Deborah Joan McPhail

The appellant pension board appealed a Divisional Court decision that a deceased member's former spouse was entitled to a portion of his pre-retirement death benefits pursuant to a separation agreement.

The Court of Appeal held that pension benefits, including pre-retirement death benefits, may be transferred under a domestic contract without the aid of s. 48(13) of the Pension Benefits Act.

The court also determined that the 50 per cent limit on transfers under s. 51(2) applied to the pre-1987 benefits, and that the calculation date for the benefits was the date of the member's death.

The appeal was dismissed and the cross-appeal was allowed in part.

The Superintendent of Financial Services proposed an order requiring the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan Board to pay a member's pension as a joint and survivor pension.

The member and his spouse separated shortly after his retirement but before the first pension payment was made.

The Board requested a hearing, arguing the spouses were living separate and apart on the date the first instalment was due, triggering an exception under the Pension Benefits Act.

The Financial Services Tribunal agreed with the Board, finding that the due date for the first instalment was at the end of the month, by which time the spouses had separated.

The Tribunal directed the Superintendent to refrain from carrying out the proposed order.

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.

This is a supplementary reasons for judgment regarding costs following an appeal and a Rule 59 motion concerning a pension plan death benefit.

The successful appellant sought substantial indemnity costs payable out of the pension plan fund.

The court found that the litigation clarified a problematic part of the Pension Benefits Act, benefiting members and administrators of plans throughout Ontario.

Applying the principle that costs of litigation necessary for the administration of a trust should be paid from the trust, the court awarded the appellant substantial indemnity costs of $40,000 plus disbursements, payable by the Board from the funds of the Plan.

The Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan Board brought a motion to amend a previous Divisional Court order regarding the allocation of a deceased member's pre-retirement death benefit between his former spouse and his surviving spouse.

The court held that the former spouse's entitlement under a separation agreement was not limited to benefits accrued after 1986, as the Pension Benefits Act provisions allowing assignment of pension benefits on marriage breakdown applied to both pre-1987 and post-1986 benefits.

However, the court found that section 51(2) of the Act limited the former spouse's entitlement to 50% of the benefits accrued during the period of marriage, which ended on the date of their divorce.

The applicant company initiated a voluntary partial wind-up of its pension plan following a plant closure and restructuring.

The company excluded its former President and CEO from the wind-up group, arguing he was terminated for cause following a corporate takeover, not as a result of the plant closure.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal refusing to approve the wind-up report unless the former executive was included.

The Financial Services Tribunal affirmed the Superintendent's proposal, finding that the executive was terminated during the defined partial wind-up period and the company failed to demonstrate his termination was not a result of the restructuring.

The Tribunal also rejected the company's argument that the Superintendent was functus officio.

The appellant employer sought to partially wind up its defined benefit pension plan following a corporate reorganization and plant closure, without distributing the $3.1 million pro rata share of the actuarial surplus to the affected members.

The Superintendent of Financial Services refused to approve the report, but the Financial Services Tribunal ordered its approval, relying on the doctrine of legitimate expectations and its interpretation of the Pension Benefits Act.

The Divisional Court overturned the Tribunal's decision.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed the Divisional Court, holding that section 70(6) of the Pension Benefits Act requires the distribution of surplus on a partial wind up, and that the doctrine of legitimate expectations cannot be used to create substantive rights or override statutory obligations.

The applicant employer sought consent to withdraw surplus funds from a wound-up pension plan.

The Superintendent of Financial Services initially proposed to refuse consent.

Following a settlement conference, the parties reached an agreement.

The Financial Services Tribunal issued a consent order directing the Superintendent to refrain from refusing consent and directing the payment of the surplus to the applicant in accordance with the Surplus Distribution Agreement.

The Superintendent of Financial Services brought a motion for an order directing Imperial Oil Limited to answer interrogatories in a proceeding concerning the partial wind up of two pension plans.

The Tribunal applied the test for pre-hearing disclosure and found that while member-specific information was not relevant, general statistical information about the employment status of certain plan members was arguably relevant.

The Tribunal ordered the Applicant to provide answers to revised interrogatories seeking statistical information within six weeks.

The applicant, Imperial Oil Limited, brought a motion for an order directing the Superintendent of Financial Services to provide further and better answers to interrogatories and to produce documents related to the partial wind up of two pension plans.

The applicant sought information regarding the Superintendent's past practices on partial wind ups, specifically concerning the inclusion of certain employee categories and the calculation of grow-in benefits.

The Tribunal granted the motion, ordering the Superintendent to respond to the interrogatories based on a representative sample of files processed between January 1993 and October 2000, balancing the relevance of the information against the hardship of reviewing all files.

The appellant appealed a Financial Services Tribunal decision that directed the Superintendent not to order the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan Board to pay her a pre-retirement death benefit.

The appellant and the deceased plan member had separated and executed a separation agreement dividing the pension, but the deceased later remarried.

The Divisional Court held that under section 48(13) of the Pension Benefits Act, the subsequent spouse's entitlement to the death benefit is subject to the former spouse's interest set out in a valid domestic contract.

The appeal was allowed and the Board was ordered to pay the appellant her share of the benefit.

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 Ontario Pension Board requested a hearing regarding a proposal by the Superintendent of Financial Services to order the Board to pay Victor Burns his full pension benefits retroactive to his retirement from the Ontario Provincial Police.

Mr. Burns had terminated his employment with the OPP and commenced employment with the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Services during a period when police services were being transferred between the two entities.

The Tribunal found that Mr. Burns' new employment was in conjunction with the disposition of police services, meaning section 80(3) of the Pension Benefits Act applied.

Consequently, his employment was deemed not to be terminated, and he was not entitled to commence receiving a pension on the date he ceased employment with the OPP.

The Superintendent's proposal was quashed.

The employer applied to the Superintendent of Pensions to transfer pension assets to a consolidated plan.

Simultaneously, retired employees requested a partial wind-up of the plan to distribute an accumulated surplus following a plant closure.

The Superintendent approved the transfer without formally deciding or adequately considering the retirees' wind-up request.

The Divisional Court set aside the Superintendent's consent and ordered the assets returned.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the Divisional Court's decision, finding the Superintendent's failure to consider the wind-up request rendered the transfer consent unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal only set aside the Divisional Court's order mandating an automatic referral of any future wind-up decision to the Financial Services Tribunal.

Following the sale of a business, the Superintendent of Pensions approved the transfer of pension assets and liabilities from the exporting employer to the importing employer without giving notice to the importing employer's employees.

The employees applied for judicial review, arguing a breach of natural justice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Superintendent's procedure was reasonable.

The court found that the employees' interests would be adequately protected at the second stage of the process, when the importing employer applied to amend its pension plan, at which point notice and an opportunity to make submissions would be provided.

The applicant brought a motion to determine the nature of the notice to be provided for a hearing regarding its application to withdraw surplus from a pension plan.

The Superintendent of Financial Services had proposed to refuse the application.

The Tribunal ordered that notice of the hearing be provided by ordinary mail to all affected members and former members of the plan, as well as by newspaper publication, with the costs to be borne by the applicant.

The applicants, former employees of the Ministry of Finance, were transferred to the Ontario Property Assessment Corporation (OPAC) when the Ministry's property assessment functions were transferred.

At the time of the transfer, both applicants were eligible to retire under the 'Factor 80' provisions of their respective pension plans and sought to receive their pension benefits while continuing to work for OPAC.

The Superintendent of Financial Services refused to order the pension plan administrators to pay the benefits, finding that under section 80 of the Pension Benefits Act, the transfer constituted a sale of a business and the applicants' employment was deemed not to have been terminated.

The Financial Services Tribunal affirmed the Superintendent's decision, holding that the applicants could not receive pension benefits without actually terminating their employment with the successor employer.

The applicant requested a hearing regarding the constitution of a pension plan's advisory committee.

A pre-hearing motion was held to determine whether separate notice of the jurisdictional hearing needed to be provided to former members of the plan.

The Tribunal found that the union's acknowledgement of its fiduciary duty to represent all members, including former members, was sufficient.

The Tribunal declined to order additional notice to former members.

The Superintendent of Financial Services appealed a decision of the Financial Services Tribunal regarding the partial wind-up of a pension plan by Monsanto Canada Inc. The Tribunal had ruled that Monsanto was not required to distribute pension surplus on a partial wind-up and that Monsanto had a legitimate expectation based on past regulatory practice.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, adopting the dissenting reasons of the Tribunal.

The Court held that section 70(6) of the Pension Benefits Act requires the distribution of surplus on a partial wind-up, and that the doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot justify disregarding the requirements of the law.

The Superintendent of Financial Services proposed an order requiring Dustbane Enterprises Limited to fund a deficit arising from the partial wind-up of its pension plan.

Dustbane argued that the plan was a multi-employer pension plan and that its distributors were separate employers liable for their respective shares of the deficit.

The Financial Services Tribunal held that the plan did not meet the statutory requirements for a multi-employer pension plan, as there were no written participation agreements and the plan was not administered as such.

The Tribunal directed the Superintendent to carry out the proposed order, making Dustbane solely liable for the deficit.