Damages Please post your reasons why you feel Damages need to be awarded.

by McInnes Cooper on Wed 19 Sep 2012, 12:09

.McInnes Cooper cannot force the Government to pay legal fees. The Federal Court Rules provide that no costs are generally payable in class action proceedings. This benefits a Plaintiff in the event that they lose, but unfortunately also benefits a Defendant. As there is no legal way to force the Government to pay legal fees, this issue does not form part of the negotiations with the Government nor part of the Court case against the Government. Legal fees will be set by the Court at the end of the Court process..
McInnes Cooper
Moderator



Number of posts: 48
Location: Halifax
Registration date: 2012-09-05






.

navrat from what i remember he said they were resistant of damages but they are still looking for them.i belive he also said that we would not get leagal fees.
propat

.

I don't know if I am imagining this or not but did not Peter state sometime ago that in these cases the GOC will not entertain damages? Please correct me if I am wrong, Also I think a much bigger concern is legal fees , they are 30 percent and when you take 30 percent off any settlement that is a huge hit. So I believe we should try and push judge Barnes to award us legal fees this is something I think he would be inclined to agree with and probably would have wider public support , we could plea that the only way toward justice was the legal way and why should we be penalized?

I just want my Career back! - I just want my Health Back- Keep the Damages!

I am Damn Damaged Enough-The Hell with money-No amount will make me happier- but I would rather be warm, dry and feed in my mental misery-

What would make me happy is if all you Men and Women get your dream Settlement- Cause I would be happy for you

A Willingness to Listen to Others--As Painful ........ZZZZZzzzzzzz...... "Good night, Mrs. Calabash."

Damages, to start, would be for those three elements of unjust enrichment — benefit, deprivation, and absence of juristic reason for the deprivation.
Judge Barnes said we were offset illegaly, just that, is more then enough to get damages for unjust enrichment done on or backs.
This is just the start, much more is a stakes!

We will see what our lawfirm will have done for us soon!

Patrick.

PS: by the way, it is not out of the blue, the Supreme Court of Canada stated in other cases less visible then ours that it is a demand that holds itself!

I think damages are important for the simple reason that we where misleaded, in the first place, secondly many repports had identified the problem and we stile had to sew, thirdly as all responsable goverments(note that there are few) or compagnies fond in fault should pay damages, the percentage I beleive should concider two factors, one they continued even with the clear knowleged they where nost liquelly rong and did not re-study the situation and to, suffurring becausde of there actions is moneyable in most cases in court. 25% sond's to me like something I would find resonnable.

.

At least 50% extra to what is owed. This would be non-taxable. My family and I lost so much when we did not get the compensation we were told we were to have. We lost our car, had to move into cheaper accomodations, went bankrupt, live on a strict budget with no hope of saving anything if a crisis occured, needless to say our quality of life went into the crapper. The extra 50% would be a minimum to help get us back to where we were when I was in the Forces and could provide for our family.

well damages around 20% ore by some other name 30% on top of the notional top up and interest as we would not need either one of them if we got paid when we should have.this would be a bare minimum as it will make us whole financially (depending on your tax rate).and this will also show punishment to the government as a deterant from ever doing this again.yes not a large punishment and keep in mind i said minimum.
allways question athority
propat

ps call of duty buddy ive read them all and belive you are right on both counts as i was priviosly wrong on one.sorry my bad.

From the last Memo I viewed, Mccinnes Cooper basically said that the Judge will not modify the proposal, to add damages, or add additional damages beyond the resolution. If this is wrong please correct me. Having said that, some people are saying that Damages are off the Table. I will refer you to the thread [ A note from Peter Driscoll Wed 03 Oct 22:05 time. Page 2 where Peter answers K9 stating " Damages are not off the Table in the Negotiations " If there has been a change in that please correct me. Now is the time to make all our arguements as to why we need damages to our legal team, maybe some new perspectives and old, can send a message to our legal team, and the GOC, on how we feel. please stay on topic in this thead. We have maybe 5 weeks before this is Done so please get your comments in.