Any RCMP members out there?

Propat. Well this is just it. The GOC was pulling the switch for decades.

What is the difference between 'Bad Policy' and 'Scandal' ????

Either way, my point is someone needs to be charged.

jeffery i think it was more than bad policy but in fact illegal.just my thoughts.

propat

This is an interesting topic.
I wonder, if a criminal were to be put to death today, regardless of of who pulled the switch, would the switch puller not be accountable and charged with a crime?? Capitol punishment was removed in 1976.
If Capitol punishment were to be carried out today, would that not be considered bad policy too?? As is seems to me that clawing back SISIP payments was bad policy also.
Why are letting people get away with these things?? I don't care if it's a Prime Minister, or a random individual pulling a switch...someone needs to be criminally charged with wrong doing.
How do we stop further 'BAD POLICY'???

yup manulife is a sort of administrator, they are thurd party in all of this. Even if manulife is still contracteg by GOC what was put on paper and that info is always available. So I guess I will provide a complint to the RCMP and see what hapen.

I wasn't aware of that Georges, but remember Manulife is under contract by the GoC to manage the program on behalf of the Government of Canada. Any cheques they send to veterans is reconciled by the GoC. To put it simply...the money originates from Ottawa not Manulife.

Thanks for the info, I know from experience that law it not a clear cut thing. If more like a evalution of the practice. 10 years ago I don't think anybody would have looked at this twice gut today I'm not sure the question would not examinde carefully. What gives me the impression the GOC new the mater was (criminal) is that Manulife itself was against the change in policy and sisip (goc) was well aware of the situation before tacking action. Can that help in presenting the case.?

Hello Georges (without prejudice)
Firstly, Georges I cannot provide a legal opinion nor legal advice but I can quote from my personal knowlege,training and several years of investigative experience.
From a Police Officers' perspective and academic training we are taught that Criminal law prosecutions rely heavily on the common law principle of "a guilty mind". This means simply that a person knew beforehand that their actions were illegal/unlawful .
In this case the "defendant", the Government of Canada created an insurance plan (seemingly) in earnest to protect the economic wherewithal of it's employees (veterans) in the event of a serious injury which is later deemed by medical experts to be career ending and proven to be related to their service. To prove criminal intent the Police Investigator is obliged to catalogue sufficient evidence to prove (subject to rebuttal) that the GoC knew or should have known (Guilty Mind) that their actions were criminal in nature but in deference proceeded knowingly and recklessly contrary to the provisions of some applicable Criminal law (there are several). In this case, the Defendant was found by a federal court to have "(unreservedly)" and in my words,misinterpreted the Insurance Plan as it relates to the Pension Act awards. Was there a preponderance of evidence to suggest that their actions were deceitful, fraudulent, theft, feduciary,etc. I don't know but suffice to say they should have known better, afterall, the GoC employs the largest lawfirm in the Country; the Criminal Justice Branch. If a Federal Court Justice chose to use the term "Unreservedly" in his legalese to characterize his decision, I would submit that even a recent law graduate would see the obvious distinctions and have ended the matter well before it found the doorstep to our judiciary. The ongoing angst that I see in this forum is directed squarely at the shamefull actions of this particular culprit and who could argue that it wasn't well deserved. The GoC obviously knew they were skating on very thin ice but chose to throw logic aside while they manned the bulldozers and gleefully ploughed through the very essence what protects our democratic principles. Where was the care and concern and sobre second thought for what they set out to do back in 2007 to the Military veterans and 2008 against the RCMP veterans. Where was slightest concern for the mounting acrimony their bullying actions has created and the consequential damage it continues to leave in its wake!
Georges, you ask if this is criminal ? if I could use that term as a metaphor I would agree but in the real world, likely not. Was this a blatant, calulated, disrepectful and immoral assault by the defendant against its own employees, their wives,children and relatives. Yes! Should they pay a punitive cost beyond just returning benefits to everyone, absolutely. Of course this just my opinion I could be wrong here or there, hopefully I provided a little perspective into your question.

I would expect that the Federal Court will hear the defeaning din of expressive chatter from those whom feel they were literally crucified rather than attended to respectfully as a well earned benefit of their services to Canada.

Basickly we where robbed by sisip or the GOC or the treasory board, when the dicision to claw back the vet's manulife was against to dicission from the outset. The buttom line is somebody dicided against everything else to claw us back. that person or persons, could hace known or should have known that the pratice was illigal or at best unlawfull. Further more the people implicated refused to review there dessitions dispite all the associated reports. Can this person or persons be held criminally responsible for there action.

Hello Georges
Could you PM and elaborate on what you're suggesting. Regretfully,I think there are only two of us.
Thx.

Think it would go there before a dicission would be taken?

it would have to come from the higher ranks of the RCMP to proceed with criminal charges for those responsible for what i think you are asking..

In the wake of this lawsuit would making a complain to the RCMP have a chance of developing into something good or would I be spitting in a lac?