Members of the SISIP Class Action August 10, 2012

Thanks mfors2222, I just want to be sure because with my luck in finding cracks to fall through this class action will not benefit me.

The part that gets me is how they state that the role of the negotiations is reach a conclusion that is in the best interest of both parties. The Government broke the law, for several decades, and they were finally caught, so why should their interests be of any concern.They should not benefit from any of this. After, they have benefited financially off the back of disabled veterans since 1976. If I was caught breaking the law, the courts wouldn't sit there and worry how doing several years in jail would damage my career or family life.

base pay would not include: jump pay, danger pay, not sure about spec pay

Thanks for posting this! and thanks to Peter Driscoll for being thorough in the explanations contained in this memo.

I have an unrelated question to the legal matters. Out of curiosity I called Manulife and asked if they calculated the 75% of your last monthly salary on gross or net pay. The person from Manulife said it was 75% of your last gross base pay. Does anyone know what they mean by base?
Or what Manulife's calculation would look like in practice.

You are right, Teentitan, sometimes question after question pops up in my head. I understand Dennis is under great pressure and i will stand down and let the team take this into battle thou i must admit its hard to watch the fight and not dive in. Good news next meeting 23 Aug , I concur
navrat out

Navrat that's a hard question for Dennis or the lawyers to answer as it is a negotiation topic and the last thing we need to do is tip our lawyers strategy to the government.

I think the biggest bit of news from the memo is the message I got from Peter D that the next meeting is 23 Aug so there is a great chance for more info about the negotiations near the end of the month.

Thanks Dennis, I must admit there is alot to negioate in this case. The lawyers did a great job putting out that memo and i found it informative. I kind of worry thou about sisip ltd accessing VAC since to me it seems it could take along time knowing how VAC handles paperwork. Also i must also admit that i was wrong regarding the governments newly appointed lawyer. Our lawyers said it was positive and that he was positive so what more really can you ask for. I am starting to feel the lawyers do have our best interests at heart and will try to stand behind them. From my point of view i Think the government just wants to be done with this case, if they screw any group it will come back to bite them and thats why i think the MND added he wanted finality to all this. I think everyone wants that.OH and one more question why for the retro did it mention statutory limits??? DOes that mean the retro will only go back to 1985 or is it the 10 year rule i keep hearing??? That would mean retro to 2002 only or maximun 10 years worth per class member

thanks
navrat out

short answer is yes, navrat, they are negotiating for damages.

Hey Dennis, I was wondering the article did not mention damages??Is there negioations going on regarding damages or is it too early in the process
navra t out

great info thanks a lot dennis.
propat

MCINNES
COOPER
L.AWYER:S I AVOCA TS
MEMORANDUM
TO: Members of the SISIP Class Action
FROM: Peter Driscoll
DATE: August 10, 2012
RE: Negotiations with the Department of Justice - No. 3
Introduction: We write to update you on the progress of our resolution discussions with the
Department of Justice on August 3, 2012. As many of you may be aware, Stephen Toope was
appointed as the Legal Agent of the Attorney General of Canada to act as the Federal
Representative of the Minister of National Defence in these discussions along with lawyers from
the Department of Justice.

The Appointment of Stephen Toope: Mr. Toope has been appointed as the Minister of
National Defence's representative. Mr. Toope is a lawyer and currently the President of the
University of British Columbia. Mr. Toope is not a mediator nor has he been appointed to assist
Justice Barnes. Mr. Toope is a private lawyer instructed by the Minister of National Defence.

Meeting of August 3, 2012: Our meeting with Mr. Toope and representatives of the
Department of Justice was a positive one. When introducing himself, Mr. Toope advised that he
had instructions from the Minister of National Defence to attempt to resolve the claim with us
within certain parameters and based on the following principles:
• Resolution is in both parties' best interest;
• That any resolution will provide finality and certainty;
• Determining eligibility is a key issue to be resolved;
• No "double recovery" (i.e., employment income and SISIP payments);
• That the resolution process must focus on simplicity and intelligibility.

Issues Discussed: The following issues were discussed with respect to retroactive
reimbursement:
• Management of Estate Claims - a process by which certain estate claims would be
paid directly to spouses and dependent children;
• Tax Neutrality- a process for communicating appropriate tax elections available to the
class to lessen the tax impact of the retroactive payments;
- 2 -
• Interest- the appropriate interest to be paid to the class, both pre- and post judgment;
• Cut-Off Date- the period of time that will be compensated (i.e ., how far back in time will
retroactive payments be made). Although there are potential statutory limitation periods,
positive progress has been made with respect to the scope of recovery. This issue is a
key component of the resolution discussions and, although we cannot specifically detail
the discussions, we can characterize the progress on this issue as positive;
• Zero Sum Claims Management - this issue is the focus of most of the discussion
between the parties. The main issue to be resolved, from the Government's perspective,
is how to fa irly determine whether an individual was, and is, "totally and permanently
disabled" as defined under the SISIP Long Term Disability Policy since the closing of
their file with SISIP. We have taken the position that such a determination should be
made with reference to medical files in the possession of Veterans Affairs Canada, and
the table of disabilities used by Veterans Affairs. While agreement has not been reached
on the process, the parties will seek an Order from the Federal Court permitting the
sharing of information between VAC and SISIP. Once the information is disclosed, this
may assist the parties to determine a fair process which complies with the pol icy terms,
while ensuring the dignity of the participants is respected. At the close of the meeting
both parties agreed to consider further proposals on the fairest process to follow in
achieving the foregoing.
Why Resolution Discussions? Who Approves the Resolution? Some of you may ask "Why
are we in discussions? Didn't we win?" While it is true that after 6 years of litigation, to the
Supreme Court of Canada and back again, that we won at trial on the interpretation of the
contract that the Pension Act offset was unlawful, the foregoing issues were not dealt with at
that trial. What we are working on now is the implementation of the decision, which gives rise to
further issues as set out above. Ultimately we are trying to avoid further litigation (and delays)
by involving ourselves in resolution discussions. Should either party be unable to resolve an
issue satisfactorily, the issue will be litigated in Federal Court before Justice Barnes. If the
parties are able to reach a resolution on all issues, the resolution still must be reviewed and
approved by the Court to make sure that it is fair and reasonable.
Clarification on Counsel Fees: Our fees do not form part of the negotiations. We are focused
on getting the best resolution on the core issues we can, as quickly as we can, to benefit the
members. Once we are done we will review the position on fees. Again fees are not part of the
resolution discussions, as only the Court will set the fees. The fee process is completely
transparent. We will give notice to the Court and to the members on the amount of the fee we
are seeking. The fee request will be based on a number of factors, only one of which is the
contractual percentage. Other considerations are legal precedent (what has been paid in
previous cases), the risk and cost of the firm to the date of the application, the work completed
(appearance in the SCC, and successful trial of the contract issue), the number of people
benefiting from the class action, and the amount involved. All of the foregoing is set out in an
extensive brief and affidavits which will be available for review by all members and wi ll be
reviewed by the Court before the Court ultimately sets a fee that the Court decides is
reasonable for the work we have done for you.
(Member Communicatton - Fmal.doc)
- 3-
Please Contact Us:
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us as follows:
By email: SISIPCiassAction@mcinnescooper.com
By phone: (902) 455-8140
Peter Driscoll
(Me-nber Communtcatlon - F•nal.doc )