Frank Cesario

The defendant brought a motion under Rule 21.01(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike the plaintiff’s statement of claim on the basis that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The self-represented plaintiff alleged retaliation, defamation, statutory breaches, and breach of an implied employment contract following a workplace incident while placed through a temporary employment agency.

The court held that alleged breaches of regulatory statutes such as the Occupational Health and Safety Act and the Employment Standards Act do not independently create civil causes of action absent express statutory authorization.

The pleading also failed to properly plead defamation and could not support an implied employment contract claim against the defendant because the plaintiff’s employer was the temporary help agency.

The court found the allegations speculative and unsupported by facts and struck the claim, dismissing the action.

The moving party sought summary judgment requiring a pension plan administrator to pay her a pre‑retirement death benefit under a federally regulated pension plan following the death of her former spouse.

The claim relied on a separation agreement stating that she would receive survivor benefits from the pension.

The court considered whether s. 25(4) of the Pension Benefits Standards Act permitted assignment of a pre‑retirement death benefit to a former spouse and whether the language of the parties’ separation agreement and related documents constituted an effective assignment.

Although the court held that the statute permits assignment of such benefits, it concluded the wording of the separation agreement and related direction did not clearly and unambiguously effect an assignment.

The statutory priority of the surviving spouse therefore prevailed and the death benefit was payable to the deceased member’s later spouse.