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:Gencorp Canada Inc. v. Ontario (Superintendent of Pensions) and the United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum & Plastic Workers of America, Local 536 - XDEC-25

Type/type:Pensions/Rgime de retraite

Decision Date/Date de la dcision:94-08-31

Tribunal/tribunal:PCO/CRRO




Franais

Gencorp Canada Inc. v. Ontario (Superintendent of Pensions) and the United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum & Plastic Workers of America, Local 536

Index No.: XDEC-25

Date of decision: August 31, 1994

Panel members: Eileen E. Gillese, Chair, Monica J. Townson, Donald G. Collins

Parties to hearing: GenCorp Canada Inc.
Superintendent of Pensions
Local 536 of the United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum & Plastic Workers of America
Members and Former Members

SUBJECT: PARTIAL WIND UP
GROW IN BENEFITS
EMPLOYER DEFINITION
ESTOPPEL
LIMITATION PERIODS
SUPERINTENDENT'S DISCRETION

Summary:

This was a request for a hearing submitted by GenCorp Canada Inc. (“GenCorp) in relation to two Notice of Proposals issued by the Superintendent of Pensions on GenCorp in which he proposed to make orders requiring GenCorp to partially wind up the Hourly Pension Plan and the Salaried Pension Plan of GenCorp.

GenCorp sold its business in 1987, ceased to employ the employees associated with that business but retained responsibility for pension benefits accrued to the date of sale. The purchasing employer General Tire subsequently closed the business. Therefore, members of both of the Plans would be entitled to receive enhanced benefits, or “grow in” benefits, under the Pension Benefits Act (PBA).

The Commission’s broad interpretation of the meaning of the word “employer” found in the PBA, found that discontinuance was ascribed both to the successor employer, General Tire, and to the vendor employer, GenCorp.

It was found that the Superintendent was not barred from acting because of the five year limitation period of the PBA, which the Commission held to apply only to proceedings taken pursuant to offences under the PBA.

In issuing the Notices of proposal, the Superintendent did not exercise his discretion improperly simply because he may have held a different view of the facts than a staff member. Finally, the Commission held that the Superintendent was not estopped from issuing the Notices of Proposal because there was no clear representation that partial wind-ups would not be ordered, it was unreasonable for there to have been reliance in the circumstances, and there was no evidence of detrimental reliance. The Commission also held that estoppel cannot lie against a public body where there is some countervailing benefit to the public.

The Commission ordered the Superintendent to carry out the Notices of Proposal to order partial wind ups of the Hourly Plan and the Salaried Plan.

Appeal:

at Divisional Court, GenCorp Canada Inc. v. Ontario (Superintendent of Pensions) 26 O.R. (3d) 696, decision affirmed
at Court of Appeal, GenCorp Canada Inc. v. Ontario (Superintendent of Pensions) 39 O.R. (3d) 38, appeal dismissed
Leave to Appeal to Supreme Court of Canada denied.

Cases referred to:

Firestone Canada Inc. v. PCO et. al. (1990), 1 O.R. (3d) 122 (C.A.)
S. Allen et al. v. Superintendent of Pensions, PCO Bulletin, Vol. 3, Issue 2, Oct.1992
Maritime Electric v. General Dairies, [1937] A.C. 610
Attorney General of Canada v. General Truck Drivers and Helpers Union, [1973] 5 W.W.R. 235
Southend-on-Sear Corp. v. Hodgson (Wichford) Ltd., [1961] All E.R. 46
Re Bella Vita Restaurant (1982), 41 B.C.L.R. 283
R. v. Laister, [1969] 1 O.R. 580

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.

Gencorp Canada Inc. c. l’Ontario (Surintendant des rgimes de retraite) et l’Union des ouvriers unis du caoutchouc, liPge, linolum et plastique d'Amrique, section locale 536

Numro d’index : XDEC-25

Date de la dcision : Le 31 aoft 1994

Groupe d’experts : Eileen E. Gillese, prsidente, Monica J. Townson, Donald G. Collins

Parties B l’audience : GenCorp Canada Inc.
Surintendant des rgimes de retraite
Union des ouvriers unis du caoutchouc, liPge, linolum et plastique d'Amrique, section locale 536
Participants et anciens participants

OBJET : LIQUIDATION PARTIELLE
PRESTATIONS AMLIORES
DFINITION DE L’EMPLOYEUR
ESTOPPEL
DLAIS DE PRESCRIPTION
POUVOIR DISCRTIONNAIRE DU SURINTENDANT

Sommaire :

Cette demande d’audience prsente par GenCorp Canada Inc. ( GenCorp ) concernait deux avis d’intention mis par le Surintendant des rgimes de retraite de rendre des ordonnances obligeant GenCorp B liquider partiellement le rgime de retraite horaire et le rgime de retraite salarial de la socit.

GenCorp a vendu ses activits en 1987 et a remerci les employs associs B ces activits, conservant cependant la responsabilit des prestations de retraite accumules jusqu’B la date de la cession. L’employeur acheteur, General Tire, a subsquemment ferm l’entreprise. Par consquent, les participants de deux rgimes auraient droit B des prestations amliores en vertu de la Loi sur les rgimes de retraite.

Interprtant libralement le terme employeur qui se trouve dans la Loi sur les rgimes de retraite, la Commission a attribu la liquidation B l’employeur subsquent, General Tire, et B l’employeur vendeur, GenCorp.

La Commission a tabli que le dlai de prescription de cinq ans prvu dans la Loi sur les rgimes de retraite n’empLchait pas le Surintendant d’agir parce qu’il ne s’appliquait qu’aux poursuites intentes pour infractions B cette Loi.

En mettant les avis d’intention, le Surintendant n’a pas exerc son pouvoir discrtionnaire indfment, simplement parce qu’il avait une diffrente opinion des faits qu’un membre du personnel. Enfin, la Commission a conclu que le Surintendant n’tait pas empLch par estoppel d’mettre les avis d’intention car rien ne dmontrait que les liquidations partielles ne seraient pas ordonnes, toute manifestation de confiance eft t draisonnable dans les circonstances et il n’y avait aucune preuve de confiance prjudiciable. La Commission a galement tabli qu’un organisme public ne pourrait se voir opposer une exception d’irrecevabilit lorsqu’il y a un avantage compensatoire quelconque pour le public.

La Commission a enjoint le Surintendant d’excuter les avis d’intention ordonnant les liquidations partielles du rgime horaire et du rgime salarial.

Appel :

en Cour divisionnaire, GenCorp Canada Inc. v. Ontario (Superintendent of Pensions) 26 O.R. (3d) 696, dcision confirme
en Cour d’appel, GenCorp Canada Inc. v. Ontario (Superintendent of Pensions) 39 O.R. (3d) 38, appel rejet
Autorisation d’interjeter appel devant la Cour suprLme du Canada refuse.

Jurisprudence :

Firestone Canada Inc. v. PCO et. al. (1990), 1 O.R. (3d) 122 (C.A.)
S. Allen et al. v. Superintendent of Pensions, Bulletin de la Commission des rgimes de retraite de l’Ontario, vol. 3, numro 2, octobre 1992
Maritime Electric v. General Dairies, [1937] A.C. 610
Attorney General of Canada v. General Truck Drivers and Helpers Union, [1973] 5 W.W.R. 235
Southend-on-Sear Corp. v. Hodgson (Wichford) Ltd., [1961] All E.R. 46
Re Bella Vita Restaurant (1982), 41 B.C.L.R. 283
R. v. Laister, [1969] 1 O.R. 580

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.