New info Aug 23 meeting

I think the retro would be from 1992 because if interest calculated from 1992 then retro should be from 1992 (There will be pre-judgment interest payable on all monies owed from 1992 to May 1, 2012. By statute, the Government is not required to pay interest prior to 1992. The parties continue to negotiate, but we are hopeful that our most recent offer will be accepted.)

Damages are still being negociated. (We continue to negotiate with the Department of Justice and Mr. Toope concerning recognition of the impact that the offset has had upon members of the Class.)

This is only my opinion based on what I understand from the memo. I am not a lawter so only my thoughts !

I agree bcause if we can only get retro for 2 years , zero sum clients like myself have lost big time. I think the government is trying to get out of paying myself and alot of people have suffered

I find it weird that they never mention Damages in any of their memos. I know that there were several types being sought, or at least there were in the Statement of Claim, So unless those have already been agreed to (which would be surprising), then why aren't those a major factor in these discussions?

Thank you for converting the file.

Latest Update from 23 Aug 2012 Meeting
VVi 31 Aug 2012

Co-Publisher Note: As we all know all updates have to be agreed upon by the DoJ and McInnes Cooper. McInnes Cooper received this update very late and Peter Driscoll apologizes that only the English version is available at this time. He has assured VVi that the French version will be done on Tuesday 4 Sept 2012. Mr. Driscoll wanted to get this info to veterans as soon as he could so we could all enjoy the last long weekend of the summer.



MEMORANDUM
TO: Members of the SISIP Class Action
FROM: Peter Driscoll
DATE: August 31, 2012 File No.: PF-101
RE: Negotiations with the Department of Justice No. 4
We write further to our meeting with the Department of Justice and Stephen Toope on Thursday, August 23, 2012, concerning the implementation of the Order of the Honourable Justice Barnes dated May 1, 2012 finding the deduction of VAC disability benefits from SISIP LTD payments is in breach of Section 24(a)iv of the SISIP policy.
We are pleased to report that significant progress was made at the meeting of August 23, and that both sides are working as quickly as possible to bring this matter to a conclusion.
Progress of Settlement
We have made significant progress on an agreement in principle to resolve all outstanding issues arising from the decision of Justice Barnes, although there remains work to be done and instructions to be taken by both sides.
As far as timing for notice to the Class of any proposed settlement and the approval of any settlement, we are making best efforts to target delivery of a notice to the Class by October 31, 2012, and have a target for an approval hearing date of the first week of December 2012. Of course, this all depends on achieving agreement of the few remaining issues. À
While both sides would like to implement the Order sooner in order to start the flow of further monies to disabled veterans, and are sensitive to the needs of disabled members, the following factors will require some processing time:
1. All financial data flowing from SISIP must be verified and is being vetted by the office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) for accuracy;
2. A number of federal department agencies must be consulted by both parties in order to obtain the necessary information to implement the global settlement. For example, the tax implications of the retroactive payments are of great concern to us, and we have sought assessment of the tax implications with Canada Revenue Agency (the “CRA”); and
3. Consultation with relevant departments and agencies affected by the resolution must be, completed, and government approval is required.
These issues represent some of the challenges in finalizing and approving the Order of Justice Barnes. From our experience with these cases however, these resolution discussions are moving at an incredibly rapid pace compared to other class actions.
Moving to some of the specific issues we are working on:
Limitation Period
We are very pleased to report that, subject to reaching agreement on all other terms, it appears that the government is open to extending the reimbursement of offsets beyond limitation periods.
Taxability
The parties have discussed the principle of an additional payment to each eligible member of the Class representing a notional “gross up” of the payment to cover interest on income tax payable on the retroactive lump sum payment. Government appears receptive to this. In addition, we are seeking a comfort letter from the CRA that any legal fees deducted should be tax deductible by the member.
Interest
There will be pre-judgment interest payable on all monies owed from 1992 to May 1, 2012. By statute, the Government is not required to pay interest prior to 1992. The parties continue to negotiate, but we are hopeful that our most recent offer will be accepted.
Support and Recognition for Veterans Most Impacted by the Offset
We continue to negotiate with the Department of Justice and Mr. Toope concerning recognition of the impact that the offset has had upon members of the Class.
Qualification & Eligibility for Payments
All members of the Class should receive the amounts offset by SISIP for the first 24 months of their disability, assuming that their payments would not otherwise have been reduced to zero by reason of other offsets.
We are also seeking to set up a mechanism whereby those who are totally and permanently disabled from any occupation after the first 24 months who have had their SISIP benefits completely offset (the “zero sum” members) will be automatically assessed by SISIP as disabled if they received any of a number of “proxies”. We have identified a number of “proxies” that the Government is currently in the process of reviewing.
The intent of the “proxies” is to reduce the number of disabled veterans who have already been determined to be totally and permanently disabled on the evidence readily available to SISIP, who have to go through a process of historical medical assessment or providing historical medical information.
That being said, not having a proxy does not mean the zero sum member will not get paid. Rather, we have also proposed a mechanism for the zero sum members entitlement to be
evaluated using traditional SISIP rules, but in a simplified manner. Further we have proposed that any dispute about eligibility be determined by a third party adjudicator independent of SISIP.
So, in addition to being automatically assessed by SISIP as against possible “proxies”, a class member may also establish SISIP entitlement through the traditional test, with the protection of an independent adjudication process.
The Defendant is currently evaluating this proposal.
Conclusion
We know from experience that each memorandum we send raises questions on process that cannot adequately be addressed in a general memorandum to the entire class. However, we want to emphasize that significant and favourable progress was made on resolving all issues (both retroactive and prospective) and that both sides are working in good faith to resolve all issues as quickly as possible.
The aim of both parties is to streamline the process so as to get monies into the hands of those disabled veterans who need it the most as quickly and efficiently as possible, with as little paperwork as possible.


Peter Driscoll
/