A Note From McInnes Cooper January 10, 2013

Also Peter what if some of us have RRSP room, why cannot sisip or your firm transfer that amount to the RRSP without withholding taxes, this was done with my retro when I left the forces?

Navrat, the education fund was very contentious, given the amount and size of the class, it was either this approach, or no fund. Is it perfect? No. Is it an extra $10M in awards available to the class? Yes. Do we believe it is a reasonable compromise. Yes.

Olddog, what I would say is this. The agreement provides for you to get back all that was offset, plus interest, less taxes, so everything you should have gotten from SISIP LTD less legal fees. If that amount is $10,000 or $100,000 it is what you are entitled to in law. Why would you not support the resolution? In any event it is the Court who says yes or know based on the resolution being fair and reasonable in law.

Peter, the education fund in my opinion is unfair , you can only apply once , what if you had 3 children , only one gets a shot, what should have been done is every claimant should have been given the 1300 dollars and allowed to spend it on education as they see fit. If I have three children , then each gets a cut, if I have two I split it, if my spouse wants to go she gets the whole thing, see, and why we have to apply for it,.Also the simple interest clause hurt, I believe it should have been compounded just like the bank, or we should have been told that , this makes a big difference!

DCHD, on Feb 14 the Judge will decide "yes or no" on the proposed agreement and then "set" our compensation. We are asking for 7.5% ( being paid at 15% out of the refund) but the Judge is entitled to set a different amount based on what the Court views as fair. We request, the Judge directs.

Peter, is it possible to see an example case (work sheet) so that people can then see the method used ( ie how the interest is calculated etc) and then apply it to them selves. It appears impossible to truly evaluate the settlement an dsupport or not support it by 14 Feb when no one is really going to see what it actually means to themuntil after 14 Feb.

Don

Oldvet, thanks. Appreciate your kind words. This is an incredibly complex deal, and I am trying to have members focus on the basic principle that the offset will be paid back with interest, less taxes, so what ever was out of pocket is back in except for legal fees.

Peter does McInnis Cooper have the details of individuals entitlements?

I know that Peter and they should be included they suffered the most.

Thanks

Oh one more question why did you say you were getting 7.5% of settlement unless the judge decided a different amount? I dont understand that at all.

MaggieinNB wrote:I think a lot of us are worried about the amount of taxes owed... lump sum or retroactively we will pay more (in some cases a lot more) then what would have been paid yearly. Higher tax brackets or "deemed taxes" on retro taxes could indeed eat up a significant portion of the settlement.

And affect our going forward Federal benefits ie. Trillium Benefit, HST/GST Housing Rebate credit.
Sparrow

DCHD, unfortunately the civil justice system is about recovery not punishment, that is why it is difficult to get punitive damages. I am sorry you expected punitive damages but in Canada they are uncommon.

I guess we will see when our SISIP Calculation come in and then I guess we let the Media and Public opinion speak for us. Maybe this is as good as it gets.
But Damage was done, But No Damages were given back.

Must go to Appt now

DCHD....No, what I am trying to explain is, as set out in my affidavit, that we would have had to go to court for punitive damages, likely a few years from now, without any real prospect of success or large damage award, and the Defendant would have tried to argue the 6 year and 6 month limitation period. In Canada, punitive damages are a) hard to achieve and b) low, so we would have been risking far more than we would gain for (as an example) and extra $5000 a member. So you are very wrong, in my view, to say that 40% to 50% has been lost. And if we had taken that course, I'd be here dealing with an irate class member from 1999 challenging why we cut him out. We did not trade going back to 1976 for damages, we made an agreement that was the best for all members of the class based on the uncertainty, delay and risk of trying to achieve punitive damages.

Dude, I am just a simple minded infantry airborne guy. All of this tax stuff, interest rates etc etc etc is out of my ballpark. I have just been screwed over too many times by too many people. Sorry if my questions seem to be insulting. I'm just curious as to how much the crown robbed from me, and nobody can tell me. So I have a hard time figuring out how anybody can estimate the finally tally. I do admire your dedication and professionalism when it comes to looking after the troops. Keep Well and Thank You

I think a lot of us are worried about the amount of taxes owed... lump sum or retroactively we will pay more (in some cases a lot more) then what would have been paid yearly. Higher tax brackets or "deemed taxes" on retro taxes could indeed eat up a significant portion of the settlement. So in my opinion.... I am happy with the overall deal... glad that all have been included, but wish that more had been looked at for people who are going to lose so much to the taxman.