OFST 2007

The applicant union requested a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal after the Superintendent of Financial Services declined to order partial wind ups of two pension plans.

The parties subsequently entered into Minutes of Settlement.

Based on the settlement, the Tribunal ordered the Superintendent to require the partial wind ups of the plans, effective June 30, 2007, covering members who ceased employment between January 1, 2003, and June 30, 2007.

The order was stayed pending the employer's appeal to the Divisional Court regarding whether the plans are subject to provincial or federal jurisdiction.

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'.

The applicant made a second application to the Superintendent of Financial Services for a withdrawal from a locked-in account based on medical expenses within 12 months of a successful first application.

The Superintendent proposed to refuse the application because the Regulation precludes more than one application for withdrawal on the basis of medical expenses in a 12-month period.

The Financial Services Tribunal affirmed the Superintendent's decision, finding it had no authority to direct the Superintendent to act contrary to the Regulation.

The applicant employer wound up a pension plan and made a lump sum contribution to fund the estimated deficit.

Once all benefit obligations were settled, it was determined the employer had overpaid by $145,361.

The employer applied to the Superintendent for a return of the overpayment under s. 78(4) of the Pension Benefits Act and an extension of time under s. 105.

The Superintendent proposed to refuse the application, arguing the excess constituted surplus subject to s. 79 and that the application was out of time.

The Financial Services Tribunal held that the excess was an overpayment, that s. 78(4) operates independently of s. 79, and that an extension of time was warranted.

The Superintendent was ordered to consent to the refund.