Veterans say government is breaking election promises by taking them back to court

Gloria Galloway Picks Kent Hehr CTV Question Period.

Forward Video to 6:00 to hear Gloria.


http://www.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=895063

The Veterans: What happened to the honour of the parliamentarians?

Posted by Ujjal Dosanjh on Thursday, 16 June 2016

Veterans! we sent them to wars and they happily risked their lives for us. As I write these lines some of our soldiers, veterans of tomorrow, are in the battlefield in Iraq, in harms' way. There they are doing what we have asked them to do: help destroy the genocidal ISIS.

As our soldiers stand on guard for us in Iraq and the government is considering despatching more of them to Europe, their comrades are being forced to do battle by our newly elected government in a court of law. Unfortunately the new government has resumed the fight the previous government had started with them but from which it had later retreated prior to the last election.

In 2014 the then Liberal leader Justin Trudeau had urged the Harper government to stop fighting with the veterans and "live up to our sacred obligation, end this court battle" and start giving them the help they deserve. In May 2015 all parties understanding that "sacred obligation" voted unanimously to recognise "a stand-alone covenant of moral, social, legal and fiduciary obligation exists between the Canadian people---and members of the Canadian Armed Forces---injured, disabled or died as a result of military service."

Now the Lawyers for the government argue the unanimous motion which elaborated the "sacred obligation" declared by our Prime Minister only "records the opinion of the then members of the Parliament "and not having the force of law it can't bind the government. One wonders whether each member of Parliament of 2014 who is still a member, and no doubt Mr. Trudeau is one among them, still believes in the "stand-alone covenant of moral, social, legal, and fiduciary obligation" vis a vis our veterans?

The government lawyers argue the principle of the "honour of the Crown" which requires governments to always act honourably applies only to the aboriginal issues. True, as a legal principle it has so far been successfully invoked only in the aboriginal issues. But it is quite probable that confronted with the MPs' and party leaders' dishonourable conduct of solemn promises before the elections which they brazenly break afterwards--particularly in the case of classes of people such as the veterans--the Supreme Court of Canada may expand the principle of the "honour of the Crown" to help the veterans and others in need.

The question the veterans and the public are asking is: Is there any honour left among the MPs? Is a unanimous motion of the Parliament of Canada, even though of the last one, not worth the paper it is printed on? Where is the honour of the MPs of the last Parliament who sit on the government benches in this Parliament? Where is the honour in voting in support of a "a stand-alone covenant of moral, social, legal and fiduciary obligation exists between the Canadian people---and members of the Canadian Armed Forces---injured, disabled or died as a result of military service" and then argue the government owes the veterans no special duty of care? And worst of all that the Crown doesn't have to honourably deal with the veterans that risked their lives for us?

http://www.ujjaldosanjh.org/index.php/entry/the-veterans-what-happened-to-the-honour-of-the-parliamentarians

Judge in wounded veterans case agrees to consider government contradictions.

06/17/2016 3:33 PM

VANCOUVER - A group of severely wounded military veterans claimed a victory in its years-long battle for better benefits from the Canadian government, which they accuse of treating them differently than soldiers from earlier wars.

Justice Harvey Groberman of British Columbia Appeal Court said on Friday the court will consider whether to take into account contradictions between the government's current legal position and the stand the federal Liberals took during the election.

In court documents the government says it does not owe an "extraordinary obligation" to modern-day veterans, but Veterans Affairs Minister Kent Hehr reaffirmed in a news release on Friday the government's electoral promise to uphold Canada's "sacred obligation." The Trudeau government's position in court was initially held by the Conservative government before the Tories changed their stance in December 2014 after a public backlash.

Don Sorochan, the lawyer representing the veterans, told the court the federal government shouldn't be allowed to adopt a position it previously abandoned, especially after passing a unanimous resolution last year affirming Canada's "moral, social, legal and fiduciary" duty to its injured and disabled military members.

The federal government's move to revert back to its 2014 stance amounts to an abuse of process in the courts, he said.

"You can't have politicians going around making promises and then saying they don't mean it" when it comes to constitutional obligations around Canada's "sacred covenant" with soldiers, Sorochan said outside court.

He described the sacred, or social, covenant as the long-standing obligation the country has to citizens who fought on its behalf and contributed to "the independent and free Canada we now enjoy."

The initial legal action was launched in B.C. Supreme Court in 2012 by six severely disabled veterans over changes made to their compensation six years earlier.

The federal government replaced lifelong pensions with lump-sum payments, upsetting veterans, who argued they deserved disability payments on par with workers' compensation.

Efforts by the federal government to have the case thrown out were dismissed, which led to an appeal. Last June, the lawsuit was put on hold while the parties agreed to wait and see whether new legislation and a federal election would allow for an out-of-court resolution.

The deadline for a decision passed last month, prompting the government to file documents on Monday saying the 2014 arguments "accurately reflect the current position of the federal government.''

The unexpected move stoked outrage from the veterans community.

Nineteen-year veteran Brian McKenna was in the courtroom during Friday's proceedings and later expressed dismay about the state of the ongoing legal battle.

"We finally thought we were getting somewhere a year ago, where we could avoid this process. But here we are again," he said outside court.

"You're going to have a very hard time finding any veteran who enjoys suing their country," he added. "They serve their country. They don't want to have to litigate against it."

A decision from the B.C. Appeal Court isn't expected until after the summer.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/judge-in-wounded-veterans-case-agrees-to-consider-government-contradictions-383456641.html

Wow!

BINGO! We are now officially in the he said but didn't mean it argument of the Equitas lawsuit.

JT you have royally screwed the canine in one of your "sunny ways" speeches and are about to be held accountable! Please make sure you smile for the press cameras as much as you did for the selfies.

June 17, 2016 Legal Update-Donald J. Sorochan, QC, Counsel, Miller Thomson
Veteran Class Action Case - Update on the Court of Appeal Case Management Conference [MTDMS-Legal.FID4863103]
All:
By way of an update as to what happened at the Court of Appeal Case Management Conference that took place this morning before Mr. Justice Groberman, the presiding justice of the Court of Appeal panel hearing the appeal.
I would point out that the Minister frequently states that the Veterans are taking him to court on long-standing litigation. In fact, this appeal is the appeal of the Government from their loss before the Supreme Court of British Columbia on their motion to dismiss.
The Court did not agree with the submissions of counsel for the Attorney General that judgment should be rendered by the Court of Appeal based upon the arguments raised in December of 2014.
The Court ordered that all of the materials and that the Respondent Veterans and the Attorney General have put before the Court for the purposed of the Case Management Conference will be considered by the full panel of the Court. The submissions of the Respondents that the Government ought not be permitted to resile from its commitments in the settlement (Abeyance Agreement) and as raised in our materials was characterized by Mr. Justice Groberman as an abuse of process argument, although we had not used that term in our materials.
Mr. Justice Groberman advised the parties that the panel will consider all of the materials filed (e. g. recent statements of politicians) and will deliver a reserved judgment. He advised the parties that because there are a number of judgments currently on reserve, judgment should not be expected until after the summer recess.
Donald J. Sorochan, QC
Counsel
Miller Thomson LLP

Good News!

June 17, 2016 6:13 pm

Judge to consider promises made by Trudeau government over wounded veterans.

VANCOUVER – A group of severely wounded military veterans has notched a victory in its years-long battle for better benefits from the Canadian government.

A British Columbia Appeal Court judge says the court will consider whether to take into account contradictions between the Liberal government’s current position on what it owes modern-day veterans and promises the party made during last year’s election.

The court will also consider whether to look at the Trudeau government’s decision to adopt a stance against the veterans that was initially held by the Conservative government, before it was dropped in response to a public backlash.

Don Sorochan, the lawyer representing the veterans, said outside the court that politicians can’t go around making promises they don’t keep when it comes to constitutional obligations around its so-called sacred covenant with soldiers.

Sorochan also noted that the federal government shouldn’t be allowed to adopt a position it previously discarded, especially after passing a unanimous resolution affirming Canada’s duty to its veterans.

The class-action lawsuit argues that modern-day soldiers are discriminated against compared with those who fought in earlier wars and that they should receive comparable compensation.

http://globalnews.ca/news/2770230/judge-to-consider-promises-made-by-trudeau-government-over-wounded-veterans/

Never underestimate the knowledge an good faith of a Federal Judge!

The fly in the ointment in this is the lifelong pension. This was not in the discussion with Equitas and the Cons.

JT opened his yip, made the promise and Equitas is pouncing like a starved lion on a wounded gazelle!

The abeyance could have been extended or dropped if the Libs had of given a court approved timeline on when the lifelong would be brought back. The Libs balked and the lawsuit continues.

JT caused all this and quite honestly I'm loving it! The big sunny ways, selfie taking, promise machine is looking like a fool right now. If pressured correctly we vets may actually come out way ahead on his screw up.

The appeal was put on hold given the two sides time to reach a deal.

No deal was reached so the appeal will proceed but the Equitas wants to bring forward new evidence saying the Liberals promised lifelong pensions , promised not to fight Veterans in court an so on , the government says no you cannot use that as the appeal has already been filed sort of speak.
The government is also stating that some involved in the lawsuit were attending stakeholder meetings an so on , so the Judge needs to set things straight an render a decision on how the appeal is now going to proceed.

That's my understanding , but there's a lot of legal info to read.

I'm sure will get an update from Equitas after today.

The thing is, I can't remember if they have already had the appeal hearing or not. If they didn't the judge should have let the Tories drop the appeal, if they wanted to. But the way they are talking, they already had the appeal hearing, and the abeyance occurred between the time of the hearing, and the judge releasing his decision. Otherwise, why would the Government lawyers be balking about the Equitas lawyers wanting to add new evidence, that being the motion that was passed last summer, and all the Liberal rhetoric during and since the election.

The way I understand it is that the Judge already gave the green light for the lawsuit to proceed , the government appealed that decision , during the appeal the conservatives along with Equitas put the appeal on hold , the conservatives got rid of the insulting lawyer an then the Liberals were elected an also went into talks with Equitas to try an broker a deal.
No deal was made an the Liberals selected the continuous of the appeal an put the exact same insulting lawyer back in play that the conservatives removed.

If there's one thing we have learned from the SISIP lawsuit is never underestimate a Federal Judge when it comes to the well being of Veterans.
These Judges didn't get to be a Judge for lack of knowledge , they know their stuff inside out an can play or go head to head with any lawyer , any day!

Yes if the appeal is denied it will be a good sign for Veterans , but a long fight ahead.

If the appeal is granted it's not the end of the world , nothing is stopping Veterans from pursuing another Class Action Lawsuit!

All said and done that may be the reason Rex but they changed back to the litigator who the Cons dropped. So that is not a good sign.

Also the Libs were trying to 'convince' the Equitas group to drop the case on good faith but Sorochan did not take the bait because VAC would not committ to a timeline of reinstating the lifelong.

This is going to be interesting going forward but I'm not keeping my hopes up for a quick resolution.

Ok, from what I'm reading from the GoC is, that they sought leave to abandon the appeal (tried to drop it), but the judge wouldn't let them, so they agreed to the abeyance instead. The only reason could be, is because the case had already been heard, and that it was too late to have a change of heart. Kind of like trying to force the genie back into the lamp after you rubbed it.

But if that was truly the case, the Liberals have done a piss poor job of explaining the situation? Just say that the previous government tried to drop the appeal at the 13th hour, but were too late. And that the judge gave them the time to come to an agreement amongst themselves, before he rendered his decision. After all, if an adequate pension had been brought in, the initial lawsuit would have been dropped, and render the appeal null and void. But since they haven't brought in the pension yet, and the abeyance has expired, the courts have no choice but to make a decision on the appeal hearing. All we can hope, is that the appeal fails. Then the case can proceed, until either they have their day in court, or the GoC steps up and gives the Veterans a reason to drop the lawsuit.

June 13, 2016 – Affidavit


http://equitassociety.ca/Affidavit%20(File%20June.13.2016).PDF

June 13, 2016 Miller Thomson - Memorandum of Submission


http://equitassociety.ca/Memorandum%20of%20Submissions.PDF