Jeff Galway

The Applicant claimed entitlement to a deferred pension based on his employment with the company from 1970 to 1982, arguing he was a continuous member of the pension plan despite a brief break in service in 1975.

The Plan administrator and the Superintendent of Financial Services took the position that the Applicant received a Cash Refund Benefit when he terminated his employment in 1982, extinguishing any further entitlement.

The Financial Services Tribunal found that the Applicant failed to meet his burden of proof, concluding on a balance of probabilities that he had received a Cash Refund Benefit in 1982 and that his benefits were not locked in under the Plan or the Pension Benefits Act because he was under 45 years of age at the time of termination.

The application was dismissed.

The self-represented applicant withdrew her request for a hearing regarding spousal pension benefits while experiencing considerable distress during the proceeding.

The following day, she requested to reopen the matter and rescind her withdrawal.

The respondent and added party did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal granted the motion to rescind the withdrawal, noting the unique circumstances and the applicant's apparent distress.

The Tribunal also rescinded the permanent sealing and anonymization orders pending the recommencement of the hearing.

The added party, Canada Life, brought a motion for a confidentiality order to prevent the public disclosure of lists of deferred vested pension plan members it intended to file as evidence.

The applicant and the Superintendent consented to the motion.

The Financial Services Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that a confidentiality order was not necessary because the privacy interests of the non-parties could be fully protected by filing redacted versions of the lists.

The Tribunal emphasized the strong public interest in open proceedings and held that consent of the parties cannot override this principle where reasonable alternative measures exist.

The Applicant requested a review of a previous Tribunal decision dismissing her application, and suggested clarifications to the decision.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for review, finding that the Applicant was merely attempting to reargue her case and had not established any material errors of fact or law.

The Tribunal also declined to issue supplementary reasons to clarify the decision, noting that it was functus officio, though it did correct minor clerical errors pursuant to its Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The applicant, a retired member of the OMERS pension plan, challenged an amendment to the plan that changed the method used to calculate inflation indexing.

The applicant argued that the amendment reduced her accrued pension benefits, contrary to section 14(1) of the Pension Benefits Act, because the new method produced a lower increase in the year it was implemented.

The Financial Services Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the new method was actuarially equivalent to the old method and would produce the same level of inflation protection over time.

The Tribunal held that the amendment did not reduce the aggregate amount or the commuted value of the applicant's accrued pension.

At a pre-hearing conference, the Financial Services Tribunal considered applications for party status and a motion by the unrepresented applicant to convert the proceeding from an oral to a written hearing.

The Tribunal granted limited party status to two organizations but dismissed the other applications.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's motion for a written hearing, finding that the presence of contested expert evidence constituted good reason to maintain an oral hearing to allow for cross-examination, despite the applicant's concerns about being unrepresented.