M. Bailey

The plaintiff sought leave to amend his Statement of Claim to add Melissa Corzo Reyes and Mark Ziegert as defendants in an action relating to a series of loans and subsequent real estate transactions.

The court granted the motion, finding that the amendments and addition of parties were appropriate and that no non-compensable prejudice would result.

The decision discusses the application of Rules 26.01 and 5.04(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the test for amendments, and the addition of parties, referencing relevant case law.

The appellant appealed a Financial Services Tribunal decision that allowed transferred employees to receive immediate unreduced pensions under the Public Service Pension Plan while continuing to work for the successor employer.

The Tribunal had interpreted section 80(3) of the Pension Benefits Act as deeming employment to continue only for the purposes of the Act, but not for the purposes of the pension plan.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Tribunal's interpretation was incorrect.

The Court found that section 80(3) clearly means that transferred employees' rights and benefits under a predecessor pension plan are to be determined as if their employment and pension plan membership are not interrupted.

The applicants, Timminco Limited and Bécancour Silicon Inc., sought orders in their CCAA proceedings to suspend special payments to their pension plans, grant super priority to Administration and D&O Charges over provincial pension deemed trusts, approve Key Employee Retention Plans (KERPs), and seal the KERP details.

The unions opposed the super priority and suspension of pension payments, arguing it violated provincial pension legislation and fiduciary duties.

The court granted the motion, applying the doctrine of paramountcy to find that enforcing the provincial pension obligations would force the companies into bankruptcy and frustrate the CCAA restructuring.

The court also approved the KERPs and sealed the confidential supplement.

The appellants, former employees and beneficiaries of a pension plan, appealed two decisions of the Financial Services Tribunal regarding the employer's handling of the plan.

The Divisional Court held that the employer was not permitted to pay plan administration expenses out of the trust fund, as such amendments constituted an invalid revocation of the trust.

However, the Court upheld the employer's right to take contribution holidays in the defined benefit plan.

The Court also ruled that the employer could not use surplus funds from the defined benefit plan to cross-subsidize its contributions to a newly created defined contribution plan, and that the employer failed to provide proper statutory notice of the plan conversion.

The Tribunal's decision that it lacked jurisdiction to award costs out of the pension fund was upheld.