SISIP LTD 2002 - 2018

[Pieman]

Depending on the nature of their disability, some members receive SISIP benefits up to the age of 65.

In other cases, members receive payments on a short-term basis before transferring to the Earning Loss Benefits plan under Veterans Affairs Canada.

Today’s announcement will ensure that the benefit payments to our ill and injured veterans are consistent – regardless of which program they fall under.

It will also ensure that our ill and injured veterans receive a minimum pre-tax income of $40,000 a year, and that they have the opportunity to participate in vocational rehabilitation training.

This all looks really good to me (on paper). Who is getting left out from this program? I hear so much negative stuff about VAC and SISIP, then I talk to a few people I know who are quite happy with the help they are getting.

Until the fix the "income from all sources", which includes non-taxable DVA pension, it's not much of a solution.

Are soldiers getting nothing because they get money out of DVA?

 

[krustyrl]

Quote
Until the fix the "income from all sources", which includes non-taxable DVA pension, it's not much of a solution. Are soldiers getting nothing because they get money out of DVA?

I believe SISIP considers a non-taxable monthly pension from DVA as "Income" and it is offsetting the amount to a maximum of 75% of your release salary

 

[Pieman]

I believe SISIP considers a non-taxable monthly pension from DVA as "Income" and it is offsetting the amount to a maximum of 75% of your release salary

Okay, thanks for that.

 

[The Bread Guy]

The summary:

A class proceeding was brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of approximately 4,500 former members of the Canadian Forces regarding the legality of the Defendant’s policy of reducing long-term disability (LTD) benefits payable to disabled Canadian Forces members under the Service Income Security Insurance Plan (SISIP) by the monthly amounts payable to those members under the Pension Act. Upon review, the Court concludes that the Defendant’s offset of Pension Act disability benefits from LTD income payable under SISIP is not contractually justified.

The full decision is attached.

 

[krustyrl]

So, in "Layman's Terms"  set aside the legal jargon , and if I'm reading this correctly, deducting a members "compensation" awarded him/her from the Pension Act is not to be considered as income under SISIP Act.?

 

[Occam]

So, in "Layman's Terms"  set aside the legal jargon , and if I'm reading this correctly, deducting a members "compensation" awarded him/her from the Pension Act is not to be considered as income under SISIP Act.?

That's what it says:

THIS COURT ORDERS that the Defendant’s offset of Pension Act disability benefits
from the SISIP LTD income payable to the Plaintiff and to the other members of the Class is in
breach of Article 24(a)(iv) of the SISIP policy.

The government lost.  Good.

 

[OldSolduer]

Question:

Will the government appeal this decision?

If it does, how long before the appeal is heard?

 

[dapaterson]

An appeal to the superior court would probably add another 12-18 months; an appeal beyond that to the Supreme Court, another 2-3 years.  Very rough estimates (in the WAG category).

 

[PuckChaser]

Question:

Will the government appeal this decision?

If it does, how long before the appeal is heard?

Or how long until they change the contract without our consent to include items under the Pension Act specifically as income? From the parts I read, it seems like they could quite possibly just do that and only have to pay the older plaintiffs.

 

[OldSolduer]

Or how long until they change the contract without our consent to include items under the Pension Act specifically as income? From the parts I read, it seems like they could quite possibly just do that and only have to pay the older plaintiffs.

Or appeal it to death....literally...

 

[Kat Stevens]

The lawyers that will finally lose all the appeals that will be filed in this case aren't even born yet.  everyone in the suit will be in the ground before it's settled.

 

[Sythen]

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20120501/federal-court-rules-ottawa-should-stop-clawingbackveterans-disability-benefits-120501/

The federal government should stop clawing back disability benefits paid to thousands of former Canadian Forces members, the Federal Court of Canada has ruled.

About 4,500 disabled veterans launched the class-action lawsuit against the government, arguing it was unfair that long-term disability payments for pain and suffering were being deducted from their Service Income Security Insurance Plan (SISIP) pension.



Read more: http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20120501/federal-court-rules-ottawa-should-stop-clawingbackveterans-disability-benefits-120501/#ixzz1tf0Yit1v

More on link

 

[The Bread Guy]

.... on the court decision, via his blog:

Mr. Dennis Manuge and approximately 4500 former members of the Canadian Forces were given positive news today from the Federal Court, which ruled that the offset of Pension Act disability benefits from the Service Income Security Insurance Plan - Long Term Disability Plan (SISIP LTD) contravened the SISIP policy.

In 2003, the National Defence and Canadian Forces Ombudsman conducted an investigation into the SISIP LTD and issued a report entitled Unfair Deductions From SISIP Payments to Former CF Members. After a thorough investigation, the National Defence and Canadian Forces Ombudsman concluded that it was an unfair practice for SISIP LTD to consider Pension Act disability pensions as income and to deduct them from SISIP LTD benefits.

In 2008 the Senate Standing Committee on National Security and Defence reconfirmed the findings of the National Defence and Canadian Forces Ombudsman in their own report on the subject by concluding that the practice was unfair and stating:  "In fact, all witnesses who appeared before us, with the exception of witnesses from the Department of National Defence, felt the reductions were indeed unfair."

The Office of the Veterans Ombudsman hopes that the Government of Canada responds quickly to resolve this unfairness.

The Office wishes to acknowledge the efforts of Mr. Manuge and the pro bono legal services provided by McInnes Cooper. Well done!

 

[Greymatters]

Good news!

 

[Cdnleaf]

That is really great news; thanks for posting.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Thank you for your 'never give up' attitude Dennis Manuge.

Injured Veterans all over Canada owe you a slap on the back and a hearty handshake.

BZ to you

 

[krustyrl]

Agreed... and a personal thanks.!    :+1:

 

[dogger1936]

Guys just a quick question in regards to this.

For a guy like myself under the new charter what does this all mean? Does this mean I get 75% of my military pay and SISIP LTD ontop of that?

Little confused as many of the stories I'm reading are IRT the pension act.

 

[Occam]

Guys just a quick question in regards to this.

For a guy like myself under the new charter what does this all mean? Does this mean I get 75% of my military pay and SISIP LTD ontop of that?

Little confused as many of the stories I'm reading are IRT the pension act.

It means nothing to anyone who has a condition under the New Charter.  When they implemented the lump sum payment and rescinded the monthly pension, the issue of whether the VAC disability pension was classified as "monthly income" became moot, since the lump sum is a disability award.

 

[Greymatters]

It means nothing to anyone who has a condition under the New Charter.  When they implemented the lump sum payment and rescinded the monthly pension, the issue of whether the VAC disability pension was classified as "monthly income" became moot, since the lump sum is a disability award.

I would disagree as this has an impact on other forms of insurance; if for example you are receiving unemployment insurance, workers compensation, or compensation from an auto insurance company after a car accident, then the veterans pension is often considered a form of income that has to be declared and just as often can be deducted off of support payments, just like the SISIP program. 

This case could set the standard for preventing these kinds of deductions across the board in all insurance-related cases where a member receives a veterans pension.