Randy Vermont Bauslaugh

This decision concerns the approval of a class action settlement and class counsel's fees related to pension indexing benefits for members of the Brewer’s Retail, Inc. Pension Plan.

The dispute revolved around whether indexing constituted a protected pension benefit under the Pension Benefits Act.

The settlement provides for a 0.9% annual adjustment to pension benefits for pre-2010 service, with a specific fund allocated for certain class members requiring a claims process.

The court found the settlement to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, noting it was the result of arm's-length negotiations and avoided the "all or nothing" risk of litigation.

Class counsel's fees and disbursements were also approved as fair and reasonable, representing a significant reduction from their dockets and a modest percentage of the total settlement value.

The Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario (FSRA) appealed a Superior Court decision that dismissed its motion to stay a class proceeding initiated by Brewers Retail Inc. and a committee of pension plan members.

The class proceeding sought court approval of a comprehensive settlement regarding pension indexing issues, including amendments to the pension plan and trust, and compensation for known and unknown plan members.

FSRA argued that the Financial Services Tribunal (FST) had exclusive jurisdiction over these matters under the Pension Benefits Act (PBA) and the Financial Services Tribunal Act, 2017 (FSTA).

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the Superior Court had concurrent jurisdiction, noting that neither the FSTA nor the PBA contained clear and unequivocal language ousting the court's inherent equitable jurisdiction to approve settlements and vary trusts.

The court affirmed that the class proceeding was the preferable procedure, as the FST lacked the power to approve the settlement or vary the pension trust, and the class action provided the necessary finality for all affected plan members.

This is a costs endorsement following a judgment certifying a class action settlement.

The Financial Services Regulatory Authority (FSRA) intervened to oppose the certification and sought a stay, but was entirely unsuccessful on the merits.

The court considered costs submissions from Brewers Retail Inc. (Applicant), the Committee representing the proposed class of pensioners (Respondents), and FSRA (Intervenor).

The court denied FSRA's request for costs, finding its intervention caused additional costs for other parties.

The court awarded Brewers Retail Inc. $159,000 and the Committee $51,000, both inclusive of disbursements and HST, to be paid by FSRA, finding their efforts necessary and reasonable given FSRA's strenuous opposition.

The applicant employer sought to certify a class action on consent for settlement purposes regarding a long-standing dispute over pension plan indexing amendments.

The provincial pension regulator, FSRA, intervened to oppose the settlement and sought to stay the court proceedings in favour of a regulatory hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal.

The court granted FSRA leave to intervene but dismissed the stay motion, finding it had jurisdiction to adjudicate the pension dispute and that a class proceeding was the preferable procedure to achieve finality for all known and unknown plan members.

The action was certified as a class proceeding.

Appeal concerning whether terminated members of a defined benefit pension plan are entitled to immediate distribution of a proportional share of actuarial surplus on a partial wind-up.

The Court held that the applicable standard of review of the Financial Services Tribunal’s interpretation of s. 70(6) of the Pension Benefits Act was correctness.

Applying the modern principle of statutory interpretation to the text, scheme, and purpose of the legislation, the Court concluded that s. 70(6) requires the realization and distribution of the affected members’ pro rata share of surplus as of the effective date of partial wind-up, if they are otherwise entitled.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

This is a note reporting that the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal from the Court of Appeal for Ontario's decision in Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Ontario (Superintendent of Financial Services).

The case involved the distribution of an actuarial surplus upon the partial wind up of a defined benefit pension plan under the Pension Benefits Act.

The appellant employer sought to partially wind up its defined benefit pension plan following a corporate reorganization and plant closure, without distributing the $3.1 million pro rata share of the actuarial surplus to the affected members.

The Superintendent of Financial Services refused to approve the report, but the Financial Services Tribunal ordered its approval, relying on the doctrine of legitimate expectations and its interpretation of the Pension Benefits Act.

The Divisional Court overturned the Tribunal's decision.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed the Divisional Court, holding that section 70(6) of the Pension Benefits Act requires the distribution of surplus on a partial wind up, and that the doctrine of legitimate expectations cannot be used to create substantive rights or override statutory obligations.

The Superintendent of Financial Services appealed a decision of the Financial Services Tribunal regarding the partial wind-up of a pension plan by Monsanto Canada Inc. The Tribunal had ruled that Monsanto was not required to distribute pension surplus on a partial wind-up and that Monsanto had a legitimate expectation based on past regulatory practice.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, adopting the dissenting reasons of the Tribunal.

The Court held that section 70(6) of the Pension Benefits Act requires the distribution of surplus on a partial wind-up, and that the doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot justify disregarding the requirements of the law.