OVO a waste of taxpayer money?

I call OVO so much that I get referred to a Manager because of the "high call volume!"

Kudos to Victoria O'Neil. Spoke to her for 1h15m & she followed pretty good despite the flood of information giving her a headache

I'm not always negative. I know she might not actually help but it certainly felt better to be listened to rather than being dismissed out of hand.

13JUL12 OVO Blog. Someone should remind OVO that he thought the ELB/Pension clawback would have full retro

Unlike the Canadian Forces, which can quickly change the wording of the SISIP policy, Veterans Affairs Canada has to work through the “machinery of government” to change the regulations. This takes some time. The Minister has committed to communicating the way forward and I will continue to press for the clear and timely release of information. I would expect that regardless of when the revised regulations come into effect, there would be retroactivity to the date at which SISIP stopped the practice of reducing long term disability (LTD) benefits payable to disabled Canadian Forces members under the SISIP policy by the monthly amounts payable to them under the Pension Act. The Department was very receptive to communicating their timelines to the Veterans community.

No problem LawnBoy, your a good person with good intentions. I know it's hard to stay calm when you see things that are wrong that should be corrected. Work the problems by hitting them where your best chances are on fixing them. One thing that I have learn't about tackling serious issues is that when approaching an issue from a point that fails, such as raising the issues with those in charge of our file, once the failure becomes obvious, it's time to take it to another level and forget about what was not accomplished from your previous approach. In your case it is clear that even though your proving your points well, arguing or continuing to try and convince those who previously gave you no support is useless and takes you away from your mission to have what you think should be changed, changed. I agree it's frustrating, but in order to make change, OR try to change something you must follow the proper steps, once it becomes clear that various departments are not supporting you, and not listening to you, the only way forward is to forget about that level of support and move on to the next level, which is the legal route. I see what your doing with respect to case law, that can only be used in the courts, you have a lot of info on your side, you have a good grasp on a variety of issues revolving around various benefits for Veterans, I think this is all outstanding and of course very much appreciated by all Veterans, like I said before, you need to turn all of your attention towards your legal battle, and away from everything else, I don't think you'll find anyone who does not appreciate what your doing on our behalf, your a real good person for taking this on, and yes again, I understand it can be really frustrating at times, that is why I suggest you forget about fighting the departments, and concentrate on the legal side. I am happy to see you posting on CSAT, I hope you continue posting on CSAT but just keep in mind what I said about getting to deep on the legal side of things, you don't have to prove anything to us, we all know the gaps and unfairness of some of the benefits, but again, until those gaps of unfairness whether it be with SISIP or VAC is brought up before the courts, we need to go by what is in place today. Things can get complicated when both the system itself is challenged and the challenge before the courts are discussed at the same time, when it involves the courts, the majority of those discussions should be left for the courts to figure out, what is left should be, if possible, kept in plain English so we all can have a better understanding of the discussion.

No offence taken. I'm proceeding on what I feel I need to do to fix things.

The problem I have is that the general consensus after the Manuge case is wrong.

Law is not about popularity but correctness. Right & wrong. I find myself "triggered" when vets repeat the mantra "pain & suffering."

The Manuge case should never have happened. Simple.

Pay for SISIP LTD, get it if injured, on or off duty.

LawnBoy, sir,

I feel the need to weigh in here. I could be wrong, but my interpretation of the function of CSAT is for veterans to share our experiences with the system and to help each other to navigate the complexity of that system.

I understand your frustration with how the system functions and that it needs to change. I don't think you'd find many vets who would disagree with you. I certainly don't.

But, with all due respect a lot of the information and opinions you are sharing may only serve to confuse many of us, as well fuel anger and frustration with the larger veteran population who frequent CSAT.

It's only a suggestion, but maybe creating a "new topic" solely devoted to the legal battle based on your understanding of laws or what should or could be newly created laws or legislation would be more suitable to what you wish to accomplish.
Many of the topics on CSAT are of immense help to all of us and personally I find them more difficult to navigate and glean information from when they are being filled up with legal jargon.

Sir, I wish you all the best and I hope I have given no offense.

Bruce

Omnia mea mecum porto

Lawnboy like trooper said please stop trying to convince us. If your interpretation of SISIP rules are so convincing then go to a lawyer and take the DND to court to prove it.

Honestly the stuff you post is nothing but lawyer talk and the vast majority of us on CSAT do not speak lawyer. So please stop posting legal documents because I bet a lot of us don't even bother reading it because it is legal talk.

You have to remember we all went thru the Manuge case and there was a lot of legal talk that I had to get translated to English for CSAT. So please do the same with your legal postings....translate it to simple English

SISIP is the same as ELB. That is why I put that here. I was talking to CF Ombudsman but SISIP LTD is only veterans, not serving CF mbrs. The OVO ought to be the one to address.

That said, the last issue is also likely to apply to anyone getting ELB & CF pension/CPPD.

Perhaps you guys could look at this & try to verify that VAC is doing it wrong too.

VAC's offset of LTD is improper. For example, Sun Life lists 6 exceptions to clawback. 1 of them is "purely private" LTD like SISIP LTD & ELB. I presume this is because of the Bradburn Rule. I also presume they think Sun Life is Indemnity insurance as that is where the Bradburn Rule applies.

My point is, had SISIP kept pace with Sun Life (both Fed LTD), then the NVC would not have tried to set off against LTD!

I hear and understand your frustration, but the sooner you realize that arguing with any department whether it be VAC or SISIP
is very limited to having your issues resolved in a way that you think is right. Your not going to change policy simply by complaining or raising issues that you know to be in your mind right. Like Rex has said, others may agree or disagree with what your saying, but that in itself will not change policy. We can band together and make all the calls we want, but that will only fuel more anger with no outcome. You need to take a deep breath and come to the realization that those issues your fighting for must be dealt with by the legal system. The issues you speak of is above and beyond the depts that look after Veterans. The bureaucrats are the ones running the show, they along with the heads of the depts will not voluntarily change policy, in particular those issues being raised by you, like I said to you before, being right is one thing, but fixing something that reflects what your raising simply by addressing those in power is really counterproductive, which only leads to more anger and frustration. You need to concentrate on the legal side with your issues that you have spoke and wrote about. I don't see anything wrong with discussing it, asking others for opinions, sharing your points, because this is all something we can relate to. However, CSAT does not encourage persuasion on any given topic, we not need convince anyone here, we let each member decide for themselves in what they believe, or not believe, either way it's up to the member to decide for themselves. I would think most of the members appreciate what your doing, myself included, but I don't like to stray to far away from our main objectives in getting to caught up into the complexity of the legal system. I encourage you to keep posting your progress and keep posting on the forum, but please don't get to deep in the law aspects of it, because the law aspect is meant for the lawyers and the courts to handle, not CSAT.

From my FB group. Can someone call CF Ombud? They don't listen to me.

God save me from fools...

Called CF Ombudsman on a nice simple issue:

SISIP/Manulife takes too much in clawbacks by violationg s. 24(b) for Reg F vets with CPPD & s. 44(b) for Res F veterans.

Agent insisted I had to appeal to Manulife/SISIP as they sent me a BS letter where they tied my request that they comply with the policy to my dispute with them ref contacting Sun Life! WTF?

I said this is a simple contractual issue, likely systemic, & the Sun Life issue is a RED HERRING. They must comply with the policy.

Nope. Appeal.

So I said, "WHY?" Appealing to the same agency that told you know is a waste of time. They have a duty to obey the contract & are using a distraction to delay my payment that they owe me.

In justice, no man is supposed to judge his' own cause.

Nope. Still ain't gonna help me.

I said at least look into the systemic issue, that has NOTHING to do with me. Then I hung up on him.

This BS must stop.

Can anyone in this boat call CF Ombudsman & register your protest?

1-888-828-3626

Oh, also told agent of Sun Life having 6 exceptions to offset vs SISIP having 1, an EQUITY issue.

bigrex, I think ELB does it wrong too

Trooper, I have to figure out how to use the PM system

you are right Propat, that was from the pre-1999 policy. the post 1999 policy does indeed state

b.  For the purposes of Section 24.a., any cost of living increases in the monthly income benefits from    
    the sources indicated shall not be considered relevant to the monthly income benefit payable under  
    the Policy.

Either way, it is illegal for them to deduct COLA increases from any source.

But now I'm wondering if the same thing has been happening with the ELB, because the NVC regulations say

"(3) The adjustment at the source to amounts or benefits payable from sources referred to in section 22 or 23 shall not be considered in the valuation of variable B or amounts determined under subsection 23(3) of the Act."

So I think everyone on ELB should call and ask for a financial worksheet for the ELB, to see what exactly they are deducting, and compare it to their last T4 for their CF pension.

The CF PENSION COLA is a joke.

They base this on the CPI, based on numbers back to 2002.

If a basket of goods cost $100 in 2002 and the same basket cost $124 in 2015, the cola starting Jan 2016 is set at 1.24%

LawnBoy can you check your PM.

ya bigrex that's good stuff buds thing is that's the pre 1999 or part 3 A . part 3 B or the post 1999 policy does not have the 10% part . it simply states that ANY COLA from the indicated sources SHALL NOT be considered relevant to the monthly income benefit payable under the policy .

propat

I'm encouraging all veterans to review their COLA.

When I confronted Manulife, they said they don't do it. Their system automatically adjusts for COLA. I said, fine but your system is wrong. They owe me about $1000 by my reckoning. 2 years at $500 per year ($40 per month) That is for CPPD.

I never looked into the CF pension but I'd bet they do the same thing.

Anyone ever explain the pension COLA problem? I got $33.

Lawnboy, you have said something that I can fully support. SISIP has been wrongfully, and illegally deducting COLA increases assigned to these other sources of income. Most people don't realize it, because the COLA has been so low, so that a few dollars here and there isn't missed. But if the COLA increased is above 2%, over a number of years, the illegal deduction of COLA increases will allow SISIP to artificially reduce their liability.

Initial 75% amount $4000/mo, minus $1500/mo for CF pension, leaving an actual LTD benefit of $2500.

Now say over 10 years, the CF pension is increased by 5% each year, but the SISIP is capped at 2%

75% amount $4400, minus the cf pension the original $1500 would leave a LTD of $2900.
75% amount $4400, minus adjusted CF pension of $2250, only leaves an LTD payment of $2150.
Even if the CF pension is increased by 2.5% each year for 10 years, it would reduce the SISIP ltd payment from $2900/mo, to $2525/mo.

From the SISIP policy

"c.
For disabilities occurring on or after 01 December 1973, any increase in monthly income benefits
from the sources specified in subsection 55(b) shall not be included in determining the monthly
income benefit under this contract, unless those increases during a given calendar year exceed
cost of living adjustment plus 10% of the benefit level applicable to any such source on 31
December of the previous calendar year. "

So if cost of living is 2.5%, the monthly amount would actually have to increase by 12.5%, over the previous year, before it can be legally deducted.

So Lawnboy, for your CPP(D), you benefit initial benefit of $1018 would have to increase by 11%, in a single year before that increase can be legally deducted. It has probably taken a few years just to get to $1058, which is only an increase of 4%. So of everything that you have brought up over the last several days, I think that this is your best shot at a successful class action.