4 total
Leave to appeal granted as there is good reason to doubt correctness of certifying pension surplus claims for former members.
The defendants sought leave to appeal an order certifying common issues in a class proceeding regarding a pension plan surplus.
The plaintiffs, former employees who took the commuted value of their pensions, alleged a beneficial interest in the surplus and conflicts of interest by the defendants.
The court granted leave to appeal under Rule 62.02(4)(b), finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the certification order because established case law holds that members who transfer out their commuted value have no rights to an ongoing plan's surplus.
The court also found the issues to be of broad importance to pension plan administrators.
Tribunal declined to order partial pension plan wind-up where member was offered equivalent lump sum.
The Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Intended Decision to partially wind up the Imperial Oil Limited Retirement Plan following the relocation of the applicant's head office.
The applicant reached settlements with all affected members except the respondent, who sought a partial wind-up to receive enhanced pension benefits from the plan rather than a lump sum payment directly from the applicant.
The Tribunal declined to exercise its discretion to order a partial wind-up, finding that the applicant's irrevocable offer of a lump sum payment provided the respondent with the equivalent value of any additional benefits she would have received upon a partial wind-up.
Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to add new statutory grounds for pension plan wind up not considered by Superintendent.
The 111 Pension Rights Association brought a motion to add section 69(1)(d) of the Pension Benefits Act as an alternative ground for the proposed partial wind up of the Imperial Oil Limited Retirement Plan.
The Superintendent's Notice of Proposal had only relied on section 69(1)(e).
The Financial Services Tribunal dismissed the motion, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to direct the Superintendent to order a wind up on a basis that the Superintendent had not selected or fully investigated.
The Tribunal found that it could not review the Superintendent's purely investigative functions where no quasi-judicial decision had been made.
Appeal allowed; questions regarding pension plan administrative costs directed to trial rather than decided under Rule 21.
The defendants appealed a motions judge's answers to questions posed under Rule 21.01(1)(a) regarding a pension plan surplus following the sale of a business division.
The appeal concerned only the answers relating to administrative costs and expenses.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the questions were inextricably linked to other issues that the motions judge had correctly directed to trial, such as the effect of statements in pension booklets and reliance on them.
The Court set aside the answers and directed that the issues regarding administrative costs and expenses also proceed to trial.
