Honorable Justice Barnes - I might have some questions ?

Vall read topic page 2, 13th down then go to page 5 of that topic and read example of group 5 non zero sum.

Rags I tend to see it your way, would not hurt to check with MC.

you cant file an appeal to a non trial verdict. this is a settlement not a court win. I may be wrong but I doubt it.

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.

Im interested, did you read my posts on group 5 that zero sum is a poor criteria to use?
Im making a submission for a group 5 which is non zero sum who walked away from SISIP but would have been zero sum if there rank and or length of service had been different.

What about not writing to Honorable Justice Barnes,
But what about filing an appeal to Honorable Justice Barnes....

Honorable Justice Barnes - If your reading this...?

Honorable Justice Barnes, I am not is a Lawyer…but I can read a law, and I will try to speak your language. Further I don’t know the justice system. Please, allow me to ask you some questions or point out some issues that this settlement has most likely ignored, in the mutual this agreement. (I do not expect an answer on this forum)

I know you are bound by the Federal court Rules SOR/98-106.

So Let me highlight a few problems and recap your own power:

Honorable Justice Barnes, you have a discretionary power;

1. Under the Federal Courts Rules article 47. You have discretionary power to the Court and has jurisdiction to exercise that power on your own initiative or on motion. A class proceeding may be settled only with your own approval.

2. Under Part 5.1 - 334.29: A class proceeding may be settled only with the approval of a judge.


Other questions - What about a Subclasses

Despite the fact that the class did reach a settlement, there was never a clear understanding that this class included a subclass. In fact there is sub-class;

a) The zero sum class, and
b) The other members (class) ( ie. two years of more on SISIP that are not a zero sum anymore and not claiming SISIP anymore).

This has been overlook by the settlement parties.

Notwithstanding that this has been overlook, The fact that a sub-class is not recognized, in this Class action lawsuit, have put greater burden on the member that are NOT zero sum members, in term of legal fees of other costs - The no zero sum are paying - Now, legal fees, for future payment own to zero sum members - in fact to the other class.

The proof of that is quite simple: The settlement clearly indicates that: ‘’All zero sums members will not pay legal fees after the settlement”. So the Legal fees are imposed to all members right now (at the same rate, at the same time, even for future retribution) despite the fact that a sub-class exist and has been overlook.

This only fact could be ground for an appeal. This is serious.

Further in the matter of Cost.

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.

Vall2012

bigrex, expara, georges dumont, SPARROW., Wife of a Veteran
Your are connected, give me a feedback this.