Crown to oppose legal fees being sought

Rogerramjet, I agree to a point. If the judge had received 3825 negative letters (51% of 7500) then I believe he would have been obligated to possibly reject the deal, otherwise, window dressing where he will rule on actual legal fees based on previous case law and awards.

Now that is a pipe dream.

But I for one would never get in the way of that dream, and in some way hope its true.

So you will agree that this is a show trial, window dressing. Remember from the military everything is planned and thought out. GOC releases news brief saying legal fees to high, judge looks at it, lowers them , the GOC steps up to cover fees and looks like the hero, too easy

Rogerramjet.....darn and here I thought my letter to the judge was very articulate, to the point and contained sound and balanced argument. Thanks for telling me I wasted my time on my letter. I did post it here and many said they found it good. A senior crown prosecutor in Toronto also reviewed it and said it was well balanced and articulate. She has actually briefed me in detail as to the mechanics of class action suits with particular emphasis on legal fees.

MFORS, when it comes to class action suits and legal fees the judge in this or any other case will review past settlements and rule on what HE thinks is fair. Case law shows this fact. Whether or not thousands have agreed with the settlement is irrelevant. The legal fees (other than who pays) are not part of the settlement and are only a recommendation by MC to the court.

17.5 is on total not per year. Read my comments above

They could never touch going forward payments. The rate is 17.5 (Ontario) as told to me in the many emails I have received. They could never charge going forward because what if you die next year or recover and no longer meet the definition. The true losers are the zero sum who get hammered paying he majority of the legal fees when the 2 year guys get off only paying for two years. But I guess it's the most fairest or they could all charge us a flat rate because everyone received the same service. It will pass tomorrow

Yes Oiler. They say that instead of charging us 7.5 retro and 7.5 going forward they will instead only charge us on retor but at 17.83%. and doing it that way allows them to say "see, we are not touching your "go forward" monies"

We are pAying up front they say ... It's just an excuse to charge more in my mind... You are paying right up front I missed that in your statement sorry..
Anyways it will all be settled tomorrow or next day if we are lucky I have faith they will lower the fees.......

Chimo

Look at the examples given by the Law Firm on "Leave no vet behind"

The fees suck .l. For sure .. Where does it say they are charging fees on go ahead monies..???

I am all for paying the law firm, but within reason, but a few things got me confused and some not even palatable, namely

1. It did not go to trial, where the big money will be spent by the law firm,
2. It was deemed illegal to take monies away from Vets for pain and suffering, but that is how the law firm seems to want to be paid,
3. The law firm feels whey should get $13,487.50 per hour spent on this case,
4. The law firm is charging us on monies going forward to 65 when in earlier posts it was indicated that they will not and if we die as most of us badly disabled Vets will before age 65, we still have to pay up front for the years not collected which in a sense is from our immediate families.

Something just went form good to bad for me.

letters positive or letters negative,

there are some that will not be presented to the court as they are unacceptable and oppose the settlement,

the legal team will not present any in opposition to the proposal and if you wish to pursue presenting them you may do so in person or get your own legal representation to do so on your behalf..

I sent in an email to the firm to state that I would not be sending in anything for the court. This was not sent in as a positive approval of the settlement and fee's requested.

This was/is not in support or to decline the proposal, but to inform them that due to name dropping, and the stress associated with public scrutiny on this site I have nothing to add or take away from the settlement terms presented.

Well said I have racking my mind on what their angle is and this could be it ... Because there is an angle there....

The Government does not want this to go to trial, because they know that they have no legal leg to stand on. They played their only card at the motion hearing, that when the contract was written, it was intended to say all benefits under the Pension Act, not just income benefits. And that argument was soundly rejected by the courts. So if we went to trial and the government lost again, they would lose all power to negotiate. The judge would assign legal fees to them, The judge would determine the damages that would have to be paid, which would be tax free, and the longer the GoC fought us, the worse it would look to the public, especially after having already admitted to having broken the law by accepting the judges last decision. If that is us having them over a barrel, I don't know what would earn that classification. And if the comments on here were not to be taken seriously, I don't think we would have had so many government trolls on here saying to accept the deal and insulting those who question the proposal.