SISIP at it again little help!!!!

oh you may be right the thing is laws must be implemented as not to offend the constitution or the charter of rights and freedoms' . public policy must be implemented as not to offend any laws of the land.

im not even sure about the public policy about this as I have said but I do know many if not all LTD insurance plans have deductions and many ( at least all the different ones I have seen )deduct CPPD .

so it seems any public policy against deducting CPPD from LTD plans either is not being used or not being used very often .

when it comes to laws/acts or any legislation im unaware of any that restrict this action.

propat

Thats an excerpt from a legal paper. I'm not a lawyer but I've read a lot on these subjects so I'm confident I'm right

A bit more
Contracts can fall under the heading of statutory illegality in various ways.They may be expressly or impliedly prohibited by statute, or be entered into with the object of committing an act prohibited by statute, or require the incidental performance of an act contrary to statute, or have the capacity to confer benefits through the violation of a statute.

- "prohibited by statute" CPP Act s. 65(1)
- Gov Contracting Regs non-tendering

In contrast to cases of statutory and common law illegality, a contract that violates public policy is one which contravenes a value deemed so fundamental that it necessitates the intervention of the courts in spite of the fact that there has been no contravention of a legal obligation.

- key backup plan. If CPP Act s. 65(3) is in viol of "public policy", it is illegal despite it being Law! Consider Rosa Parks & the Law that she "broke."

12. Every enactment is deemed remedial, and shall be given such fair, large and liberal construction and interpretation as best ensures the attainment of its objects.

& Charter s. 26 protects Common Law property Rights. Dis Ins creates Property when you get money.

13. The preamble of an enactment shall be read as a part of the enactment intended to assist in explaining its purport and object.

More importantly, CDS is Insurer NOT MANULIFE. That would mean s. 65(3) creates a Conflict of Interest. Manulife might have a better shot at asking s. 65(3) to apply than GoC.

Public Policy is Law. It is the source of Law. If GoC says it is Public Policy to protect retirement income, it passes Laws to that effect. Interpretation Act s. 13 is an Act, as you mentioned. S. 12 is a Law, making a narrow and restrictive reading of any Act illegal.

yes buds "may"means the minister has the power and right to do so under the act.

there are way to many acts and laws to read so I don't read a lot of policies so im not sure what the exact policy is but you may want to ask yourself . what takes priority a law/act or a policy ?

propat

Read preamble.. 65(3) uses "may" & if used would go in direct contradiction to public policy

im referring to the CPP act and judging by a pervious post of his referring to 65(1) of that act . witch is an understandable argument . however following that are the exemptions witch I believe he should take a closer look at 65(3) in particular .

propat

Propat, which act are you refering to? The Income Tax Act? Because, I believe Lawnboy is trying to say that deducting income tax from the SISIP LTD is illegal.

lawnboy I know what you are getting at but you may want to read 65(3) of the act before you jump into anything to deep .

propat

Lawnboy can you give more details please?

I'm on a media campaign to end sisip offsets. Share widely. Policy void as illegal under Gov Contracting Regs

Ok thanks, firebird.

Remy, I agree, was there no notice put out on this, stating the delay ?

If there is a court ordered time frame then that should be abided by regardless if they are complex appeals or an amendment to the court order is warranted and we should be advised. As for waiting for all the appeals to be completed before announcing them, that makes no sense to me whatsoever since the decisions are final and no further appeals are permitted. If we are approved, I wonder how long before the funds are calculated and delivered but that is putting the cart before the horse at this point.

I emailed the adjudicator months ago reference the timeline and she said more time is required as all appeal decisions must be made first before any appeal decisions are made know and that she requires more time because of the complexity of the appeals due to the lack of medical documentation being submitted to SISIP during the first 18th month and 24th month after medical release for those who are zero sum because no money was given by SISIP due to the clawback.

firebird,

You should ref that quote from the order to the adjudicator.