Hugh O’Reilly

The applicant union sought judicial review of a labour arbitration award which found the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction to hear grievances regarding the hospital's pension contribution deductions.

The arbitrator had concluded that the dispute fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the pension plan administrator, not the collective agreement.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found the arbitrator's decision was justified, transparent, and intelligible, noting the arbitrator properly considered the collective agreement, agreed facts, and relevant jurisprudence including the Weber essential character test.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

This appeal considered whether actuarial surpluses recorded in federal public-sector superannuation accounts were assets in which plan members held legal or equitable interests.

The Court held the accounts were statutory accounting records tracking Consolidated Revenue Fund transactions, not segregated asset pools.

It rejected claims based on proprietary entitlement, fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, constructive trust, and alleged expropriation.

The Court further held the statutory amendments authorized debiting surplus amounts and did not require compensation.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

On an unopposed insolvency motion under Part III of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the moving parties sought sanction of an amended consolidated proposal with substantive consolidation and a broad third-party release.

The court applied the section 59(2) reasonableness-and-benefit test, considered good faith and creditor voting support, and accepted that the proposal met statutory requirements.

The court held that third-party releases were permissible in the circumstances and interpreted the statute harmoniously with restructuring principles applied under related insolvency legislation.

Applying the Metcalfe criteria, the court found the release was necessary, supported by tangible contributions, and beneficial to creditors generally compared with bankruptcy alternatives.

The sanction order was granted.

The applicant, a 44-year-old member of a pension plan, alleged age discrimination because the plan only permitted members who were 60 years of age with 20 years of service to retire with an unreduced pension.

The respondents sought to dismiss the application under section 25(2.1) of the Human Rights Code, which exempts pension plans that comply with the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing and found that the pension plan complied with the applicable legislation.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded there was no reasonable prospect of success and dismissed the application.

The parties consented to an order fixing the costs of the appeal at $100,000, all inclusive, payable to the respondent Crown.