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:General Motors of Canada Limited v. Ontario (Superintendent of Pensions) - XDEC-06

Type/type:Pensions/Rgime de retraite

Decision Date/Date de la dcision:91-01-25

Tribunal/tribunal:PCO/CRRO




Franais

General Motors of Canada Limited v. Ontario (Superintendent of Pensions)

Index No.: XDEC-06

Date of decision: January 25, 1991

Panel members: Eileen Gillese, Chair, M. Joseph Regan, Deborah Hanscom, Glenn Pattinson, David Stouffer

Parties to hearing: General Motors of Canada Limited
Local 222 of the National Automobile Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers’ Union of Canada and its Members and Retirees
Superintendent of Pensions

SUBJECT: PARTY STANDING AT HEARING
TRADE UNION IS A PERSON

Summary:

This was a hearing requested by General Motors of Canada Limited (GM) in respect of a Notice of Proposal issued by Superintendent of Pensions for Ontario in respect of the General Motors Canadian Hourly-Rated Employees' Pension Plan proposing to order GM to file an actuarial valuation with a review date of no later than December 1, 1988.

It was the Commission's view, that the Pension Benefits Act confers upon it the discretion to determine what persons, other than the Superintendent and the Applicant, are entitled to be party to a hearing. This discretion is not unfettered. It must be guided by factors such as the nature of the matters in issue, whether the party requesting standing has a genuine interest in the issue, whether there are other reasonable and effective methods by which the concerns of those seeking standing can be addressed and whether the addition of parties will prejudice the Applicant or the functioning of the tribunal.

The CAW-Canada and the Local Union were granted standing in the hearing. The Commission considered the matter in issue was serious and justifiable, that the CAW-Canada and the Local Union had a genuine interest in the matters, that there were no other reasonable methods by which they could address their concerns and that in order to ensure the best possible evidence all parties directly affected must be heard.

The Commission stated that it was not deciding whether a union has the right to represent retirees' interests in matters before it. The Commission held that a trade union is a “person” under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

Cases referred to:

Minister of Finance of Canada v. Finlay (1986), 33 DLR (4th) 321
Ontario Nurses’ Association Women’s College Hospital (1989), 1 PER.53
Ontario Hydro, [1978] O.L.R.B. Rep. 304
R. v. Ontario Labour Relations Board ex parte Northern Electric Company Limited (1970), 14 D.L.R. (3d) 537

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.

General Motors du Canada Limite c. Ontario (Surintendant des rgimes de retraite)

Numro d’index : XDEC-06

Date de la dcision : Le 25 janvier 1991

Groupe d’experts : Eileen Gillese, prsidente, M. Joseph Regan, Deborah Hanscom, Glenn Pattinson, David Stouffer

Parties B l’audience : General Motors du Canada Limite
Section locale 222, Syndicat national de l'automobile, de l'arospatiale, du transport et des autres travailleurs et travailleuses du Canada, ses participants et retraits
Surintendant des rgimes de retraite

OBJET : PARTIE QUALIFIE POUR COMPARATRE A L’AUDIENCE
UN SYNDICAT EST UNE PERSONNE

Sommaire :

General Motors du Canada Limite (GM) a rclam cette audience au regard d‘un avis d’intention mis par le Surintendant des rgimes de retraite de l’Ontario concernant le rgime de retraite des travailleurs horaires canadiens de General Motors et proposant d’ordonner B GM de dposer une valuation actuarielle dont la date de rvision serait le 1er dcembre 1988 au plus tard.

La Commission tait d’avis que la Loi sur les rgimes de retraite lui confPre le pouvoir discrtionnaire de dterminer quelles personnes, autres que le Surintendant et le demandeur, ont le droit d’Ltre partie B une audience. Ce pouvoir discrtionnaire n’est pas inconditionnel. Il doit Ltre guid par des facteurs tels que la nature des questions en litige, si la partie demandant locus standi a un intrLt rel dans la question, s’il existe d’autres moyens raisonnables et efficaces de traiter les proccupations des personnes qui rclament locus standi et si l’ajout des parties causera un prjudice au demandeur ou au fonctionnement du tribunal.

TCA-Canada et le syndicat local ont reu qualit pour comparatre B l’audience. La Commission a tabli ce qui suit : la question en litige tait grave et justifiable, TCA-Canada et le syndicat local avaient un intrLt rel dans la question, il n’y avait pas d’autres moyens raisonnables de traiter leurs proccupations et, pour obtenir les meilleures preuves, il fallait entendre toutes les parties directement affectes.

La Commission a dclar qu’elle ne dcidait pas si un syndicat a le droit de reprsenter les intrLts des retraits dans les affaires portes devant elle. Elle a conclu qu’un syndicat est une personne en vertu de la Loi sur l'exercice des comptences lgales.

Jurisprudence :

Ministre des Finances du Canada c. Finlay (1986), 33 DLR (4th) 321
Ontario Nurses’ Association Women’s College Hospital (1989), 1 PER.53
Ontario Hydro, [1978] O.L.R.B. Rep. 304
R. v. Ontario Labour Relations Board ex parte Northern Electric Company Limited (1970), 14 D.L.R. (3d) 537

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.