Whether you agree or dont ...Vall 2012 letter is a work of art!

This a brilliant argument for having GOC pay tax. This is what I spoke about earlier dont get emotion state the facts argue th law. The legal firm is entitled to the payday so dont argue the pay just argue who pays THE GOC.
Very well done Vall


Follow this type of approach with the tax issue all....no emotion just the law we will win there to. We will pay some just not the penalties and poor placement of tax in one year.

truly s a piece of art, a lot of recherch and work in that. The man can really do the magic.

HONORABLE JUSTICE BARNES - I MIGHT HAVE SOME QUESTIONS ?
FIRST PROBLEM – WE HAVE a CLASS and A SUB-CLASS
The Examples of settlement and fees on a hypothetical member set by McInnis Cooper in Leave No Vet Behind: But they do have 2 types of class members.

There is an obvious conflict of interest between the broad class and the proposed sub-class.
The common issues for a potential sub-class is the legal fees scheduled proposed by the settlement parties.

After reviewing the example provided by McInnis Cooper in Leave No Vet Behind, See Annex 1;
• The Broad Class Member 1 - Will pay 5.1%, Legal Fees considering future payment.
• A Potential Sub Class Member 2 - Pay 17.83% Legal Fees considering Zero future payment.

The proposed sub-class has therefore a unique liability imposed to them set at 17.83% versus the broad class which have, considering future payment, an overall legal cost burden of 5.1%.
That is a difference of a 12.73% of legal fees between both potential classes and Sub-Class.

How is this Fair?
Broad Class Member 1 - Recover much more, over time / has the lowest burden of legal cost.

A Potential Sub-Class Member 2: Recover much less / have the highest burden of legal cost.

Option 1 - Create a sub-class and set the fee at 5.1% for everyone in the sub-class like they are in the Broad class;

Option 2 – Compute the full valuation of the settlement and set the legal cost based on actual and future payment for the entire class action.

This is serious -

SECOND PROBLEM COST – NOT LEGAL FEES – COURT COST.
As for Cost Under article 334.39 Subject to subsection (2) Under article 334.39 Subject to subsection (2), no costs may be awarded against any party to a motion for certification of a proceeding as a class proceeding, to a class proceeding or to an appeal arising from a class proceeding, unless:
(a) The conduct of the party unnecessarily lengthened the duration of the proceeding;
(b) Any step in the proceeding by the party was improper, vexatious or unnecessary or was taken through negligence, mistake or excessive caution; or
(c) Exceptional circumstances make it unjust to deprive the successful party of costs.

Honorable Justice Barnes, 334.39 is clear; our legal representative successfully demonstrated to you and brought before you, unconditional evidences (ombudsman and legal studies, proof etc…) that:

1 - the defendant unnecessarily lengthened the duration of the proceeding;
2 - any step in the proceeding by the party was improper, vexatious or unnecessary or was taken through negligence, mistake or excessive caution;
3- And there was no exceptional circumstance to justify this conduct.
Considering these actions - The full cost of this proceeding should be awarded to the GOC.


------
Annex - 1
(Member 1)
Disabled since January 1999 at the age of 30 with an initial Pension Act reduction of $1,500 per
Month. Lump sum based on retroactive payments up to September 30, 2012. Future amounts
Based on additional estimated payments from October 1, 2012 to age 65 as a result of
Settlement.
Amount Recover: 372,982
Legal fees, disbursements, HST: 66,504
Pre-tax Amount payable: 306,485
Increase in Future SISIP LTD amount: 618,191
Legal fees, disbursements, HST on Future payments: [ NONE ]
Total amount of potential pre-tax recovery: $924,676
Plus Scholarship Fund: 1300 (disregarded in calculation)
COMPUTATION
Amount Recover + Future recovery: 372982 + 924676= 1,297,658
Legal fees: 66504 / 1,297,658 = 5.1% Legal Fees Broad Class (Member 1)

(Member 2)
Disabled for 2 years (or more) in 2001-2002 with an initial Pension Act reduction of $500 per month. Total amount of potential pre-tax recovery: $16,458. Currently Working - Does not anticipate Future Amount.
Amount Recover: 18,447
Legal fees, disbursements, HST: 3,289
Pre-tax amount payable: 15,158
Increase in Future SISIP LTD amount: 0.00

Amount Recover + Future recovery: 18447 + 0.00 = 18447
Legal Fees: 3289 / 18447 = 17.83% Legal Fees Broad Class (Member 2)

Scholarship Fund: 1,300 (disregarded)

------
VALL2012
by Vall2012
on Today at 11:21