Elzbieta Olszewska v. Superintendent of Financial Services et al., 2013 ONFST 7

FINANCIAL SERVICES TRIBUNAL

2013 ONFST 7

Decision No. P0500-2012-3

Date: 2013/07/22

IN THE MATTER OF the Pension Benefits Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8, and the Financial Services Commission of Ontario Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 28;

AND IN THE MATTER OF a Request for Review by the Applicant of a Decision of the Financial Services Tribunal dated June 26, 2013, upholding a Notice of Intended Decision by the Superintendent, Pensions, to Refuse to Make an Order under section 87 of the Act relating to the University of Toronto Pension Plan, Registration Number 312827;

B E T W E E N:

ELZBIETA OLSZEWSKA

APPLICANT

and

SUPERINTENDENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES and UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO

and the UNITED STEEL, PAPER AND FORESTRY, RUBBER, MANUFACTURING, ENERGY, ALLIED INDUSTRIAL AND SERVICE WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 1998

RESPONDENTS

BEFORE:

Florence Holden Vice Chair of the Tribunal and Chair of the Panel

John Solursh Chair of the Tribunal and Member of the Panel

Heather Gavin Member of the Tribunal and Member of the Panel

APPEARANCES:

For the Applicant – Elzbieta Olszewska (self-represented) For the Superintendent of Financial Services – Deborah McPhail

For the University of Toronto – Elizabeth M. Brown and Sean M. Sells

For the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, Local 1998 – Cathy Braker and Katrina Peddle

REASONS FOR DECISION

I. Background

1This matter comes before us as a Request for Review of a decision of this panel dated June 26, 2013 filed by the Applicant, Elzbieta Olszewska on July 9, 2013. Under the Rules of Practice and Procedure for Proceedings Before the Financial Services Tribunal (the ‘Rules’), in section 45.01, a written Request for Review must be filed and served within 10 days of the making of the Decision. The Applicant, under the Rules missed the filing deadline in this case of July 8, 2013 by filing her Request after 4:45 pm, which meant her document was deemed under section 4.01(c) of the Rules to be filed on July 9, 2013. While the Applicant provided no explanation of the delay, the Tribunal recognizes that she is self-represented and the delay was only a few hours. Consequently it has decided to exercise its discretion under Section 5.01 of the Rules to extend the time for filing to July 9, 2013.

2For the reasons set out below however, we dismiss the Request for Review as the Applicant has failed to meet the threshold for review.

II. Reasons for Decision

3The Rules in sections 44-47 set out the conditions under which the Tribunal will review its decisions and orders. In particular, section 46.01 states:

¨In deciding whether it is advisable to review all or part of its decision or order, the panel or member may consider any relevant circumstances, including:

(a) whether there is material error of law or fact such that the panel or member would likely have reached a different decision but for that error;

(b) the extent to which any party or any other person has relied on the decision or order;

(c) whether the decision or order is under appeal or is the subject of a judicial review application; and

(d) whether the public interest in finality of decisions and orders is outweighed by the prejudice to the requester.¨

4The Tribunal outlined its approach to Requests for Review in Gaylea Foods Co-Operative Limited 2010 ONFST 12. As in Gaylea¹, in this instance the Applicant must put forward either new evidence or new arguments or objections not reasonably available at the time of the original hearing. She has not done so.

5The hearing took place over three days, during which time the Applicant had ample opportunity to present evidence, make submissions and reply. She also had significant opportunity to cross-examine the Respondents’ witnesses. She now seeks in her Request for Review, in part, to now question the truthfulness of the testimony of one witness and alleges fabrication of evidence, with no evidence that would call into question our findings of fact. At the hearing she had attempted to challenge that evidence and provided no evidence then or now to suggest the documents put before us were not authentic.

6In our view the Applicant is merely trying to remake arguments already put before us at the hearing and rejected. The Tribunal’s original decision dealt with the issues raised in the Request for Review, and with some of them, in great detail. The Applicant accepted the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to hear the issues before it at the time of the hearing. She has not raised any new issues.

7As noted in earlier decisions such as Susan McGrath v. Superintendent of Financial Services, OMERS Administration Corporation and OMERS Sponsors Corporation, a Request for Review of a Tribunal decision or order is not an opportunity to reargue the case.² We accept the need for finality in pension matters. None of the issues raised by the Applicant constitute an error of law or fact which should cause the Tribunal to alter its original decision. There is nothing in the Request for Review that brings us over the threshold test, nor do the elements in section 46.01(a)-(c) fall into play to alter our view. While Ms. Olszewska may disagree with the Tribunal’s findings of fact and assessment of the arguments, her Request for Review does not meet the threshold text for review and the Request for Review is denied.

Footnotes

1. 1Paragraph 8.
2. 2Susan McGrath v. Superintendent of Financial Services, OMERS Administration Corporation and OMERS Sponsors Corporation, FST Decision No. P0335-2008-3 (May 7, 2010)