ELB Class Action Law Suit

Meteck, they said that it was pending approval of the budget, which usually gets passed in MAy or June. But with this Government, you can never tell. And even if it does get passed quickly, there is no real telling whan the cheques will be sent, because it's not like the Tories to try and placate their critics with a press release, for monies already promised, or money that never flows.

has anyone been contacted to say when we are getting our pittance?? rock the hill is june 4 people..after watching our day of honour event being handled like crap and having a non=profit sell 10grand breakfast tickets to pay for the families of the fallen to attend is hypocrisy at the highest level..rock the hill!!

ps..bruce 72 I just officially passed my school gig..good luck with yours!!!

I spoke to another Afghan vet who will be attending "Rock the Hill". Hope the numbers grow.

No problem teentitan. I never did hear back from Drapeau's office.... I'll be in Ottawa June 4th to "Rock the Parliament Shit Hill" we need to come together that day. It has to be the start of taking back the power from the Gov. The conservatives are a vicious pack of thieves and they must be voted out.

SI J`AI BIEN COMPRIS, IL N`Y A PLUS AUCUN ESPOIR D`AVOIR L`ELB RETRO DPUIS 2006??? LE SUJET EST MORT??? INCROYABLE, ON SE MOQUE DE NOUS. J`ESPÈRE JUSTE QUE JUSTICE SERA RENDU UN JOUR!!!

Bruce72 thankyou for finding and posting this. I think this is going to be added to the Rock the Hill poster...

AND THAT'S WHY THIS ISSUE IS DEAD

Was just exploring the internet googling curious things and came across this....

Why was May 29, 2012 chosen as the start date for compensation?

May 29, 2012, is the date when this Government publicly committed
to end the Disability Pension offset in the calculation of VAC program
benefits. This date is common to all three VAC benefits
impacted—Earnings Loss, Canadian Forces Income Support, War
Veterans Allowance—and ensures that all eligible VAC recipients are
treated equally.

Why isn't VAC compensating back to the date that the programs were
created, as SISIP-LTD is doing?

The Manuge v. Her Majesty the Queen court decision concerned only
the Service Income Security Insurance Plan (SISIP) long-term contract;
the validity of Veterans Affairs Canada legislation was not in question.
That said, in May 2012, when the Government of Canada accepted the
ruling, Veterans Affairs voluntarily changed its disability benefits to
reflect the planned changes to SISIP. It was the right thing to do.

May 29, 2012, is the date when this Government publicly committed to
end the Disability Pension offset for Veterans Affairs Canada benefits.
This date is common to all the Veterans Affairs Canada benefits impacted
and will ensure that all Veterans Affairs Canada recipients are treated
equally.


Well there's the answer about ELB retro.

rock the hill and spread the word, an which way you can. we still have time. pinger

Wax on, wax off, side to side , no Defence

the harder i try to get a handle on veterans advocacy groups in this country the more i find it splintered and without a rudder..god forbid we actually stood together. rock the hill is june 4 2014 on parliament hill. hope this is the start of mending that fracture.

another CRA quote last line sums it up the word income is right in the definition..

Retroactive lump-sum payments
If you received a lump-sum payment of eligible income in 2013, parts of which were for previous years after 1977, you have to report the whole payment on the appropriate line of your return for 2013.

We will not reassess the returns for the previous years to include this income. However, you can ask us to tax the parts for the previous years as if you received them in those years. We can apply this calculation to the parts that relate to years throughout which you were resident in Canada, if the total of those parts is $3,000 or more (not including interest) and the result is better for you.

Eligible income includes:

employment income and damages for loss of employment received by order or judgment of a competent tribunal, as an arbitration award, or under a lawsuit settlement agreement;
periodic pension benefits, which do not include Canada Pension Plan or Quebec Pension Plan benefits (see line 114);
wage-loss replacement plan benefits;
support payments for a spouse, common-law partner, or child;
employment or unemployment insurance benefits; and
Canadian Forces members and veterans income replacement benefits.

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pub/tg/5000-g/5000-g-02-13e.html

The Office has engaged with Veterans Affairs Canada to determine how the Department will move on a “go forward” basis. The issue of retro-activity and legal fees is a legal matter between the Canadian Forces as the policy holder and those involved in the class action lawsuit, which is likely going to take some time to negotiate. While we wait to see what the outcome of the negotiations will be and how it will affect the Department’s programs, the Office is recommending to Veterans Affairs Canada that they communicate clearly to Veterans how they are going to implement the “go forward” aspects of this decision that the Minister has committed to.

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 retro-activity 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.




read was an little bit of government propaganda propaganda propaganda propaganda propaganda propaganda propaganda propaganda propaganda propaganda propaganda propaganda propaganda propaganda propaganda propaganda propaganda propaganda propaganda propaganda propaganda propaganda propaganda propaganda propaganda propaganda propaganda propaganda propaganda propaganda propaganda propaganda propaganda propaganda propaganda propaganda propaganda propaganda propaganda propaganda propaganda propaganda propaganda propaganda propaganda propaganda propaganda propaganda propaganda propaganda propaganda propaganda propaganda propaganda propaganda etc. from this Web site

Its a stupid argument if the ELB is not considered an income under Judge Barnes Decision...  4 if it is not Income it should there4 not fall under the taxable income category with CRA: case closed. this argument is stupid simple. CRA says it is income, VAC says it is not.  Its taxed, its income, Total Income the government doesn't calculate your total income and benefits, they calculate your total income with benefits included... argument for the semantic.