This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Supreme Court Refuses Disabled Workers' Case
Robert Sibley of Postmedia News reports in the Ottawa Citizen, Panel refuses disabled workers' case:
The
Supreme Court failed to serve the "national interest" and thereby
jeopardized the disability insurance plans of hundreds of thousands of
Canadian workers by refusing to hear a case involving a group of
disabled former Nortel employees, says a financial expert.
"It was
in the national interest to hear the case so that 1.1 million
Canadians could be assured their disability insurance plans were
protected," said financial analyst Diane Urquhart. "The Supreme Court
of Canada has de facto allowed a court precedent to stand that
compromises every health and welfare trust in Canada for disabled
insured policyholders."
On Thursday, a
three-judge panel of the Supreme Court refused the group's request
for leave to appeal a lower court's previous decision rejecting the
former workers' attempt to challenge a court-approved settlement of
Nortel's restructuring. As is customary, the panel did not provide a
reason for why the court wouldn't hear the group's appeal.
Last
June, a group of about 40 disabled Nortel employees workers lost its
bid to extend benefits being terminated at the end of 2010 under a
restructuring plan that involved the allocation of funds in Nortel's
Health and Welfare Trust. The restructuring plan, approved by Ontario
Superior Court Judge Geoffrey Morawetz, called for future pensioner
life benefits to be included in distributions of the trust.The
group, a minority among the company's 360 disabled workers and 19,500
others covered by the agreement, objected, saying the plan would
dilute existing claims of the disabled by $30 million.
According
to court documents, an employee who earned $50,000 a year before
becoming disabled would might see their annual income cut to $13,700.
However,
the Court of Appeal for Ontario denied the group's request for a
hearing on the settlement, upholding Morawetz's plan. The group turned
to the Supreme Court, hoping it would hear their appeal of Morawetz's
decision.
Urquhart, a
Mississaugabased financial analyst who has been working pro bono for
the disabled workers, was disappointed, saying the Supreme Court
should have taken the opportunity "to issue directions to Canadian
employers" for maintaining the financial viability and integrity of the
disability insurance plans they sponsor.
Morawetz's decision,
Urquhart argued, "has made every employer-sponsored disability
insurance plan in the country unsafe" because it allows pensioners the
legal right to take assets from the health and welfare trusts for
their future life insurance promised by the company. But this, she
said, "compromises" every health and welfare trust plan in the country
with respect to disability insurance. "You wipe out the insurance for
disabled workers."
In this way, by
refusing to hear the case, the Supreme Court has effectively opened
the door to allowing companies facing bankruptcy to raid trust funds
supposedly intended to maintain health and welfare benefit plans, said
Urquhart, a former research director with both Scotia Capital Markets
and the former investment firm of Burns Fry.
"There are 1.1
million Canadians whose private employer-sponsored disability
insurance plans are now unsafe if their employer goes bankrupt. That's
why we felt the Supreme Court should have allowed the case -- it's in
the national interest."
The court's unwillingness to act makes
it incumbent on the government amend bankruptcy legislation to protect
employees, she said. "The court could have made a decision to protect
these people within the current legal framework. They chose not to.
That means we need legislative change because the courts failed to
enforce the current protections."
In
the meantime, four members of dissenting group disabled former Nortel
employees have filed a complaint with the Ontario Consumer Services
Bureau under the provincial Consumer Protection Act.
They charge
that Nortel Networks, its suppliers, and Sun Life Financial, which
administered Nortel's disability insurance plan, engaged in "unfair
practices in the form of false, misleading or deceptive representations
to Nortel employees about its disability insurance."
I thank Diane Urquhart for sending me this article as it demonstrates more Supreme Injustice. There will be no justice for Nortel's disabled,
only more pain as they struggle to cope with the cuts they received
following Nortel's bankruptcy. Diane informed me that Peter Burns, a dissenting Nortel disabled employee, died on May 14th of this year. How
many more disabled have to die before we start taking disability
insurance seriously? The amounts we are talking about are a pittance and
yet bondholders made a huge stink about it. This decision has sent
Canada back to the Dark Ages, and I fear that this is one more assault
on labor as the conservative agenda looks to weaken the rights of
workers. We should all be very concerned (watch video below).
»
- advertisements -
CHICK? Are you kidding? Would not touch one with your three inch dick buttbreath!
I was just reading along. This thread. In order.
I thus read your post, and topcallingtroll's two responses, and then your opus major:
"CHICK? Are you kidding? Would not touch one with your three inch dick buttbreath!"
Pray, Sir, if I might be so bold, may I suggest that you think about a writing class of some sort? I'm not sure. I write okay, so I'm not quite sure what one should do or has to do when they sit at their keyboard, and out comes: "CHICK? Are you kidding? Would not touch one with your three inch dick buttbreath!"
My purpose in writing this is not to take cheap shots, but to genuinely encourage you to take steps (remedial education in writing?) so that your obviously sincerely felt frustration (about something) does not lead you to say/write things so incomprehensibly weird that the rest of us do not, almost by default, wonder if such as topcallingtroll is not actually who he purports to be and really has your number.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_rage_and_narcissistic_injury
As an uncharacteristically insightful and honest psychiatrist I used to work with said, "psychiatrists are all narcissists." I believe topcallingtroll's claim absolutely. Everything about the guy screams "psychiatrist."
Which isn't to suggest that narcissists are evil incarnate by any means . . . they are capable of great things if they have some insight regarding their own problems and are held accountable to basic standards of common decency in public, at least. Even if they have to fake it.
As for what kicked off this particular "irrational" explosion of abusive rage, it is interesting that the original commentor cum rage object mentioned having money and driving a beemer. But what brought up the subject of getting chicks?
Maybe somebody has very deep doubts about whether he deserves that nice car and that beautiful wife. Particularly if he knows that he couldn't get the hot chick without the money it takes to buy that beemer.
Courts in the united states and canada do not second guess bankruptcy determinations such as this. This division of assets was within the discretion of the bankruptcy court. Not liking how the money was divvied up among unsecured claimants has never been the basis of a successful appeal as long as their was no abuse of discretion.
Is there any evidence of abuse of discretion? Any evidence the court had prejudice or malice agsinst the 50 claimants?
That fifty whiners think they deserved more money out of a much larger class of disabled workers and 19500 is not something any supreme court has the time or inclination to even bother writing up a response or hearing the case.
Much ado about nothing. Correct court decision. Not even worthy of response.
Notice a trend with employee Pensions yet?
So the courts were faced with a Hobson's choice between favoring either pensioners or the disabled in the event of a bankruptcy -- an event that requires hard choices under difficult circumstances, and will necessarily leave someone (errr... everyone actually) short-changed -- and they made a different choice than you would've made, so that means it's the Dark Ages Redux?
This is why the supreme court didnt hear the case.
Bankruptcy courts have broad authority to divvy up money in a way they determine is fair.
The supreme court will not retry the case nor substitute their judgment.
I used to give leo a break but no more. His analysis is weak and his conclusions wrong.
There was a limited amount of money. No one will get everything they want.
While the fed gov needs to act to move employee pay and benefits to the front of the creditor line, the Nortel people will likely be too late for any help with this.
These people will end up going back to work if they are able. I'm sure some are and will.
What? "companies facing bankruptcy must maintain benefit plans" Is there a problem with this statement?
No shit. You'd think it would be the top priority. WTF Canada. Who's paying those judges?
ECON 101 when you buy a companies assets you buy it's liabilities! PERIOD!
REALITY 101: Fuck the liabilities, we'll just take the assets.
It should not come as a surprise ...... indeed why would anyone expect any other outcome? It is symtomatic of pretending that the resultant outcomes of ALL the egregious decisions made by governments (ipso facto so called 'couts of law') are somehow coincidences or unintended consequences.
They have never had any intention of honouring or preserving these pension funds, trusts, superannuation pools etc. they are and always have been a mechanism to provide the financial services industry with a massive pool of other peoples money to draw fees from.
At this point you could argue that anyone who believes in the integrity of these funds and that their life savings are 'safe' in the hands of anyone but themselves deserves to lose everything as punishment for their own wilful ignorance.
When it comes right down to it we, as individuals, are responsible for believing or, taking with a grain of salt, everything we have been told or has been implied or has been clearly stated in an employment contract when it comes to all promises. None are binding and things change.
I am always left thinking when I hear a blue collar worker tell of his new employment and the benefits package. Security is just a word anymore.
Pension funds are controlled by the banksters who have captured the courts who rule on not distributing the money as may have been promised or inferred.
This will get worse before it every returns to the perseption we once had.
During good times and only a few drawing on the fund it works. These days the money has been reallocated.
The preditors always go after the weak and the old in the heard. It is natures way.
Actually, I don't think that premise of yours can be argued --- it's more a statement of fact.
It was originally intended as such .... I added the 'you could argue' on final read before submitting to tone down the implication. I shouldn't be such a pussy but many will turn off and not even consider your argument if the insults are direct rather than implied.
Gee, just like the US, Bankster Owned Supreme Court.
From way back when too:
"Three generations of imbeciles are enough".
"Justice" Oliver Wendell Holmes in Carrie v Buck where the "Illuminati Supreme Coirt of Shit" legitimed forcible sterilization laws in 27 states. Jim Crow, baby! Now it's the " War on Drugs" KKK Inquidition!
LEO,
WHAT A BUNCH OF HORSESHIT. DID THE NORTEL WORKERS BECOME DISABLED ON THE JOB?
PROBABLY NIT. THEN IT IS JUST ANOTHER DRAIN OF TAX DOLLARS.
SAVE YOUR SOCIALIST BULLSHIT FOR ANOTHER SITE
Any illusion that Canadian and American governments serve anything but corporate interests can be put to rest with this decision. Those uninformed, modern day apologists for corporate greed do not realize that they themselves are being devoured my the same corporate beast that daily eats its young.
Thinking that they are somehow much more enlighten these apologists for corporate criminal greed tag those who advocate for the poor and unfortunate as socialists. The corporations need no defense. The judicial system has been skewed in their favor for over 100 years now ever since corporations were granted the standing of individuals. The irony is that now they have more rights than individuals.
Here's what I don't get. Everyone here, Leo included, has been told what is coming. Is Canada immune? I think not. Events will accelerate as outrages become mundane.
Epic stupidity, troll.
It's always implicitly about you and issues of specific personal concern to you, isn't it Leo?
Well, of course it is --- we all already knew you were a narcissist as well as a sociopath, the two so often going hand-in-hand.
Show me someone that isn't a narcissist and a sociopath, and I'll show you your
Utopian Dream.
I fear people that don't have a stable central ego. I hope you aren't one of them but
in this day and age of mass schizophrenia, you probably are.
Self-immolation in the steps of the supreme court by those disabled workers. That's what it'll take.
That would be doubly disabling....