OFST 2013

The applicant filed a Request for Review of a previous Tribunal decision regarding her pension benefits.

She argued that she was entitled to immediate vesting and a transfer of her deferred pension to a locked-in RRSP based on the terms of the pension plan and subsequent amendments to the Pension Benefits Act.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant failed to meet the threshold for review.

The Tribunal held that the applicant was attempting to reargue the case and that her new arguments regarding immediate vesting failed because she did not meet the statutory requirement of 24 months of continuous membership, and the legislative amendments were not retroactive.

The applicant challenged the calculation and transfer of her defined contribution pension account following the termination of her employment.

She argued her employment ended on the date of her termination meeting, making subsequent pension deductions unauthorized, and that her funds should have been transferred to a locked-in RRSP.

The Tribunal found that her employment continued through her statutory notice period, making the deductions valid.

Furthermore, because she had less than two years of plan membership, the Pension Benefits Act and the plan text did not require the funds to be transferred to a locked-in account.

The application was dismissed without costs.

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.

The self-represented applicant withdrew her request for a hearing regarding spousal pension benefits while experiencing considerable distress during the proceeding.

The following day, she requested to reopen the matter and rescind her withdrawal.

The respondent and added party did not oppose the request.

The Tribunal granted the motion to rescind the withdrawal, noting the unique circumstances and the applicant's apparent distress.

The Tribunal also rescinded the permanent sealing and anonymization orders pending the recommencement of the hearing.

The applicant filed a motion requesting disclosure of certain documents and information from the added party, Holcim, regarding contributions and withdrawals from her pension plan.

The Tribunal treated the requests as interrogatories and document production requests under the Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the requested information had either already been provided, was irrelevant to the issues in the proceeding, or offended the principle of proportionality.

The self-represented applicant filed a Request for Review of a Financial Services Tribunal decision regarding the University of Toronto Pension Plan.

Although the applicant missed the filing deadline by a few hours, the Tribunal exercised its discretion to extend the time for filing.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the Request for Review on the merits, finding that the applicant failed to meet the threshold for review.

The applicant merely attempted to reargue issues already decided and did not present any new evidence or arguments that were not reasonably available at the time of the original hearing.

The Applicant, a retired member of a defined benefit pension plan, challenged the cessation date of his bridge benefit.

He argued that the bridge benefit should continue until his Canada Pension Plan and Old Age Security payments commenced, rather than ceasing on the first day of the month prior to his 65th birthday.

The Financial Services Tribunal found that the bridge benefit was paid in accordance with the clear terms of the pension plan, which stipulated cessation on the first of the month prior to the attainment of age 65.

The Tribunal also held that the plan terms were consistent with the Pension Benefits Act and the Income Tax Regulations.

The application was dismissed and the Superintendent's Notice of Intended Decision to refuse an order was upheld.

The Superintendent of Financial Services issued a Notice of Proposal to impose an administrative monetary penalty on the respondent.

The respondent filed a Request for Hearing after the 15-day statutory deadline.

The Superintendent brought a motion to dismiss the request for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the 15-day deadline is a procedural requirement that can only be waived on consent of the parties.

As the Superintendent did not consent to the late filing, the Tribunal dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The added party, Canada Life, brought a motion for a confidentiality order to prevent the public disclosure of lists of deferred vested pension plan members it intended to file as evidence.

The applicant and the Superintendent consented to the motion.

The Financial Services Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that a confidentiality order was not necessary because the privacy interests of the non-parties could be fully protected by filing redacted versions of the lists.

The Tribunal emphasized the strong public interest in open proceedings and held that consent of the parties cannot override this principle where reasonable alternative measures exist.

The Divisional Court remitted the matter back to the Financial Services Tribunal to reconsider its order revoking the applicant's mortgage agent licence, specifically to provide reasons why revocation was appropriate instead of a lesser penalty.

The Tribunal reviewed written submissions and confirmed its original order of revocation.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's past conduct, which resulted in significant financial losses for three clients due to his reckless disregard for their interests, demonstrated he was unsuitable to remain licensed.

The Tribunal concluded that a suspension would not adequately protect the public and that revocation was a proportional response.