David Andrew Stamp

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 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.

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 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.