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:Kitchener, The Corporation of the City of v. Ontario - P0172-2001

Type/type:Pensions/Rgime de retraite

Decision Date/Date de la dcision:2004-06-24

Tribunal/tribunal:FST/TSF

 



Franais

The Corporation of the City of Kitchener v. Ontario (Superintendent of Financial Services)

FST File No.: P0172-2001

Date of decision: June 24, 2004

Panel members: Paul Litner, Chair, Louis Erlichman, Colin McNairn

Parties to hearing: The Corporation of the City of Kitchener
The Superintendent of Financial Services

ISSUE: SURPLUS ENTITLEMENT

Summary:

This hearing, held in accordance with subsection 89(8) of the Act, relates to an application by The Corporation of the City of Kitchener (the “City”) to the Superintendent of Financial Services
(the “Superintendent”) for the Superintendent’s consent to a payment of surplus to the City pursuant to subsection 78(1) of the Act.

The Tribunal held that the Plan did not provide for payment of surplus to the City on the wind up of the Plan for the purposes of s. 79(3)(b) of the PBA. The Superintendent was directed to carry out the Notice of Proposal to refuse to consent to the City’s surplus withdrawal application.

It was held that an annuity contract could be used and held in trust or subject to a trust, and that the terms of the original plan text constituted evidence of an intention to create a trust. Moreover, the Policy and all the monies held thereunder required to pay the specific benefits accrued under the terms of the Plan were an asset which formed the subject matter of the trust. The majority of the panel held that a declaration of trust in respect of an insurance policy funding a pension plan extends to property substituting for or supplementing that policy from time to time.

Further to the decision in Schmidt, the Tribunal stated that there is no need to establish an intention to extend a pension trust so as to cover surplus before the trust will have that reach. In addition, the availability of a contribution holiday provided by section 18 of the original plan text was not found to be inconsistent with plan members’ entitlement to surplus. In the original plan text, the City had not expressly reserved a power of revocation of the trust at the time of trust creation, thus the subsequent amendments providing for surplus reversion to the City were without effect.

Cases referred to:

Samsonite Canada Inc. v. Superintendent of Financial Services (October 21, 2002), FST File Nos. P0166-2001 and P0175-2001
Schmidt v. Air Products Canada Ltd. (1994), 115 D.L.R. (4th) 631
Howitt v. Howden Group Canada Ltd. (1999), 170 D.L.R. (4th) 423
LaHave Equipment Ltd. v. Nova Scotia (Superintendent of Pensions) (1994), 5 C.C.P.B. 97
Bull Moose Tube Ltd. v. Ontario (Superintendent of Pensions) (1994), 3 C.C.P.B. 187
C.U.P.E. Local 185 v. Etobicoke (City) (1998), 17 C.C.P.B. 278
Central Guaranty Trust Co. (Liquidator of) v. Spectrum Pension Plan (5) (1997), 149 D.L.R. (4th) 200


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.

La Corporation de la Ville de Kitchener c. l’Ontario (Surintendant des services financiers)

No de dossier du TSF : P0172-2001

Date de la dcision : Le 24 juin 2004

Groupe d’experts : Paul Litner, prsident, Louis Erlichman, Colin McNairn

Parties B l’audience : La Corporation de la ville de Kitchener
Surintendant des services financiers

QUESTION : ADMISSIBILIT A L’EXCDENT

Sommaire :

Cette audience, tenue conformment au paragraphe 89(8) de la Loi, concerne une demande prsente par La Corporation de la Ville de Kitchener (la Ville ) au Surintendant des services financiers (le Surintendant ) afin d’obtenir son consentement au versement d’un excdent B la Ville en vertu du paragraphe 78(1) de la Loi.

Le Tribunal a conclu que le rgime ne prvoyait pas le versement de l’excdent B la Ville B sa liquidation aux fins de l’alina 79 (3) b) de la Loi sur les rgimes de retraite. Il a enjoint au Surintendant d’excuter l’avis d’intention de refuser de consentir B la demande de retrait d’excdent prsente par la Ville.

Le Tribunal a tabli qu’un contrat de rente peut Ltre utilis et dtenu en fiducie ou assujetti B une fiducie, et que les modalit du rgime original dmontraient une intention de crer une fiducie. En outre, la police et les sommes dtenues dans celle-ci afin de pouvoir au versement des prestations spcifiques accumules au titre du rgime constituaient un actif formant l’objet de la fiducie. La majorit du groupe d’experts a conclu que la porte d’une dclaration de fiducie au regard d’une police d’assurance finanant un rgime de retraite s’tend aux biens qui se substituent ou supplent B cette police de temps B autre.

Faisant suite B la dcision dans l’affaire Schmidt, le Tribunal a affirm qu’il n’est pas ncessaire d’tablir une intention d’largir une fiducie de pension de maniPre B couvrir l’excdent avant que la fiducie n’ait cette porte. En outre, l’ventualit d’une suspension des cotisations prvue B l’article 18 du texte original du rgime n’tait pas incompatible avec l’admissibilit des participants B l’excdent du rgime. Dans le texte original du rgime, la Ville n’avait pas expressment rserv un pouvoir de rvocation de la fiducie au moment de la cration de celle-ci et, par consquent, les modifications subsquentes prvoyant le versement de l’excdent B la ville taient sans effet.

Cases referred to:

Samsonite Canada Inc. v. Superintendent of Financial Services (October 21, 2002), nos de dossier du TSF P0166-2001 et P0175-2001
Schmidt v. Air Products Canada Ltd. (1994), 115 D.L.R. (4th) 631
Howitt v. Howden Group Canada Ltd. (1999), 170 D.L.R. (4th) 423
LaHave Equipment Ltd. v. Nova Scotia (Superintendent of Pensions) (1994), 5 C.C.P.B. 97
Bull Moose Tube Ltd. v. Ontario (Superintendent of Pensions) (1994), 3 C.C.P.B. 187
C.U.P.E. Local 185 v. Etobicoke (City) (1998), 17 C.C.P.B. 278
Central Guaranty Trust Co. (Liquidator of) v. Spectrum Pension Plan (5) (1997), 149 D.L.R. (4th) 200


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.