Here is one for the Red Ensign bloggers.
Last summer the Supreme Court of Canada rejected the claim in a class action suit brought by vets and the heirs of vets who had been incapacitated and had had their affairs managed by the Federal Government. The Supreme Court of Canada on July 17, 2003 ruled that the claim before it was barred by a section of the Veterans Affairs Act introduced in 1990 which barred actions for interest on monies held and administered under the War Veterans Allowance Act. In doing so the Court concluded:
The respondent and the class of disabled veterans it represents are owed decades of interest on their pension and benefit funds. The Crown does not dispute these findings. But Parliament has chosen for undisclosed reasons to lawfully deny the veterans, to whom the Crown owed a fiduciary duty, these benefits whether legal, equitable or fiduciary. The due process protections of property in the Bill of Rights do not grant procedural rights in the process of legislative enactment. They do confer certain rights to notice and an opportunity to make submissions in the adjudication of individual rights and obligations, but no such rights are at issue in this appeal. While the due process guarantees may have some substantive content not apparent in this appeal, there is no due process right against duly enacted legislation unambiguously expropriating property interests.So you go to war for the country, get disabled for the country, put your property in the hands of the country only to have the legislature of the country cut out the interest by a few words in an amending statute. Nice.
Happy am I, then, to read two lower court rulings from last December (published only now in the Ontario Reports) in which the Superior Court of Ontario court ruled that the Supreme Court of Canada only barred a part of the relief and that there are other remedies available to the vets and their families. The matter will no doubt work its way up the courts again and years will pass before resolution but it is my hope that the resting place of these assets of our disabled vets will be someplace other than the general coffers of the national treasury.
To be fair to all sides, the Canadian War Amps came out against the court case early on and felt interest should only be paid out in "justifiable cases". My feeling is that but for the disability of the vets, the interest on their assets would have passed to successors whether children or 57th cousins and as such was not the government's to withhold except for the intervention of the disability.
So...why do people presume we dislike our 57th cousins anyway?
Comments
Alan - December 30, 2005 4:46 pm
The disabled vets win but still the Feds may appeal again.
SayNay? - December 31, 2005 12:51 pm
Not to go off on a rant hear, but shouldn't that be "Lawyers may see big payday yet" - let's face it, at this stage, it's really not about the Vets getting their money (as you've pointed - how many are alive?) - its about the lawyers getting paid - bigtime. Does the 57th cousin feel entitled to a portion of the cash of a person he or she never knew - and if he or she does, well, what does that say about our view of "entitlements" in this society ("Gee, I just got ANOTHER Government cheque - must have been a good boy this year, or somebody must have been a bad boy to me or someone remotely related to me, I dunno")
The Government wanted to settle, as I understand it on some Government bond interest calculation that would see some $276 million or so (?) paid, but nooooo not enough for the lawyers for the "claimants", who want the Court to apply today's "trust duty - prudent investor" principles to the Government ie. a 60/40 split of equities and bonds, taking into consideration floating interest rates and inflation etc etc. to come up with some outrageous figure of what, $4.6 billion - and the Judge hearing the most recent go about says yeah, that compounding, baby adds up quickly, didn't realize - the Judge sounds like a fifth grader opening his first bank account with $10.00 and told he be a multi-millionaire with compounding by the time he's 65. Maybe the Government should have argued that a "prudent investor" in the equity market would had the value of his or her portfolio wiped out, what, THREE times in the last twenty years. People of this generation, never heard of "equities"- their biggest risk was buying one Irish Sweepstakes ticket each year, and maybe, maybe, putting a little away in Canada Savings Bonds.
Its all a shell game to get more money for the craven lawyers. And all they have had to do at this point is file a few documents relying Auditor General's report of 20 years ago to use against the Government ie. the Government ADMITTING it owed $60 milllion - and argue the 60/40 principle again with charts and actuaries to boggle the mind of some "compounding dazzled" Superior Court Judge: "You see, it could be a $Trillion your Honour, but we'll "settle" $4.6 billion, and if your would mind, could you settle our fees on this at 30%, you know for the risk and all that - just send my cheque to my island in Tahiti where I'll be - I've made a downpayment to hold it for me until this is all finished".
I hope the Government appeals to the end - its all about greed, and the Vets are being used.
Alan - December 31, 2005 12:54 pm
You have never been so stunned. Congratulations. And, of course, you would transfer back the funds in full if it were your disabled father whose monies were treated with such idiocy. Go back to smiling at yourself in the mirror.
Alan - January 1, 2006 12:10 pm
And now you have just been suspended.
SayNay? - January 1, 2006 12:12 pm
Great way to start the New Year. Let's wait and see what the lawyers make on this one, Al. Fair?
Alan - January 1, 2006 12:30 pm
You have only yourself to blame. Go and have a rest as it is too early in the day.
SayNay? - January 1, 2006 12:38 pm
Started early yesterday, finished late this morning - rest, and where's that hair of the dog?
SayNay? - January 2, 2006 11:13 pm
Just as an aside (doing a little investigation on the fees aspect) following the Residential School Iacobucci Settlement recommendations, the Federal Gov't set aside, I understand it, $1.9 Billion for claimants, and has agreed to pay $80 Million plus ongoing billings to the lawyers involved, of which $40 Million plus will be paid to one firm, the Merchant Law Group. It is expected that total legal fees will probably exceed $120 Million.
So, what does a $4.6 Billion award get you on this scale: $194 to $290 Million in legals?
If the $60 Million found by the AG to be owed in interest to the Vets 20 years had been invested at 8% (which is a pretty good return) compounded it would be worth, what, $240 Million today - that might now cover just the legals.
ALan - January 3, 2006 8:02 am
I have no idea but if you think you have cracked the case get <i>The Globe and Mail</i> involved.
SayNay? - January 3, 2006 10:15 am
The National Post is on it.
Alan - January 3, 2006 10:43 am
Good. Email them.
SayNay? - January 3, 2006 1:07 pm
$290 Million would run Kingston for a year.