“The CFL is very pleased with the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision. We hope that this decision brings finality to any proceedings in the courts with respect to concussion litigation against the CFL.?
Right about now we could use perhaps the expertise of an attorney in Canada, who is an expert in contract law, for any commentary with regards to arbitration clauses and for any knowledge of the CBA in this regard.
In different contexts here in the US and with variances by state and even locality, I've seen these arbitration clauses designated often as non-binding, which means one could take the other party to court even after arbitration. Otherwise in some situations even if binding, one often still retains the right to challenge the clause and the contract on legal grounds.
Also in many contracts such as I had with a loan I obtained recently, the client retains the right to opt-out within a certain period of time after the execution of the contract.
Does anyone know the court remedy Bruce was looking for in the case .
Was he looking for continued benefits , lump sum for loss of employment and lump sum for pain and suffering ?
My understanding was that the NFL was damaged by knowledge of concussion related injuries causing CTE and did not inform the employees of this knowledge .
They made a settlement for all but over 200 players who may file separately .
The settlement was for up to $5,000,000 per player depending on disease CTE ,Alzheimers , Parkinson and ALS. They were all given the opportunity for paid by the league brain scans .
Bruce who played in 2003 for the NFL's forty-niners maybe eligible for some of this remedy if he applied within 180 days after the settlement was reached . His compensation would be much lower due to his short time spent in the NFL but may have received some money and would have no bearing on his further pursuit of compensation in the CFL which I think in the end would be much lower than the NFL's compensation.
And now the idiots running the CFLPA instead of requesting arbitration as per the Court admonishment are trying to invalidate the CBA. If I was the BOG, I'd shut everything down until something can be resolved. EVERYTHING.
Lock them out, lay everybody off and let them come to you.
Perhaps a bit of an overreaction. I don't read this as demanding that the CBA being torn up.
A breech is just that...a claim that a particular part of the agreement has been broken. Just like teams have breeched the CBA on practice times or roster sizes etc
Considering you want people to read the grievance, it seems apparent you did not do so. There is nothing in the grievance demanding the CBA be torn up. The union requests three specific remedies: compensate affected players, require the league to implement policies, procedures and rules that protect player safety, and provide either workers comp coverage or a disability plan.
Not sure the CFLPA can demand Workers comp as it's a government run . In terms of a disability and group benefits they would need to negotiate for them like any other union .
What it can demand or have arbitrate is the fact they knew of concussions and were aware of a safe protocol not adhered to and could reward player(s) with extended coverage of the one year coverage they have today .
I also see that every award has to be done by case by case basis . This actually cripples the union in the end as it pays for it's side of representation unless the arbitrator places a scheme to apply to all on a systematic scale of coverage .This in the end has to be where they end up for the players and former players to get coverage in health benefits . Then you would need to find a provider willing to take on the coverage at a reasonable price . Also that coverage would only apply to Canadian medical coverage only .
With former players not paying into the pot it will be interesting where this ends up as you can only pay for a grievance(s) with the knowledge that you have an appropriate level of remedy worth the value of fighting the breach in contract . I can see a sliding scale of coverage that would need to be verified by medical evidence but in no way will you see a NFL type settlement as there is no funds available .
Last but not least how does a player prove he had no knowledge that concussions are not good . How does a player prove he didn't know that playing football is unsafe for head injuries ? In the US it's a free for all with lawsuits but in Canada you would need to prove that information was restricted from the player with malice , prejudice and /or indifference .
On CFL goodwill alone I think there will be a settlement but it will be restricted and will need to be verified . A simple benefits for Life maybe the end result for all players with 5 years in the league or a verified career ending injury while employed in the CFL before 5 years.
Just my speculation on the matter I could be way off the mark .
[url=https://www.thebalance.com/the-advantages-of-being-a-contractor-2948558]Contractors[/url] don’t get benefits packages or pensions and pay their own [url=https://www.thebalance.com/canada-pension-plan-cpp-2948655]Canada Pension PlanCPP/QPP[/url] contributions. As an employer of an independent contractor, you don’t have to do [url=https://www.thebalance.com/guide-to-canadian-payroll-deductions-2948427]payroll[/url], which involves withholding[url=https://www.thebalance.com/canadian-income-tax-and-your-small-business-2948640]income tax[/url],paythe employer's share of CPP/QPP, Employment Insurance (EI), etc.
The big tax [url=https://www.thebalance.com/the-advantages-of-being-a-contractor-2948558]advantage for the independent contractor[/url], of course, is the potential for [url=https://www.thebalance.com/business-expenses-as-tax-deductions-index-2948637]tax deductions[/url]. Generally, a self-employed person can deduct all reasonable [url=https://www.thebalance.com/business-expenses-for-canadian-income-tax-2948642]business expenses[/url].
Well this could get ugly as in more complex on a legal front.
It is stated plainly in the grievance that the CBA has been breached by the league, and then some, and not that only merely a part of the agreement has been breached. If doubting that point, please read again as stated the grievance.
As Pigseye stated, they go from there. They are not starting from "well only a part of the agreement has been breached so ..."
It would seem that the CFLPA would go first down the road of arbitration in accordance with the agreement. It may be a very short hearing for all we know. If as alleged other laws have been violated as are also beyond the scope of the CBA, well then perhaps later the CFLPA would go down such legal roads as referenced.