Christopher G. Riggs

Retired police officers, through their representative corporation, appealed the dismissal of a Rule 22 motion claiming an interest in approximately $6 million in excess pension funds arising after legislative amendments moved supplementary early retirement benefits into the basic OMERS plan.

The appeal advanced theories based on deferred wages, trust, fiduciary obligations, unjust enrichment, partial wind-up, and statutory restrictions on surplus use.

The Court of Appeal substantially adopted the motion judge’s reasoning and held that the supplementary agreement did not create a separate pension plan and that retirees under a defined benefit plan had no inherent entitlement to the excess funds.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

In this human rights appeal, the court clarified the scope of the leave endorsement and held that the appeal did not extend to a review of the finding of systemic discrimination.

The only issue properly before the court was the effect, if any, of an arbitration award on the jurisdiction and power of the Board of Inquiry to grant reinstatement, in light of the jurisprudence such as Weber v. Ontario Hydro.

The matter was adjourned to permit the parties to file fresh factums addressing that sole jurisdictional question.

No costs were awarded for the attendance.