Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NOs: CV-18-603803-00CP

DATE: 20191015

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Leslie Austin, Plaintiff

– AND –

Bell Canada, Bell Media Inc., Expertech Network Installation Inc., and Bell Mobility Inc., Defendants

BEFORE: E.M. Morgan J.

COUNSEL: Mark Zigler, Jonathan Ptak, Garth Myers, and Matthew Baer, for the Plaintiff

Dana Peebles and Atrisha Lewis, for the Defendants

HEARD: July 9-10, 2019 and written submissions October 4, 2019

CERTIFICATION AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT – SUPPLEMENTARY ENDORSEMENT

[1] On August 12, 2019, I issued my reasons for judgment in this matter, granting certification of the action and granting summary judgment dismissing the action: Austin v. Bell, 2019 ONSC 4757.

[2] Subsequent to receiving the reasons for judgment, counsel for the Defendants wrote to me on behalf of all parties to address two points which were overlooked in my reasons, but which are a matter of consent among the parties. This Supplementary Endorsement is being issued for the purpose of correcting and clarifying those two points.

[3] In paragraph 14 of my reasons, I set out the class definition as originally proposed by the Plaintiff. However, the parties agreed on a revised definition, which I accept. The revised definition of the class, which replaces that found in paragraph 14 of my reasons, is:

All persons, wherever resident, who were entitled to receive a Defined Benefit indexation payment increase from the Bell Canada Pension Plan as of January 1, 2017, pursuant to section 8.7 of the Plan (whether a Retired Member, an ex-Spouse of a Retired Member, or a Beneficiary of a deceased Retired member, but not a deferred vested Member), together with, should such a person have died on or after January 1, 2017, their estate or heirs or beneficiaries (for any future adjusted Plan Payment).

[4] The Plaintiff argued in his factum that only Bell Canada (and not the other three Defendants) owed a fiduciary duty to the Plaintiff in the administration of the Plan, and the Defendants defended the summary judgment motion on that basis. Paragraph 70 of my reasons suggests that all four Defendants owed a fiduciary duty to the Plaintiffs; however, the Plaintiff and Defendants agree that such a finding was not sought on the summary judgment motion by the Plaintiff against the other three Defendants.

[5] Accordingly, the conclusion regarding fiduciary duties set out in paragraph 70 of my reasons should be stated in the singular with respect to Bell Canada as the only Defendant owing a fiduciary duty to the Plaintiff, rather than in the plural with respect to all of the Defendants.

Morgan J.

Date: October 15, 2019