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

99% of the people involved in this, know nothing of what you printed, all they know is that they want more, Ei damages, no fees ect...The leagle system is very complicated evenfor thous how work in it for many years EX: the original law suit wanted DAMAGES! Try not to critises the members here,good explanations and cutting your first post down to eatable size will help a lot of people understand the in's and out's.

I will disconnect now - but i am reading everyday.

Beside GOC via DOJ will never acknowledge any wrongdoing. They will make each of us, sign a document that will shield them from any further lawsuit about this lawsuit.

I don't want to open any jar of worms, for me this thing is over.

That was the original lawsuit as filed by MC. I put on the left what we achieved in the settlement but as a can read the relief requested on the original lawsuit ''DAMAGE was a further alternative for restitution - considering that we received the restitution of the claw back - Damage is not really requested anymore by the plaintiff... That is the way I understand it - So what is to ask to the judge ?

very good analasys Vall, mind you many people will not understand some of this, you may have just opened a jar of worms. If you can explain most of this in plain english it will help many to understand!!!

5. WHAT WE GOT - The relief sought by the class is stated as follows:
a. YES By the Judge - a declaration that Section 24(a)(iv) of Part III(B) of the SISIP Policy No. 901102 is unlawful;
b. NO - a declaration that Section 24(a)(iv) of Part III(B) of the SISIP Policy No. 901102 is ultra vires the legislative authority of the Crown;
c. NO - a declaration that the Crown has breached the public law duty owed to the plaintiff and the class to fulfill its obligations under the Pension Act;
d. NO - a declaration that the benefits paid and/or payable to the plaintiff and the class pursuant to the Pension Act have been unlawfully “assigned, charged, attached, anticipated, commuted or given as security” by the Crown contrary to section 30 of the Pension Act as a result of the application of Section 24(a)(iv) of the SISIP Policy No. 901102;
e. NO - a declaration that Section 24(a)(iv) of Part III(B) of the SISIP Policy No. 901102 infringes the equality rights of the plaintiff and the class under subsection 15(1) of the Charter to live free from discrimination and cannot be saved under section 1 of the Charter;
f. NO - a declaration that the Crown has breached the fiduciary duties owed to the plaintiff and the class as former servants and members of the Canadian Forces terminated as a result of injuries sustained during the course of their service and suffering resulting disabilities;
g. NO - a declaration that the Crown has acted in bad faith in the implementation of Section 24(a)(iv) of Part III(B) of the SISIP Policy No. 901102 and its impact on the plaintiff and the class as former servants and members of the Canadian Forces terminated as a result of injuries sustained during the course of their service and suffering resulting disabilities;
h. YES - an order pursuant to section 24 of the Charter that Section 24(a)(iv) of Part III(B) of the SISIP Policy No. 901102 be expunged;
i. YES - an order that damages are a just and appropriate remedy pursuant to section 24 of the Charter and that the plaintiff and the class be reimbursed in an amount equal to the amount of long-term benefits deducted pursuant to Section 24(a)(iv) of Part III(B) of the SISIP Policy No. 901102 from the amount of long-term disability benefits otherwise payable to the plaintiff and the class;
j. YES - in the alternative, damages in an amount equal to the amount of benefits payable to the plaintiff and the class unlawfully and wrongfully deducted pursuant to Section 24(a)(iv) of Part III(B) of the SISIP Policy No. 901102 from the amount of long-term disability benefits otherwise payable to the plaintiff and the class;
k. NO - in the further alternative, an order for restitution;
l. NO - liability and general damages for;
i. NO - discrimination;
ii. NO - breach of fiduciary duties; and
iii. NO - bad faith.
m. NO - punitive, exemplary and aggravated damages;
n. YES - interest pursuant to the Federal Courts Act;
o. YES - costs of this action on a solicitor-and-client basis (fixed at 15.7% pls Provincial Taxe added here since settlement) ; and
p. such further relief as this Honourable Court may deem just.

Just a taught...I guess liability and general damages for; discrimination; breach of fiduciary duties; and bad faith. punitive, exemplary and aggravated damages;was just an alternative. After all we got what we asked for. What do you think ?

Instead of writing in art. k. - in the further alternative, an order for restitution; It should have been writen ''in addition to an order of restitution'' That would have made a difference...