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

Case Name/nom du dossier:Weihua Shi v. Superintendent of Financial Services

Type/type:Pensions/Régime de retraite

Decision Date/Date de la décision:2014-03-20

Tribunal/tribunal:FST/TSF




Weihua Shi v. Superintendent of Financial Services

FST File No.: P0535-2014

Date of decision: March 20, 2014

Panel member: Elizabeth Shilton

Parties: Weihua Shi; Superintendent of Financial Services

SUBJECT: JURISDICTION

NOTICE OF INTENT TO DISMISS

FRIVOLOUS AND VEXATIOUS

Summary

The Applicant disputed her benefit entitlement from the Retirement Plan for Salaried Employees of Holcim (Canada) Inc. (the “Plan”) in a previous FST proceeding. The FST issued a decision affirming the Superintendent of Financial Services’ (“Superintendent”) Notice of Intended Decision in that previous proceeding. The Applicant requested a review of that decision, which was considered and dismissed. The Applicant then requested a review four additional times. All four times, the FST Registrar returned the Applicant’s documents to her and advised that the FST Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Rules”) only permit one request for review.

The Superintendent issued an Order affirming the Notice of Intended Decision on January 14, 2014. The Applicant then filed a Notice of Appeal with the FST.

The FST issued a Notice of Intent to Dismiss on February 3, 2014, stating that it was the FST’s intention to dismiss this new proceeding for two reasons: a) the FST had no jurisdiction to consider an appeal from a Superintendent’s Order; and, b) the Notice of Appeal was frivolous and vexatious. The FST advised that the parties could make submissions concerning its Notice by March 5, 2014.

The parties made submissions. On March 20, 2014, the FST issued its decision ordering that the Notice of Appeal was dismissed because there is no jurisdiction to appeal an Order of the Superintendent under the Pension Benefits Act.

The decision adds an observation that the Applicant’s conduct might well be found to be frivolous and vexatious if there was any need to deal with that aspect of the Notice of Intent to Dismiss, as the Notice of Appeal was a transparent attempt to circumvent the FST’s refusals to process the Applicant’s additional requests for review. The decision concludes that the Applicant had exhausted her avenues of complaint before the FST, and that continued efforts to bring the matter back before it could not be productive.

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.