ELB question

The thing that I read, from Sulz is, it seemed that the judge did not deduct the RCMP pension plan, and the GWL LTD plan, because he believed that it been something that she had done voluntarily and paid for on her own, because he states "tortfeasor should not receive the benefit of the plaintiff’s foresight in contributing to insurance and pension plans". That may be true for RCMP memebers, but not so for CF members. We are automatically enrolled in the CF pension plan and SISIP. But if you had wanted to purchase private LTD insurance, and paid 100% of those premiums, you would be able to collect that in its entirety, without any deductions from SISIP or ELB.

Barry Carter is his' name, here is his' reply to me

thanks that is helpful. I don't handle class actions but have connections with those who do.

Bigrex, the Sulz BCCA 2006 case took the Pension Act pension off the $950,000 damages.

The CPPD, RCMP pension (same as CF pension) & GWL (same as SISIP) were not deducted from either Tort damages or the pension.

I spoke to the lawyer who represented Sulz appreciated my input when I told him that PA s. 25 allowed Tort damages to be deducted from the PA pension.

In other words, they did it backwards.

At the time, I missed the fact that s. 26 only takes half of the Tort damages. That is a significant advantage.

I couldn't figure out how it was all related.. Good to know. Thanks Big Rex

The thing was with Sarvanis, the case was about whether or not getting CPP(D) absolved the government from being held liable in a lawsuit. It had nothing to do about CPP(D) being deducted from the damages that were paid out, as the result of a lawsuit. It does not involve ELB or SISIP.

"38 Simply put, s. 9  of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act  establishes Crown immunity where the very event of death, injury, damage or loss that forms the basis of the barred claim is the event that formed the basis of a pension or compensation award.  The CPP, a contributory plan not contingent on death, injury, damage or loss, but rather on physical condition and on adequate quantum and duration of contribution, is a significantly different animal."

The second lawsuit quoted involved an RCMP officer who sued for harassment, which led to her quitting her job, and was awarded damages for loss of income and general damages.  So even though the judge did not deduct the money she received from her RCMP pension and LTD from the damages awarded, he did deduct the money she had received from the PA.

"The Superannuation pension is a pension that the plaintiff contributed to and is entitled to as a result of her years of service with the RCMP.  The fact is that if she had worked for thirty-five years she would have contributed more to her pension, and it would have been much larger.  She also contributed to the Great West Life insurance disability plan.  Payments received from those sources are collateral benefits that should not be taken into account when calculating her past and future wage losses.  A tortfeasor should not receive the benefit of the plaintiff’s foresight in contributing to insurance and pension plans.  Thus, the monies paid and payable under the Veteran’s Affairs pension are the only monies that should be deducted from the plaintiff’s wage loss claim."


The third lawsuit that I was able to find, involved lawsuit that was filed after a MV hit a commercial vehicle, that was improperly lit at night, causing death. In that case, the judge deducted CPP benefits that the surviving spouse received due to the death of her husband, from the damages that were awarded.

"The trial judge held that A and D were equally to blame for the accident. He fixed the damages awarded to the plaintiff on behalf of herself and her children at $34,681 plus funeral expenses of $375. In arriving at the amount of $34,681, he deducted $21,318.42 which he found to be the value of the Canada Pension Plan  benefits to which the plaintiff and her children became entitled as a result of the death of G. In the result, the trial judge ordered the defendants CP Ltd. and D to pay to the plaintiff 50 per cent of $34,681 plus $375 or $17,528."

None of these explain how someone could prove that it is illegal to deduct CPP(D), the CF pension, or even SISIP, from the ELB, and are therefor irrelevant.

ok got ya. so what does that have to do with ELB?
You're saying legally we can collect both sisip and elb?
are you likening sisip to cppd and elb to tort?
that's where I'm confused now. Isn't a Disability award tort?

NP, I used to be a teacher...

Sarvanis SCC 2002 was a case where a Federal inmate was injured in jail & sued. Tort damages were ordered & CPPD was in the mix so Canada argued they could take off the Canada Pension Plan Disability as it was a pension payable out of federal money. The judges said that the pension mentioned in Crown Liabilities & Proceedings Act s. 9 was Pension Act pensions, not retirement pensions or CPPD. They are not meant to Compensate for loss. The pension is. Therefore both the CPPD & Tort damages were paid.

Some might think this unfair as Sarvanis got too much. That he was paid for the same thing 2x. However those people are WRONG. That was the question put to the Supreme Court of Canada & there is no higher court. So we have to agree or at least grumble away while the person gets both the CPPD that they bought & the damages in Tort that a person got to make them whole after a WRONGDOER hurt them.

The basis of Tort is:

1. You have the right not to be hurt by anyone else;

2. If some WRONGDOER does hurt you, he must make you whole, as much as money can do so as no one can replace lost limbs, for example. This is known as the Compensation or Indemnity principle. The pension is an Indemnity for loss. SISIP LTD is not, as the CPPD is not.

Clear as mud? ☺

Perhaps think of in terms of the Bradburn case from 1875.

You bought insurance for a rainy day. If the wrongdoer takes the value of the insurance off the damages he has to pay, you bought the insurance to help the one who disabled you! That is insane.

Side note. I'm not trying to be rude, I just struggle with grasping what you're trying to say.
My head doesn't work like it used to. I read the majority of your posts and they sound intelligent and important, I just don't understand your references and sometimes even the subjects you're talking about. I'm not sure if I'm the only one, but for me... they're definitely a hard read.

LawnBoy77777 wrote:The Sarvanis case from 2002 proved the Manuge case was BS. It said the Pension Act pension was based on an event that caused injury, death or loss. The basis of tort, versus CPPD which is paid on the basis of insurance which means that a state of disability is the triggering act.
The Sulz case is the best exxample. Sulz lost her Pension Act pension from the Tort damages.  In addition Pension Act s. 25 claws back Tort damages & Workers' Compensation. They take back the same type of payment. Notice the Pension Act does NOT take CPPD or SISIP or the CF pension. That us the right way.

CPPD cannot be deducted from Tort damages (Bradburn v Great Western Railway 1875; Gill SCC 1973; Cugliari v White ONCA 1998; Demers v Monty ONCA). The reason is simple, as shown in Sarvanis SCC 2002. They are non-indemnity & contributory. Non-indemnity means not paid to Compensate for loss. The entire case revolved around Canada trying to deduct the value of the CPPD from the damages they had to pay Sarvanis. Canada tried to pull a fast one. CLPA s. 9 is designeed to prevent double dipping, 2 payments for the same injury.

ok... Wanna dumb that down for me please? I have no idea what you're talking about. I'd have to google and research atleast 2 or 3 things in each sentence.

The Sarvanis case from 2002 proved the Manuge case was BS. It said the Pension Act pension was based on an event that caused injury, death or loss. The basis of tort, versus CPPD which is paid on the basis of insurance which means that a state of disability is the triggering act.
The Sulz case is the best exxample. Sulz lost her Pension Act pension from the Tort damages. In addition Pension Act s. 25 claws back Tort damages & Workers' Compensation. They take back the same type of payment. Notice the Pension Act does NOT take CPPD or SISIP or the CF pension. That us the right way.

CPPD cannot be deducted from Tort damages (Bradburn v Great Western Railway 1875; Gill SCC 1973; Cugliari v White ONCA 1998; Demers v Monty ONCA). The reason is simple, as shown in Sarvanis SCC 2002. They are non-indemnity & contributory. Non-indemnity means not paid to Compensate for loss. The entire case revolved around Canada trying to deduct the value of the CPPD from the damages they had to pay Sarvanis. Canada tried to pull a fast one. CLPA s. 9 is designeed to prevent double dipping, 2 payments for the same injury.

Meanwhile... nothing is static for too too long.

What I mean is the GoC could change the rules. In time, 5 -10 years who know's. Prescribed sources etc. etc. applied against 1st, 2nd, 3rd payer as one example.
Not to fearmonger or make a mountain of a molehill but hey...!
Wake up one morning to new rules aka, bendover gomer your fracked again.

Bottom line: Due diligence with prudence.
Should ring a bell to each veteran...
if capable... and it's sad if any can not.

Just my rambling opinions.

LawnBoy you said: "The other fatal mistake was calling the pension pain & suffering when that is not what it is. The pension is the exact same thing as damages in Tort, an event where someone hurts you"

An injury, like falling 8 metres from an obstacle during training

A wound, like having someone detonate an IED in you immediate AO and you are showered with shrapnel.

They're are both events where someone got hurt, but only one was deliberate.

I'm just trying to understand all of this.

Lawn boy, the Sarvanis lawsuit has nothing to do with the SISIP lawsuit. It revolved completely around whether getting CPP(D) removed a person's right to sue for damages. It didn't even discuss whether CPP(D) could be lawfully deducted from another source or not.

In the context of the SISIP lawsuit, regardless of why the PA was create, the actual PA pension was most akin to pain and suffering, because the amount is based on the severity of the disability. If it wasn't, as you suggest, everyone who was ever injured while serving, would receive the same amount of money, because they all equally lost their right to sue for damages

And lastly, if you're going to add a quote from somewhere, please say where it is from, because the source can drastically change the relevance of the quote..

The thing is, the SISIP class action was bad.

They missed the fact that, if the benefits were the same character, why did Manulife get to take the pension? That is absurd. The 2 benefits are not the same so they cannot interact. (Sarvanis SCC 2002: CPPD is non-indemnity & contributory, so it is untouchable).

The other fatal mistake was calling the pension pain & suffering when that is not what it is. The pension is the exact same thing as damages in Tort, an event where someone hurts you:

26 This example is consistent with a reading of the words “in respect of” in the context of the clause in which they appear. The fact that a pension must be in respect of some event of “death, injury, damage or loss” gives us a fuller understanding of the import of the words. What this broad, yet in itself imprecise, phrase means, can be understood by asking what kind of a thing the pension must be in respect of. We will have a different view of the precise scope of the phrase in this context from, for example, the context of the clause which follows in s. 9. The latter clause refers to “death, injury, damage or loss in respect of which the claim is made”. The breadth of the words “in respect of” when attached to the concept of a “claim” may be different from the breadth of the same words when attached to a series of events.

During the SISIP lawsuit, the judge stated that ELB could lawfully deduct the PA pension, because it only listed "benefits under the Pension Act" as a deduction, whereas SISIP used the wording "income benefits under the Pension Act". And that would be a case of a regulation legally overriding a law. He stated that a policy owner, can put anything they want in a policy, but if challenged, they have to live or die by the wording that is in the policy, and not what they may have been intended. that's why I was shocked when the Tories voluntarily ceased the ELB clawback, as quickly as they did. I was sure it was going to take another lawsuit, and more importantly, the public pressure that the lawsuit would bring.