SISIP at it again little help!!!!

Kudos Lawnboy. Veterans could use a few administrative Cat D9's for starters. pinger.

2012 OAG report, ch 4, para 4.79.

2006 OAG rep, 9.13

RCMP & CF LTD policies illegal

Hope public opinion, not lawsuit so we save $600 Million.

Instead of getting caught up in the legslities, focus on the formation of the policy in express violation of the Gov Contracting Regulations.

No contract formed illegally can get enforced.

WOW found it .

http://www.hivandrehab.ca/EN/information/documents/LTD_CPP_legal_memo.pdf

hope this helps

propat

ya I get that however the laws remain the same and this practice is legal under all but MAYBE insurance law . but that would be an argument over the ambiguity of the contract as was the SISIP lawsuit .

buds I looked it through a few times a long time ago and seen no ambiguity in any of there deductions outside what was in question at the time .

id really like to see it stopped but really do not see any avenue to do so .

I read over a decent legal paper at that time questioning the same things you are now it may help you somewhat.

if I can find it again I will post it for you .

good luck buds

propat

Ultramar case.. absolute unassignability

16]      Furthermore, if, as the respondent argues, Socanav, by virtue of the realization of a contractual relationship, had become "[Translation ] the potential beneficiary of the application for refund for taxes and drawbacks (N15)" " which has not been established " it would be necessary at the very least to infer that Ultramar, the sole manufacturer authorized to claim and obtain such a refund had, directly or indirectly,assigned to its client Socanav its rights in such refund, which would constitute an assignmentof debts that is null and void because it is prohibited by section 67 of the Financial Administration Act , R.S.C. c. F-10, which reads as follows:


67. Except as provided in this Act or any other Act of Parliament,

     (a) a Crown debt is not assignable; and     (b) no transaction purporting to be anassignment of a Crown debt is effective so as to confer on any person any rights or remedies in respect of that debt.


67. Sous réserve des autres dispositions de la présente loi ou de toute autre loi fédérale :

     a) les créances sur Sa Majesté son incessibles;     b) aucune opération censée constituer une cession de créances sur Sa Majesté n"a pour effet de conférer à quiconque un droit ou un recours à leur égard.

[17]      The absolute unassignability of a Crown debt is now firmly established, as is shown by the decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal inBief des Seigneurs Inc. v. Jean Fortin & Associés Syndic Inc., 1996 CanLII 6361 (QC CA), 44 C.B.R. (3d) 137.

Take the Manuge case.. sisip was "indirectly assigning or attaching" Pension Act pmts that were not directly attachable.

Taking $ received for Pension Act off of sisip was accounting for Pension Act $ that could never be legally taken into account.

Moreover, Parliament has enacted legislation specifically providing how and to what extent garnishment of Canada Pension Plan benefits,Old Age Security Act benefits and benefits under the Public Service Superannuation Actmay take place. These provisions are found in the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 4 (2nd Supp.), and in the Garnishment,Attachment and Pension Diversion Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. G-2. Under the former, moneys to be garnisheed must be payable within the period of a year during which a garnishee summons duly served binds the Crown. In the latter, an application may be made to divert up to 50 per cent of superannuation benefits of a recipient to whom the benefits are immediately payable. It is conceded that the applicant in these proceedings has not tried to avail herself of these statutory schemes, and for the obvious reason that there does not appear to be any moneys presently payable to the respondent that could, even in part, be intercepted.

In light of these statutory provisions, it seems to me that the order of Binks J. contemplates the government of Canada exceeding the clear statutory framework provided by Parliament for the redirection of amounts payable by the Crown to a judgment debtor. While counsel for the applicant characterizes the order as requiring the government to do nothing more than respond according to law to the initiative of the attorney or agent substituted by the order to act in the stead of the respondent, I cannot help but view the scheme as anindirect attachment or extra-legislative garnishment. Counsel for the applicant referred the court to Martin v. Martin (1981),1981 CanLII 1701 (ON SC), 33 O.R. (2d) 164, 123 D.L.R. (3d) 718 (S.C.), Simon v. Simon (1984), 45 O.R. (2d) 534, 38 R.F.L. (2d) 198 (Div. Ct.), and Lavigne v. Robern (1986), 1986 CanLII 2548 (ON SC), 56 O.R. (2d) 385, 30 D.L.R. (4th) 756 (H.C.J.), as examples of the manner in which Ontario courts have in the past tried to fashion remedies that would permit money payable by the Crown to be diverted to a creditor in compelling circumstances.

Since those cases were decided, Parliament amended the Public Service Superannuation Act by adding in s. 10(10)(c), as previously noted, that except as provided for in the legislation I have already referred to, benefits are exempt from attachment, seizure or execution either at law or in equity. Since the appointment of a receiver is a form of equitable execution, Parliament must have intended to make the diversion of pension benefits payable under this Act attachable or able to be diverted exclusively under theGarnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act and the Pension Benefits Division Act, S.C. 1992, c. 46 (Sch. II). Moreover, it should be remembered that the courts of equity fashioned "equitable" remedies to achieve justice which was unattainable largely because of the rigidity of legal remedies which were the creatures of the courts of law. Here, where Parliament has fashioned statutory remedies and placed limitations on those remedies with great specificity, I think it is the proper role of the courts to apply and maintain those remedies, including their limitations.

In light of the foregoing, it seems to me that some of the paragraphs in the order of Binks J. are beyond this court's current jurisdiction and cannot stand.

Paragraphs 3 and 7 are in conflict with the legislative framework I have referred to, both as to the general claim on funds sought to be garnisheed by the applicant or her agents and as to the claim on 100 per cent of some funds. The scheme to substitute an attorney or agent to act in the respondent's stead and trigger payments to which the respondent may be entitled under the Public Service Superannuation Act and then receive them and pay them into court in this matter is, in my view, an indirect attempt to attach the funds. Even proceeding under the statutory scheme, at best, 50 per cent could be attached. In my view, these paragraphs must be struck out.

As far as paras. 8 and 9 are concerned, they constitute indirect ways to receive or attachmoneys which are not presently payable and are unsupportable. They conflict with the prohibitions against assignment andattachment found in the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.), the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act. When moneys are payable under any of those Acts, the garnishment process is laid out in theFamily Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act and the Garnishment,Attachment and Pension Diversion Act.

2 cases come to mind.. Beattie & Ultramar. Both confirm "indirect assignment or attachment" is illegal

Its an indirect way to assign money they cant get directly

On the question of assignment, then, Wachowich J. concluded that the Trustee is "attempting to get through the back door something it could not get through the front"

Its an indirect way to assign money they cant get directly

you do know that they are deducting the amount of your CPPD from the SISIP benefit as per contract not taking your CPPD from source don't you????

nothing you have posted shows any proof that SISIP is breaking any laws whatsoever by deducting CPPD .

but yes it would be difficult if not impossible for them to garnish your CPPD or deduct it from the source if you will.

propat

CPP Regs

(2) For the purpose of subsection 65(3) of the Act, if, for any reason, no deduction has been made or a deduction and payment have been made by the Minister for an amount that is less than the amount that might have been paid under that subsection, the Minister shall not authorize any other deduction and payment.

- seems clear to me that the only pmt available to Insurers is retro pay.
- no pmt = no more $
- 1 pmt = no more $

CPP Regs also support me

SCC - we are owed "crown debts" for CF pen/CPP etc

The agreement letter was incapable of creating an effective assignment owing to s. 67 of the Financial Administration Act, which states that "[e]xcept as provided in this Act or any other Act of Parliament . . . a Crown debt is not assignable". "Crown debt" is defined to include not only existing debts, but also future debts "due or becoming due". The Financial Administration Act fails to permit such assignment, and no express authorization appears in any other federal statute