lead-up to the fall election, the Liberals promised to reinstate the lifetime pensions and persuaded the veterans who were part of the suit to appear with them at campaign events.

After the Liberals won, Mr. Trudeau said in Veterans Affairs Minister Kent Hehr’s mandate letter that the minister must ensure that the “government lives up to our sacred obligation to veterans,” and that he must “re-establish lifelong pensions as an option for our injured veterans.” Mr. Sorochan said the veterans agreed to drop the suit if the government would set timelines for acting on the mandate letter.

But that has not happened. The pensions were not included in the March budget and, when the abeyance period in the lawsuit expired May of this year, Mr. Hehr signed off on sending the case back to the B.C. Court of Appeal.

Government lawyers have asked the Court of Appeal to render judgment on the same arguments that they advanced initially – that there was no special social obligation owed to veterans.

Michael Blais, the president of Canadian Veterans Advocacy, said most veterans he knows are furious about the decision. “I don’t think I have talked to anyone who is not angry about it,” said Mr. Blais, who sits on government advisory groups that are discussing ways to treat veterans more fairly.

Mr. Hehr said in a statement on Monday that his government did not take veterans to court. “This is part of an ongoing lawsuit which began many years before we came into office. I find it deeply regrettable that, under the former government, veterans had to take this step to ensure their well-being,” the minister said.

“Canadians gave us a strong mandate to repair the relationship with veterans, especially for those who became ill or were injured in the course of their service,” he said. “One focus is to make veterans financially secure through the provision of a life-long pension option and I can assure Canadians that I remain committed to this, and to fulfilling all items in my mandate letter.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liberal-government-breaking-pension-pledge-to-injured-veterans-lawyer/article30438822/

 

[Lightguns]

As the legion found out in 2004, be careful the lying politician you stand up with....

 

[Fishbone Jones]

The libs dropped almost every outstanding CPC court case when they took over. They could have done the same with this one. They are being disingenuous, at minimum, and responsible for the state of all Veteran health issues since being elected.

For any Veteran, who's injuries deteriorate, who decides there is but one way left out, for Veteran's spouses that are losing their homes because of the way survivor pensions are being mismanaged, for lack of offices and programs, there is but one entity to blame.

The Trudeau Liberals.

They have been in power long enough to be on their own path by now. It's time for them to stop blaming the CPC for every little thing that they need shoved under the rug.

Veterans (and gun owners) are once again in a mug's game. We vote for the promises of these two faced politicians in the hope things will get better. What we get, after they have our vote and power, is more bald faced lies and betrayal.

The ripple effect can become wide spread. Who would want to join the military, sign on for unlimited liability when you know there is no social contract with the government and yourself. That if you're injured, the same government will relegate you to third class citizenship and leave you destitute in your life after service.

WSIB are huge friggin' dicks when it comes to fairly compensating injured workers but they are like a benevolent uncle compared to VAC and the government.

The Trudeau Liberals have been throwing billions of dollars, no strings attached to countries all over the world since they were elected and they can't find any money to upgrade the benefits of Canada's warriors. The ones that have made it possible for Canadians and their government to be part of the world stage.

Shame on them.

 

[Jed]

The libs dropped almost every outstanding CPC court case when they took over. They could have done the same with this one. They are being disingenuous, at minimum, and responsible for the state of all Veteran health issues since being elected.

For any Veteran, who's injuries deteriorate, who decides there is but one way left out, for Veteran's spouses that are losing their homes because of the way survivor pensions are being mismanaged, for lack of offices and programs, there is but one entity to blame.

The Trudeau Liberals.

They have been in power long enough to be on their own path by now. It's time for them to stop blaming the CPC for every little thing that they need shoved under the rug.

Veterans (and gun owners) are once again in a mug's game. We vote for the promises of these two faced politicians in the hope things will get better. What we get, after they have our vote and power, is more bald faced lies and betrayal.

The ripple effect can become wide spread. Who would want to join the military, sign on for unlimited liability when you know there is no social contract with the government and yourself. That if you're injured, the same government will relegate you to third class citizenship and leave you destitute in your life after service.

WSIB are huge friggin' dicks when it comes to fairly compensating injured workers but they are like a benevolent uncle compared to VAC and the government.

The Trudeau Liberals have been throwing billions of dollars, no strings attached to countries all over the world since they were elected and they can't find any money to upgrade the benefits of Canada's warriors. The ones that have made it possible for Canadians and their government to be part of the world stage.

Shame on them.

Well said.  And to all those serving and gullible and / or naive folks who championed the JT Liberals, you were well warned.

 

[jollyjacktar]

I'm sure their cheerleading section won't be the least bit put off with the disingenuous performance of the Lieberals.  New faces, same old BS.

 

[FSTO]

The federal government and all its bureaucrats have two preferred methods of dealing with us. We retire with all our limbs intact and mind sound or we are turned into red mist on the battlefield. They love option two because they don't have to provide a casket or a flight home for the body. They reluctantly give us our service pension (that we have paid into throughout our careers) but it is a constant battle against the blood sucking vampires at Treasury Board from nipping away at even that benefit.

To most of the senior members of the public service, the military is unnecessary and unneeded drain on their time and energy and if they had their way, the duties and responsibilities of the RCN, RCAF and CA would be subcontracted to the United States (which they have done as much as possible anyway)

Rudyard Kipling said it all over a 100 years ago and it is still true today, no matter who is in government.
(Last verse of "Tommy")

You talk o' better food for us, an' schools, an' fires, an' all:
We'll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational.
Don't mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face
The Widow's Uniform is not the soldier-man's disgrace.
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck him out, the brute!"
But it's "Saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot;
An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool -- you bet that Tommy sees!

 

[Teager]

disabled Veterans’ Case Management Conference – BC Court of Appeal – Friday, June 17, 2016 - Law Courts, 800 Smithe Street, Vancouver at 9:30 a.m.
The Case Management Conference is an open court hearing before a single judge of the Court of Appeals to hear submissions of the parties as why the Court should not act upon the Government’s request that they render the Court’s decision based upon the Government’s argument on the December 2014 appeal hearing. The Representative Plaintiffs (Respondents) submit that the Court should consider that the Government had settled the appeal with the Respondents and had agreed to abandon the appeal because of the repudiation after the appeal hearing of the position of the Government with respect to the concept of a social covenant or contract for veterans. These changed positions were declared by the new Veterans’ Affairs Minister (Erin O’Toole) and by senior members of all current Politic Parties.
Concerned citizens and veterans are entitled to attend this case management conference.
Thereby:
At the direction of the Honourable Mr. Justice Groberman by memorandum dated May 31, 2016, a Case Management Conference for this proceeding has been set to be held at the Law Courts, 800 Smithe Street, Vancouver at 9:30 a.m. on June 17, 2016 to consider what, if any, further steps should be taken as a result of the position communicated to the Court by Counsel for the Appellants on May 16, 2016 that the Court is now free to render its decision in the appeal heard on December 3 and 4, 2014 and the position communicated to the Court by Counsel for the Respondents on May 18, 2016 that it would be inappropriate for the Court to do so.
In order for the Court to consider the issues raised by the differing positions of the parties, it is the submission of the Respondents that the Court must consider all of the circumstances surrounding the negotiation and performance of the settlement agreement known as the Abeyance Agreement dated May 27, 2015.
In determining whether the Appellants have breached or evinced an intention to breach the settlement agreement the Court must objectively construe the purported breaching party’s intention and to do so all of the surrounding circumstances to the agreement and its performance should be considered. Since the surrounding circumstances to the settlement agreement involves political and national public policy issues, reference is made to Proceedings of Parliament as recorded in Hansard.

https://www.facebook.com/Equitas-Society-244969555566649/

 

[Teager]

Some of the government lawyers arguments.

The factum was filed by Paul Vickery, a Justice Department lawyer who was subsequently removed from the case by former Conservative veterans affairs minister Erin O’Toole when animosity between veterans groups and the government was boiling over. The Liberal government has now returned Mr. Vickery to the file.

In the documents he filed this week, the government also discounts the importance of a House of Commons motion brought last May by New Democratic Party MP Fin Donnelly that said Ottawa is “obligated” to “provide equitable financial compensation” to injured and deceased veterans.

Even though the Liberals voted in favour of Mr. Donnelly’s motion, the new government court document says: “The House of Commons motion referenced by the plaintiffs, while it records the opinion of the then members of Parliament on the matters referred to in the motion, does not have the force of law and cannot bind the federal government.”

The two sides will debate arguments before the B.C. Appeal Court in Vancouver next week and veterans groups say they will be there to demonstrate their anger.

More at link

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-owes-veterans-no-duty-of-care-federal-lawyers-argue-in-case/article30465871/

 

[Journeyman]

The factum was filed by Paul Vickery, a Justice Department lawyer who was subsequently removed from the case by former Conservative veterans affairs minister Erin O’Toole when animosity between veterans groups and the government was boiling over. The Liberal government has now returned Mr. Vickery to the file.

Ah, back... but now with an additional personal grudge  :

 

[PuckChaser]

Personal grudge and political top cover to run with it. Remember guys, Trudeau said no veteran should ever have to sue his government for benefits, so this is just a figment of our imagination.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Hey, why rewrite the briefs from the previous court appearances/run past management's play book if they help you avoid spending HUGE bucks, right?  :facepalm:

#rememberthemonlyincourt

 

[gryphonv]

QUOTE: In the new court documents filed on Monday on behalf of the government, the Justice Department says “the submissions made by [former Conservative attorney-general Rob Nicholson] on the hearing of the appeal, and as set out in the factum filed by him, accurately reflect the current position of the federal government.”

 

[The Bread Guy]

QUOTE: In the new court documents filed on Monday on behalf of the government, the Justice Department says “the submissions made by [former Conservative attorney-general Rob Nicholson] on the hearing of the appeal, and as set out in the factum filed by him, accurately reflect the current position of the federal government.”

Team Blue/Team Red, don't matter - it's about the $

 

[Lightguns]

ABC Veterans does even mention it on their twitter, Canadian Veterans Advocacy just re-tweets meaningless motherhood liberal tweets.  Veterans against the CPC is silent.  I see nothing on the legion site or twitter in terms of press releases.  Seems we are all happy with the liberals latests moves on this file.

 

[The Bread Guy]

ABC Veterans does even mention it on their twitter, Canadian Veterans Advocacy just re-tweets meaningless motherhood liberal tweets.  Veterans against the CPC is silent.  I see nothing on the legion site or twitter in terms of press releases.  Seems we are all happy with the liberals latests moves on this file.

#rememberthemonlyincourt

 

[TCM621]

Has anyone attempted to reach out to the MND or Gen Leslie to remind them of the fate of their brothers and sisters in Arms? It would be dirty pool but a disabled veteran who served with/under them  bringing it up publicly them might get some high profile liberals on our side.

 

[Journeyman]

Has anyone attempted to reach out to the MND or Gen Leslie to remind them of the fate of their brothers and sisters in Arms? It would be dirty pool but a disabled veteran who served with/under them  bringing it up publicly them might get some high profile liberals on our side.

I doubt if it would make the slightest bit of difference -- the government seems particularly immune to criticism (what scarce amount the media actually provides). 

 

[The Bread Guy]

Has anyone attempted to reach out to the MND or Gen Leslie to remind them of the fate of their brothers and sisters in Arms? It would be dirty pool but a disabled veteran who served with/under them  bringing it up publicly them might get some high profile liberals on our side.

If "the team" says "go ahead with don't stop the litigation, and don't crank out the pensions yet", no individual player would be able to say different publicly (no matter what colour the team jerseys are) unless they were prepared to leave the team.

If a cabinet minister was upset enough over the issue to resign in protest, that WOULD send a significant signal - but what are the chances of that happening? 

"Those in cabinet who publicly disagree with cabinet-government's direction, one pace forward - MARCH."  :crickets: