Employment and Labour Law

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment in a wrongful dismissal action, arguing that the defendants were deemed to have admitted numerous facts due to their late response to a lengthy Request to Admit under Rule 51.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found that the evidentiary record contained significant unresolved factual disputes, including the length of the plaintiff’s employment, whether the defendants were successor employers under s. 9(1) of the Employment Standards Act, and the calculation of damages and mitigation.

The court held that the delayed response to the Request to Admit did not justify enforcing deemed admissions where the requested admissions concerned contested or potentially incorrect facts and where no prejudice resulted from the delay.

Exercising its discretion under Rule 51.05, the court withdrew any deemed admissions and held that the matter must proceed to trial.

The plaintiff brokerage firm moved under Rule 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike several paragraphs of the defendants’ statement of defence as scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, or non‑compliant with pleading requirements.

The impugned allegations described a toxic workplace environment and managerial conduct said to have forced the individual defendants to submit resignation letters, and also alleged the action was brought for an improper purpose amounting to abuse of process.

The court held that most of the contested paragraphs were relevant to the central issue of whether the defendants voluntarily resigned or were effectively dismissed and therefore were necessary to allow a full defence.

Allegations relating to the plaintiff’s motive were also permitted because they supported a pleaded abuse of process defence.

Only one sentence describing the workplace atmosphere as widely known in the community was struck as irrelevant and included merely for colour.

Following a wrongful dismissal trial in which the plaintiff recovered modest damages equivalent to three months’ salary, the court addressed costs.

The action had been brought in the Superior Court although the recovery fell within Small Claims Court jurisdiction.

The court found that the plaintiff had expanded a simple wrongful dismissal claim with unfounded allegations of conspiracy and inducement, unnecessarily increasing complexity and cost.

Concluding that the proceeding should have been brought in Small Claims Court and that the defendants had been put to unnecessary expense, the court denied the successful plaintiff any costs and ordered the plaintiff to pay costs to the defendants.

The plaintiffs in a pension surplus class action moved for court approval of an amendment to a previously approved settlement after actuarial assumptions underlying the settlement proved incorrect and the anticipated surplus dramatically declined.

The amended settlement offered a guaranteed minimum payment and a potential capped second distribution if surplus re‑emerged by a specified date.

Numerous class members objected, arguing the amendment was unfair and inconsistent with the expectations created during the original settlement campaign.

The court held that it had jurisdiction under s. 29(2) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 to approve or reject the amended settlement but concluded the proposal was substantively, procedurally, circumstantially, and institutionally unfair.

The court emphasized that settlement approval requires fairness beyond mere monetary advantage and refused to approve an unfair settlement even if it represented the better option among undesirable alternatives.

The applicant union requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal after the Superintendent of Financial Services declined to order partial wind ups of two pension plans.

The parties subsequently entered into Minutes of Settlement.

Based on the settlement, the Tribunal ordered the Superintendent to require the partial wind ups of the plans, effective June 30, 2007, covering members who ceased employment between January 1, 2003, and June 30, 2007.

The order was stayed pending the employer's appeal to the Divisional Court regarding whether the plans are subject to provincial or federal jurisdiction.

The applicant employer wound up a pension plan and made a lump sum contribution to fund the estimated deficit.

Once all benefit obligations were settled, it was determined the employer had overpaid by $145,361.

The employer applied to the Superintendent for a return of the overpayment under s. 78(4) of the Pension Benefits Act and an extension of time under s. 105.

The Superintendent proposed to refuse the application, arguing the excess constituted surplus subject to s. 79 and that the application was out of time.

The Financial Services Tribunal held that the excess was an overpayment, that s. 78(4) operates independently of s. 79, and that an extension of time was warranted.

The Superintendent was ordered to consent to the refund.

The Financial Services Tribunal approved the Minutes of Settlement between Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc., the Superintendent of Financial Services, and a group of former employees regarding the partial wind-up of a pension plan.

The settlement provided for the distribution of wind-up surplus and 'grow-in' benefits to affected members.

Upon approval of the revised report, the applicant's request for a hearing was withdrawn, and the Superintendent's Notice of Proposal was withdrawn.

The applicant company initiated a voluntary partial wind-up of its pension plan following a plant closure and restructuring.

The company excluded its former President and CEO from the wind-up group, arguing he was terminated for cause following a corporate takeover, not as a result of the plant closure.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal refusing to approve the wind-up report unless the former executive was included.

The Financial Services Tribunal affirmed the Superintendent's proposal, finding that the executive was terminated during the defined partial wind-up period and the company failed to demonstrate his termination was not a result of the restructuring.

The Tribunal also rejected the company's argument that the Superintendent was functus officio.

The applicant employer sought consent to withdraw surplus funds from a wound-up pension plan.

The Superintendent of Financial Services initially proposed to refuse consent.

Following a settlement conference, the parties reached an agreement.

The Financial Services Tribunal issued a consent order directing the Superintendent to refrain from refusing consent and directing the payment of the surplus to the applicant in accordance with the Surplus Distribution Agreement.

The Superintendent of Financial Services brought a motion for an order directing Imperial Oil Limited to answer interrogatories in a proceeding concerning the partial wind up of two pension plans.

The Tribunal applied the test for pre-hearing disclosure and found that while member-specific information was not relevant, general statistical information about the employment status of certain plan members was arguably relevant.

The Tribunal ordered the Applicant to provide answers to revised interrogatories seeking statistical information within six weeks.

The applicant, Imperial Oil Limited, brought a motion for an order directing the Superintendent of Financial Services to provide further and better answers to interrogatories and to produce documents related to the partial wind up of two pension plans.

The applicant sought information regarding the Superintendent's past practices on partial wind ups, specifically concerning the inclusion of certain employee categories and the calculation of grow-in benefits.

The Tribunal granted the motion, ordering the Superintendent to respond to the interrogatories based on a representative sample of files processed between January 1993 and October 2000, balancing the relevance of the information against the hardship of reviewing all files.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal regarding the Superintendent's refusal to order the replacement of an allegedly improperly constituted pension advisory committee.

The Tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction to grant the relief sought, as neither the Pension Benefits Act nor the pension plan required the establishment of an advisory committee, and the letters of understanding regarding the committee were part of the collective agreement but not incorporated into the pension plan.

The Ontario Pension Board requested a hearing regarding a proposal by the Superintendent of Financial Services to order the Board to pay Victor Burns his full pension benefits retroactive to his retirement from the Ontario Provincial Police.

Mr. Burns had terminated his employment with the OPP and commenced employment with the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Services during a period when police services were being transferred between the two entities.

The Tribunal found that Mr. Burns' new employment was in conjunction with the disposition of police services, meaning section 80(3) of the Pension Benefits Act applied.

Consequently, his employment was deemed not to be terminated, and he was not entitled to commence receiving a pension on the date he ceased employment with the OPP.

The Superintendent's proposal was quashed.

The applicant brought a motion to determine the nature of the notice to be provided for a hearing regarding its application to withdraw surplus from a pension plan.

The Superintendent of Financial Services had proposed to refuse the application.

The Tribunal ordered that notice of the hearing be provided by ordinary mail to all affected members and former members of the plan, as well as by newspaper publication, with the costs to be borne by the applicant.

The applicants, former employees of the Ministry of Finance, were transferred to the Ontario Property Assessment Corporation (OPAC) when the Ministry's property assessment functions were transferred.

At the time of the transfer, both applicants were eligible to retire under the 'Factor 80' provisions of their respective pension plans and sought to receive their pension benefits while continuing to work for OPAC.

The Superintendent of Financial Services refused to order the pension plan administrators to pay the benefits, finding that under section 80 of the Pension Benefits Act, the transfer constituted a sale of a business and the applicants' employment was deemed not to have been terminated.

The Financial Services Tribunal affirmed the Superintendent's decision, holding that the applicants could not receive pension benefits without actually terminating their employment with the successor employer.

The Executive Committee of the London Life Members' Committee sought an award of costs against London Life following a decision directing the partial wind-up of a pension plan.

The Members' Committee argued that London Life failed to provide full and accurate information and advanced unreasonable positions.

The Financial Services Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that London Life's arguments were not patently unreasonable and its delays in providing information did not justify an award of costs under the Tribunal's exceptional circumstances standard.

The respondents requested a review of the Tribunal's previous decision directing the Superintendent of Financial Services to order a partial wind up of the applicant's pension plan.

The respondents argued the decision failed to address the inclusion of voluntarily terminated employees and the impact of office closures and amalgamations in 1995 and 1997.

The Tribunal declined to review its decision, finding that both issues were premature and could be addressed through subsequent administrative processes or further hearings if necessary.

The applicant requested a hearing regarding the constitution of a pension plan's advisory committee.

A pre-hearing motion was held to determine whether separate notice of the jurisdictional hearing needed to be provided to former members of the plan.

The Tribunal found that the union's acknowledgement of its fiduciary duty to represent all members, including former members, was sufficient.

The Tribunal declined to order additional notice to former members.

The Superintendent of Financial Services proposed an order requiring Dustbane Enterprises Limited to fund a deficit arising from the partial wind-up of its pension plan.

Dustbane argued that the plan was a multi-employer pension plan and that its distributors were separate employers liable for their respective shares of the deficit.

The Financial Services Tribunal held that the plan did not meet the statutory requirements for a multi-employer pension plan, as there were no written participation agreements and the plan was not administered as such.

The Tribunal directed the Superintendent to carry out the proposed order, making Dustbane solely liable for the deficit.

The Superintendent of Financial Services proposed a partial wind up of the employer's pension plan following a corporate reorganization in 1996 that resulted in the involuntary termination of 384 administrative employees.

The employer requested a hearing, arguing that the number of terminations was not significant.

The Financial Services Tribunal found that 384 terminations, representing approximately 12.8% to 14.9% of the active administrative plan members, constituted a significant number under section 69(1)(d) of the Pension Benefits Act.

The Tribunal directed the Superintendent to order the partial wind up for the period from January 1, 1996 to December 31, 1996.