Deborah Joan McPhail

The Superintendent of Financial Services proposed a partial wind up of the employer's pension plan following a corporate reorganization in 1996 that resulted in the involuntary termination of 384 administrative employees.

The employer requested a hearing, arguing that the number of terminations was not significant.

The Financial Services Tribunal found that 384 terminations, representing approximately 12.8% to 14.9% of the active administrative plan members, constituted a significant number under section 69(1)(d) of the Pension Benefits Act.

The Tribunal directed the Superintendent to order the partial wind up for the period from January 1, 1996 to December 31, 1996.

The employer requested a hearing regarding a Notice of Proposal by the Superintendent related to a partial wind-up report of its pension plan.

Shortly before the scheduled hearing, the employer withdrew its request.

The union, which had been granted party status, applied for an award of costs against the employer.

The Financial Services Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the employer's conduct was not unreasonable, frivolous, or vexatious, and that the delay caused by the change of position was not unnecessary or unreasonable.

The applicant employer sought a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal regarding the Superintendent's proposal to refuse approval of a partial wind-up report for a pension plan.

The report failed to provide for special early retirement pensions under section 7.3 of the plan.

The Tribunal found that the special early retirement pension was an 'ancillary benefit' under the Pension Benefits Act, and that the employer's consent required by the plan was deemed to be given upon partial wind-up pursuant to subsection 74(7) of the Act.

The Tribunal directed the Superintendent to carry out the proposal to refuse approval of the report.

The applicant brought a preliminary motion for an order directing the Superintendent of Financial Services to respond to interrogatories regarding the delay in processing a partial wind-up application for a pension plan.

The Superintendent refused to answer, arguing the reasons for delay were irrelevant.

The Financial Services Tribunal applied the Monsanto test and ordered the Superintendent to answer the interrogatories, finding that the issue of delay was arguably relevant as it had been included in the agreed Pre-Hearing Conference Memorandum.

The applicant, a member of the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan, sought to transfer the commuted value of his pension upon termination of employment.

The applicant had become eligible for an immediate pension under the plan's early retirement window.

The Financial Services Tribunal dismissed the application, holding that under section 42(3) of the Pension Benefits Act and the terms of the plan, a member who is eligible for an immediate pension is not entitled to transfer the commuted value of their pension.

The applicant, Monsanto Canada Inc., brought a preliminary motion for orders directing the Superintendent of Financial Services to disclose documents and answer interrogatories regarding past practice on partial wind up reports.

Monsanto argued this information was relevant to its claim of legitimate expectation.

The Financial Services Tribunal granted the motion, finding that the requested information was arguably relevant to a non-frivolous issue, sufficiently particularized, and not privileged.