C. S. Moore

Following a decision affirming the Superintendent's Notice of Proposal regarding a partial wind-up report, the interested party sought an award of costs against the company.

The interested party argued that the company was wholly unsuccessful and caused unreasonable delays by advancing frivolous positions.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for costs, finding that the company's arguments were reasonable and necessary for the hearing, and that its conduct was consistent with its fiduciary duty as plan administrator.

The applicant, CBS Canada Co., and the Superintendent of Financial Services, along with the CAW-Canada, reached a settlement regarding the partial wind-up of the Westinghouse Canada Inc. Pension Plans following several plant closures.

The Financial Services Tribunal approved the Minutes of Settlement, which detailed the calculation of early retirement benefits for affected plan members and the withdrawal of the Superintendent's Notices of Proposal to refuse the partial wind-up reports.

The Tribunal remained seized of the matter for implementation purposes.

The Applicant requested a hearing regarding the Superintendent of Financial Services' Notice of Proposal to Refuse to Consent to an application for withdrawal of funds from a locked-in account based on financial hardship.

The Superintendent denied the application because it was made within 12 months of a previous successful application, contrary to the Pension Benefits Act regulations.

The Financial Services Tribunal affirmed the Superintendent's decision, noting it lacked authority to waive the 12-month requirement, but advised the Applicant could reapply once the 12-month period expired.

The Applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal after the Superintendent of Financial Services proposed to refuse consent for a withdrawal from a locked-in retirement account based on financial hardship.

The Applicant had previously made a successful withdrawal application based on low income less than 12 months prior.

The Tribunal found that despite compelling evidence of financial hardship, it lacked the authority to override the strict requirement in subsection 89(4) of Regulation 909, which permits only one successful application per 12-month period.

The Superintendent's proposal to refuse consent was affirmed.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal after the Superintendent of Financial Services proposed to refuse consent for the withdrawal of funds from a locked-in account based on financial hardship.

The applicant applied under the low-income provision, but their expected income exceeded the prescribed limit of 66 2/3 per cent of the Year's Maximum Pensionable Earnings.

The Tribunal held that it had no authority to grant an exception to the requirements of the Regulation and affirmed the Superintendent's refusal.

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 Applicant requested a hearing regarding the Superintendent of Financial Services' Notice of Proposal to Refuse to Consent to a withdrawal from a locked-in account based on financial hardship.

The Superintendent denied the September 2001 application because it was made within 12 months of a previous successful application made in June 2001, contrary to subsections 89(4) and 89(5) of Ontario Regulation 909.

The Financial Services Tribunal affirmed the Superintendent's decision, noting it lacked authority to direct consent for an application that did not meet the regulatory requirements.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal after the Superintendent of Financial Services proposed to refuse her application to withdraw funds from a locked-in account based on financial hardship.

The Superintendent refused the application because it was made within 12 months of a previous successful application, contrary to subsections 89(4) and 89(5) of Ontario Regulation 909.

The Tribunal affirmed the Superintendent's refusal, noting it lacked authority to override the Regulation, but advised the applicant that she could now submit a new application as the 12-month period had expired.

The applicant requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal regarding the Superintendent of Financial Services' proposal to refuse consent for the withdrawal of funds from a locked-in account based on financial hardship.

The applicant had previously made a successful application for withdrawal based on low income in June 2001.

The current application was made in August 2001.

The Tribunal found that the August application violated the statutory requirement under Ontario Regulation 909 that only one application may be made during each 12-month period.

The Tribunal affirmed the Superintendent's refusal.

The applicant submitted a request for a hearing to the Financial Services Tribunal after the Superintendent of Financial Services had already consented to the maximum permitted withdrawal from a locked-in account based on financial hardship.

Because the Superintendent had consented to the application and had not issued a Notice of Proposal to Refuse to Consent, the Tribunal determined it lacked jurisdiction to deal further with the matter.

The request for a hearing was denied.

The Applicant requested a hearing regarding the Superintendent of Financial Services' Notice of Proposal to Refuse to Consent to an application for withdrawal of funds from a locked-in account based on financial hardship.

The Superintendent denied the application because it was made within 12 months of a previous successful application based on low income, contrary to subsections 89(4) and 89(5) of Ontario Regulation 909.

The Financial Services Tribunal affirmed the Superintendent's decision, noting it lacked authority to direct consent for an application that did not meet the regulatory requirements.