Lawyer for veterans wants Liberals to live up to election promise on pensions

If you read down through old comments remember when veterans could debate and actually have an opinion.
The good old days...

Have your say: Should the feds reinstate lifelong pensions for disabled military veterans?

September 7, 2016

A legal battle between six disabled veterans and the federal government could finally come to a close this fall.

The case, which was launched in B.C. Supreme Court in 2012, centres on the federal government’s 2006 decision to replace lifelong pensions with lump-sum payments. The veterans argued they deserve disability payments on par with workers’ compensation.

Dan Sorochan, the lawyer for the Canadian veterans, said in an interview with The Canadian Press last week that Minister of Veterans Affairs Kent Hehr isn’t standing by his party’s promise in the last election to re-establish lifelong pensions for veterans.

Read: Lawyer for veterans wants Liberals to live up to election promise on pensions

The case had been on hold since 2015, according to The Canadian Press, while the parties agreed to see whether new legislation and a federal election would allow for a resolution. The deadline passed in June and the Liberal government filed documents in court in July saying the government doesn’t owe an “extraordinary obligation” to modern-day veterans. A decision is expected in the fall.

The issue is the subject of this week’s online poll. Do you think the federal government should reinstate lifelong pensions for disabled military veterans? Have your say here: http://www.benefitscanada.com/polls



http://www.benefitscanada.com/pensions/governance-law/have-your-say-should-the-feds-reinstate-lifelong-pensions-for-disabled-military-veterans-87204

Ahh I think you are missing the point here.....the Liberals are going to fight that there is NO SACRED OBLIGATION TO VETERANS.

Just to catch everyone up the Cons and NDP early last summer agreed to put in the NVC that there is a sacred obligation to veterans. It was voted on and passed in the HoC.

But Mr I'm on the cover of a Marvel Comic Book and beat Tony Stark aka Iron Man in a boxing match is trying to revive via the Equitas Lawsuit that the GoC DOES NOT HAVE TO HAVE A SACRED OBLIGATION to veterans in the courts.

Now if the Libs win this point that means ANY promises they made, including the return of the lifelong pension, do not have to be kept.

Now correct me if I'm wrong here but didn't JT say under a Liberal Gov't they would not make veterans go to court for benefits?

Wait isn't there a lawsuit in January going to court for the ELB back pay owed to NVC vets?

So yeah wouldn't it be great if there was some way of making politicians keep their promises after they bought votes on said promises.

Well it should be. Otherwise our so-called elected officials can say whatever the want with impunity. And that's horse puckey.

Because a promise isn't binding by law. At least from what I understand.

It blows my mind that politicians would make commitments during an election campaign and then not follow through on them. How can that be legal?

This could be huge step in reforming the campaigning process. Which means it will be more than likely be denied. Campaigning with honest promises? Blows my mind the precedent it would set.

That's exactly why I thought it's relevant.

Well, it would definitely set a precedence, by telling politicians that they can be held accountable for what they say on the election trail.

I'm not sure why a judge needs to rule on this particular issue. It's obviously relevant.

No you didn't misinterpret it, the judge is going to rule on whether or not his going to allow the use of what was said in the election by the Liberals, to what is now being said by the Liberals.

To be honest. I want it to either end swiftly in favour of veterans or be as brutal against the government as possible.

When I first read this I thought that the judge was going to rule on whether to take into account the governments position during the election and decide on it this fall. But did I misinterpret it and the Justice will rule on the case this fall?

But what about JT's promise that veterans will not have to take the government to court for benefits?

What happened to Sunnyways? Guess it's Legelways now.

This is going to get ugly, very ugly.

Lawyer for veterans wants Liberals to live up to election promise on pensions.

Sep 01 2016

CALGARY — The lawyer for Canadian veterans involved in a legal battle with the federal government says the Department of Veterans Affairs is playing politics with his clients.
Don Sorochan said Thursday that Minister Kent Hehr is not standing by his party's promise in the last election to re-establish lifelong pensions for veterans.
Hehr, who was in Calgary Thursday, said his government is moving forward as quickly as it can to do that.
The legal action was launched in B.C. Supreme Court in 2012 by six severely disabled veterans over changes made to their compensation six years earlier.
The federal government replaced lifelong pensions with lump-sum payments, upsetting veterans, who argued they deserved disability payments on par with workers' compensation.
Efforts by the federal government to have the case thrown out were dismissed, which led to an appeal.
The lawsuit was put on hold in 2015 while the parties agreed to wait and see whether new legislation and a federal election would allow for an out-of-court resolution.
The deadline for a decision passed in June, and the Liberal government filed documents in court in July saying the government does not owe an "extraordinary obligation'' to modern-day veterans.
The Trudeau government's position in court was initially held by the former Conservative government before the Tories changed their stance in December 2014 after a public backlash.

Justice Harvey Groberman of British Columbia Appeal Court said the court will consider whether to take into account contradictions between the government's current legal position and the stand the Liberals took during the election.
A decision is expected this fall.
“We have to run government by good policy and yet I understand that those members who are engaged in that lawsuit have served this country bravely and boldly,” Hehr said when asked about the state of the lawsuit.
“To a large extent, we have drafted much of our policy in the last election based on some of their concerns, so we’re moving forward as quickly as we can.”
Sorochan dismissed Hehr's response.
“Get real and get on with it rather than issuing carefully crafted statements that avoid saying that there’s a legal obligation to them,” he said.

http://www.metronews.ca/news/canada/2016/09/01/lawyer-for-veterans-wants-liberals-to-live-up-to-election-promise-on-pensions.html