A Good Example Letter

i hope so georges

They did actually, realiced me after showing them I was as brused as the poor MP. I think CO may have had something to do whit it. Good story maybe whit a beer someday.............................. One never know's Some of us may actually like to celebrate one day.

that doesnt mean the army cant lock you up trust me lol.
propat

Very good, to bad I had to quit school for the army. But judge back then said I should before I was looked up. Maybe he was right.

Copy of contact info from http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/contact.asp the following website:

The Prime Minister greatly values the thoughts and suggestions of Canadians. You may write, e-mail or fax his office at:

Office of the Prime Minister
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A2

Fax: 613-941-6900

E-mail: pm@pm.gc.ca

Hope this works. Sparrow

An email would be best and we can all forward our remarks along with a copy of the letter. Sparrow

Excellent letter.

Nice

E-mail address

This is a very good letter from an ex-pat living in England who wrote to Justice Barnes months ago. She address' the payment of legal fees and why. Use this as a template if you will for your letters.

IMO it's the 'principle' that the GoC should pay our lawyers. They stole our money for 37 years and we have to pay a lawfirm to get back our stolen money?!?!

Here's the letter...


The Right Honourable Stephen Harper
Prime Minister of Canada
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada, K1A 0A2

Veterans at Risk of Unfair LTD Claw-back Unless Government Pays Legal Fees
Dear Prime Minister,
Subsequent to a Federal Court decision in May 2012 in favour of disabled Armed Forces veterans, the court case Dennis Manuge v. Her Majesty the Queen is soon to be settled in Federal Court. Part and parcel of this settlement is that legal fees (including court fees and other incidental costs) will now have to be paid to Class Action lawyers for their work.
Clearly such fees can only come from either of two sources; deducted from the Long Term Disability (LTD) monies owed to Class members or paid for by the Federal Government. This has caused considerable alarm to myself and many other Class members as we could be required to pay 30% or more of our LTD monies in legal costs; legal costs incurred in the first place to counter a tort initiated by the Federal Government.
In his May 2012 decision, The Honourable Mr. Justice Robert Barnes had clearly ruled that it was DND who had given ‘effect to the SISIP offset of Pension Act disability benefits [that] wholly deprives disabled veterans of an important financial award intended to compensate for disabling injuries suffered in the service of Canadians’ (Federal Court ruling of 1 May 2012, paragraph [63], Decision by The Honourable Mr. Justice Robert Barnes). Consequently, had it not been for DND’s upstream discriminatory action, no tort would have ensued to disabled veterans and thus this Class action against the Federal Government would never have been required.
The Honourable Mr. Justice Robert Barnes had spoken quite eloquently of the detriment of the initial DND claw-back which had the consequence ‘to substantially reduce or to extinguish the LTD coverage promised to members of the Class by the SISIP Policy with particularly harsh effect on the most seriously disabled CF members who have been released from active service. That is an outcome that could not reasonably have been intended and I reject it unreservedly’ (paragraph [63]). In line with the intent of this Federal Court decision,
having Class members foot any bill for legal fees would be tantamount to subjecting them to yet another substantial reduction of their recently awarded LTD coverage, an outcome already unreservedly rejected by The Honourable Mr. Justice Robert Barnes in his May 2012 ruling.
Having Class members pay for any legal fees would moreover go against the very notion of tort repair, a concept underpinned by the principle of restituto in integrum (the restoration to original state). This principle aims at “putting the injured party in the same position as he would have been if he had not sustained the wrong for which he is now getting his compensation or reparation” (Livingstone v Rawyards Coal Co, (1880) 5 App Cas 25,89). It thus logically follows that as initiator of the tort the Federal Government should pay for all costs associated with this Class action, a move that would, in combination with the refund of LTD monies, finally reset the clocks to zero for veterans. It is morally and legally the right thing to do.
Mr Harper, may I respectfully ask to know what your intentions are regarding the payment of legal fees in this court case. As you are aware, we are getting close to the eleventh hour given the imminent January 2013 settlement. Allow me to trust that your intentions are to step in and offer Class counsel fair compensation in a bid that would completely remove the veterans from the legal fee payment equation. At the end of the day, you will agree that this is the only option that would comply with the spirit and intent of the Federal Court ruling whilst enabling you to follow through on your stated commitment to the care of our ill and injured veterans.

Kind regards,

Louise Gagnon (Major, retired)
Guildford, United Kingdom