David Andrew Stamp

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's wrongful dismissal action for delay under the Langenecker test.

The action had been outstanding for eleven years but was a relatively straightforward wrongful dismissal claim for a one-year employee.

The court found the delay was inordinate but not inexcusable, as the plaintiff had adequately explained the turnover of counsel and procedural complications.

Even assuming the delay was inexcusable, the court found no prejudice to the defendants' ability to have a fair trial, as discovery transcripts preserved evidence and previous findings on the amendment motion had already rejected prejudice claims.

The defendants' motion was dismissed and the plaintiff's cross-motion to restore the action to the trial list was granted with a peremptory timetable imposed.

IBM Canada Limited sought rectification of its pension plan to correct drafting errors made in a 2014 restatement, which inadvertently altered pension benefit accrual rules for employees on disability leave.

The errors would have either increased benefits for some members (DB and Non-Contributory DC) or decreased them for others (DC Match).

IBM consistently administered the plan according to its original, intended terms.

The representative respondents, representing affected members, consented to the rectification as part of a settlement agreement.

The court granted the rectification, finding the errors unintended and that it would be unjust to deny the order, applying the test for rectification of unilateral instruments.

This is a proposed class proceeding concerning pension transfers from the Ontario public service to the federal public service.

The parties negotiated an agreement to certify the action for settlement purposes.

This order approves the proposed communication and notice plan for class members and fixes a date for the certification and settlement approval motion, ensuring class members are informed of their options.

IBM Canada sought rectification of its retirement plan due to drafting errors affecting 210 current and former employees.

IBM brought a motion for a representation order to appoint Dario Ceci and Jacinthe Ratelle as representative respondents for the affected members, based on a settlement agreement.

The Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario (FSRA) did not oppose the motion or the underlying rectification.

The court granted the representation order, finding it necessary and desirable under Rule 10.01(1)(f), and confirmed the commonality of interest among pension plan members for class representation.

The appellant, an unqualified teacher who taught part-time credit courses between 1980 and 1989, sought retroactive pension credits from the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan.

The Financial Services Tribunal dismissed his application, finding he required a Letter of Permission (LOP) for each year of service to be eligible for credits, and that he failed to prove he had been granted any LOPs.

On appeal to the Divisional Court, the appellant argued the Tribunal erred in its interpretation of the LOP requirement, the burden of proof, and the pension board's fiduciary duties.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Tribunal correctly applied the statutory requirements, properly placed the onus of proof on the appellant, and made no palpable and overriding error in its factual findings regarding the absence of LOPs and the board's conduct.

The plaintiff brought a motion to compel the examination for discovery of David Eckert, the president and CEO, as the corporate representative for the defendants Juice DMS Advertising Limited and Yellow Pages Limited.

The corporate defendants argued that Adrian Fitz-Gerald, an executive advisor with direct involvement in the relevant events, was a more appropriate representative.

The court applied the test for substituting a corporate representative, which places the onus on the corporation to show the plaintiff's chosen representative is inappropriate.

The court found that Eckert lacked sufficient direct knowledge of the matters in dispute and that requiring his attendance would be unfairly onerous given his extensive managerial responsibilities.

Fitz-Gerald, conversely, was found to be personally involved and knowledgeable.

The motion to examine Eckert was dismissed, and Fitz-Gerald was ordered as the appropriate representative.

Costs were awarded to the corporate defendants.

The appellant, an Ontario public service employee, appealed a decision of the Financial Services Tribunal regarding a pension plan amendment.

Upon promotion to a management position, the appellant transferred from the OPSEU Pension Plan to the Public Service Pension Plan.

A 2013 amendment to the OPSEU Plan eliminated the payout of 'Excess Commuted Value' upon such transfers.

The appellant argued the amendment was void under the Pension Benefits Act for reducing an accrued pension benefit.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's findings that the excess payment was not a 'pension benefit' and had not 'accrued' at the time of the amendment.

La Cité collégiale (l'applicant) a présenté une motion pour contraindre le Régime de retraite des collèges d’arts appliqués et de technologie (le respondent) à répondre à des questions refusées ou prises en délibéré lors de l'interrogatoire préalable d'Evan Howard.

La Cité alléguait que M. Brousseau, un ancien employé, avait subi une perte financière due à un écart entre sa rente mensuelle projetée et réelle, et que le CAAT avait un devoir de diligence et fiduciaire.

Le tribunal a examiné la pertinence des questions en vertu de la Règle 31.06 des Règles de procédure civile et du principe de proportionnalité.

Certaines questions ont été jugées non pertinentes (liées au travail antérieur de M. Howard comme avocat, ou demandant une opinion d'expert), tandis que d'autres ont été jugées pertinentes pour établir les connaissances du CAAT en matière de pension, ses communications avec les collèges et les membres, et les changements apportés à ses informations depuis 2012.

Le tribunal a ordonné que les réponses aux questions pertinentes soient fournies par écrit dans les 45 jours.

The applicant sought judicial review of ongoing disciplinary proceedings before the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, applying the principle that judicial review should generally await the completion of administrative proceedings absent exceptional circumstances.

The court found no exceptional circumstances, noting that the referral to the Discipline Committee complied with the Professional Engineers Act and that disclosure issues should be addressed in the related civil proceedings.

The Ontario Nurses' Association appealed a Divisional Court decision that had set aside an arbitrator's award regarding the interpretation of a collective agreement between the ONA and Toronto East General Hospital.

The dispute arose from the Hospital's closure of beds in a unit, which reduced available work hours for regular part-time nurses.

The Hospital spread the reduction across all part-time nurses without regard to seniority.

The arbitrator found this constituted a lay-off triggering the collective agreement's lay-off provisions, which require seniority-based reductions.

The Divisional Court reversed, finding the arbitrator's decision internally inconsistent and contrary to the collective agreement's terms.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the arbitrator's interpretation reasonable and consistent with the collective agreement's language and purpose.

The appellants obtained a default judgment against Grocery Dayton for $980,200 after discontinuing their action against Wakefern Food Corporation.

Upon discovering Grocery Dayton was not a legal entity, the appellants moved to amend the judgment to add Wakefern as a judgment debtor, arguing Grocery Dayton was merely an alias for Wakefern.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding insufficient evidence that the two were the same entity.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, agreeing there was insufficient evidence and that it would be unfair to add Wakefern without allowing it to defend the action on its merits.

However, the Court exercised its jurisdiction to set aside the discontinuance against Wakefern.

The applicants brought an application under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act to declare the respondent a vexatious litigant.

The respondent had commenced multiple proceedings against his employer and its employees regarding alleged workplace exposure to hazardous substances, despite his claims having been previously dismissed by the WSIB and the courts as an abuse of process.

The court found that the respondent had persistently and without reasonable grounds instituted vexatious proceedings and conducted them in a vexatious manner.

The application was granted, and the respondent was prohibited from instituting or continuing proceedings without leave of the court.

SCI Group Inc. brought a motion to add an estoppel issue to the pending hearing regarding the Superintendent's refusal to consent to a pension asset transfer from the BCE Plan to the Progistix Plan.

SCI also sought additional documentary production from BCE related to the estoppel issue.

BCE opposed the motion, arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to consider estoppel and that there was no factual basis for the claim.

The Tribunal held it had jurisdiction to consider estoppel under the Pension Benefits Act and found it premature to dismiss the issue on its factual merits.

The Tribunal granted the motion to add the estoppel issue and ordered limited production of documents relevant to the alleged representations.

The appellant appealed an order regarding her qualification for survivor benefits under the respondent pension plan.

The respondent confirmed before the Court of Appeal that the appellant would continue to qualify for benefits as long as her academic institution considered her to be in full-time attendance, even with a reduced course load.

Given this assurance, the appellant achieved the result she sought by way of alternative relief.

The appeal was dismissed, with costs awarded to the respondent.

The Financial Services Tribunal held a hearing to consider the approval of Minutes of Settlement regarding the partial wind-up of a pension plan and the distribution of surplus.

The Tribunal approved the settlement, added affected members as parties, and ordered the applicant to file an amendment to the plan and a surplus withdrawal application.

The Superintendent was directed to issue a Notice of Proposal approving the application.

The appellant appealed a decision refusing to intervene in his removal as a Trustee of a pension fund pending investigations of alleged misconduct.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the application judge that there was no evidence the remaining trustees were likely to act contrary to the best interests of the plan members or that the appellant's removal would prejudice the members.

The court confirmed that the evidence did not meet the threshold of demonstrating a likelihood of abuse of discretion.

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.