William M. Forbes

The Superintendent of Financial Services brought a motion for an order directing Imperial Oil Limited to answer interrogatories in a proceeding concerning the partial wind up of two pension plans.

The Tribunal applied the test for pre-hearing disclosure and found that while member-specific information was not relevant, general statistical information about the employment status of certain plan members was arguably relevant.

The Tribunal ordered the Applicant to provide answers to revised interrogatories seeking statistical information within six weeks.

The applicant, Imperial Oil Limited, brought a motion for an order directing the Superintendent of Financial Services to provide further and better answers to interrogatories and to produce documents related to the partial wind up of two pension plans.

The applicant sought information regarding the Superintendent's past practices on partial wind ups, specifically concerning the inclusion of certain employee categories and the calculation of grow-in benefits.

The Tribunal granted the motion, ordering the Superintendent to respond to the interrogatories based on a representative sample of files processed between January 1993 and October 2000, balancing the relevance of the information against the hardship of reviewing all files.

The Ontario Pension Board requested a hearing regarding a proposal by the Superintendent of Financial Services to order the Board to pay Victor Burns his full pension benefits retroactive to his retirement from the Ontario Provincial Police.

Mr. Burns had terminated his employment with the OPP and commenced employment with the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Police Services during a period when police services were being transferred between the two entities.

The Tribunal found that Mr. Burns' new employment was in conjunction with the disposition of police services, meaning section 80(3) of the Pension Benefits Act applied.

Consequently, his employment was deemed not to be terminated, and he was not entitled to commence receiving a pension on the date he ceased employment with the OPP.

The Superintendent's proposal was quashed.

The Executive Committee of the London Life Members' Committee sought an award of costs against London Life following a decision directing the partial wind-up of a pension plan.

The Members' Committee argued that London Life failed to provide full and accurate information and advanced unreasonable positions.

The Financial Services Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that London Life's arguments were not patently unreasonable and its delays in providing information did not justify an award of costs under the Tribunal's exceptional circumstances standard.

The respondents requested a review of the Tribunal's previous decision directing the Superintendent of Financial Services to order a partial wind up of the applicant's pension plan.

The respondents argued the decision failed to address the inclusion of voluntarily terminated employees and the impact of office closures and amalgamations in 1995 and 1997.

The Tribunal declined to review its decision, finding that both issues were premature and could be addressed through subsequent administrative processes or further hearings if necessary.

The Superintendent of Financial Services proposed a partial wind up of the employer's pension plan following a corporate reorganization in 1996 that resulted in the involuntary termination of 384 administrative employees.

The employer requested a hearing, arguing that the number of terminations was not significant.

The Financial Services Tribunal found that 384 terminations, representing approximately 12.8% to 14.9% of the active administrative plan members, constituted a significant number under section 69(1)(d) of the Pension Benefits Act.

The Tribunal directed the Superintendent to order the partial wind up for the period from January 1, 1996 to December 31, 1996.

The applicant employer sought a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal regarding the Superintendent's proposal to refuse approval of a partial wind-up report for a pension plan.

The report failed to provide for special early retirement pensions under section 7.3 of the plan.

The Tribunal found that the special early retirement pension was an 'ancillary benefit' under the Pension Benefits Act, and that the employer's consent required by the plan was deemed to be given upon partial wind-up pursuant to subsection 74(7) of the Act.

The Tribunal directed the Superintendent to carry out the proposal to refuse approval of the report.