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:Saynor Varah Inc. - XDEC-15

Type/type:Pensions/Rgime de retraite

Decision Date/Date de la dcision:92-10-22

Tribunal/tribunal:PCO/CRRO




Franais

Saynor Varah Inc

Index No.: XDEC-15

Date of decision: October 22, 1992

Panel members: M. Joseph Regan, Chair, Eileen E. Gillese, Donald Collins, Monica Townson

Parties to hearing: Saynor Varah Inc. and Affiliated Companies

SUBJECT: SURPLUS OWNERSHIP
PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL

Summary:

This was an application by Saynor Varah Inc. for consent from the Commission to withdraw surplus funds from the Retirement Plan for the Employees of Saynor Varah Inc. and Affiliated Companies. The Plan was wound up as at May 15, 1992, at which time the surplus amounted in excess of $1.4 million.

The Commission applied the doctrine of promissory estoppel and held that the Applicant was estopped from relying upon the strict terms of the Plan in relation to surplus reversion, as it had made prior representations to employees that the company was “matching” contributions.

The Applicant did not discharge the onus of demonstrating that the pension plan provided for payment of surplus to the employer on wind up of the pension plan.

The application by Saynor Varah Inc. to withdraw surplus from the Retirement Plan for the Employees of Saynor Varah Inc. and Affiliated Companies was dismissed.

Cases referred to:

Hughes v. Metro Railway Co. (1877), 2 A.C. 438 (H.L.)
Engineered Homes Ltd. v. Mason (1983), 146 D.L.R. (3d) 577
Sohio Petroleum Co. et al. v. Weyburn Security Co. Ltd. (1970), 74 W.W.R. 626
Fort Frances v. Boise Cascade Canada Ltd., [1983] 1 S.C.R. 171

Other references:

Fridman, G.H.L., The Law of Contract, 2nd ed., (Toronto: Carswell, 1986)


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.

Saynor Varah Inc

Numro d’index : XDEC-15

Date de la dcision : Le 22 octobre 1992

Groupe d’experts : M. Joseph Regan, prsident, Eileen E. Gillese, Donald Collins, Monica Townson

Parties B l’audience : Saynor Varah Inc. et socits affilies

OBJET : PROPRIT DE L’EXCDENT DES CAISSES DE RETRAITE
PRCLUSION PROMISSOIRE

Sommaire :

Saynor Varah Inc. a dpos une requLte devant la Commission pour obtenir l’autorisation de retirer les sommes excdentaires du rgime de retraite des employs de Saynor Varah Inc. et socits affilies. Le rgime a t liquid le 15 mai 1992 et, B cette date, l’excdent atteignait plus de 1,4 million de dollars.

Appliquant la doctrine de prclusion promissoire, la Commission a jug que le demandeur tait empLch par estoppel de fonder ses prtentions au versement de l’excdent sur les modalits strictes du rgime, car il avait antrieurement indiqu aux employs que la socit faisait des cotisations de contrepartie.

Le demandeur ne s’est pas acquitt de l’obligation de dmontrer que le rgime de retraite prvoyait le versement de l’excdent B l’employeur B la liquidation du rgime.

La requLte de Saynor Varah Inc. portant sur le retrait de l’excdent de la caisse de retraite des employs de Saynor Varah Inc. et socits affilies a t rejete.

Jurisprudence :

Hughes v. Metro Railway Co. (1877), 2 A.C. 438 (H.L.)
Engineered Homes Ltd. v. Mason (1983), 146 D.L.R. (3d) 577
Sohio Petroleum Co. et al. v. Weyburn Security Co. Ltd. (1970), 74 W.W.R. 626
Fort Frances v. Boise Cascade Canada Ltd., [1983] 1 S.C.R. 171

Autres rfrences :

Fridman, G.H.L., The Law of Contract, 2e d., (Toronto: Carswell, 1986)


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.