Aleck H. Trawick

The Supreme Court addressed competing claims to surplus remaining in two merged defined benefit pension plans following wind-up, and also considered the employer's entitlement to take contribution holidays from actuarial surplus.

The majority held that entitlement depends first on whether the pension fund is impressed with a trust; if so, equity governs and a power to revoke cannot be implied from a broad amendment clause.

Applying that framework, the Catalytic plan created a continuing trust that prevented the employer from appropriating termination surplus, while the Stearns plan did not create a trust and its surplus reversion provisions were enforceable as a matter of contract.

The Court further held that contribution holidays are permissible where plan wording allows actuarial discretion to take fund assets and other relevant factors into account.

The employer's appeal succeeded only on the contribution holiday issue, while the employees' cross-appeal failed on the Stearns surplus issue.

The respondents were charged with 32 summary conviction offences relating to breaches of the Aeronautics Act and its regulations.

Prior to plea, the respondents moved to quash the information on the basis that it lacked sufficient details to identify the transactions, contrary to s. 510(3) of the Criminal Code.

The Provincial Court judge quashed the information, and the Crown's applications for mandamus and certiorari were dismissed by the Court of Queen's Bench and the Court of Appeal.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the Crown's appeal, holding that an information vitiated for want of sufficient details under s. 510(3) cannot be salvaged by particulars or amendment if objected to prior to plea.