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:Can Can Food and Vending Services Ltd. - XDEC-27

Type/type:Pensions/Rgime de retraite

Decision Date/Date de la dcision:95-01-26

Tribunal/tribunal:PCO/CRRO




Franais

Can Can Food and Vending Services Ltd.

Index No.: XDEC-27

Date of decision: January 26, 1995

Panel members: Eileen E. Gillese, Chair, Monica Townson, Christopher (Kit) Moore, Darcie Beggs, Joyce Stephenson

Parties to hearing: Can Can Food and Vending Services Ltd.
Superintendent of Pensions

SUBJECT: SURPLUS WITHDRAWAL ON PLAN WIND UP
SUCCESSOR PENSION PLAN

Summary:

This was a hearing in relation to an application by Can Can Food and Vending Services Ltd. for the Commission's consent to payment to it of surplus Plan funds in the amount of $261,350.26 as at March 31, 1994, plus investment earnings thereon, to the date of payment less a proportionate share of the expenses associated with the wind up and surplus application, from the Pension Plan for the Vending and Food Service Bargaining Unit Employees in Windsor and Area, Canteen of Canada Limited, PN 0364406 (C-12596).

There was a surplus sharing agreement between Can Can and the Retail, Wholesale Canada, Canadian Service Sector of U.S.W.A. (the "Union") under the terms of which 65.5% of the net surplus was to be transferred to a Multi-employer Pension Plan, the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union Pension Plan, as of the effective date of the wind up, and the remaining 34.5% to the employer.

The Commission consented to the withdrawal of surplus by Can Can Food and Vending Services Ltd. from the Pension Plan, subject to Can Can satisfying the Commission that all benefits, benefit enhancements and any other payments to which members, former members, and any other persons were entitled had been paid, purchased or otherwise provided for to the satisfaction of the Commission.

It was held that subsection 81(1) of the PBA did not apply in this instance because the subsequent multi-employer pension plan was not established by the employer, but rather the Union, and the fact that Can Can was a participating employer did not lead to the conclusion that it established the subsequent pension plan, and thus it is not a successor pension plan. Thus, Can Can was entitled to make its application pursuant to the provisions of subsection 79(3) of the PBA.

Cases referred to:

PCO decision dated February 9, 1989, in Otis Canada, Inc. v. Ontario (Superintendent of Pensions), PCO Bulletin, Volume 1, Issue 1, p. 16
Re Otis Canada, Inc. and Ontario (Superintendent of Pensions), (1992), 89 D.L.R. (4th) 746

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.

Can Can Food and Vending Services Ltd.

Numro d’index : XDEC-27

Date de la dcision : Le 26 janvier 1995

Groupe d’experts : Eileen E. Gillese, prsidente, Monica Townson, Christopher (Kit) Moore, Darcie Beggs, Joyce Stephenson

Parties B l’audience : Can Can Food and Vending Services Ltd.
Surintendant des rgimes de retraite

OBJET : RETRAIT DE L’EXCDENT A LA LIQUIDATION DU RGIME
RGIME SUBSQUENT

Sommaire :

Cette audience portait sur une requLte prsente par Can Can Food and Vending Services Ltd. pour obtenir l’autorisation de la Commission de verser B Can Can l’excdent des fonds de la caisse de retraite totalisant 261350,26 $ en date du 31 mars 1994, major du revenu d’investissement jusqu’B la date de paiement moins une proportion des dpenses associes B la demande de liquidation et de surplus, provenant du rgime de retraite des employs de l’unit de ngociation de Vending and Food Service de la rgion de Windsor, Canteen of Canada Limited, PN 0364406 (C-12596).

Une entente de partage de l’excdent entre Can Can et le Retail, Wholesale Canada, Canadian Service Sector des MUA. (le syndicat ) prvoyait le transfert de 65,5 % de l’excdent net B un rgime de retraite interentreprises, le rgime de retraite du Syndicat des dtaillants, grossistes et magasins B rayons, B la date d’entre en vigueur de la liquidation, et des 34,5 % restants B l’employeur.

La Commission a consenti au retrait de l’excdent par Can Can Food and Vending Services Ltd. de la caisse de retraite B condition que Can Can convainque la Commission que toutes les prestations, prestations amliores et autres paiements auxquels avaient droit les participants, anciens participants ou autres personnes avaient t verss, achets ou autrement stipuls B la satisfaction de la Commission.

Elle a conclu que le paragraphe 81(1) de la Loi sur les rgimes de retraite ne s’appliquait pas dans cette instance parce que le rgime de retraite interentreprises subsquent n’avait pas t tabli par l’employeur mais plutt par le syndicat, et que la participation de Can Can ne permettait pas de conclure que la socit avait tabli le rgime de retraite subsquent et, que par consquent, ce dernier ne succdait pas au rgime antrieur. Par consquent, Can Can avait le droit de prsenter sa demande conformment aux dispositions du paragraphe 79(3) de la Loi sur les rgimes de retraite.

Jurisprudence :

Dcision de la Commission des rgimes de retraite de l’Ontario date le 9 fvrier 1989, dans l’affaire Otis Canada, Inc. v. Ontario (Superintendent of Pensions), Bulletin de la Commission des rgimes de retraite de l’Ontario, volume 1, numro 1, p. 16
Re Otis Canada, Inc. and Ontario (Superintendent of Pensions), (1992), 89 D.L.R. (4th) 746

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.