Clio Maria Godkewitsch

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss an action concerning the interpretation of a centralized health and benefits trust deed.

The plaintiffs, a local union and three of its members, sought an order that the trust wrongly denied them an annual open enrollment window for benefits, which they argued was guaranteed by their prior local collective bargaining agreement and incorporated into the centralized trust.

The court found that the trust deed, read in its grammatical sense and as a whole, and consonant with the purpose of the collective bargaining regime, did not require the continuation of the annual open enrollment window.

The court emphasized the trustees' duty of prudence in adopting industry standards to minimize "anti-selection" risk.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing the plaintiffs' claim.

This supplementary endorsement addresses a challenge to a sealing order granted in the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings of Laurentian University of Sudbury.

The sealing order covered confidential correspondence between the University and the Ministry of Colleges and Universities, which Laurentian University argued contained sensitive information that, if disclosed, could jeopardize its restructuring efforts.

Parties opposing the sealing order contended there was no evidentiary basis for it.

Applying the two-branch test from Sierra Club of Canada v. Canada (Minister of Finance), the court found that the disclosure posed a real and substantial risk to the University's future viability, that the "commercial" interest extended to the broader community, and that no reasonable alternatives existed given ongoing mediation.

Consequently, the court maintained the confidentiality of the exhibits and the existing sealing order.

The applicant, a federal employee, alleged discrimination based on disability when she was denied coverage for medical marijuana under the Public Service Health Care Plan.

The respondent requested early dismissal on the basis that the matter falls within exclusive federal jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held a preliminary hearing and determined that the respondent Authority, created under a federal statute to oversee a benefit plan for federal employees, falls under federal jurisdiction.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicants sought a declaration that they were entitled to supplementary pension benefits under the respondent's supplementary pension plan following a partial wind up of the registered pension plan.

The partial wind up triggered statutory 'grow in' benefits under the Pension Benefits Act, allowing the applicants to retire early with unreduced pensions.

The court interpreted the supplementary plan's formula, which explicitly excluded 'grow in' benefits from the calculation of the base pension amount.

The court found that when the 'grow in' benefits were excluded, the applicants' base pension amounts were less than the pension benefits they actually earned, resulting in no supplementary benefits being payable.

The application was dismissed, and the court declined to order costs payable from the pension fund.

Former union members sued a union, its local, and trustees of a health and welfare trust seeking an accounting and payment of alleged surplus contributions accumulated in a “dollar bank” benefit system after their expulsion following employer decertification.

The defendants brought a Rule 21 motion to strike the claim for disclosing no cause of action and argued the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction.

The court held the motion was improperly brought without leave after the matter had been set down for trial and was not brought promptly, as the pleadings had been unchanged for over three years.

In any event, the claim raised numerous factual issues requiring evidence, including the interpretation of trust agreements, the effect of an employee benefit booklet, and entitlement to credits upon termination of union membership.

The court also held that the Superior Court had jurisdiction because issues of fiduciary duty and punitive damages fell outside the Labour Relations Board’s authority.

In a class proceeding concerning the ownership of surplus from partial wind-ups of a pension plan and alleged improper administrative expenses, the parties sought approval of a revised settlement agreement after earlier settlement arrangements failed due to significant changes in actuarial surplus estimates.

The motion was brought under s. 29 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 for court approval of the amended settlement.

Despite objections from certain class members, the court held the revised agreement was fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class when assessed against litigation risks, fluctuating actuarial calculations, and the possibility that the employer might ultimately have been entitled to the surplus.

The settlement substantially increased the guaranteed distribution to class members and included financial concessions from both the defendant and class counsel.

The court approved the amended settlement as falling within the acceptable range of reasonableness for class action settlements.

The applicants moved for declarations regarding their pension rights under a supplemental pension plan.

The respondent argued the claims were barred by the Limitations Act, 2002, asserting the limitation period began when option statements denying the benefits were issued.

The court held that the claims were not statute-barred, finding that the cause of action for pension benefits does not crystallize until the payments actually fall due and are wrongfully refused, rather than when an anticipatory breach occurs.

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 representative plaintiffs in a certified class action regarding the Canada Life Canadian Employees' Pension Plan moved for approval of a settlement agreement, a variation of trust, and class counsel fees.

The claims involved the ownership of surplus assets, partial wind-ups, and the payment of plan expenses from the fund.

The settlement provided an estimated $54 million in financial benefits to class members, including surplus distribution and contribution holidays.

The court found the settlement to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, noting the legal risks associated with the claims.

The court also approved the variation of the pension trust under the Variation of Trusts Act and the rule in Saunders v. Vautier, distinguishing the Supreme Court's decision in Buschau because the employer supported the variation.

Finally, the court approved class counsel fees of approximately $4.8 million as fair and reasonable given the results achieved and the risks undertaken.

Following a successful appeal by the employer regarding the administration of a pension plan, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The pension committee argued that its costs should be paid out of the pension fund on a substantial indemnity basis, relying on traditional trust principles.

The Court of Appeal rejected this argument, adopting the 'pension trust approach' which limits costs from the fund to cases involving the due administration of the trust or claims advanced for the benefit of all beneficiaries.

Finding the litigation to be adversarial, the Court ordered the committee to pay the employer's costs of the appeals on a partial indemnity basis.

The employer appealed a Divisional Court decision that overturned a Financial Services Tribunal ruling regarding the administration of a pension plan.

The Court of Appeal restored the Tribunal's decisions, holding that the employer was entitled to pay most plan expenses from the pension fund and to take contribution holidays using the actuarial surplus for both the defined benefit and defined contribution components of the plan.

The Court also found that while the notice of the conversion option was inadequate, the Superintendent was not required to refuse registration of the amended plan.

Finally, the Court held that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to order costs payable from the pension fund.

The appellant trustee was successful on appeal and sought costs against the respondent employees.

The employees argued they should be shielded from costs as public interest litigants or under the principles of the Class Proceedings Act.

The Court of Appeal rejected these arguments, finding the employees had a direct financial stake and the matter was not a class action.

The court awarded the trustee costs for the proceedings before the registrar, the Superior Court, and the Court of Appeal, totaling approximately $24,000.

Prior to its bankruptcy, the bankrupt company deducted pension contributions from its employees' pay but failed to remit them, instead commingling the funds in its general bank account.

The account balance subsequently fluctuated and went into a negative balance before returning to a positive balance on the date of bankruptcy.

The employees claimed the unremitted contributions as trust property under s. 67(1)(a) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The Court of Appeal held that while a trust was initially created, the trust property ceased to be identifiable and could not be traced once the account went into overdraft.

Consequently, the funds in the account at the date of bankruptcy were not trust funds, and the Trustee's disallowance of the employees' claim was upheld.