Increased Disability Award & Retro

Promoting food at different restaurants just look at his Facebook page

My biggest fear is that date is AFTER the next budget is presented......any number of changes could be in place with the next round.  I find it very pathetic on VAC's / Kent Hehr's part that we have to sit here as Veterans and try and translate what their bill states.  At a bare minimum they should state the bill in full in plain english on VAC's website or even a letter explaining such "Proposed Changes".  That muppet we got for a minister is more worried about other topics.  He posts about every other topic on Facebook except Veterans!!  Where is his accountability on representing the Veterans / Veteran Affairs he is the minister for?

ok what it seems to me right now this transitional part yes technically it could be paid prior to april 2017 but since in the provision the additional wording "and who is alive on April 1, 2017" would preclude this from happening .

propat

ok since its transitional provisions this may not be the full payout . not sure yet but it can make a difference and does in many cases .

goanna keep looking .

propat

WOW we were discussing this as if it what VRI posted were a permanent part of the legislation as the benefit would be calculated after april 1st without even going back to re-read the legislation . the part VRI posted was a transitional provision .

I feel like such an idiot .

should have went back and re read the whole act .

frack

propat

well got to look at the legislation further but a transitional provision normally goes into effect the day the bill goes into effect until the effective date of the corresponding legislation .

so ya the INCREASE could be paid prior to April 2017 .

got to go back and look to tell for sure but I think I get it now .

great catch lost trucker !!!!!

propat

Sounds to me that what this means is that the increase in the disability award comes into effect on 1 April 2017.

From 1 April 2017 the retro payments will commence.

I do believe that in order to commence retro payments the increase in legislation has to be in effect.

I found something interesting regarding Bill C-12 and the retro disability award.

"In addition, it contains transitional provisions that provide, among other things, that the Minister of Veterans Affairs must pay, to a person who received a disability award or a death benefit under that Act before April 1, 2017, an amount that represents the increase in the amount of the disability award or the death benefit, as the case may be."

So my understanding of this is that it should be paid out BEFORE April 1, 2017......so technically that could be anytime from when the bill is passed to April 2017

original source link below:
http://www.parl.gc.ca/LegisInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&billId=8166461&View=8

ya not sure if a reassessment and appeal would be the same thing in the NVC but i know they are not under the PA . under the PA assessments don't go back to the original application date or three years but an appeal of the original decision would .

but again

I suppose you are probably right .

I must just be misreading something or not seeing something .

propat

I have appealed a decision under the NVC. Last year, I appealed the original VRAB decision from 2012 of 1/5 for my back, and while I was waiting, enough time had passed to request a reassessment, as well. So I went from 1/5 of 15%, to 2/5 of 43%, and was paid the 10% difference, as of last year's pay rates.

ya buds I get that it wasn't an all or nothing appeal I was talking about earlier . but appealing a derision on a percentage say he got 50% appealed and after the run around got 100%.

of coures I looked at when an award is payable as well.

When award payable

53 A disability award under section 45, 47 or 48 becomes payable whenever, in the opinion of the Minister, the disability has stabilized.


that is what I got for that but .

now I myself haven't appealed an amount under percentage under the NVC or a flat out rejection or anything for that matter so maybe someone who has appealed a percentage and won can straighten me out .

but you are saying if a guy wins his appeal it would not be payed at the date of he was approved for his application or the date of witch the minister thinks the disability became stabilised but on the date he won his appeal to get the extra 50%.


hmmmm

I suppose you are probably right . certainly the way it should work .

I must just be misreading something or not seeing something .

propat

Propat, since there is no real retro-activity with the NVC, where as the PA pension was paid back to the date of application, or 3 years, whichever was less, there would be no real need for such a clause. The Lump sum is only payable, on the date that it is approved, regardless if it took one month, or several years to go through the appeal process. So if I put a claim in today, but I had to wait until 2018 before it was approved, they would pay the amount set for 2018, not 2016.

"ambiguity in a legal document really means something and its something I would imagine the DOJ would avoid ."

True. And typically in contract law, ambiguity in a document is generally bad for the drafter of the document.

If nothing else, it gives use something to appeal with if we're not satisfied with the result.

I believe the disability award decisions qualify for a lawyer (at no cost to us), so there's that.

That said, I think Bigrex might be right. If it was meant to go forward, they wouldn't reduce it at all, they'd increase it.

bigrex I as I stated earlier ( if this is going forward ) this extra wording seems to be a way to recover COLA on delayed payments such as in an appeal .

propat

ya VRI im still hung up on that . not saying bigrex is wrong but I have not found ANY wording like this in ANY legislation where in dealing with a timeline where at least one specific date is given unless specifically stating they are doing so with a " back to","back until" ect ect . not saying its not out their just saying I cant find it and I looked a lot .

nor can I find any legal doctrine saying it can be used back or forward when referring to a timeline . nor can I find one saying it must be used only forward unless otherwise specified .

so that's a long way to say I got nothing lol. cant positively prove or disprove my theory witch in the end would leave everyone getting the 2017 numbers minus what you were already paid for your percentages .

cant prove or disprove bigrexes either witch would leave a lot of people getting less . that's kinda why im so curious about it because it sounds like something the GOC would do .

thing is to me whithout spacificly stating this is going BACK in some clearly defined wording and going back is in fact their intent . well then I can tell you this is very ambiguous AT BEST . ambiguity in a legal document really means something and its something I would imagine the DOJ would avoid .

propat