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:Dwyer v. Chrysler Canada Ltd. - XDEC-40

Type/type:Pensions/Rgime de retraite

Decision Date/Date de la dcision:98-08-18

Tribunal/tribunal:PCO/CRRO




Franais

Dwyer v. Chrysler Canada Ltd.

Index No.: XDEC-40

Date of decision: August 19, 1998

Panel members: Kathryn M. Bush, Chair, Donald Collins, Joyce Stephenson

Parties to hearing: Mr. Stanley Dwyer
Chrysler Canada Ltd.
CAW Canada and CAW, Local 1285
The Superintendent of Pensions

SUBJECT: JURISDICTION
BENEFIT ENTITLEMENT

Summary:

Mr. Stanley Dwyer, the Applicant, requested a hearing before the Pension Commission of Ontario relating to the Non-Contributory Pension Plan for Represented Employees at Parts Distribution Centres - Chrysler Canada Ltd., Ontario Registration Number 0337808 (the "Plan") for a declaration that he was entitled to either a deferred pension or a lump sum payment under the provisions of the Plan.

The preliminary issue was whether the Commission had jurisdiction to hear the claim if the Superintendent had not yet made a ruling. The Commission held that if the matter had not been placed before the Superintendent, it was not properly before the Commission. However, in this case, it was reasonable for the applicant to believe that the Superintendent had considered the matter because of two letters from the Pension Officer responsible for the Plan, and therefore the Commission would hear the matter.

The Commission found that the Applicant failed to meet the vesting requirements under the Plan and therefore did not have a right to a deferred vested pension. Accordingly, the Applicant had not raised an arguable issue of substance nor a prima facie case for relief and his application was dismissed.

The Commission also decided that it did not have jurisdiction to review the decisions under the Labour Relations Act (Ontario) which found that the Applicant's employment was properly terminated on July 9, 1976.

Cases referred to:

Labour Arbitrator decision dated October 23, 1978 U.A.W. and U.A.W. Local 1285 and Chrysler Canada Limited
Molson Breweries Pension Plan, PCO Bulletin/Vol. 6, Issue 5
Stelco Inc., PCO Bulletin/Vol. 4, Issue 1

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.

Dwyer c. Chrysler Canada Lte

Numro d’index : XDEC-40

Date de la dcision : Le 19 aoft 1998

Groupe d’experts : Kathryn M. Bush, prsidente, Donald Collins, Joyce Stephenson

Parties B l’audience : M. Stanley Dwyer
Chrysler Canada Lte
TCA-Canada et TCA, section locale 1285
Surintendant des rgimes de retraite

OBJET : COMPTENCE
ADMISSIBILIT AUX PRESTATIONS

Sommaire :

Le demandeur, M. Stanley Dwyer, a rclam une audience devant la Commission des rgimes de retraite de l’Ontario concernant le rgime de retraite Non-Contributory Pension Plan for Represented Employees at Parts Distribution Centres - Chrysler Canada Ltd., Ontario Registration Number 0337808 (le rgime ). Il voulait que la Commission dclare qu’il avait droit B une rente diffre ou B un paiement forfaitaire aux termes des dispositions du rgime.

La question prliminaire consistait B dterminer si la Commission avait comptence pour entendre la requLte si le Surintendant n’avait pas encore rendu une dcision. La Commission a tabli que le Surintendant n’ayant pas t saisi de l’affaire, celle-ci ne devait pas Ltre porte devant la Commission. Cependant, dans le cas prsent, deux lettres de l’agent des pensions responsable du rgime avaient port le demandeur B croire que le Surintendant avait envisag l’affaire et, par consquent, la Commission a dcid d’entendre la cause.

La Commission a conclu que le demandeur n’avait pas respect les critPres d’acquisition prvus au rgime et, partant, n’tait pas admissible B une pension diffre acquise. En consquence, il n’avait pas soulev une question de fond dfendable ni une preuve prima facie en faveur d’une mesure de redressement et sa demande a t rejete.

La Commission a galement dcid qu’elle n’avait pas comptence pour examiner les dcisions prises en vertu de la Loi sur les relations de travail (Ontario) ayant dtermin que le demandeur avait t dfment licenci le 9 juillet 1976.

Jurisprudence :

Dcision de l’arbitre en matiPre de relations de travail date le 23 octobre 1978 U.A.W. and U.A.W. Local 1285 and Chrysler Canada Limited
Molson Breweries Pension Plan, Bulletin de la Commission des rgimes de retraite de l’Ontario, vol. 6, numro 5
Stelco Inc., Bulletin de la Commission des rgimes de retraite de l’Ontario, vol. 4, numro 1

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.