No Critics here, It was a Settlement - But lets recap - What was asked by MC and DM and What we Got.

not sure on this question, ask Peter for clairification

OK Dennis, after re-reading the proxies, is It saying that even though I was dropped by SISIP in 2008, but approved for EELB in 2012, I can be reinstated and be given retro payments if the reason I received the EELB was present during the time I was on SISIP?

Or would I have had to Qualify for the EELB during the initial 24 month period to get reinstated?

independent adjudication

read the settlement proposal folks

he should apply quickly, for ELB and why hasn't he already

why did sisip not deam him totally disabled, and if he was awarded cpp disability, it is a proxy to have his sisisp re-instated

Unfortunately Dennis, many class members are not getting any future payments. And just because they are getting CPP(D) does not automatically qualify them for SISIP reinstatement, if they were not zeroed out within their 24 months because of it.

Here is a perfect example.

2 CF members are released the exact same day after 9 years of service so no CF annuity. They both qualify for $2500 from SISIP, but had $2000 deducted by the clawback, leaving SISIP to pay $500. They both apply for CPP(D), but only one gets it on first application, and is now zeroed out by SISIP. The second Veteran appeals the CPP(D) but it takes too long and his 24 months have passed and SISIP does not deem him totally disabled, so his SISIP ends.

So now comes the lawsuit and it provides the first Veteran the opportunity to be reinstated by SISIP, as long as he has become permanently disabled in the interim, while the second Veteran, even though he may be just as disabled as the first Veteran, will not get the same opportunity. Now hopefully the second Veteran could get on EELB, but even that is not a given, and I hear because the clawback has ceased, VAC employees may be less inclined to approve the benefit.

Funny how no one is doing the go forward math for themselves, because that is the easiiest to complete.

if you have 10 years or more, are zero sum and gain $2000 net a month, that is $240 000 K, that is 1/4 million

in my case because of the ELB, if my disability rate stays the same, I will be receiving an extra $370 000K by the time I am 65....

Actually the winners are us.

Calculate your go forward payments until 65-67, stop thinking about the past.

...a rose by any other name...

Let's hope the Judge picks up on this and sorts it the **** out.

Just because it's called one thing and we were absolved from another doesn't make it right.

It's NOT a good deal if I don't get every single cent back that I should have received AT THE TIME IT WAS STOLEN FROM ME.

I know and accept that I need to pay taxes, but to pay EXTRA TAXES, however you want to call it, is bull****.

I have no job, am on CPPD, with DTC, so I should see about 80% after taxes, but I guess I will just have to wait and see what the crooks have in store after I get my cheque and see what sort of 'magic' has been worked to rob me of something that I ****ING WELL PAID FOR.

Thanks bigrex, I guess it become a question of who does your taxes and who at cra review it

snrvavcom, the only problem that has been pointed out by other members, is that when telling CRA to recalculate past returns, they will not only add the taxes owed, but also what is called deemed taxes. These are penalties added for failing to report your full income, even at no fault of your own, and these penalties only get larger the tarther back they have to go, the money money that wasn't reported and if it involves more than a single year. The good news is, we can apply for an exemption from these penalties, for undue hardship, but it is not guaranteed that we will be approved.

Vall,
Many great comments, I believe that we will have the choice when it comes to cra and taxes. Ie, to pay lump sum for 2013 or the request to have it based over the years, for me I have calculated that I will pay a small amount if over the years and a very high amount if only for 2013.

Cheers

You got it Bigrex - It was a big game - and its finish, kind of even... I wrote it before
The winner are in order of priority
1. GOC and DOJ. (The tax is going back to them)
2. MC (The fee is going back to them - They took the risk and will pay large tax on it)
3. and US (The clawback is going back to us and will pay large tax on it)
4. and all future veteran. (No more claw back)

I am just wondering about CRA - How this will be reported -by years or Lump sum in 2013?

well, I can kind of understand why this was posted. Many of us joined the class under the assumption that this was what our lawyers were going to go to battle to get us, and these clauses were even repeated to the Supreme Court, so when the settlement negotiations were finalized, many were taken aback that so much had been left out. Maybe if the original paperwork only listed reimbursement of monies taken, there may be some class members, including myself, that may feel differently about the proposal.

What I printed is the Lawsuit - the section 'RELEIF SAUGHT BY THE LAWSUIT'
I don't want to discourage anybody. I just realized that what was written in the original lawsuit was king of 'optional for Damage' I was one who push so hard to get Damage but now I realized that the way the lawsuit was written - Damage could have been possible if the clawback money was not paid...It is Now paid so what else to expect.

There are winner and looser in this endeavor. We are not the winner. But i thing there is nothing we can do to change that - unless you have a solid argument that could convince me.