Honorable Justice Barnes - I might have some questions ?

Georges, I didn't say it was illegal, but how often do you hear about having to fight to the supreme court just for class certification. As far as I know, the entire purpose of class actions is to allow large amounts of people, who are affected by a similar cause for litigation, even if they cannot to afford seeking legal action on their own, to have access to the judicial system. In other words, exactly what thousands of disabled Veterans affected by a then alleged illegal clawback, should be in order to get resolution. This is why the judge should see what the government did as unnecessary.

Vall2012 very good, I see you are working very hard fr us all. You have a great thing there send it to the judge. Where did you get your legle training? Or then again, where did you learn to count? I'm very impressed. Hope you make it to halifax.

bigrex, going o the suprime court on a issue is not cosidered a abuse of legle proceedures, Yes it i costly and time consuming but it is well in theparametters of the leagle system.

FIRST PROBLEM – WE HAVE a CLASS and A SUB-CLASS
The Examples of settlement and fees on a hypothetical member set by McInnis Cooper in Leave No Vet Behind: But they do have 2 types of class members.

There is an obvious conflict of interest between the broad class and the proposed sub-class.
The common issues for a potential sub-class is the legal fees scheduled proposed by the settlement parties.

After reviewing the example provided by McInnis Cooper in Leave No Vet Behind, See Annex 1;
• The Broad Class Member 1 - Will pay 5.1%, Legal Fees considering future payment.
• A Potential Sub Class Member 2 - Pay 17.83% Legal Fees considering Zero future payment.

The proposed sub-class has therefore a unique liability imposed to them set at 17.83% versus the broad class which have, considering future payment, an overall legal cost burden of 5.1%.
That is a difference of a 12.73% of legal fees between both potential classes and Sub-Class.

How is this Fair?
Broad Class Member 1 - Recover much more, over time / has the lowest burden of legal cost.

A Potential Sub-Class Member 2: Recover much less / have the highest burden of legal cost.

Option 1 - Create a sub-class and set the fee at 5.1% for everyone in the sub-class like they are in the Broad class;

Option 2 – Compute the full valuation of the settlement and set the legal cost based on actual and future payment for the entire class action.

This is serious -

SECOND PROBLEM COST – NOT LEGAL FEES – COURT COST.
As for Cost Under article 334.39 Subject to subsection (2) Under article 334.39 Subject to subsection (2), no costs may be awarded against any party to a motion for certification of a proceeding as a class proceeding, to a class proceeding or to an appeal arising from a class proceeding, unless:
(a) The conduct of the party unnecessarily lengthened the duration of the proceeding;
(b) Any step in the proceeding by the party was improper, vexatious or unnecessary or was taken through negligence, mistake or excessive caution; or
(c) Exceptional circumstances make it unjust to deprive the successful party of costs.

Honorable Justice Barnes, 334.39 is clear; our legal representative successfully demonstrated to you and brought before you, unconditional evidences (ombudsman and legal studies, proof etc…) that:

1 - the defendant unnecessarily lengthened the duration of the proceeding;
2 - any step in the proceeding by the party was improper, vexatious or unnecessary or was taken through negligence, mistake or excessive caution;
3- And there was no exceptional circumstance to justify this conduct.
Considering these actions - The full cost of this proceeding should be awarded to the GOC.


------
Annex - 1
(Member 1)
Disabled since January 1999 at the age of 30 with an initial Pension Act reduction of $1,500 per
Month. Lump sum based on retroactive payments up to September 30, 2012. Future amounts
Based on additional estimated payments from October 1, 2012 to age 65 as a result of
Settlement.
Amount Recover: 372,982
Legal fees, disbursements, HST: 66,504
Pre-tax Amount payable: 306,485
Increase in Future SISIP LTD amount: 618,191
Legal fees, disbursements, HST on Future payments: [ NONE ]
Total amount of potential pre-tax recovery: $924,676
Plus Scholarship Fund: 1300 (disregarded in calculation)
COMPUTATION
Amount Recover + Future recovery: 372982 + 924676= 1,297,658
Legal fees: 66504 / 1,297,658 = 5.1% Legal Fees Broad Class (Member 1)

(Member 2)
Disabled for 2 years (or more) in 2001-2002 with an initial Pension Act reduction of $500 per month. Total amount of potential pre-tax recovery: $16,458. Currently Working - Does not anticipate Future Amount.
Amount Recover: 18,447
Legal fees, disbursements, HST: 3,289
Pre-tax amount payable: 15,158
Increase in Future SISIP LTD amount: 0.00

Amount Recover + Future recovery: 18447 + 0.00 = 18447
Legal Fees: 3289 / 18447 = 17.83% Legal Fees Broad Class (Member 2)

Scholarship Fund: 1,300 (disregarded)

------
VALL2012

air woman, you dont deserve it, right now you finishing last to receive it

my oppinion the tax penelties are still an issue for me NOT THE REGULAR TAXES id ask for help on this issue other than that i like the letter.

propat

Agreed propat.

mfors good post you didnt state anything i can see that was factually untrue ore call anybody whiners ore any other name.i cant see anyone insulting you over this there may be some that have a differance of oppinion that may state them respectfully but i dont see any reason for insults over this post.

propat

I concur mfors, it would be more effective if we were all within the same realm as possible. Now do I get that chocolate candy bar?
Sparrow

RedHorse wrote:
2.Please allow them to deduct 7.5% of our future monthly Sisip payments,

This needs to be removed. 7.5% of the RETRO is more than enough, and taking fees from future money, even though it is to be paid NOW, is morally reprehensible.

When did the justice system become a casino, where people gamble?

People talk about compensating the lawfirm for the risks they took, who here has been charged? You never get brought up before the man unless you are guilty. The lawfirm would not have taken on this case unless they were sure they could win. There was no risk.

Equal pay for equal work, I'll pay on the retro, at 7.5%, but I cannot stomach paying another 7.5% on future money. It's easy enough for two year people to say the legal fees are fine, but they are not 'fine' for those that are long-termed-disabled that face paying out, NOW, money that is owed to them in future years.

7.5% on the retro ONLY.

red horse your contradicting yourself in letter, you tell judge to pay 7% now and 7 % in future, and later in letter you tell judge not to pay more than 15000000-2000000... maybey tell judge to pay 3% now and 3% in future that would match your dollar amount..... plus i dont think you have the right to tell judge to pay less in lawyer fees... its something that been negotiated between lead plaintiff and lawyers... what you said about taxes that was bang on............ and for giving 300 000 to denis manuge just a couple days ago i seen many complaints that he was already getting 341% now you want to pay 1741% if were going to right the judge maybey we should all be on track with the letters.... if you have 1000 letters all asking for different stuff less affective if you got 1000 letters exact same demands...
now i am waiting for insults and still have chocolate candy bar for the best one

My letter is open to you all to support discuss and submit
by RedHorse Today at 07:57

Justice Barnes
Federal Court,
Ottawa, Ontario,
K1A 0H9


Dear Justice Barnes,

1.Please give the law firm McInnes Cooper 7.5 % of each of our Retro payments,

2.Please allow them to deduct 7.5% of our future monthly Sisip payments,

3.Please reject any of the useless Education Funds and donations,(Just a sales pitch to you and the media)

4.Please allow the legal Firm to pay from their settlement and hourly rate to Dennis Manuge for the thousands of hours he supported us( Not to exceed $300,000.00),

5, Formally thank on behalf of the Federal court the hundreds of families and ill veterans that have silently supported each other and attempted to comforted those soldiers that are suffering,

5.Please limit the amount that the McInnes Cooper will receive to a Min:$15,000,000.00 Million Dollars -Max $20,000,000.00 Million Dollars.
( What we do expect is that the lawyers get a great salary for their services and $20 million is a extremely fair amount of money)

Lastly Every Veteran Every Canadian expect to pay Taxes I ask for No tax relief.(Same deductions as any Canadian would receive nothing more and nothing less)

Sincerely
Cpl Jack M.
T56-341-XXX
LTD Veteran

georges dumont wrote:Vall2012 article 334.39 vry good send it to the lawyers, even better call them! You may have a ggod lead there. One thought thow, nobody lengtheed the proceedures, beaue tey only started when Dennis suewed. Two the GOC did make sure we were getting our due. That way it makes it unjust to deprive the SUCCESSFULL party of costs. Three does class proceding include negotiations? Sorry can't be mush help here but I would call MC and discuss the mater. Vall2012 I do not think they would MC and GOC over view something like this.

Georges, even though the government had the legal right to appeal the designation of the class, I and many others feel that forcing us all the way to the Supreme court was vexatious and overly cautious. They would have preferred each of the 7500 class members, or those that could afford it, to file separate lawsuits for the same issue, which would cause undue strain on an already overly worked judicial system. So, if the class had been allowed to proceed when certified, back in 2008, we likely would have already had the full trial sometime in the 5 years since, and the verdict would have been the same. Then there is the whole issue of having to wait several months and then having to force the government to start payments for those Veterans who had already been deemed totally disabled and entitled to benefits until 65, but whose payment shad ceased due to the clawback. For those Veterans, the payments should have been automatic once SISIP was ordered to cease the clawback in July. And then to threaten that they may delay the reinstatement until the negotiations were complete, is indicative of someone who was acting in bad faith. So there should be enough criteria met for the judge to at least order costs to be paid by the Government, and that alone could save us thousands.

Steve ( RobbieRoyal ) Robinson , GOT IT RIGHT ,

IF YOU WANT TO BE HEARD , SEND ALL LETTERS TO :::::::::::::::::

JUSTICE BARNES
Federal Court
Ottawa , Ontario
K1A 0H9


For Country
Retired Army Master Sniper
Dave Fitzpatrick

Vall your arguments for forcing GOC to pay legal bill is well written! nicely done.,That is exactly the way it needs to be presented and written.