Legal Costs must be substantially shifted; No Brainer!

I believe as you and most vets here if not 100% of vets believe they deserve to get paid and paid well for the case they took on. I am just a believer that GOC must pay. As for fee the case law would indicate they get around 7%. if in the end the recovered funds pushs past 1 billion only 125 million away. Then the fee by case law would drop to 3 or 4 %. If we factor in all the non zero sums and SISIP walk aways the recover passes 1 billion.

I just think 20 Million is enough for Mc Innes Cooper Rags, plus $300,000 for Dennis! The rest for the disabled Vets!

I find it hard to believe the GOC spent anywhere over a 100k. MC only spent 100K out of pocket less the cost of lawyer wages for the years. GOC lawyers are already paid ti site there so no actual real cost. SISIP which is arm of DND has all the data. They knew along time ago they were wrong and the settlement is easy as its cut and dried and simple calculation of return. There was no indepth detail technical arguments here just a simple point. YOU CANNOT USE A PAIN AND SUFFER GRANT TO DEDUCT AS EMPLOYMENT EARNINGS FROM A WAGE LOSS INSURANCE OR COURT ORDERED PAYMENT. It is written in law. Maritime life with there LTD insurance for other companies dont do and never have.
It actually was a simple case. One set of employees all in a data base all connected. One set of scaled pain and suffering grants by one payee. Law in stone that states Pain and Suffering grants ie DVA (Gift of Canada for Pain and Suffering) are never deducted as income offsets. And so much old case law to prove it its a joke.
It is an argument a grade 9 class could make and win as a school project.

This is a timely posting by Horseman. Anyone who talks to the media in the near future make sure you bring this up...the RCMP are fighting the same issue and in the same way.

It is absolutely stupifying why the GoC is doing this?

Horseman, thank you for serving our country proudly within the RCMP.
We are all brothers and sisters akin.
The only hope we can have at this point is that the road will be paved smoother with fewer twists and turns for your journey in seeking justice.
Stay safe.
Sparrow
p.s. Before joining the Canadian Armed Forces, I worked with Toronto Police Services so we are all in the same family here.

I haven’t been on this forum for awhile but was here when the no-comment order was suggested so I’ve found it better to occasionally surf these pages, observe and wait for the final outcome. There has been a lot of discussion here on the question of fee setting which by convention is referred to as Fee Shifting. Make the loser pay pretty well sums up the definition. It not as simple as that but here are my reasons.

As the term refers, a successful litigation will in due process determine the net cost (fees) plus losses to the plaintiff (you and me) Unfortunately there are very few among us who would have had access to the courts without the able minded skill-set of a prominent law firm stepping forward as was the case with those who risked their career to litigate this case. Their potential for reward lives or dies on the presumption of success/loss outcomes. I like to think that this learned group saw the forest and the trees and with it the injustices it presented to Veterans of Canada, Military and RCMP.
The SISIP Ltd action could have been pursued individually (as the GOC would have preferred) or as a Class Action as is the case here. Larger law firms in Canada have pro bono provisions for clients who for a number of reasons lack the financial means to access the Courts to contest the merits of their particular case. When most law firms partake on Pro Bono litigant legal adventures they do so with the reality of the economics involved.
But as we sit at home considering the what-ifs, such as if we lost, its important to keep in mind there were 6 years of legal battles(delays) that did incur costs to someone (on both sides). Several time consuming arguments based more on the Manuge case being certified as a Class Action. It seemed the main focal argument of Manuge regarding the definitions of the SISIP claw back was relegated as an also-ran, left to wither in a merciless waiting game created through legal gymnastics, obfuscation and virtual contempt of those who they knew would have the least access to civil justice, particularly if they were left to stand alone. The David and Goliath picture comes to mind; hamstrung by a defiant defendant of great power and authority who knew that it could always have its cake and eat it too , without any sense that their actions were contributing to pain, injury and economics of every veteran’s home and family. But onward they marched as they literally choked the last vestiges of self-respect a veteran might still be clinging to as a once proud bearer of the staff and flag of our Country.

Yes to whom ever will listen, this Goliath was a formidable power one who rarely rose from their velvet padded chairs in Parliament to consciously admit the pettiness and vicious wrongness of their arrogance, until they were forced to so “unreservedly” by a Federal Court.

Well now the honorable ministers of the Crown have their decision and must face the question of the Court. Was any of this necessary, vexatious, gamesmanship? Was the answer to this unadvised pursuit obvious all along and were Canada’s institutions used to delay something a first year law student might have determined in an afternoon of research.


So there are four parties; Minister(s) of the Crown in the right of Canada, Canadian Veterans in the defenses of Canada, Our law firm and the people of Canada who had to pay for a vexatious misadventure that their politicians were well counseled to abandon by almost everyone in Ottawa and elsewhere who lacked a party affiliation. It would be a travesty if this case and its costs are not substantially shifted to the Defendant. There is no other organization in Canada that has as great a legal resource base as the Government of Canada. It must realize that this matter was as much a mistake in 1976 as it was on May 2, 2012 when the honourable Justice made his decision on the pleading of one resolute representative and honourable Veteran after his long and onerous battle against all odds which resulted in a most rational predictable finish line.

I’m a zero sum member of the RCMP SISIP which has been legally characterized as “Indistinguishable” from the military action. Some may not be aware but for whatever n reason this government has gone into another stall, refusing to settle with no reasons given at least this is what I do or don’t know as of this writing. The premise of the your court decision is that the Pension Awarded for injuries and SISIP awarded for loss of income are two trains that can never meet.

Congratulation, to all of you, and I will continue to pursue a claim that the Defendant’s actions were grossly shameful and they should have known better and if given a chance could do much better. I will be most interested to hear how this government establishes a precedence to avoid the shift of legal costs incurred by each veteran to their side of the desk given the impact and language of the Federal Court decision in this case.
For the record,I'm not a lawyer and there could be errors, but this is just an personal opinion and I would love to hear how the simplicity and merits of this case escaped this government and have them explain why it was permitted to occur in the first place.
THANKS Sparrow!!