Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: CV-14-62471-CP DATE: 2024/02/01 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE Proceeding under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992

RE: SEAN THOMAS, MICHAEL DAYAL, LINDSAY WEBB, DOUGLAS ROBINSON, and DIANA SCANLON, Plaintiffs AND: ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA, ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES’ UNION PENSION BOARD OF TRUSTEES and ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE PENSION BOARD, Defendants

BEFORE: C. MacLeod RSJ

COUNSEL: Andrew Astritis and Zachary Rodgers, for the Plaintiffs Sharon Johnston, for the Attorney General of Canada David Stamp, for OPSEUP Trustees Johnathan Ptak for OPB

HEARD: February 1, 2024

Case Conference Order & Direction

[1] This is a proposed class proceeding which arises out of a pension transfer made available to certain employees of the Government of Ontario who transferred to the federal public service. Pursuant to an agreement between Ontario and Canada, eligible employees could transfer pension credits from their Ontario public service pensions to the Canada Public Service Pension Plan.

[2] The action arose due to certain changes to actuarial assumptions made during the pension transfer period, advice given to plan members at the time and certain adverse consequences said to have been suffered by members of the proposed classes.

[3] The parties have negotiated an agreement to certify the action for settlement purposes and then to settle the action in the manner set out in minutes of settlement. In a class proceeding, the Court must approve certification, must approve the proposed settlement and must approve the fees and expenses to be charged by class counsel. Prior to doing so, the members of the proposed class or classes must be given notice, an option to opt out of the proceeding, to object to the proposed certification or settlement, to object to the proposed legal fees or to make submissions at the certification and settlement motion.

[4] The hearing today was to approve the proposed plan for providing notice to class members and to fix a date for the hearing. The hearing was not a hearing to certify the proceeding as a class proceeding, to approve the class definitions or to approve the settlement. Those matters will be decided after notice is given on the date fixed for the hearing as set out below.

[5] I have reviewed the documents provided by class counsel and the draft order. I am satisfied that the proposed plan should adequately bring the matter to the notice of the affected class members. I am also satisfied that the proposed forms will clearly indicate to class members the choices available to them under the legislation. The French language versions of the documents will be available shortly.

[6] I have approved the proposed communication plan and fixed a date for the motion.

[7] The court orders and directs as follows:

a. An order approving the communication and notice plan and fixing a date for the certification and settlement approval motion shall issue substantially in the form set out in the motion record.

b. Class counsel shall provide a clean copy of the order with the appropriate amendments as discussed at the case conference for my signature and may send it to my office by e-mail.

c. The return date for the certification and settlement motion will be June 12, 2024 at 10:00 a.m. The hearing will be set up as a hybrid hearing so that the presiding judge and those counsel or parties who wish to attend in person may do so. Those counsel or parties who wish to attend virtually will have access to the hearing by videoconference.

d. In the event that further directions are required, any of the counsel representing the parties may request a case conference.

e. This is a timetable under Rule 3 and a procedural order under s. 12 of the Act.

Justice C. MacLeod Date: February 1, 2024