7 total
An insolvent university was permitted to apply a reduced transfer ratio to pending pension transfers.
Laurentian University sought orders under the CCAA to apply a 65.8% Transfer Ratio to commuted value pension transfers for 27 individuals and to confirm a stay on pre-filing Pension Benefits Guarantee Fund (PBGF) assessments.
The court granted the application to apply the Transfer Ratio, finding it necessary to preserve pension plan assets and ensure equitable treatment among beneficiaries, despite objections from some affected individuals who argued they relied on a 100% transfer ratio.
The court also confirmed the stay on PBGF assessments, characterizing them as pre-filing obligations based on when the amount was determined.
Costs awarded where success divided but moving party prevailed on main issue.
The court determined costs following a motion concerning whether a proceeding could continue as a representative action under Rule 12.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
Success on the underlying motion was divided: the moving party succeeded on the central issue that the action could proceed as a representative proceeding meeting the test analogous to certification under the Class Proceedings Act, but the responding parties succeeded on issues including that only individual union members, not the union itself, could act as representative plaintiffs and that particulars were required for a negligent misrepresentation claim.
Applying the factors in Rule 57, including relative success, complexity, and conduct of the parties, the court concluded that the moving party was overall more successful.
The court awarded reduced partial indemnity costs reflecting divided success and certain pleading deficiencies.
Tribunal's use of a subset analysis to order a partial pension plan wind-up was reasonable.
The appellant, Hydro One Inc., appealed a Divisional Court decision upholding a Financial Services Tribunal order for a partial wind-up of its pension plan under s. 69(1)(d) of the Pension Benefits Act.
Following a corporate merger, the employment of 73 Management Compensation Plan (MCP) employees was terminated.
The Tribunal used a 'subset analysis' to determine that a 'significant number' of plan members had been terminated, comparing the number of terminated MCP employees to the total number of active MCP plan members.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that s. 69(1)(d) permits a subset analysis in appropriate circumstances and that the Tribunal's application of this analysis was reasonable given that the merger intentionally targeted senior employees nearing retirement.
Motion to correct a misstatement in a previous Tribunal decision granted.
The Society of Energy Professionals brought a motion to correct an alleged misstatement in the Tribunal's previous decision regarding the partial wind up of the Hydro One Pension Plan.
The Tribunal accepted that it had misunderstood counsel's position during argument and agreed to correct the decision.
The Tribunal also corrected a typographical error, replacing the word 'interlocutory' with 'interrogatory'.
Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide and pay for notice of hearing to all pension plan members.
The applicant brought a motion to determine the nature of the notice to be provided for a hearing regarding its application to withdraw surplus from a pension plan.
The Superintendent of Financial Services had proposed to refuse the application.
The Tribunal ordered that notice of the hearing be provided by ordinary mail to all affected members and former members of the plan, as well as by newspaper publication, with the costs to be borne by the applicant.
Costs awarded to defendant from the date of its offer to settle which exceeded the damages awarded.
In an addendum on costs following an appeal, the Court of Appeal applied Rule 49.10(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
The appellant (defendant at trial) had made a pre-trial offer to settle that exceeded the quantum of damages ultimately awarded by the court.
Consequently, the respondent (plaintiff) was awarded party-and-party costs up to the date of the offer, and the appellant was awarded party-and-party costs from that date to the conclusion of the trial, as well as the costs of the appeal.
Pension payments received during the notice period must be credited when calculating pension loss damages.
The respondent employee was wrongfully dismissed after refusing to relocate to Ohio.
The trial judge awarded damages based on an 18-month notice period, including $49,293.97 for pension loss, and found the respondent had properly mitigated his damages by starting a consulting business.
The employer appealed the mitigation finding and the pension loss award.
The Court of Appeal upheld the mitigation finding but allowed the appeal regarding the pension loss.
The Court held that the trial judge erred by failing to account for the pension benefits the respondent received during the notice period, which actually increased the overall present value of his pension, and by improperly grossing up the award for tax purposes.
