John M. Picone

The applicants sought a declaration that they were entitled to supplementary pension benefits under the respondent's supplementary pension plan following a partial wind up of the registered pension plan.

The partial wind up triggered statutory 'grow in' benefits under the Pension Benefits Act, allowing the applicants to retire early with unreduced pensions.

The court interpreted the supplementary plan's formula, which explicitly excluded 'grow in' benefits from the calculation of the base pension amount.

The court found that when the 'grow in' benefits were excluded, the applicants' base pension amounts were less than the pension benefits they actually earned, resulting in no supplementary benefits being payable.

The application was dismissed, and the court declined to order costs payable from the pension fund.

An estates dispute arose over ownership of a residential property transferred by elderly parents to a daughter as a joint tenant without consideration.

The applicants alleged the transfer was invalid due to non est factum, undue influence, or a resulting trust, and alternatively argued that a later transfer severed the joint tenancy.

The court found the parents understood the nature and consequences of the transaction and intended to make a complete inter vivos gift, thereby rebutting the presumption of resulting trust under Pecore.

The court also held the later transfer into the daughter’s sole legal title accompanied by a declaration of trust did not sever the joint tenancy.

The property was ordered sold with net proceeds divided equally between the surviving parent and the daughter, and the daughter’s claim for reimbursement for renovations was dismissed for lack of proof.

The applicants moved for declarations regarding their pension rights under a supplemental pension plan.

The respondent argued the claims were barred by the Limitations Act, 2002, asserting the limitation period began when option statements denying the benefits were issued.

The court held that the claims were not statute-barred, finding that the cause of action for pension benefits does not crystallize until the payments actually fall due and are wrongfully refused, rather than when an anticipatory breach occurs.