WHAT THE HELL???

I haven’t been on this forum for awhile but was here when the no-comment order was suggested so I’ve found it better to occasionally surf these pages, observe and wait for the final outcome. There has been a lot of discussion here on the question of fee setting which by convention is referred to as Fee Shifting. Make the loser pay pretty well sums up the definition. It not as simple as that but here are my reasons.

As the term refers, a successful litigation will in due process determine the net cost (fees) plus losses to the plaintiff (you and me) Unfortunately there are very few among us who would have had access to the courts without the able minded skill-set of a prominent law firm stepping forward as was the case with those who risked their career to litigate this case. Their potential for reward lives or dies on the presumption of success/loss outcomes. I like to think that this learned group saw the forest and the trees and with it the injustices it presented to Veterans of Canada, Military and RCMP.
The SISIP Ltd action could have been pursued individually (as the GOC would have preferred) or as a Class Action as is the case here. Larger law firms in Canada have pro bono provisions for clients who for a number of reasons lack the financial means to access the Courts to contest the merits of their particular case. When most law firms partake on Pro Bono litigant legal adventures they do so with the reality of the economics involved.
But as we sit at home considering the what-ifs, such as if we lost, its important to keep in mind there were 6 years of legal battles(delays) that did incur costs to someone (on both sides). Several time consuming arguments based more on the Manuge case being certified as a Class Action. It seemed the main focal argument of Manuge regarding the definitions of the SISIP claw back was relegated as an also-ran, left to wither in a merciless waiting game created through legal gymnastics, obfuscation and virtual contempt of those who they knew would have the least access to civil justice, particularly if they were left to stand alone. The David and Goliath picture comes to mind; hamstrung by a defiant defendant of great power and authority who knew that it could always have its cake and eat it too , without any sense that their actions were contributing to pain, injury and economics of every veteran’s home and family. But onward they marched as they literally choked the last vestiges of self-respect a veteran might still be clinging to as a once proud bearer of the staff and flag of our Country.

Yes to whom ever will listen, this Goliath was a formidable power one who rarely rose from their velvet padded chairs in Parliament to consciously admit the pettiness and vicious wrongness of their arrogance, until they were forced to so “unreservedly” by a Federal Court.

Well now the honorable ministers of the Crown have their decision and must face the question of the Court. Was any of this necessary, vexatious, gamesmanship? Was the answer to this unadvised pursuit obvious all along and were Canada’s institutions used to delay something a first year law student might have determined in an afternoon of research.


So there are four parties; Minister(s) of the Crown in the right of Canada, Canadian Veterans in the defenses of Canada, Our law firm and the people of Canada who had to pay for a vexatious misadventure that their politicians were well counseled to abandon by almost everyone in Ottawa and elsewhere who lacked a party affiliation. It would be a travesty if this case and its costs are not substantially shifted to the Defendant. There is no other organization in Canada that has as great a legal resource base as the Government of Canada. It must realize that this matter was as much a mistake in 1976 as it was on May 2, 2012 when the honourable Justice made his decision on the pleading of one resolute representative and honourable Veteran after his long and onerous battle against all odds which resulted in a most rational predictable finish line.

I’m a zero sum member of the RCMP SISIP which has been legally characterized as “Indistinguishable” from the military action. Some may not be aware but for whatever n reason this government has gone into another stall, refusing to settle with no reasons given at least this is what I do or don’t know as of this writing. The premise of the your court decision is that the Pension Awarded for injuries and SISIP awarded for loss of income are two trains that can never meet.

Congratulation, to all of you, and I will continue to pursue a claim that the Defendant’s actions were grossly shameful and they should have known better and if given a chance could do much better. I will be most interested to hear how this government establishes a precedence to avoid the shift of legal costs incurred by each veteran to their side of the desk given the impact and language of the Federal Court decision in this case.
For the record,I'm not a lawyer and there could be errors, but this is just an personal opinion and I would love to hear how the simplicity and merits of this case escaped this government and have them explain why it was permitted to occur in the first place.

Steve we all have ups and downs, you dd a difference here stay

Steve, just so you understand, it was your letter and post that was the deciding factor in my decision to attend in Halifax, Excellent job on your letter. You are a wonderful writer.

PS back at ya Sparrow

For the reasons stated in the thread i came back here to enlighten those that said we have no voice, look at the THREAD "JUSTICE BARNES IS HEARING US" my letter to Justice Barnes has been added to the court registry and will be a useful tool in rendering a decision with regards to legal fees. Another small step for veterans

HUGS

I wont bite the hand that was here and is here to help, Sparrow you did a wonderful job helping and that gets a ton of RESPECT from me.

Oh good, then I can give you a hug if you come to Halifax.

Sparrow you are excluded what was done to you was very wrong, my last post was not about you as you were a victim sorry if you got the wrong intent

ouch. That hurt
I had my reasons but I get what your saying.
Sparrow

I'm coping I will not stay long but I will not go as I have made a lot of friends here and when this is all done we will need to help each other, that is my goal and hoping it is the same all around, I just hate mud slinging and no it is not an attention getter I do not run away and come back and ask for hugs and then do it all over again I actually hate touchy feelie people. cya in a bit

I didn't know that Robbie left this is a sad day ......now i know why people come and go ..its the way they cope .....

Wills ya got a good point on the technical wording of the deal. These words are very important so good observation. We keep seeing different things each time we review the deal with different issues.
On your point of whiners. And if its a great deal or not it depends no your position in the SISIP LTD program. The members who get the 2 year SISIP gift after 99 need to be careful how they argue the virtues of the deal as you never should have been given the 2 year gift after 99 that was not the reason SISIP LTD existed. So be grateful ya got 2 free years but walk softly past those that are fully disabled who the program was for but appear to be not getting as good a deal. Dont get me wrong I think the world of the legal team and Dennis for carrying this torch forward for all of us. I dont know the details of the inside legal argument and I wont second guess it as it stands this is a great deal for the 2 year freebie people. This is a great deal for new injured soldiers. This is a ok acceptable deal knowing no deal is perfect for those soldiers who are combat injured pre this deal.
My point is the 2 Year gift people are in the majority so be careful how you fawn over this deal cause the minority are the disabled who truly deserved this deal and its not perfect for them and no where near perfect for others in that group.

Agree fully propat. I for one have no issue with the settlement. I do have an issue with the fact that there are a couple very bad whiners on here and I feel like i am getting lumped in with them. I choose to be constructive and offer any tidbits of info which may help people. I am frustrated though at trying to get one question answered through MC as they don't return my emails or voice messages. It deals with bankruptcy and I know that Anti has spoken to SISIP and the Superintendant of Bankruptcies but I don't think they realize the symantics of the agreement. It states that I, the individual class member, gets to decide when I claim these funds. Legally I intend to claim all my funds in 2012, therefore, legally, I have not earned these funds or this "winfall" until 2012. I don't believe SISIP has any right to send any of my funds to a trustee from 2006 as the agreement states that the funds will be delivered to MC for furtherance to me? My lawyer agrees with me but now he wants more money from me so he can contact SISIP and MC on my behalf. I know there are more out there like me that need this question answered. Hopefully MC sees this post and gives a reply. In my specific case I was not aware of this class action until 2008 therefore I could not inform the trustee in 2006 about this possibility.

outof i think its the best negotiated deal we could have gotten.now this is my oppinion but thoes that disagree are not winers they just have their own oppinion its not whining its called being human.no from what ive seen in my area this deal is being accepted on here more favorably than the class members that are not on here.maybe this is just an anomaly in my area but i dont know.it just seems they dont understand a lot of the legalities and prosedures and the leagal difficulty of getting a better negotiated settlement than this.peeps on here have the advantage of reading some info on all of these thing from peter and dennis and seem to understand better how good of a this deal is.i expected a better deal but becouse im on here i understand why we didnt get better.

propat