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:Sherwood Communications Group Ltd., The - XDEC-23

Type/type:Pensions/Rgime de retraite

Decision Date/Date de la dcision:94-08-11

Tribunal/tribunal:PCO/CRRO




Franais

The Sherwood Communications Group Ltd.

Index No.: XDEC-23

Date of decision: August 11, 1994

Panel members: Eileen E. Gillese, Chair, Monica Townson, Darcie Beggs, M. David Brown, Don Collins, Christopher (Kit) Moore, Joyce Stephenson

Parties to hearing: The Sherwood Communications Group Ltd.

SUBJECT: SURPLUS WITHDRAWAL
ADJOURNMENT PROCEDURES

Summary:

This was an application by The Sherwood Communications Group Ltd. (Sherwood) for the consent of the Commission for the payment of surplus to Sherwood from the Pension Plan for Employees of The Sherwood Communications Group Ltd. and its Subsidiary and Associated Companies.

The Plan was terminated effective May 31, 1991.

At some point after the hearing of the merits of the application Sherwood changed legal counsel who then sought an adjournment of the matter. The Commission rejected the request as the matter had been fully considered and heard, all that remained was for the trust agreement to be provided and the Commission to issue written reasons. The Commission felt that to allow an adjournment in the circumstances was to invite abuse of its processes.

The Commission found that a plan amendment which purported to amend the plan to permit the employer to recover surplus assets where those assets include contributions was invalid.

Therefore, the Commission found that Sherwood had not shown surplus entitlement, and refused to grant consent to the surplus withdrawal application.

Related Court Hearing:

Sherwood Communications group Ltd. v. Canada Trust Co., 9 O.R. (3d) 792, application dismissed

Cases Referred to:

Schmidt v.Air Products Canada Ltd., [1994] 2 S.C.R. 611


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.

The Sherwood Communications Group Ltd.

Numro d’index : XDEC-23

Date de la dcision : Le 11 aoft 1994

Groupe d’experts : Eileen E. Gillese, prsidente, Monica Townson, Darcie Beggs, M. David Brown, Don Collins, Christopher (Kit) Moore, Joyce Stephenson

Parties B l’audience : The Sherwood Communications Group Ltd.

OBJET : RETRAIT DU SURPLUS
PROCDURES D’AJOURNEMENT

Sommaire :

The Sherwood Communications Group Ltd. (Sherwood) a dpos une requLte devant la Commission afin d’obtenir l’autorisation de verser B la socit les sommes excdentaires du rgime de retraite des employs de The Sherwood Communications Group Ltd. et sa filiale et ses socits associes.

Le rgime a t liquid le 31 mai 1991.

Quelque temps aprPs l’audience sur le bien-fond de la demande, Sherwood a embauch un nouvel avocat qui a demand un ajournement. La Commission a rejet la demande car la cause avait t dfment considre et entendue. Il ne restait qu’B fournir l’accord de fiducie B la Commission et celle-ci pourrait mettre ses motifs crits. La Commission estimait qu’en accordant un ajournement dans les circonstances elle invitait un emploi abusif de ses procdures.

La Commission a tabli qu’une modification au rgime qui tait cense de permettre B l’employeur de recouvrer les sommes excdentaires lorsque celles-ci incluaient des cotisations tait invalide.

Par consquent, la Commission a conclu que Sherwood n’avait pas dmontr son admissibilit B l’excdent et a refus d’accorder son autorisation au retrait de celui-ci.

Audience du tribunal connexe :

Sherwood Communications group Ltd. v. Canada Trust Co., 9 O.R. (3d) 792, demande rejete.

Jurisprudence :

Schmidt v.Air Products Canada Ltd., [1994] 2 S.C.R. 611


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.