Ari Nathan Kaplan

This decision sanctions the CCAA Plans of Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, Imperial Tobacco Company Limited, JTI-Macdonald Corp., and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc., effecting a global settlement of all tobacco-related claims in Canada.

The court reviews the structure, allocation, and fairness of the plans, including the creation of a $1 billion Cy-près Foundation, and addresses objections from social stakeholders.

The court finds the plans fair, reasonable, and in the public interest, and grants the requested relief, including third-party releases and the appointment of plan administrators.

This supplementary endorsement addresses a request from JTI-Macdonald Corp. regarding the adequacy of notice elements in the Claims Procedure Order within the ongoing Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings.

The court confirmed its satisfaction that the notice elements in the Claims Procedure Orders are reasonable in the circumstances, addressing an oversight from previous submissions.

The Superior Court of Justice addressed multiple motions within the complex Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings of JTI-Macdonald Corp., Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, Imperial Tobacco Company Limited, and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. The court granted a stay extension until January 31, 2025, and approved Meeting Orders and Claims Procedure Orders.

These orders facilitate the advancement of comprehensive Plans of Arrangement, developed by the court-appointed Mediator and Monitors, aiming for a Pan-Canadian global settlement of tobacco claims totaling $32.5 billion.

The court found the plans were not "doomed to fail" despite outstanding issues regarding financial allocation among the Tobacco Companies and the creditor status of JTI-Macdonald TM Corp.

This decision concerns the approval of a class action settlement and class counsel's fees related to pension indexing benefits for members of the Brewer’s Retail, Inc. Pension Plan.

The dispute revolved around whether indexing constituted a protected pension benefit under the Pension Benefits Act.

The settlement provides for a 0.9% annual adjustment to pension benefits for pre-2010 service, with a specific fund allocated for certain class members requiring a claims process.

The court found the settlement to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, noting it was the result of arm's-length negotiations and avoided the "all or nothing" risk of litigation.

Class counsel's fees and disbursements were also approved as fair and reasonable, representing a significant reduction from their dockets and a modest percentage of the total settlement value.

IBM Canada Limited sought rectification of its pension plan to correct drafting errors made in a 2014 restatement, which inadvertently altered pension benefit accrual rules for employees on disability leave.

The errors would have either increased benefits for some members (DB and Non-Contributory DC) or decreased them for others (DC Match).

IBM consistently administered the plan according to its original, intended terms.

The representative respondents, representing affected members, consented to the rectification as part of a settlement agreement.

The court granted the rectification, finding the errors unintended and that it would be unjust to deny the order, applying the test for rectification of unilateral instruments.

The Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario (FSRA) appealed a Superior Court decision that dismissed its motion to stay a class proceeding initiated by Brewers Retail Inc. and a committee of pension plan members.

The class proceeding sought court approval of a comprehensive settlement regarding pension indexing issues, including amendments to the pension plan and trust, and compensation for known and unknown plan members.

FSRA argued that the Financial Services Tribunal (FST) had exclusive jurisdiction over these matters under the Pension Benefits Act (PBA) and the Financial Services Tribunal Act, 2017 (FSTA).

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the Superior Court had concurrent jurisdiction, noting that neither the FSTA nor the PBA contained clear and unequivocal language ousting the court's inherent equitable jurisdiction to approve settlements and vary trusts.

The court affirmed that the class proceeding was the preferable procedure, as the FST lacked the power to approve the settlement or vary the pension trust, and the class action provided the necessary finality for all affected plan members.

IBM Canada sought rectification of its retirement plan due to drafting errors affecting 210 current and former employees.

IBM brought a motion for a representation order to appoint Dario Ceci and Jacinthe Ratelle as representative respondents for the affected members, based on a settlement agreement.

The Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario (FSRA) did not oppose the motion or the underlying rectification.

The court granted the representation order, finding it necessary and desirable under Rule 10.01(1)(f), and confirmed the commonality of interest among pension plan members for class representation.

This is a costs endorsement following a judgment certifying a class action settlement.

The Financial Services Regulatory Authority (FSRA) intervened to oppose the certification and sought a stay, but was entirely unsuccessful on the merits.

The court considered costs submissions from Brewers Retail Inc. (Applicant), the Committee representing the proposed class of pensioners (Respondents), and FSRA (Intervenor).

The court denied FSRA's request for costs, finding its intervention caused additional costs for other parties.

The court awarded Brewers Retail Inc. $159,000 and the Committee $51,000, both inclusive of disbursements and HST, to be paid by FSRA, finding their efforts necessary and reasonable given FSRA's strenuous opposition.

The applicant employer sought to certify a class action on consent for settlement purposes regarding a long-standing dispute over pension plan indexing amendments.

The provincial pension regulator, FSRA, intervened to oppose the settlement and sought to stay the court proceedings in favour of a regulatory hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal.

The court granted FSRA leave to intervene but dismissed the stay motion, finding it had jurisdiction to adjudicate the pension dispute and that a class proceeding was the preferable procedure to achieve finality for all known and unknown plan members.

The action was certified as a class proceeding.

Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario sought to lift a stay on its $330 billion health care cost recovery action against three tobacco companies (JTI-Macdonald Corp., Imperial Tobacco, Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc.) and eleven co-defendants, which was imposed under CCAA proceedings.

Ontario proposed to temporarily stay the effects of any judgment.

The court dismissed the motion, emphasizing the need to preserve the status quo in CCAA proceedings to facilitate a global resolution of significant claims.

Allowing Ontario's action to proceed would alter the level playing field, distract from restructuring efforts, and impose significant costs, prejudicing other stakeholders.

In a joint cross-border insolvency trial concerning the allocation of approximately $7.3 billion in lockbox funds from the sale of global business lines and residual intellectual property, the court interpreted the Master R&D Agreement as an operating transfer-pricing document that granted limited licence rights but did not govern post-insolvency allocation.

The court rejected both the position that one Canadian debtor owned all sale proceeds by virtue of legal title and the position that the EMEA debtors jointly owned all intellectual property by operation of law.

Applying unjust enrichment principles and the broad remedial jurisdiction available in CCAA proceedings, the court held that a just result required a pro rata allocation among debtor estates based on allowed claims.

The court further directed that duplicate claims be counted only once for allocation purposes, that intercompany claims be included, and that interim distribution proposals be brought forward.

The applicant transit authority sought court approval of a negotiated settlement in a class proceeding concerning entitlement to proceeds arising from the demutualization of a life insurance company that issued group life insurance policies to employees and retirees.

The settlement provided that approximately 62% of the proceeds would be distributed to eligible employees and retirees and the remainder to the employer, with deductions for distribution and legal costs.

The court applied the established test under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 for approving class action settlements and considered factors including fairness of allocation, litigation risk, negotiation process, notice to class members, and absence of objections.

The court concluded that the settlement was fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class and approved the distribution scheme and related legal and administrative fees.

Ancillary orders were granted permitting sharing of contact information for distribution purposes and sealing the final list of eligible recipients to protect personal information.

The appellants, representing members of a salaried pension plan, appealed a decision of the Financial Services Tribunal that upheld the Superintendent's consent to merge their plan with an hourly-paid plan.

The appellants argued the merger would dilute their plan's surplus and that the surplus constituted 'other benefits' protected under s. 81(5) of the Pension Benefits Act.

The Divisional Court held that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the matter and that the appropriate standard of review was reasonableness simpliciter.

On the merits, the Court found that an actuarial surplus in an ongoing defined benefit plan is not an 'other benefit' under s. 81(5), and dismissed the appeal.

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 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.

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.