retro sisip ltd

yes good point rex but looking at the class definition it doesnt look like they will be effected by this decision witch kinda sucks.
propat

Yes, but it could be argued that the retro-activity should go back to 1976, when the policy was changed so that those receiving PA pensions, could also collect SISP LTD, but with the clawback. Before this date, those who released for service related injuries and received PA pensions were not entitled to SISIP, full stop, But what if someone was on SISIP, and then after several years, were approved for a VAC pension? We've all heard stories of Veterans who are succesful after fighting VAC for up to 10 years. Most likely the SISIP was cancelled, and money had to be paid back out of retro-active payments covering the period while on SISIP. Therefore, it can be said that the majority of zero sum SISIP clients were from prior to 1976, and should also be covered under the umbrella of the courts decision that the entire provisions of deducting pain and suffering payments from income replacement as illegal, therefor it should have always been illegal, not just back to 1985.

hey thanks pigeons.looking at that i guess my initial assumtion was correct.
thanks again
propat

Who are the class members?
The class has been defined by the Federal Court, by Order dated May 20, 2008, as follows:
"All former members of the Canadian Forces whose long term disability benefits under S.I.S.I.P. Policy No. 901102 were reduced by the amount of their VAC disability benefits received pursuant to the Pension Act from April 17, 1985 to date."

http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/department/classa_sisip

hi guys
i have seen a number of posts sudjesting there may be a cut off date to retro payments.this has me a little puzzled.the working theory seems to be about 10 years.hell 5 years would cover me but was wondering becouse i thought this was decided by the judge when he said the clawbacks were illegal .that as far as im concerned (not being a lawyer ore judge)means all of them not just some.is this an accurate statement?maybe im to ignorant in leagal matters and it means something else?just on a go forward basis?ore to be negotiated?just a question not a statment if this offends anyone pleas just ignore it.there has been far to much infighting already.
thanks v v for letting me voice
allways question athority
propat