COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

CITATION: Raghavan v. Bell Canada, 2012 ONCA 370

DATE: 20120531

DOCKET: C54869

BEFORE: Goudge, Simmons and Rouleau JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Vasundara Raghavan and Gopalachari Raghavan

Plaintiffs (Appellants)

and

Bell Canada, BCE Inc., BCE Corporate services Inc. and Morneau Sobeco

Defendants (Respondents)

COUNSEL:

Gopalachari Raghavan, appearing in person and on behalf of Vasundara Raghavan

Mark Hines, for the respondents Bell Canada, BCE Inc., and the improperly named and now wound up BCE Corporate services Inc.

Jennifer Heath, for the respondent Morneau Sobeco (improperly named herein)

HEARD: May 29, 2012

On appeal from the judgment of Justice Fletcher Dawson of the Superior Court of Justice, dated December 16, 2011.

APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT

[1] The appellants’ fundamental position is that they are entitled, as a matter of law, to a pension option not contained in the respondent Bell Canada pension plan. We agree with the motion judge that the respondents were under no statutory or common law obligation to offer such an option, particularly in light of s. 22(5) of the Pension Benefits Standards Act. Neither a trial nor any pleading amendment can alter this legal reality. We would therefore dismiss the appeal.

[2] Costs to each respondent of $3000 inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes.