ELB question

Unlike what has been implied, the ELB regulations can be liberally interpreted so that most LTD plans, including SISIP, can be deducted without having to be specifically named. I'm not saying that your entire argument is invalid, as you may just be successful having CPP(D) removed from the list of reductions, because of the nature of CPP(D). But the government is never going to allow Veterans to collect from two different income replacement plans, for the same lost income.

SISIP LTD will be tax free soon. Insurance replaces property that was lost, already owned.

Income is new money. That is why taxes apply, on a transaction where your wealth increases. We paid for SISIP & ELB. ELB's price was the Right to sue, or was it? Someone should sue VAC on ELB & see if they try to rely on CLPA s. 9.

That point about SISIP being offset as per NVC Regs s. 22 is incorrect. It is offset as VAC wrote a policy on 18MAY12 to prescribe SISIP LTD as an offset.

VAC cannot write law. The ELB offsets are law. A policy cannot override law.

Even Regulations (subordinate law), cannot override a conflicting Act.

NVC s. 22 is cancelled out by CFSA s. 83; CPP Act s. 65(1) & (1.1); FAA s. 67; NDA s. 39(3)

So in layman's terms both SISIP and ELB are considered income replacement benefits, and are taxable, therefore, one would cancel out the other. And this is why when a Veteran has inadvertently collected both benefits at the same time, an overpayment is considered to have happened and repayment of said overpayment occurs.

Is this a correct interpretation of the rules?

From the NVC regulations

"22 The following sources are prescribed for the purpose of the amount of variable B in subsection 19(1) of the Act:

(a) [Repealed, SOR/2012-195, s. 1]

(b) benefits payable under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, the Public Service Superannuation Act or the Employment Insurance Act;

(c) benefits payable under the Canada Pension Plan or the Act Respecting the Québec Pension Plan other than amounts payable for a dependent child;

(d) benefits payable under any employer-sponsored long-term disability insurance plan;

(e) benefits payable in respect of economic loss under the Government Employees Compensation Act or any provincial workers’ compensation legislation;

(f) amounts payable in respect of economic loss arising from legal liability to pay damages;

(g) amounts payable under an employer pension plan;

(h) employment earnings payable while the veteran is not participating in a rehabilitation plan or vocational assistance plan developed by the Minister or where the veteran is participating in such a plan and the sum of the earnings loss payable for a month plus the employment earnings for the month exceeds the veteran’s imputed income; and

(i) 50% of employment earnings payable while the veteran is participating in a rehabilitation plan or vocational assistance plan developed by the Minister so long as the sum of the earnings loss payable for a month plus the employment earnings for the month does not exceed the veteran’s imputed income.

23 The following sources are prescribed for the purpose of subsection 23(3) of the Act:

(a) [Repealed, SOR/2012-195, s. 2]

(b) benefits payable under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act or the Public Service Superannuation Act other than amounts payable for a dependent child;

(c) benefits payable under the Canada Pension Plan or the Act Respecting the Québec Pension Plan other than amounts payable for a dependent child;

(d) benefits payable under any employer-sponsored long-term disability insurance plan other than amounts payable for a dependent child;

(e) benefits payable in respect of economic loss under the Government Employees Compensation Act or any provincial workers’ compensation legislation other than amounts payable for a dependent child;

(f) amounts payable in respect of economic loss arising from legal liability to pay damages; and

(g) amounts payable under an employer pension plan other than amounts payable for a dependent child."

So even though it does not specifically list SISIP as a deduction, sections 22(d) and 23(d) is open to interpretation of what is considered an employer sponsored LTD program. But I would think that any judge that this would go in front of, would consider SISIP an employer sponsored plan, since the policy owner is the CDS, and the vast majority of the premiums are paid by the treasury board. Believe me, if they thought that there was any wiggle room, to exclude SISIP from the deductions, they would simply change the wording in the regulations. They don't need to send it for a vote, or even let anyone know they are making the change, and there would be nothing that we could do about it.

And as far as the clause about assigning the SISIP LTD, tit is not relevenat, because VAC is not stopping you from getting your SISIP. They still deposit your LTD in the bank every month. Believe me, I wish that everyone would get as much money as possible, but I cannot, in good conscience, allow anyone to be misled into believing that it is a possibility to get both full ELB and full SISIP, at the same time.

Cancel my last.  I've read more about Policy 901102 still don't really understand it though. Some documents I'm reading only refer to Life Insurance others to Long Term Disability.

LawnBoy

I'm fairly confused by your reference to SISIP Policy 901102 because I'm under the impression that policy is related to life insurance.

Bigrex, the pension is not pain & suffering. It is Tort damages (about 20% non-economic & 80% economic, using the Andrews SCC 1978 case as an example).

The Sarvanis SCC 2002 said that the Pension Act pension was like Workers' Compensation & damages in Tort, based on an "event," not the state of disability (CPPD/SISIP LTD/ELB)

That's what I'm hearing.

LawnBoy are you saying that Veterans can collect both ELB and SISIP at the same time?

VAC is part of the Executive branch of gov & cannot make law. ELB set offs are Regulatory law.

SISIP policy 901102 has a clause prohibiting assignment & the Crown must respect contracts. So VAC cannot take SISIP LTD into account.

SISIP cannot take ELB into account due to NVC s. 89

I say keep the legal talk coming . I'm getting a lot of interesting reads out of it . however in general ill have to agree with bigrex THUS FAR ( a lot more reading to do ) I think you are on to something in a couple of the huge lot of subjects ya slammed down in the last couple of days.

gotta defer on to many comments for now think I got AT LEAST two weeks research ta do before id feel comfortable commenting in depth on some of the subject material .

so ya thanks for that .

propat

Ok, I've done a little reading, because I like to be educated on matters that I discuss. In the Sarvanis case, he was a prisoner, who sued the government after being injured while in prison. He was initially denied because he had been given CPP)D, as if that exempted the government from further action. The PA was brought into the argument, because it clearly words it so that Veterans cannot sue the government for damages, for injuries that have been given a PA pension.

"34  It is useful to contrast other statutes providing pensions or compensations that are clearly foreclosed by s. 9  of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act .  One example, already noted above, is the Pension Act."

And that it was based upon an "event", only because the PA pension was only paid for service related injuries, and WCCB payment are for only work related injuries. Yet CPP(D) is granted based solely on the existence of a disability, and that it does not restrict the recipient from suing the government for causing the disability. They also do not talk about whether CPP(D),can be deducted from other government benefits, just his right to sue the government for damages.

And the other case, which I'm guessing is Andrews v Grand and Toy, talks about an employee who was injured on the job, and the level of compensation to be paid by the insurance company, for the injuries and ongoing care.

I appreciate your enthusiasm, but by referring to case law, of cases that have no direct bearing on the PA, the NVC, or SISIP, you are only muddying the water. So I respectfully request that you leave the actual legal talk to your lawyer, while keeping the site updated on your progress.

Policy is Policy, until Policy changes we have to go by the set Policy that is in place.

Earnings Loss Benefit is income replacement.

http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/services/rates#elb

Earnings Loss Benefit - SISIP-LTD - Offset

Policy

Veterans who released on medical grounds in accordance with chapter 15 of the Queen’s Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces within 120 days prior to, or subsequent to, the coming into force date of the CFMVRCA, are eligible to apply for EL benefits under the CFMVRCA.

SISIP-LTD benefits shall be considered as one of the amounts from prescribed sources which will be offset from any EL benefit that might otherwise be payable should the Veteran qualify under the CFMVRC Act

http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/about-us/policy/document/1091

Bigrex, the pension is not pain & suffering. It is Tort damages (about 20% non-economic & 80% economic, using the Andrews SCC 1978 case as an example).

The Sarvanis SCC 2002 said that the Pension Act pension was like Workers' Compensation & damages in Tort, based on an "event," not the state of disability (CPPD/SISIP LTD/ELB)

Well, from what I understand, is that the $950k was actually for damages, mostly lost wages, in a lawsuit against the RCMP, for harassment in 2009. It didn't award her any money for pain and suffering. But at that time, the RCMP's ltd plan, still allowed for the deduction of PA pensions until 2015. I can't find their full policy online, so I cannot confirm it, but since they are unionized, they may have been able to keep the RCMP pension and CPP(D) off the list of deductions, which would explain why she collected the court award, LTD, RCMP pension and CPP(D). She will have since been given those PA pension payments back, with the same interest that we received.