OVO a waste of taxpayer money?

Lawnboy until you understand what the mandate's are for the OVO and CF Ombud you are going to just anger yourself.

Both are not true Ombudsman's as they do not have complete independence to investigate programs within their mandate.

I am 100% positive that the OVO told you many, many times that SISIP is not within their mandate and that you should call the CF Ombudsman as SISIP is possibly within their mandate.

As a former CRA agent you understand the bureaucracy within our Government. When I say the OVO was created by bureaucrats I was not guessing I was stating a fact!

You have what sounds like a solid case. A case that has to go forward with a lawyer in court. Harassing the OVO with phone calls is going to get you nowhere and most likely with the CF Ombudsman. So your only choice is go forward within the legal system.

You may not like the OVO but I know a lot of veterans who had problems with VAC are thankful for the office because they helped solve those issues. Issues from a walker to fast tracking a vet dieing of cancer and having his application "red flag" so his soon to be widow would be taken care of.

Trooper, agree. This is a mess created by the lies told to us about the insurer. I've asked the Interna Disclosure Office to investigate this mess.

I'm not always disputing VAC methods but when I see BS methods, I tell them.

For example, the right to Compensation arises on injury, not application.

LawnBoy your correct SISIP is held by the CDS, the CDS has direct responsibility for the command, control and administration of the Canadian Forces. Therefore the CDS administers the SISIP policy and delegates the policy to Manulife to fulfill. This is why Teen is saying that SISIP is a DND issue. The CDS is accountable to the Minister of National Defence for the conduct of all CAF activities, therefore it is reasonable to say that SISIP falls under DND and benefits under VAC is the responsibility of VAC. As far as linking both SISIP and VAC, they are two separate departments which is why one does not interfere with the other in terms of issues being raised on either one. I agree offset is a problem that should be brought before the courts. I think it's important to understand that proactive change sometimes needs to be addressed outside both departments, it's one thing to prove another wrong, but it's a whole different game to have changes made that is proactive and acceptable on our file. In my opinion there comes a time when one has to look at the big picture and read between the lines to understand what is really happening to our file. Agenda's are mixed, what is being implemented in a way that affects real positive long lasting security change? What impact do we as Veterans have on implementation that is secured and proactive? What is wrong with the system today? Why is there so much anger within the Veteran community? Some may be OK with what's happening and some may have the attitude of things are getting better, and things take time to complete. On the other hand there seems to be a lot of negativity towards the actions OR lack of action on our file. So again, it's a mix of opinions which makes it difficult to read. I think those who are dissatisfied with what's happening should change somewhat the way they proceed to address this, because from what I have seen with past and the present government is simply a status quo way of trying to fix a system that is broken without following the wishes of Veterans and Veteran groups.

So LawnBoy with your endeavor to bring all of these important issues before the courts, your one of those Veterans that have changed the tactics that may end up having a positive outcome that will affect all Veterans in a good way. You should stick with that tactic because personally from what I have seen, this method is going to be the way of the future moving forward on the influence of real change. Again, this is where I think you should be putting all of your effort in, not going head to head with various departments as this will not impact OR influence change, as seen in the past. JMO

teentitan, the Manuge case started around the time the OVO office was created. Pat Stogran was OVO & he seems a straight shooter. The issue was before the courts so I think there was nothing that could be said, to be honest.

I told OVO that SISIP LTD should be a VAC program. Not that I love VAC but the program ONLY covers veterans. You must be out of service to be on the program. That falls squarely within the VAC mandate. If we wanted to cause trouble, we could point that fact out.

The policy isn't really held by DND. It is held by the CDS. However, the CDS is the insurer, according to Justice Barnes. I asked the VP of SISIP about this. I asked when the policy would be changed to reflect reality. He said he would call back. He never did. That was over a year ago. As a government program, SISIP is not Manulife, we have the right to answers. If this was Manulife, I could see them refusing to answer & forcing us to sue. As SISIP LTD is one of the 4 Federal LTD plans that are insured by the 4 groups with a nominal insurer doing the accountiing but taking nno risk, we have the RIGHT to know.

I aksed the OVO & CF Ombud to investigate this. That is their job. to investigate.

They are a wste of money, imo, as they have no power to fix things. They were set up that way as the government did not want them to be able to override government. Paper tiger?

I sympathize with them because of this BUT when I try to call to tell them of a systemic problem & they hang up, that makes me mad. For example:

SISIP claws back CPPD & CF pension. s. 44(b) says they can only take the original award amount off. I was approved for $1018 CPPD so they are stuck with that forever. I called SISIP & they take $1058 off for CPPD! A clear violation of s. 44(b). So I said to myself, SISIP was copied in the ELB program. I bet they use the same mistake.

So I called OVO & they etiher told me to go to hell, ignored me or hung up on me. I was trying to help all veterans in alerting the OVO. Had they investigated & discovered I was right, VAC & SISIP would have to stop.

OK this is like comparing red delicious apples with green delicious apples. They are both apples but the color is different.

That is how fine the OVO mandate is. SISIP is clearly and definitively a DND policy. Administered by DND. Policy held by DND.

Did anyone notice during the Manuge how many times the OVO spoke out? Can't remember because they did not speak out because it was not a VAC problem. Yes veterans get paid by SISIP and systemic issues are the OVO's mandate.

But in this situation we are both a red and green delicious apple. The red delicious the OVO is responsible for but the green delicious veteran is paid by a DND policy thru SISIP.

I am not making excuses here I'm just pointing out that this is how fine the OVO rules are. The reason the rules are this fine is because the OVO was created by Senior Bureaucrats of the GoC.

Trust me the OVO would like to comment and do something about all this but they are severely hampered by the rules set by the wonderful, cuddly, lovable bureaucrats.

Thx for the info Trooper,

I probably wouldn't be saying what I say but for the feeling of betrayl when I read that report saying the OVO agreed with set offs. Had he been in charge when Manuge came along... Would the OVO have said that the government was right? That is awfully presumptious given the question has not seen a courtroom yet. When I win, he will appear foolish.

I may seem awfully confident about setoffs or clawbacks being illegal but I've done a lot of research. The reason this BS is happening goes back to a 1984 case where Canada used Sun Life to hide behind. The judge invented a new typeof insurance, that is not his' job. He should have applied the Bradburn Rule to the case at hand & stated that Sun Life had no right to take the Tort damages that the victim had gotten from a car accident. That was cruel. It deprived her of the money paid to make her whole. The wrongdoer's money went to the government of Canada using Sun Life as a fake insurer. Just like Manulife fakes us out for the CF.

When they lie like that, it should be easy to win. I hope to get an honest judge, not like Manuge's judge or that 1984 case. The only way those cases could have happened was if they judged in favour of the government to save the taxpayer money at our expense. The Manuge case was the exact same as the 1984 case. Aren't veterans lucky Justice Barnes ignored the 1984 precedent? Judges shouldn't ignore precedent though.

Here is the mandate for the Veterans Ombudsman;

The Office of the Veterans Ombudsman helps Veterans, men and women in uniform of the Canadian Armed Forces, members and former members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), as well as families and other individuals, address concerns related to VAC and the Veterans Bill of Rights. As an impartial and independent officer, the Veterans Ombudsman reports directly to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and works to ensure that Veterans, their representatives and their families are treated fairly.

The mandate of the Ombudsman, found in the Order-in-Council P.C. 2007-530, is to:

Review and address complaints by Veterans and other individuals served (by VAC) and their representatives arising from the application of the provisions of the Veterans Bill of Rights;
Identify and review emerging and systemic issues related to programs and services provided or administered by the Department or by third parties on the Department's behalf that impact negatively on Veterans and other individuals served (by VAC);

Review and address complaints by Veterans and other individuals served (by VAC) and their representatives related to programs and services provided or administered by the Department or by third parties on the Department's behalf, including individual decisions related to the programs and services for which there is no right of appeal to the Veterans Review and Appeal Board;
Review systemic issues related to the Veterans Review and Appeal Board; and
Facilitate access by stakeholders to programs and services by providing them with information and referrals.

http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/about-us/reports/access-to-information-privacy/2013-administration-information/04

So there you have it in plain English.

Now you all can see where LawnBoy is coming from, he claims to have contacted the OVO as a Veteran seeking answers as per the OVO's mandate as a complaint related to programs and services provided by or administered by the department of Veterans affairs. Regarding SISIP although not directed by Veterans Affairs I can say that the OVO has an obligation to address issues from the Veterans Bill of Rights which can fall into SISIP also.

In my opinion the OVO will not address the issue of receiving both ELB and SISIP simultaneously simply because it is to complicated for he's office to take on, the way I see it, the OVO's suggestions that they make in draft to Veterans Affairs is almost always inline to what is expected from Veterans Affairs, in other words something that is seen by both the OVO and Veterans Affairs as acceptable.

Regarding the ELB application issue, again it is a complaint brought forward by a Veteran, sometimes government departments don't want to get involved when they see or hear something that is either to complex for them to handle, or something that they feel is not going to evolve into change simply because it is not inline with other government departments agenda's or policy, regardless if it's right or wrong.

Regarding the OVO's office itself in terms of being a waste of tax payer dollars, in my opinion it is a mix opinion in general, I've seen some being satisfied, whereas, some dissatisfied, all in all, it all comes down to ones belief.

Personally I see where LawnBoy is coming from, I also see where other members are coming from, going from what others have stated, I would agree that in these particular issues, going the route of outside government departments would be the best option for success. If VAC, OVO and other departments are getting you nowhere as stated, your best as others pointed out to concentrate on building your case with your lawyer, and forget about the various government departments for the time being, put all your effort and energy into your ongoing case with your lawyer.

Learn something new every day ☺

I thought OVO was in Ottawa.

The CF Ombudsman had a scathing Auditor General report. I can't see OVO not having the same problems.

For example, no training on investigation techniques

OVO - Being in Charlottetown where the OVO is located, I can give you some insight to problems I heard there. The OVO, up until this year did have several Vets working in there. I am not sure how many are left. Five of them I know personally. And they have all left the place this past year. When I ask why, they are all mostly frustrated with the political bull, and the way the place is run. They seem to have tried there hardest to help Vets weave thru the system. But in the end they too know the place is broken. Not knowing the way it runs I really cannot comment on the problems there. But when that many leave, something is screwed up. VVV...

Steelgunner, why can't you get both? They aren't the same. Ask yourself this simple question:

Was it OK to get SISIP & the pension?

If yes, it is OK to get SISIP + ELB as ELB is part of the suite of benefits that replaced the pension.

SISIP LTD can be paid for off duty. If you got SISIP for off duty, that is all you get.

However, if you got injured on duty, you used to get SISIP + pension. Now you get SISIP + ELB (hopefully, if someone sorts them out).

How can they take SISIP off ELB? It isn't named in the NVC Regs s. 22! VAC has no legal authority to deduct SISIP.

I also applied for ELB this summer, I am on ltd with SSIP. I know you can't have both.

But, I am not gong to roll over for them well ELB gets 90% and SSIP gets 75% till they fall in line.

The more I see how the system works or does not work I shake my head. Two systems to do the same thing. I guess it makes jobs in government.

Agree totally, my problem is that I try to follow the rules. The CFO & OVO are supposed to help so I call them. They have a duty. They are failing that duty with me. I don't call about my issues, generally. I try to tell them about systemis problems. Their respoonse to that, we want personal problems.

If I didn't know more than them about the law, I would probably accept their BS.

Take the racket I am having about the application for ELB. Here is my position:

1. They could have increased SISIP LTD, I already get that to age 65 so I don't have to go out of my way in the least;

2. They chose not to & made a policy decision to give us ELB to "top up" SISIP LTD. This proves they are the same nature. That nature is non-indemnity (not Compensation for loss but a contractual payment made on a formula) & contributory (bought & paid for, we get the entitlement from paying the premium. SISIP's premium is cash/cash + service & ELB's premium is service alone). I see this as determinative. If Minister O'Toole said that we get both, we get both. An application is nnot necessary. They don't need an application: CISB & RISB doesn't require an application;

3. If they choose to insist I apply, use the applicaiton they used to approve me on 13NOV12. I presume that was OK as it was approved. Unless they show me why that application is not OK, I insist that they use it;

4. The application for Tort damages is insane. Say an accident victim was in a coma for a year. When she woke up, she applied for Rehab/ELB. They say yes, but we only pay you damages from the date of your application! That is CRAZY. The right to payment of damages is from the date you get hurt. They can't change that. That is the law of the land.

I just called Senator Colin Kenny & the Internal Disclosure Office (IDO) to see if I can engage them. Sneator Kenny was very vocal supporting vets in the past.

One reason I applied recently for ELB was to have a denial to go to Federal Court for a Judicial Review. If they deny me on bad grounds, I hope to fix it via that route by self-representing. If I win, they have to fix it as the law is unjust.

Your right they do ask for things/info/permission they shouldn't ask. But until it's challenged in a court of law or Charter Rights unfortunately it will continue.

You are challenging the system but you need to challenge the questions before you carry on with your original challenge. Or merge the two.

Just remember the Veteran and CF Ombudsman are the wrong route to take. They do not have the authority or mandate to work for you.

Maybe you should try the Auditor General or the Canadian Ombudsman? Your issues would resonate with them as they have the authority to tackle your points.

Lawnboy, I hope you have a log.  Log the dates and times of call, who answered your calls.  Tape the calls, use unknown caller when you call.

Make it clearer to us (at least to me) what you want and goals.  I see a lot of post by you which of course is fine.  But, you got me going north, south, west, and east.  You do have to play their rules to be in the game, you can use their rules and forms against them in time.  

A lot of things are not fair after serving in the Military, just remember they taught us how to make a bed and get ready for an inspection first so we would follow orders.  So, now we have to use tact and strategy to defeat the machine and show them we are not sheep.

Plus, most people but not all really just treat their government jobs just as a job with no thought of actually making a difference or helping a person.

I'm sure you will attain your goal and quest, it will be a long road.  That's what the government hopes for, pass it on to the next ruling government as they all enjoy their fat salaries and benifits.

For one thing, the disability pension is not the same thing as the ELB, and they don't deduct anything from the lump sum award. ELB's closest counterpart is SISIP, as it was built on the SISIP model, which deducts the CF pension and CPP(D). Like I said before, the only reason the SISIP lawsuit, was because it used the wording "income benefit"s from the Pension Act, and it was proven that whether the MND at the time intended it to mean the disability pension or not, insurance laws are very clear that they have to abide by what is in the policy, and that any ambiguity goes in favor of the insured, not the insurer. So once the judge determined that the PA pension was not an income benefit, it was clear that SISIP did not have a legal right to deduct it as such. So the wording itself is not illegal, and it still remains in the policy, as it was only the administration of the policy that was deemed wrongful.

Now if they had simply included the PIA/PIAS and ELB to the PA, instead of creating the NVC, they could be legally be deducted, because they are directly tied to your income and ability to earn an income, and subject to income tax.