4 total
Appeal from tribunal decision denying pension entitlement dismissed; tribunal's interpretation of ambiguous locking-in provision was reasonable.
The appellant appealed a decision of the Financial Services Tribunal dismissing his claim for a pension from his former employer.
The appellant argued that the pension plan's locking-in provision was clear and entitled him to a pension, or alternatively, that the ambiguous provision should be interpreted in his favour using the contra proferentem rule.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal's interpretation of the ambiguous provision was reasonable and consistent with the legislative context, and that the Tribunal made no error in declining to apply the contra proferentem principle.
Pension claim dismissed as evidence showed the applicant received a cash refund benefit upon termination.
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.
Costs reduced; partial indemnity awarded after dismissal of action for delay.
Following a prior order dismissing the plaintiff’s action for delay, the court addressed written submissions on costs brought by the successful moving defendants.
The defendants sought recovery of both the motion costs and the costs of the action, with some defendants requesting substantial indemnity costs.
The court confirmed that costs were payable but declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding that while the plaintiff’s delay warranted dismissal of the action, it did not justify punitive costs.
The court reduced the amounts claimed as excessive and awarded partial indemnity costs in reduced sums reflecting reasonableness and the limited complexity of the motion and proceedings.
Action dismissed for delay after plaintiff’s prolonged inactivity caused prejudice to defendants.
The moving defendants sought dismissal of a civil action for delay under Rule 24.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
The action, arising from a 2003 real estate transaction and alleging solicitor’s negligence and unpaid purchase funds, had remained largely inactive for over seven years.
The court found the delay to be inordinate and inexcusable, particularly given the plaintiff’s failure to advance the case despite prior administrative dismissal and reinstatement with directions to schedule a case conference.
Prejudice was established due to the death of a key participant and witness whose testimony was central to the disputed arrangements between the parties.
Balancing the plaintiff’s right to proceed against the defendants’ right to a fair trial, the court concluded that the defendants’ ability to defend the action had been irreparably compromised.
