Financial Services Tribunal & Pension Commission of Ontario Case Summaries/
Summaires des dcisions du Tribunal des services financiers et de la Commission des rgimes de retraite de l'Ontario

Case Name/nom du dossier:Imperial Oil Limited Retirement Plan (1988) and the Pension Plan for Former Employees of McColl-Frontenac Inc. - XDEC-28, XDEC-30

Type/type:Pensions/Rgime de retraite

Decision Date/Date de la dcision:95-08-03

Tribunal/tribunal:PCO/CRRO




Franais

Imperial Oil Limited Retirement Plan (1988) and the Pension Plan for Former Employees of McColl-Frontenac Inc.

Index No.: XDEC-28
XDEC-30

Date of decisions: April 28, 1995
August 3, 1995

Panel members: Eileen E. Gillese, Chair, Darcie Beggs, Joyce Stephenson

Parties to hearing: Imperial Oil Limited
the Superintendent of Pensions
The Entitlement 55 Group of Members and former Members

SUBJECT: JURISDICTION
PENSION PLAN AMENDMENTS
EMPLOYER/ADMINISTRATOR
ANCILLARY BENEFITS

Summary:

This was a hearing requested by a group of employees and members of pension plans in relation to the decision of the Superintendent of Pensions for Ontario to register amendments to the Imperial Oil Limited Retirement Plan (1988) and the Pension Plan for Former Employees of McColl-Frontenac Inc.

The Superintendent’s position was that he could not conclude that Plan Amendments were void or that the Plans, with the Amendments, would cease to comply with the Act and regulations. The Superintendent stated that there were thus no grounds to refuse to register the Amendments.

The Superintendent also indicated that Amendments appeared to have been made in accordance with the terms of the Plans. The Superintendent therefore declined to make an order and indicated that registration of the Amendments would be considered in the normal course. The Amendments were registered.

XDEC-28 decision dated April 28, 1995

The Commission concluded that where the Superintendent is requested to make an order under section 87 of the Pension Benefits Act, (PBA) and refuses, the members have a right to a hearing in respect of that refusal. The Commission held that subsection 87(1) of the PBA gave it jurisdiction to hold a hearing because the Superintendent had, in effect, proposed to make an order refusing to act under section 87 of the PBA. The phrase in subsection 89(2) of the PBA "proposes to make an order" was seen to include a proposal to refuse to make an order.

Therefore the Commission found that it had jurisdiction to hear the application.

XDEC-30 decision dated August 3, 1995

The Commission found that Imperial Oil was not acting in its capacity as administrator when it passed the Amendments. The words "employer" and "administrator" are used throughout the PBA. However, there are not used interchangeably. They are used to describe the two different functions that an employer may serve in respect of a pension plan. The exercise of the power of amendment was an act of Imperial Oil as employer. The provisions in the PBA respecting amendments were held not to be a “complete code”.

Imperial Oil filed proposed amendments to the Imperial Oil Limited Retirement Plan and the Pension Plan for Former Employees of McColl-Frontenac Inc., which had the effect of denying a group of employees enhanced benefits that are ancillary benefits under the PBA. The Commission held that the proposed amendments were not void pursuant to PBA because in order for an employee to exercise the right to receive payment under the pension plan in question, they must meet all the eligibility requirements, pursuant to section 14(1)(a) of the PBA.

The application was dismissed, in light of the Commission’s findings that the amendments did not violate the PBA.

Cases referred to:

Collins v. Pension Commission of Ontario (1986), 56 O.R. (2d) 275
C.U.P.E. v. O.H.A. (1990) 1:4 PCO Bulletin 1/4, p. 12 ; aff'd (1992), 91 D.L.R. (4th) 436 (Ont. Div. Ct.)

This summary is offered as a public service and should not be relied upon as legal advice. Many factors unknown to us may affect the applicability of any statement or comment made in the summary to your particular circumstances.

Le Rgime de retraite de la Compagnie PtroliPre Impriale Lte (1988) et le Rgime de retraite des anciens employs de McColl-Frontenac Inc.

Numros d’index : XDEC-28
XDEC-30

Dates des dcisions : Le 28 avril 1995
Le 3 aoft 1995

Groupe d’experts : Eileen E. Gillese, prsidente, Darcie Beggs, Joyce Stephenson

Parties B l’audience : Compagnie PtroliPre Impriale Lte
Surintendant des services financiers
Groupe Entitlement 55 de participants et d’anciens participants

OBJET : COMPTENCE
MODIFICATIONS AU RGIME DE RETRAITE
EMPLOYEUR/ADMINISTRATEUR
PRESTATIONS ACCESSOIRES

Sommaire :

Un groupe d’employs et de participants de rgimes de retraite ont rclam cette audience eu gard B la dcision du Surintendant des rgimes de retraite de l’Ontario d’enregistrer des modifications au Rgime de retraite de la Companie PtroliPre Impriale Lte (1988) et au Rgime de retraite des anciens employs de McColl-Frontenac Inc.

Le Surintendant a tabli qu’il ne pouvait pas conclure que les modifications aux rgimes taient nulles ni que les rgimes, avec les modifications, cesseraient de se conformer B la Loi et aux rPglements. Il a dclar qu’il n’avait donc aucun motif de refuser d’enregistrer les modifications.

Le Surintendant a galement indiqu que les modifications semblaient avoir t faites conformment aux modalits des rgimes. Par consquent, il a refus de rendre une ordonnance et a prcis que l’enregistrement des modifications serait envisag dans le cours normal. Les modifications ont t enregistres.

Dcision XDEC-28 date le 28 avril 1995

La Commission a tabli que, lorsque le Surintendant refuse une demande d’ordonnance dpose en vertu de l’article 87 de la Loi sur les rgimes de retraite, les participants ont droit B une audience au regard de ce refus. Elle a conclu que le paragraphe 87(1) de la Loi sur les rgimes de retraite lui donnait comptence pour tenir une audience parce que le Surintendant avait, en fait, propos de rendre une ordonnance refusant d’agir en vertu de l’article 87 de la Loi sur les rgimes de retraite. La phrase a l’intention de rendre un ordre dans le paragraphe 89(2) de la Loi inclut une proposition de refuser de rendre un ordre.

Par consquent, la Commission a conclu qu’il tait de son ressort d’entendre la demande.

Dcision XDEC-30 date le 3 aoft 1995

La Commission a tabli que la Compagnie PtroliPre Impriale Lte n’agissait pas en qualit d’administrateur lorsqu’elle a adopt les modifications. Les termes employeur et administrateur sont utiliss ici et lB dans la Loi sur les rgimes de retraite. Cependant, ils ne sont pas interchangeables. Ils sont utiliss pour dcrire les deux diffrentes fonctions qu’un employeur peut assumer au regard d’un rgime de retraite. L’exercice du pouvoir de modification tait un acte de l’Impriale en tant qu’employeur. Les dispositions relatives aux modifications de la Loi sur les rgimes de retraite ont t juges ne pas Ltre un code complet .

L’Impriale a dpos des modifications au Rgime de retraite de la Compagnie PtroliPre Impriale Lte et au Rgime de retraite des anciens employs de McColl-Frontenac Inc. qui avaient pour effet de priver un groupe d’employs de prestations amliores constituant des prestations accessoires en vertu de la Loi sur les rgimes de retraite. La Commission a conclu que les modifications proposes n’taient pas nulles en vertu de la Loi sur les rgimes de retraite car, un employ qui veut se prvaloir du droit de recevoir un paiement en vertu du rgime de retraite en question, doit respecter tous les critPres d’admissibilit noncs B l’alina 14(1)a) de la Loi sur les rgimes de retraite.

La demande a t rejete, la Commission ayant constat que les modifications n’allaient pas B l’encontre de la Loi sur les rgimes de retraite.

Jurisprudence :

Collins v. Pension Commission of Ontario (1986), 56 O.R. (2d) 275
SCFP. c. AHO (1990) 1:4 Bulletin de la CRRO 1/4, p. 12 ; jugement confirm (1992), 91 D.L.R. (4th) 436 (Ont. Div. Ct.)

Ce sommaire est offert B titre de service public et ne saurait constituer des avis juridiques. Nombreux sont les facteurs que nous ignorons et qui peuvent avoir une incidence sur l’application de nos commentaires B votre cas particulier.