A Note From McInnes Cooper January 10, 2013

Thank you for the clarification.

Peter is not the alternative is Damages. You say we may have gotten damages if we only went back to 2000. But this was halted to go back to 1976.

Sparrow, the CRA provisions for hardship would be an individual application you would make when you file your taxes. The provisions are based on an individuals personal circumstances so there is no way of knowing whether you qualify until you apply.

DCHD, I am trying to understand how you think 40 to 50% is being lost. You will be paid all amounts offset plus interest less taxes, that is what you are entitled to in law, whether that is $10,000 or $100,000, that is what you are owed under the program. Legal fees are also deducted, but as I have explained, the Government of Canada was always prepared to pay you 100% of zero.

Hi Oldvet, the worksheets will come out as the refunds are processed. If you disagree with SISIP calculation you can a) keep the money sent and b) apply to an independent adjudicator in writing to challenge the calculation. So as I said above, the basic principle is to pay you the offset plus interest, less taxes, as you would have been under he program. Legal fees are then deducted. That is what you are owed, in law. Can you explain to me why a person would not agree to a resolution that pays them what they were owed in law and what the alternative is?

Sir, could you advise whether an "Undue Hardship Proposal" be implemented by your firm for the class collectively in order to relieve our tax burden with CRA in respect to the settlement? With regards,

Until this is proven then and only then can Vets believe that this is a good deal.

Peter, can you should me what the total take home of Vets will be after taxes and fees??

I think the "leave no vet behind" concept says why... We are owed money only from 2002 onward, but I am glad they were able to include as many vets as possible. I think we got a decent deal...I am very worried about the amount of taxes we will pay and better tax considerations would have made it a very good deal. I truly don't think that any kind of "damages" were ever a possibility.

Also will we receive a worksheet before agreeing to the settlement?

Who has details of what we are owed? I have paid back SISIP for years, been on and off etc etc etc.....

DCHD, can you explain to me why you think 40%-50% of the settlement has been lost?

So I guess this means that people after 2000 ended up losing 40 - 50 % off the settlement they could have got to keep the people for 1999 - 1976 in this class action.

Why???

I am sincerely truly very Happy with all your hard work...Thank-you so very much!

Class Members:

Now that the Notice and Proposed Order have been published, I wanted to post a few clarifying points to address some of the incorrect assumptions raised on the forum. I would encourage all of you to review the documents on www.leavenovetbehind.ca, particularly my affidavit, as it details the negotiations and why certain issues were resolved the way they were.

1. Income Tax: Income tax was always payable on these benefits. You cannot negotiate out of income tax payable on income replacement benefits. My understanding is that you will be provided with a form (Qualifying Retroactive Lump Sum Payment) by SISIP which will identify the tax years the payments should have been received. You then have the option of filing this form with your tax return and CRA will determine the lowest taxes payable. As there will be interest added for the years the tax was not paid (not penalties) the 3.27 per cent payment is designed to offset this, and not your overall tax bill. My suggestion is to try to find an online tax calculator or software program to assess the tax consequences as we are not aware of the tax situation of each individual member.

1A. Work Sheets: Many of you are requesting individual work sheets calculating the refund. We do not, and will not, have this information until the refunds are processed. You will see in the Proposed Order that there is an ability to challenge the calculation if you disagree. In my view, the main point of the Agreement is to set out, in law, what you are entitled to which is 1. All amounts offset plus 2. Interest plus 3. 3.37% tax addition minus 4. 20% hold back for income tax (as advised by SISIP) minus 5. legal fees. That is what the formula is and then you would reconcile Income tax at year end based on your own personal situation. As such, there will be no worksheets forth coming.

2. Dennis Manuge Stipend: We are required to disclose this and get the ok from the Court. It is being paid out of our fees as approved by the Court.

3. 7.5% versus 15% Legal Fee Request: As many of you have stated on the forum, our contract provides for legal fees of 30% of the overall amount recovered, that being the $887M. We are not asking for this as it is not reasonable. Instead we are requesting 7.5% of the overall number of $887M. As far as how we are paid, we are suggesting that we be paid out of the refund amounts only so all class members make a one time payment. Statistically, over 90% of the class is going to receive more retro than prospective payments to 65. So as far as how we are paid we are proposing 15% out of the refund plus 2.5% covering GST/PST/HST and disbursements. Overwhelmingly class members have told us "we don't want to trade one claw back for a future deduction of legal fees" that is why we are proposing to be paid in this manner. The alternative is to deduct 7.5% (or whatever the Court approves) from the refund and payments going forward, but I don't think members want this.

4. Interest versus Proposed Legal Fees: Our proposed legal fees, if approved, will be less than the interest payable on the refund money. As set out in the Notice to the Class, the interest is over $82M and our proposed fees are a projected maximum of approx. $65M. (subject to the approval of the Court).

5. The Proposed Agreement: A few have questioned the terms of the proposed agreement and used phrases like "sell out". I don't usually respond to these types of comments, but for the benefit of the entire class, I will. In my opinion, and that of the entire legal team, and members of each of McInnes Cooper and Branch MacMaster, it is an excellent result, particularly gong back to 1976. To try to achieve more (such as damages) would have invariably resulted in a reduction of the size of the class based on the 6 year limitation period raised by the defendant. In that case the class would have been cutoff sometime in 2000. Critics will say, this is "self serving" on my part, but my suggestion is, print the documents, including my affidavit, and take it to a lawyer for review. The interest rates, in particular, are more than reasonable in a Court setting, and also make a presumption that many Canadians currently find hard to accomplish, that the money would have actually gone into the bank as savings and not been spent.

6. Our Role: From our perspective, our job was to win (we did), get the absolute best deal we could (we did) and then propose what we belive to be fair compensation for achieving $887M for over 7500 disabled veterans. Thankfully for us, and the Class, the Court has the final say, so now that we have made our request the Court will consider the amount and manner we are compensated.

7. Victory: We have already received many many emails and phone calls directly from the class supporting the resolution and our work. It is my hope that those of you with concerns will eventually see this as a real victory for disabled veterans. Should this have happened at all? No. Did we fix it? Yes. The Government of Canada was always prepared to pay you 100% of zero (which is what they continue to do for the RCMP). As a result of the litigation you will all share in $887M.

8. Last Post: We will not be posting again on Veterans Voice, but rather through leavenovetbehind.ca. If any of you have questions, my phone and email has always been open. Please do not hesitate to contact me.