SCC reinstates military veterans class-action lawsuit

The Supreme Court of Canada has given war veterans the green light to file a class-action lawsuit over disability payouts, a result that could cost Ottawa more than a quarter of a billion dollars.

CTV News Channel: Dennis Manuge, veteran

The lead plaintiff in the lawsuit says he was injured so severely that he was no longer able to serve the Canadian military. He explains that upon discovering what his benefits were, he decided to take action along with thousands of other soldiers across the country.

Watch: See all Videos in the Player

A A | Email This Email | Print | Comments (24) Tweet

War veteran Dennis Manuge speaks with CTV News about a class-action lawsuit, Thursday, Dec. 23, 2010.

View Larger Image

Selected Comment

You want to stick yellow ribbons up and talk about how we need to support our troops? Well guess what Government/Canadians put your money where you mouth is. Its meaningless to talk and hang ribbons if we don't follow up on it. Time to step up and do something meaningful instead of all our feel good symbolic gestures. FIX THIS!

Ryan in AB

SCC reinstates military veterans class-action lawsuit

talking about
SCC reinstates military veterans class-action lawsuit

Got something to say?

The Canadian Press

Date: Thu. Dec. 23 2010 3:06 PM ET

OTTAWA — The Supreme Court of Canada knocked down a legal roadblock on Thursday and paved the way for a class-action lawsuit over military veterans' pensions.

Military mechanic Dennis Manuge filed the suit on behalf of about 6,500 injured veterans and it was certified by the Federal Court. But that certification was later rejected by the Federal Court of Appeal.

The Supreme Court reinstated the original decision in one of six related rulings on a technical legal issue that has real-life implications for how lawsuits are allowed to move through the courts.

In Manuge's case and five others, seven justices of the court unanimously agreed that parties in the various court actions should not be forced to jump through procedural hoops in their quest for justice.

Manuge, of Porters Lake, N.S., was injured in 2002 at Canadian Forces Base Petawawa. The government later decided to take back $10,000 of his disability pension after he left the military. Manuge filed suit and got Federal Court approval for a class action.

But the government appealed and won a stay of proceedings. The Federal Court of Appeal rejected Manuge's class action, ruling he should have applied for "judicial review" of the pension clawback at the Federal Court, instead of opening a full-fledged lawsuit.

Wrong, said the Supreme Court.

"In my view, with respect, the discretion to grant a stay should not be exercised in this case," Justice Rosalie Abella wrote on behalf of the Supreme Court.

Previously, an investigation by the military ombudsman found the clawback "profoundly unfair."

New Democrat MP Peter Stoffer said the case never should have wound its way all the way up to the Supreme Court. He urged the government to sit down with the veterans and settle the matter.

"The choice is very clear," said Stoffer, his party's veterans affairs critic. "You can spend millions and millions of dollars fighting this in the courts, or you can spend those millions dealing with the disabled veterans in a fair and reasonable manner."

The Defence Department said it would take some time to analyse the decision.

"As such, it is premature to provide further comment at the moment," said spokeswoman Jennifer Eckersley.

The principle at play in Manuge's case was decided in one of the companion rulings that involved a $250 million lawsuit filed by TeleZone Inc., against Industry Canada.

The consortium of telephone companies accused the government of unfairly denying it a licence for wireless communication services.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice allowed the legal action, saying it wasn't necessary for TeleZone to seek "judicial review" at the Federal Court. In this case, the Ontario Court of Appeal agreed, and so did the Supreme Court, which rejected the federal government's last appeal.

"This appeal is fundamentally about access to justice," Justice Ian Binnie wrote on behalf of the court in the TeleZone ruling.

"People who claim to be injured by government action should have whatever redress the legal system permits through procedures that minimize unnecessary costs and complexity. The court's approach should be practical and pragmatic with that objective in mind."

Comments are now closed for this story

Dick Chapman
said
0 0

I don't mind the veterans getting the money, however, when the lieyers get their cut, they will be lucky to get $500.00

mbo
said
0 0

This is a bit frustrating. The merits of the case were endorsed by the DND Ombudsman in 2003 and by the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence in 2008. Both said the deduction of VAC pension amounts from the SISIP LTD was unfair, and recommended the government correct the matter. Now the Dept of Justice, underwritten through taxes by the Canadian people, are doing their best to argue against the case. The veteran's lawyers are operating on contingency...which means even if we win, a chunk of the settlement will go for our legal fees. Given the small amount of money involved - the feds should just pay and stop the nonsense.

Wounded Mountie
said
0 0

I applaud the decision by the SCC. RCMP members are clients of VETERANS AFFAIRS CANADA. We, too, have been subjected to the same insensitivity of a Department that appears to seek every opportunity to justify denials of benefits. I am a medically discharged (retired) member of the RCMP, and also a client of VETERANS AFFAIRS CANADA, who receives a monthly VAC pension for service-related disabilities. At the time of my discharge, I was informed that due to the extensive nature of my aggregate disabilities the entirety of any disability insurance benefit would end up being clawed back since the amount being by VAC was more than the amount the insurance benefit would pay. I was told that proceeding with an application would amount to nothing more that a fruitless paper exercise since I would end up receiving nothing when everything was said and done, and the clawback implemented.

shadowtech
said
0 0

I am an injured and disabled veteran. I have personally had done to me and witnessed first hand how VAC has repeatedly and illegally forced disabled CF members to "prove beyond any and all doubts" to VAC/VRAB that they deserve benefits. In my case, the BPA never ordered my service/medical records for the CPC, VRAB - Ent Review, and Ent Appeal hearings/decisions. Yet, at "Reconsideration" hearing, I had to prove "Due Diligence" even though the BPA failed to order my service/medical records. At the Judicial Review, the Federal Court of Canada ruled that I was denied Natural Justice and Administrative Fairness from 1994 - 2008 and "Set aside" that decision and ordered a new VRAB hearing. At the Federal Court of Canada "Rehearing" the VRAB would not address most of the issues taken up before the Federal Court. 23 years after my injury and 16 years of appeals since being "Medically Released" for my service caused injuries, I am still trying to obtain my "Right" to disability pension benefits. Did I mention, I have spent more money on my lawyer fees than I received in total pension money. My point is - for those who are leaving comments and have not experienced such a journey, please don't comment on matters that you have no clue about as if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

Ryan in AB
said
0 0

MikeInBC
said
0 0

Scott what say you to this then...my father, now deceased, was a veteran of the WW2 British army. He made it home about a year after the war ended because he was in hospital in the far east recovering from wounds. My mother didn't know during this period whether he was alive or not (she found out when he arrived home one day). He was eligible for a British veterans pension. In 1955 we moved from England to Canada. At that time the British and Canadian government agreed to freeze any veterans pension to whatever they were when a Canadian or Brit moved to Britain or Canada. So my father received a 1955 pension for the rest of his life. He complained to the government on several occasions and at one time it was published in the papers that the government was reviewing this policy. But they just dragged it out. Now of course most of these veterans are dead. So much for Veterans affairs treating veterans fairly. Do you think that the pension that he received was generous?

John
said
0 0

Hey "Robin Hood" and "Josh from Edmonton" I believe you are the same person!

Josh
said
0 0

@Scott. You should not be too quick to criticize something you're obviously not informed about. I, as a once serving member, paid a mandatory insurance premium to a private insurance plan (SISIP) before partaking in a United Nations mission, whereat I was injured. The governments clawed back my pension as a result of me having this 'mandatory' insurance, which is blatantly wrong from any perspective. If a private citizen worked for a company that attracted his or her application with certain promises failed to unconditionally deliver those promises, the recourse would be the same: litigation. Veteran or not, we are all entitled to fairness.

Jim
said
0 0

I am appalled at the greed displayed by some ex members of the CF.Having been severely injured while serving in the CF in 1969 I have experienced an inability to work, drug abuse and severe depression. I survive day to day and have found Veteran's Affairs no help!These folks have been able to find work yet feel they are owed more!

rmd
said
0 0

Scott, I think you need to do some fact checking and compare public service and executive disability coverage to the military's and RCMP, they are drastically skewed not in the military or RCMPs favor, and they are also not penalized in this manor. This whole issue could have been settled years ago and was dragged through the courts costing yet more money than what probably is owed to veterans. There is also an equivalent RCMP lawsuit pending as well regarding their clawbacks also. There has been some funny practices going on at the expense of those that serve and protect this country on the frontlines and that needs to be righted.

Golf Company Grunt
said
0 0

<<>>I guess you never served when the Liberals were in power. I can tell you some sad stories about military life during 'dark days'.'Pro Patria'

Scott
said
0 0

Though I am all for appropriate compensation for our injured workers, including our military men and women, lets not forget that they have generous wage and benefit packages, paralleled by no other in the Canadian workforce. People are quick to blame the government for not caring for thier military members, however, programs run by Veteran's Affairs Canada are generous and inclusive. Military men and women have the benefit of a lot of good will on the part of the canadian public, but that has a limit as well. There seems to be a consensus that if a military member cries foul, then the government must be. All programs are intended for the benefit of the target population, and by nature, are victim to exploitation and abuse. Be careful that public goodwill is not abused, for if lost, there is little that can be done to regain it. Military members are not the only to suffer when injured on the job, and programs to compensate them exceed any the private citizen has.

Wounded Troop
said
0 0

Leslie and so many others: explain to me HOW this is Harpers fault? All of this was done by the LIberals and their appointed bureaucrats including at VAC. Since the Conservatives are in a minority position, what do you expect of them? Miracles. I just hope that eventually the damned thieving Liberals are held accountable someday.

leslie segal
said
0 0

The Harper government's support for the Canadian soldier and veteran is a national disgrace, and all their bluster and flag waving can not hide the fact that policies must change and the bureaucrats at veterans' affairs have little empathy or tolerance for the fighting men and women and especially their families. A big lump of coal for Harper and Veterans' Affairs at this time of year.

Joe Retired Inj'd Vet Loosing money
said
0 0

This is a great decision. Had the Government of the day enforced its contract stance with the insurance company after the house of commons agree what SISIP was doing was wrong. Instead the government took the road like they usually do and say opps its in the courts there is nothing they can do. Now I hope SISIP will cut the loss of court costs and pay up. Heck just the 250K to enter the SCC could have likely paid back more than 20 people. But hey it took Bell a fine of over a mil before they smartened up!

Sapper D
said
0 0

I have been Victimized by this clawback since 1989...I hope the Government settles soon. It pains me and most veterans to fight the government we stood to defend. Make it fair. A veterans is a veteran is a veteran...

PBW
said
0 0

Perhaps now our elected representatives will take the necessary steps to ensure our veterans receive every benefit to which they are entitled. And that does not mean taking ,money intended for vets and using it to fund endless committee meetings between various groups of bureaucrats. Both Liberals and Conservatives have been guilty of letting the bureaucracy whittle away at pension and other rights, all in the name of "economy". Enough is enough. These veterans stepped up and served our country: it is now time for use to serve them.

Will
said
0 0

It's not just SISIP that does the clawback. CPP is clawed back from the members pension whether he ever draws CPP or not. This only happens to the RCMP and military pensioners, no one else. And WHO did this you might ask? It was enacted by the Liberals, the same ones who RAPED the pension funds to claim a surplus, who stole the EI and CPP funds for the same purpose - and then (adding insult to injury) raised the contribution rates on all of the above to cover the (now) shortfall. These issues could have been fixed long ago but the Liberals keep blocking the needed legislation and there is NEVER a word about it in the liberal-dominated media. Oh, and just to add a final kick in the teeth, ex-military are prohibited from drawing EI unless they've held another job since getting out - even though they may have paid into the fund for years! So riddle me this: how does a man or woman who gets out of the CF after completing a basic engagement (6 years) feed his/her family while job hunting etc? They paid into the fund but are prohibited from using it. How about the retired member who has to wait 18 weeks for his/her pension to start up?? I'm told that things are just as bad for retiring RCMP as well. This is not just unacceptable but is Disgracefull and disgusting.

Josh from Edmonton
said
0 0

Well it�s about time! It only took, what, almost a year for this decision. Now we will be forced to wait another eternity to get our class-action decision. Nonetheless, thank you SCC for putting our suit back on track. It would sure be nice if the powers-that-be would just give back what was wrongfully taken from us before this goes to court again� Mr. Harper, are you watching and listening?

robin hood
said
0 0

The government won�t draw it out unless we let them. If lighting a fire under their ass is warranted that�s just what we will do, all on board? Do not let this story die we as non combatants owe it to our soldiers it is our freedom of our country and of those on the land we fight! If we back at home have to take our government to task on doing what is right; then that is just what we'll do! Bring back Pat and let�s get rid of Parent! Honestly, other then he being appointed the new ombudsmen what have we heard from his neck of the woods, a big fat nothing!

bikerborz
said
0 0

@ ex patricia -- they will.

Dee
said
0 0

Thank you RJ - well said!

ex patricia
said
0 0

Thank-You, the SISIP clawback is absolutley wrong. The public see's it, the soldiers know it and the government will now have to pay for it. I just hope they don't draw it out longer at the expence of the tax payer.

RJ in Halifax
said
0 0

The very fact that this even had to get to the SCC is terrible. We provide lucrative salaries, benefits and pensions to our MP's, presumably in the attempt to attract the best and brightest individuals to run for public office. We ask our MP's to give up their "day jobs" while serving the nation. Surely we should do no less for the brave men and women who potentially give up their LIVES to serve our nation. If we want to attract strong, professional individuals to a military career, we should be ensuring they know they will be cared for if ultimately wounded (or worse) while in the service.

Today's Canada Stories

Double lung transplant recipient Helene Campbell appears on 'Ellen,' on Friday, May 25, 2012.

Most Viewed News Stories

View More News Stories

Most Talked about Stories

I feel that if certain organs were in demand, less effort would be made to revive people. Am I being silly? Not really. I had a bad experience in hospital when my heart stopped, the doctors tried to revive me and failed. They stopped and said I was gone. I came around on my own when the nurse was giving a final BP reading of 'zero'. I heard her declare me dead! It was all I could do to shake my head but they never caught on til I was able to open my eyes. You should have seen them scramble then! I thought the nurse was going to faint. The thing is, I think we may write people off too soon when there is something of value to be gained from them.

me

Should all Canadians be automatically considered organ donors?

Got something to say? Share on CTV News

Pick your location

Canada -

News Sections

News Programs

Features

Browse: