Legal Concepts for my lawsuits

"Nathan Cirillo's Law" by Captain (Retired) Matthew Edwards, B.PE, B. Ed, CD

On a sad day in October 2014, Canada lost a valiant soul.

A terrorist , Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, came up to Corporal Nathan Cirillo & cut his' life short as he stood guard with an empty weapon. He was only 24 years old.

He was a member of the Canadian Forces but he was not a Regular Force member. He was a Reservist. Reservists do not serve in the same way as Regular Force members. However, they still SERVE the nation.

Did the gunman stop & ask politely, "Excuse me? I notice that you are wearing the uniform of the Canadian Forces. Can you tell me what is your class of service so that I amy decide if I want to kill you?"

The purpose of uniforms is, in part, to cloak the soldier in the colours of the country that they are a citizen of. Everyone is "uniform," the same. Standard.

However, Canada has made certain classes of service to fill a need. The need is National Defence. It has a problem in that there is no draft where all citizens are dragooned into service to fill the role of protection of ourr society. In order to fit that need, Canada allows the proverbial "Weekend Warrior."

The key word there is Warrior. The Reservist has no magic shield to stop harm from befelling them simply because they are Class A or B. Class C is the same as a Regular Force member. They are trained to the required standard, orders flow from the top & not the bottom. They can, & do, often volunteer to serve tours of duty in a foreign land. They often get a taste of the Brotherhood of Arms & then change to the Regular Force.

Nathan Cirillo's death exposed a MAJOR problem. He was either a Class A or B Reservist. That can be inferred from the fact that Canada changed the law to fix the "gap" where a part-time soldier is left with no benefits if they die in service. In his' case, Canada made an exception to the rule. While I agree with this, the exception should not have been needed. The rules should have had the SAME benefits as the regular Force member. Was he less worthy? Are other Reservists less worthy as human beings?

I think the obvious answer to this rhetorical question is NO! Any person who VOLUNTEERS to give his' life up for Canada should not have to worry about the legacy left behind. An often stated phrase is used in this context: Canadian Forces members sign a blank cheque to the nation in the amount of "up to & including my life." This is often referred to as Unlimited Liability.

A Reservist is stated to have had Limited Liability. Did Nathan Cirillo have Limited Liability? No.

The phrase has been miscontrued. The term is often conflated to the problem of orders. A Reservist must volunteer for MORE harzardous duty whereas a Regular Force member has absolutely no choice. There is often an association with Posting to a new base as well. That is a "red herring." The Regular Force member is compensated for such moves, some say handsomely. Therefore there is no loss or discomfort.

Nathan Cirillo's law was a change in the New Veterans Charter regulation s. 19(b)(iv) where they ended the inequity within the Veterans Affairs Canada Earnings Loss Benefit (ELB) where a Reservist used to get compensation of 75% of their IMPUTED monthly salary of $2,700. They now get treated the same as Canada recognized the injustice & moved to fix it in law. Now the Reservist & Regular Force member get the EXACT same ELB. Fair right?

Not fair for the Canadian Forces' Service Income Support Insurance Plan (SISIP). The uninformed reader might think, "Why should SISIP get the same benefit? They were not hurt on duty!"

False.

SISIP policy 901102, Division 3, s. 41(a)(iii) requires a sick or injured Reservist to be ON DUTY in order to access benefits.

Think about that. That is an encroachment into VAC's area of expertise. SISIP was designed, in 1969, to complement the Pension Act pension. It was designed to pay for OFF DUTY only!

That exposes the discrimination. Yes, a harsh word. It discriminates agains & defrauds the Reservist. He paid for the SISIP plan through SERVICE. that is how the worker pays for Workers' Compensation (WCB). VAC is akin to WCB. In essence, SISIP has usurped the role of VAC. The Reservist has every Right to ask: "Why did I pay premiums through service to SISIP if I get VAC benefits when I get hurt in service? Isn't that fraud? You took my service & gave me nothing in return!"

Canada's fix of the law, "Nathan Cirillo's Law", was not entirely successful. SISIP refused to comply with the law! They stated that that change only applied to VAC. Show us why! Laws are meant to cover all citizens and SISIP must comply. In 2011, Bill C-55 fixed the problem of paying less to Reservists than Regular Force members. Sound familiar?

Bill C-55 came in, but SISIP refused to comply. Then, months later, they fixed it. That does not detract from the fact that SISIP/Manulife/SISIP tried to evade paying the injured or ill Reservist the raise announced.

Think about that. SISIP LTD is administered by Manulife "on behalf of the CF." Soldiers serve the CF. That is what is termed a CONFLICT OF INTEREST! The CF is trying to save money on the back's of the CF members! Add to this the fact that the SISIP plan is Non-Public Property as per the National Defence Act s. 39(1).

That means that it is not tax money. It belongs to the soldiers.

Canada has appropriated this fund & thinks it owns the money! INSANE. They want us to believe that they own the money as they paid into it! INSANE.

When they pay the money, say on Nathan Cirillo's behalf into the SISIP pool of insurance, it either:

1. Belongs to Nathan Cirillo as it was part of his' remuneration for service; OR

2. It is Manulife's money, if this is not an Administrative Services Only (ASO) insurance plan.

Either way, it cannot be said to belong to Canada! NO WAY!

Canada has announced that there will be an increase from 75% to 90% in the ELB pension. Yes, pension. Pensions are monthly payments for service. Pensions are akin to insurance. People want insurance for when they retire. They want security. The word "pension: is just that, a word. What really matters is not the word but the EFFECT.

The purpose of this article is to, before the same mistake is repeated as made last year when SISIP did not increase in lock-step with ELB, increase awareness so that SISIP will also be increased to 90%. To do otherwise is totally UNFAIR!

Hold on, some will say. Members hurt in service have a Right to more benefits than an insurance plan that MIGHT be for an off duty injury!

To those people, "GO TO HELL!"

What an entitled bunch. To think that they have an increased entitlement because they too were injured in service.

SISIP is first payer in the event of a service injury. The fact that a person gets SISIP is strong proof that a member was injured in service. 70-75% of medical releases are service related. SISIP is granted on medical release. Therefore, 70-75% of SISIP beneficiaries are related to service.

Based on this, I have a proposal: Make VAC benefits payable on Medical Release (SISIP too, just as the pension + SISIP was OK).

There might be 25-30% of non-duty injuries include in this proposal BUT these members volunteered to serve at their own peril, like Nathan Cirillo. I think it is time to aid recruitment & retention by extending the INSURANCE principle that VAC has for Special Duty Areas (SDA) where anything that happens to you while in a SDA is covered AUTOMATICALLY!

When not in a SDA, a member must prove his injury was in relation to duty. That is CRAZY! A person on WCB has only to have something happen while working. A soldier that has a heart attack while on duty in Canada might not get VAC benefits. That, if true, is totally UNFAIR.

The same human being would be covered as a civilian. I stress "human" as there are Human Rights in Canada. To impose this ARBITRARY limit is NOT democratic.
In a democracy, laws must be reasonable. The link to service proof is NOT reasonable. It is not reasonable as it is not required in the civilian world. WCB has a 98% approval rate. Why? The proof is that the person got sick or hurt at work, a geographical proof. VAC has a 65% approval rate. 33% is a HUGE difference & should not exist. In trying to save money, VAC is hurting the National Defence public policy as this parsinimous attitude cannot but help to limit volunteers from enrolling.
Nathan Cirillo's Law.

A weak & ineffective law, to date.

We can change that. We can make Canada act fairly.

They can do it the easy way, by changing it themselves.

They can do it the hard way by making us SUE again!

Either way, they MUST fix it.

Just emailed this to MP ken MacDonald as I plan to visit him to try & help a vet I served with. I think their not knowing basic grammar hurt us. Supplement means ADD;

SL v Ryan 2003 NSSC: edited to make more readable, I think.  Moved my editorial comments to "footnotes"

44]  In the letter from the Treasury Board to the applicant dated December 13, 2000 there is the following paragraph:

The #Disability #Insurance Plan employee booklet, issued by the Treasury Board Secretariat, explains how the Plan will ** #supplement other income sources.

In other words, some additional income the employee receives will be **** deducted from benefits payable under the Plan. (1)

Some of these other sources of income are pension benefits (2), disability benefits received under the Canada Pension Plan (3) and amounts received under a third-party damage award (4).  

Employing departments **routinely (5) provide copies of this booklet.  I trust you had received this document.  I am nevertheless enclosing a copy of the most recent version for your information.

The damage award is described as a “*source of income” which tends to associate the part of the general #damage award Sun Life can recover is that part of the award which relates to loss of income.

(1) WTF! Off the rails cause a $$@%*# at TBS doesn't know the meaning of "supplement?"  He just gets it EXACTLY BACKWARDS!

(2) Assets (IBM v Waterman)

(3) non-indemnity disability insurance (Sarvanis; Culigari; Demers)

(4) damages are capital & tax free (Jennings)

(5) routinely... proves nothing; how can you rely on what you don't know?

Repost from my FB group. I'm posting here as the NVC does not state SISIP LTD is an offset in NVC Regulations s. 22. That is fatal to their argument they can clawback our SISIP. In addition, the NVC is supposed to be a benefit conferring Act so anything that can be read in our favour must be read in that manner. VAC takes the opposite approach.

27] In Canada, courts have been especially careful to apply a liberal construction to so-called “** social legislation”. In Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Re), 1998 CanLII 837 (SCC), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27 at para. 36, the Supreme Court emphasized that

benefits-conferring legislation ought to be interpreted in a *broad and *generous manner and that any **doubt arising from the language of such legislation ought to be resolved in *favour of the **claimant.

- NVC is benefit conferring

This interpretive approach to legislation designed to secure a social benefit has been adopted in a number of Supreme Court decisions dealing with the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 (see Abrahams v. A.G. Canada, 1983 CanLII 17 (SCC), [1983] 1 S.C.R. 2;Hills v. Canada (A.G.), 1988 CanLII 67 (SCC), [1988] 1 S.C.R. 513; Canada (Canada Employment and Immigration Commission) v. Gagnon, 1988 CanLII 48 (SCC), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 29; and Caron v. Canada (Canada Employment and Immigration Commission), 1991 CanLII 108 (SCC), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 48).

[28] It is evident to me that the **Plan is *benefits-conferring legislation ** analogous to the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971.

The Plan provides for the payment of *disability *benefits to claimants who have been contributors under the scheme. When the Plan introduced in the House of Commons as Bill C-136 (26th Parl., 2nd Session, November 9, *1964, Hansard at 9899), the Minister of National Health and Welfare referred to the proposed legislation as a

... *comprehensive *social *insurance measure... which provides help as of *right rather than on a *need or a *means **test, for those who suffer the loss of a loved breadwinner or those who find themselves *disabled and unable to carry on work. I think hon. members will agree this is a giant step forward in Canada’s social security program.

- I cringe now when I see "comprehensive" as the beancounters interpret that to mean we lose... For example, CPP's "integration" with CFSA/PSSA/RCMPSA

The Minister was more specific in her characterization of the ** supplementary *benefits made available under the proposed legislation (Hansard, supra at 9923):

In a sense, therefore, ** supplementary benefit pensions are more *generous, especially for those in lower income brackets, than the *new **retirement **pensions.

- I think she is referring to CFSA/PSSA/RCMPSA!
- Hard to believe they called CPP "more generous" though

This approach is justified because of the *special ** need of widows,

** orphans and

** disabled contributors, and is certainly warranted on both ** humanitarian and **economic grounds.

- Gee, special needs means "offset" in SISIP speak

On second reading, the Minister of National Revenue added his opinion that the Bill was “the most *far reaching piece of ** social legislation ... proposed in many years” (Hansard at 10140, November 16, 1964).

[29] Accordingly, subparagraph 42(2)(a)(i) of the Plan should be given a * generous construction. Of course, no interpretive approach can read out express limitations in a statute. The definition of a severe disability in the Plan is clearly a qualified one which must be contained by the actual language used in subparagraph 42(2)(a)(i). However, the meaning of the words used in that provision must be interpreted in a *large and *liberal manner, and any ambiguity flowing from the those words should be resolved in favour of a claimant for disability benefits.

- LARGE & LIBERAL

I met lawyer & he has a better idea on my allegations.

I also called Drapeau's firm to try & help. I gave a lawyer there some advice on the 06-12 ELB clawback that the Toth class action is addressing. Lawyer agreed with every point I made in 45 minute call.

Just posted this to another thread on the cost of SISIP premiums

ICYMI?: Somersall SCC

72 In view of the near-negligible value of the subrogation right, it would be overreaching, in my view, to regard its loss as significantly changing the insurer’s position.

** The risk that the insurer has assumed is effectively compensated for by the insured’s monthly premium.

**Without being #cynical, I would be very surprised indeed if the loss of a subrogation right with little practical value were significant enough to have any effect whatever upon the insurer’s balance sheet.

**** The #insurer is #free to set #premiums at such a level as to ensure that its #risk is covered, exclusive of the anticipated value of subrogation rights, and I would cautiously presume that this is precisely what it has done.

- Here is the answer to SISIP saying that offsets would cost more. SISIP is free to set the premium at what it requires. If the offsets are illegal, they have saved money though illegal means.

73 The value of the indemnity payment, by contrast, is of great significance to the insured.

- The value of the non-indemnity payment is of great significance to the insured & disabled veteran.

** It is clear enough that the insured valued the availability of such payment highly enough to pay a substantial increase in monthly premiums for it.

- It is clear that the disabled veteran, while serving, valued the availability of such payment highly enough to pay the monthly premiums as required by law.

*** It is also clear that the insurer would rather not make the payment, to the extent of pursuing the case all the way to this Court.

- It is clear that the insurer, SISIP, would rather not make the payment, to the extent of forcing us to take it to court

LawnBoy, what is the next step for your case?

Did you know there is an ELB class acton started? I talked to their lawyer today & he agreed with every point I made. I am not a party to the suit. I like justice. Here is an email I sent to a vet that might be in on that case where VAC ELB clawed back the VAC pension:

BTW, forgot you gave up FB.

Talk with Josh Juneau went excellent. He agreed with everything I said & I gave him several arguments that should win fairly quick:

1. NVC Regs are counteracted by other, older laws so are not operative. This is known as Repugnancy. One law is repugnant with another;

2. SISIP LTD, a non-indemnity & contributory insurance, was basis of ELB so it is highly likely ELB is also non-indemnity & contributory;

3. Canada repealed the NVC Reg s. 22(a) which was the Pension Act pension clawback so they agreed it was unlawful. They only repealed it as of 4 months when it was in effect since 2006 so this is unjust;

4. Pension Act s. 30(1) & s. 30(1.1) + FAA s. 67 prohibit. This is part of 1 really

5. Sulz BCCA 2006: How we know SISIP LTD is non-indemnity & contributory;

6. Just thought of this one: It is an expropriation of property without Compensation. That should be a good one. Nearly unbeatable. We know the Pension Act pension is property from Authorson ONCA 2002;

7. We know ELB = SISIP LTD from Manuge Settlement affidavits. They used Proxies to determine if SISIP LTD applied for Zero Sum veterans;

8. Just thought of this, Conflict of Interest. VAC taking a VAC benefit. At least with SISIP LTD, it appears SISIP is Manulife, a third party;

9. Taking a clawback is a form of collection but they did not certify the debt as owing.

Matt

Hd meeting with lawyer today, went well. I only had to contradict him several times

I mentioned the tax thing, he didn't see how to address but I just thought of a way to bring it up:

SISIP LTD sends out lowball career premiums to us to maximize taxes for Canada (conflict of interest). Therefore, they might get sued under the Tort of Conspiracy, for one. Negligence & others

No.1  Buy a good lawyer.

No.2  Buy a really good Judge.

No.3  Buy the best politician.

Juggle the order, but be very selective my peers. It's shell game after all.

And the house usually holds... JMO for the day

LawnBoy, is this tax issue something your addressing in your quest to sue? OR is it something your doing outside of the courts through the CRA?

SISIP LTD is taxed under the authority of Income Tax Act s. 6(1)(f) as the employer paid some part of the premium. Though that letter is simple, I have other good arguments:

1. SISIP LTD is insurance & insurance is, by definition, a repayment for lost property you owned. Income tax is designed to tax an increase in wealth. Insurance cannot increase wealth as the Compensation principle states that you cannot exceed the amount lost. Therefore, no tax on the "insurance procceds" paid in relation to the contract of insurance;

2. ITA s. 6(1)(f) is part of ITA s. 6, whose purpose is to tax any fringe benefits that have escaped taxation. As QR&O 208.53 had the premiums deducted in law, there is no application of ITA s. 6 in the first place. The idea that Canada would pay a fringe benefit over basic pay tax free is ABSURD, given Canada is the tax collector;

3. A restatement of my letter but: Canada is a common law country & case law sets precedents EVERYONE must follow. The Brine & Landry TCC cases show that our LTD must be tax free. If not, we are being treated unfairly given that other disabled people get their insurance proceeds tax free. In fact, Altman ONSC case also comes to mind. Altman & Steve's Music paid a portion of the premium but the LTD was paid tax free.

In short, Canada is screwing us over. The Manuge settlement could not be taxed as Income Tax Act s. 6(1)(f) has 2 conditions:

A. The payment has to be paid periodically: SISIP violated that condition by refusing to pay it as they should have. As this condition has not been met, ITA s. 6(1)(f) cannot apply to the retroactive payment of SISIP LTD in the form of damages in contract;

B. The employer must pay some part of the premium: We paid all of the premium. Most in service (IBM v Waterman SCC 2013, service has value) & some in cash deducted from pay. Therefore, the entire premium was in fact paid by us with the employer acting as a financial intermediary (National Bank of Canada FCA 2003);

Thank You LawnBoy for clearing this up.

Basically SISIP/LTD is taxed because a part of the premium is paid by our employer.

Ending of SISIP/LTD at age 65 was changed from a lifetime benefit to ending at age 65 to save money.

Modified

Someone in CSAT forum asked about SISIP LTD tax so I posted this simple appeal from last year. I'll add a bit (Brine & Landry + QR&O 208.53):

August 21, 2015

21 Silverton St.
St. John’s, NL
A1G 1V8

CRA
Appeals

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please consider this an appeal of my taxes based on the very simple premise of Horizontal Equity. People in the same position must be treated the same.

Long Term Disability Insurance proceeds were tax free until 1971 when Income Tax Act s. 6(1)(f) was introduced for the first time, after Canada implemented only a small part of the 1966 Carter Commission report. I think that the 1973 Boarelli v Flannigan Ontario Court of appeal case got missed by CRA as thta case said that it was safe to assume that the total agreed upon wage package would include all benefits. This obviously includes the part of the SISIP LTD premium paid by Canada "on our behalf." Bring this to the attention of the Minister to have that section of the Income Tax Act repealed.

Private LTD is still tax free. Group insurance or LTD is taxable if the employer pays any part of the premium. Canadian Force member’s SISIP LTD currently has 85% paid by the employer “on behalf of the employee” & the employee has 15% withheld at source. Viewed in this light, 100% is paid by the CF member; after all it is LTD & not vehicle insurance or building insurance so why would the employer pay LTD insurance on its own behalf? In addition, in 1997 it was revealed that only 75% of LTD insurance in Canada is tax free. Why is the one's who defend Canada, including the disabled civilians getting tax free LTD, getting a better benefit than the one's taking a bullet for them? This is so unfair it is almost beyond belief!

Therefore CRA has a choice to make so that we are treated fairly.

Tax us both, ensuring Horizontal Equity; or

Tax neither, ensuring Horizontal Equity.

To help you decide in my favor, imagine the public outcry if you change such a long-standing tax free source of funds. I find it hard to believe that the 1971 ITA amendment went through.

Take the Ratych SCC case, though it was talking about tort damages not tax, the principles are the same:

The group insurance will operate on the same principle as any private insurance scheme. Fairness requires that the member of the group be compensated in the same manner as the individual with the private contract of insurance. Workmen's compensation and sick benefits are compensation in the nature of insurance payments. Although their purpose is to make up for loss of wages to some extent, they are not themselves wages.

Stitzinger v. Imperial Life Assurance Company of Canada also has a good point as monthly LTD damage payments are NOT INCOME:

Income is, as the Oxford English Dictionary states, the "produce" of an existing ability or asset. Damages, on the other hand, remedy the loss of an ability or asset, whether a bodily or property asset. Damages therefore are not the produce of an existing ability or asset; they replace a lost ability or asset.

Speaking of employment income, I did not work for Manulife. This seems almost trivial but is fundamental. The insurance proceeds I receive are “in respect of the SISIP policy 901102” & not in respect to employment. “In respect of is used to relate two subjects. For example, I got wages “in respect of my service.” I got a LTD benefit “in respect of my service.” The actual insurance proceeds are therefore, once removed from my service. It is a small but vital difference. In fact, no proof of income loss is required, much like Canada Pension Plan Disability.

Take these facts into consideration & delete any T4A’s on my file so that I can be treated exactly as another disabled person is treated, receiving my periodic damages tax free. After all your body is a Capital Asset.

One final point, & this is a doozy. Canada wrote Queen's Regulations & Orders 208.53 in 1982 when it mandated all CF member's would participate in SISIP LTD & they made the premiums deductible from pay. Having worked at CRA from 1996-2012 as a tax collector, I find it totally inconceivable that SISIP LTD premiums would be deducted ahead of tax, CPP & EI. In other words, we paid taxes on our SISIP LTD premium & when you buy LTD out of after tax income, the benefit is tax free. Landry TCC is my reference. Precedent is important in a democracy as it shows that we are being treated fairly. The Brine TCC 2003 & 2006 cases also state that we must get tax free SISIP LTD as the four Federal LTD benefits are the same. Brine was a member of the PSMIP LTD plan while I was a member of Sun Life & SISIP LTD. As such, I add these irrefutable points to my appeal.

Yours Sincerely,


Matthew Edwards, B. PE, B. Ed., CD
Captain (Retired)
C39xxxxxx
SIN:

I've got more info now but here is last year's letter. Add Landry TCC (I paid tax on the SISIP premium so no tax on the benefit)

August 27, 2015

21 Silverton St.
St. John’s, NL
A1G 1V8

CRA
Appeals

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please consider this an appeal of my taxes based on the very simple premise of Horizontal Equity. People in the same position must be treated the same.

Long Term Disability Insurance proceeds were tax free until 1971 when Income Tax Act s. 6(1)(f) was introduced for the first time, after Canada implemented only a small part of the Carter omission report.

Private LTD is still tax free. Group insurance or LTD is taxable if the employer pays any part of the premium. Canadian Force member’s SISIP LTD currently has 85% paid by the employer “on behalf of the employee” & the employee has 15% withheld at source. Viewed in this light, 100% is paid by the CF member; after all it is LTD & not vehicle insurance or building insurance so why would the employer pay LTD insurance on its own behalf?

Therefore CRA has a choice to make so that we are treated fairly.
Tax us both, ensuring Horizontal Equity; or
Tax neither, ensuring Horizontal Equity.

To help you decide in my favor, imagine the public outcry if you change such a long-standing tax free source of funds. I find it hard to believe that the 1971 ITA amendment went through.

Take the Ratych SCC case, though it was talking about tort damages not tax, the principles are the same:
The group insurance will operate on the same principle as any private insurance scheme.
Fairness requires that the member of the group be compensated in the same manner as the individual with the private contract of insurance.
Workmen's compensation and sick benefits are compensation in the nature of insurance payments. Although their purpose is to make up for loss of wages to some extent, they are not themselves wages.

Stitzinger v. Imperial Life Assurance Company of Canada also has a good point as monthly LTD damage payments are NOT INCOME:
Income is, as the Oxford English Dictionary states, the "produce" of an existing ability or asset. Damages, on the other hand, remedy the loss of an ability or asset, whether a bodily or property asset. Damages therefore are not the produce of an existing ability or asset; they replace a lost ability or asset.

Speaking of employment income, I did not work for Manulife. This seems almost trivial but is fundamental. The insurance proceeds I receive are “in respect of the SISIP policy 901102” & not in respect to employment. “In respect of is used to relate two subjects. For example, I got wages “in respect of my service.” I got a LTD benefit “in respect of my service.” The actual insurance proceeds are therefore, once removed from my service. It is a small but vital difference. In fact, no proof of income loss is required, much like Canada Pension Plan Disability.

Take these facts into consideration & delete any T4A’s on my file so that I can be treated exactly as another disabled person is treated, receiving my periodic damages tax free. After all your body is a Capital Asset.

Yours Sincerely,


Matthew Edwards, CD
Capt (Ret’d)

I can answer both:

1. All LTD was tax free from 1917-1971. In 1971 ITA s. 6(1)(f) was enacted, making LTD taxable if the employer pays any part of the premium. In 1973 Boarelli v Flannigan ONCA was decided saying that the total wage package included all fringe benefits, like SISIP LTD premiums. From 1969-1971 the CF mbr paid 100% of the premium. From 1971-1990 the CF mbr paid 50% which ought to have made at least 50% non-taxable but that ignores Boarelli. 75% of LTD is tax free, btw. We are getting screwed. Contact me for an appel letter: Matt7.Edwards@gmail.com or download from my open FB group: Observation Post.

2. In 1995, SISIP ended lifetime benefits to save money without asking you. SISIP is a Trust so we get a say. NDA s. 39(1) says a contributor can direct the CDS with a "specific direction." I did that last year to no avail.

Here's a couple of questions I have that some maybe able to answer.

1. I read awhile back from someone's post on FB that LTD was tax free from 1969 to 1971. However I could not find actual reference to this. Does anyone know if this is indeed true? If so could you post the reference to it.

2. LTD is for life up until Jan 1995, those released after, expire at age 65. Why was this changed?