Legal Fees (Assorted Topics)

propat wrote:i think id be up for trading cheques with anyone getting 300,000 id take that big fee hit.anyone in that psition want to trade?

just my oppinion

propat

dennismanuge wrote:http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/392/vete/05evb-e.htm?Language=E&Parl=39&Ses=2&comm_id=79

Proceedings of the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs

Issue 5 - Evidence - May 7, 2008

Dennis Manuge, as an individual: Thank you, honourable chair and senators. I need only three minutes to illuminate a more human side to the issue. I will stay on topic and I will be brief.

I am a disabled former member of the Canadian Forces, having served from 1994 until my medically-required release in 2003. My service included Bosnia from March to October 2001. I am also the representative plaintiff in a proposed class action filed in Federal Court against the Government of Canada, seeking to end the clawback of Pension Act disability awards from SISIP long-term disability payments.

I want to thank this committee for giving me the opportunity to speak on this issue. Rather than discuss the class action, my intention is to speak to you concerning the unfairness of the clawback, my personal experiences with this, and the experiences of other disabled former members as they have been recounted to me. I consider myself lucky. Since my medically required release in 2003, I have been able to transition to a civilian life. No transition is easy and mine was no exception. If I could ask this honourable committee to place itself in the shoes of a regular member such as myself in 2003, who was medically required to leave the forces and transition to civilian life. I have lost my job. I still have the same financial commitments and bills. I have lost a way of life. I am disabled. I am no longer useful to the Canadian Forces. I am unable to continue to use the skills I learned in the forces. I am 33 years of age.

I have emphasized ``medically-required release'' because, through no fault of my own or the Canadian Forces, for that matter, I am no longer useful because of my disability. How I am treated, however, is controlled by the Canadian Forces and the Government of Canada. Here is how it looks from the ground in 2003: As a result of my injury, I apply for and am awarded a disability award under the Pension Act. I am still useful at this stage, so I receive 100 per cent of my salary from the Canadian Forces as well as a monthly disability award under the Pension Act while serving. I am involuntarily medically discharged. I am not longer useful. On my release, I receive SISIP LTD representing 75 per cent of my salary, clawed back by the amount of my VAC monthly disability award. This takes place during the most personally and financially challenging period of my life. The extra $386.28 I would have received had my disability award not been clawed back at this time could hardly be described as lucrative under the circumstances. The frustration I experienced in trying to understand the clawback at the time is indescribable.

The impact of a disabling injury is entirely dependent upon your continued usefulness to the Canadian Forces. For example, under this system, if you injure your knee in a game of hockey and are still useful in your capacity as a member, you receive 100 per cent of your salary and a disability award. If you lose your knee and can no longer serve, you are subject to the clawback. From a disabled member's perspective, it is difficult to understand and fundamentally unfair. As I said at the outset, I consider myself lucky. Yes, I experienced a difficult transition, but it is nothing compared to other former members I have spoken to who are totally and permanently disabled and continue to have the SISIP LTD clawed back. A number of them suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder. I can only conclude from speaking with members that their frustration and feelings of uselessness and abandonment are magnified 10-fold, especially when they compare themselves to the hockey injury example.

There are two other situations that I would ask the committee to consider: First, zero sum — the amount disabled veterans receive under the Pension Act disentitles them to any SISIP LTD whatsoever; and second, retroactive SISIP LTD recovery — a disability award is retroactively made after the former member is in receipt of a SISIP LTD and the lump sum clawback is aggressively pursued by SISIP at a time when the former member is most vulnerable.

In closing, I want to advise this committee that these proceedings have, for the first time in a long time, given me some hope that the government will do the right thing. I am an unlikely plaintiff but, after watching the ``bright pink line'' of the ombudsman's recommendations end and remain at the office of the then minister of defence in 2003; after watching the motion to adopt the recommendations being ignored; and with the New Veterans Charter that addresses the issue on a go-forward basis and the non-binding motion in the House of Commons, it is time for me to stand up for disabled former members of the Canadian Forces. After watching this committee do its work last week, I now have faith that I am not alone.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Manuge, it was valuable for us to hear directly from someone who has gone through the system. If I could summarize, the meat of your testimony seems to be that small injuries benefit the troops because they get their pay and the LTD, whereas those with big injuries are penalized, released and only receive 75 per cent of their salary?

Mr. Manuge: With respect, I would not say that it is an added benefit to the still-serving member because they are still injured in some capacity.

The Chair: Financially, they are getting more, are they not?

Mr. Manuge: Absolutely. They have injured themselves in service to the country. On the flip side, when the uniform comes off and you are rejected by the forces, the trouble begins. I remind you that my 20 per cent disability and $386.28 at the time pales in comparison to $1,500 or $2,000 a month that many of the veterans I am in contact with suffer in the clawback.