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:Otis Canada Inc. v. Ontario (Superintendent of Pensions), USWA Local 7062 and others - XDEC-02, XDEC-04

Type/type:Pensions/Rgime de retraite

Decision Date/Date de la dcision:90-02-08

Tribunal/tribunal:PCO/CRRO




Franais
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.

Otis Canada Inc. v. Ontario (Superintendent of Pensions), USWA Local 7062 and others

Index No.: XDEC-02
XDEC-04

Date of decision: June 13, 1989
February 8, 1990

Panel members: Mr. J. Kruger, Chairman, Ms. L. Gordon, Mr. D. Collins, Prof. E. Gillese, Mr. J. St. Georges (Mr. D. Stouffer and Ms. M. Townson for XDEC-04)

Parties to hearing: Otis Canada Inc.
United Steel Workers of America, Local 7062
Superintendent of Pensions
Certain Employees/retirees of Otis of Canada Inc.
Representatives of the ad hoc committee

SUBJECT: ROLE OF SUPERINTENDENT AT HEARING
SURPLUS OWNERSHIP AND WITHDRAWAL

Summary:

This was an application brought by Otis Canada Inc., for the consent of the Commission to withdraw surplus from the Otis Pension Plan for United Steel Workers of America Local 7062, which had been wound up as of October 2, 1987.

XDEC-02 Decision dated June 13, 1989

This was a preliminary issue before the Commission on what was the proper role of the Superintendent before the Commission on a surplus withdrawal application.

Approval by the Superintendent under subsection 71(2) of the Pension Benefits Act, (PBA) is a precondition to a matter coming before the Commission under sections 79 and 80 of the PBA. Although these sections are silent on the role of the Superintendent, the Commission found that the principle of expresso unius est exclusio alterius did not apply and the intent of the legislature was that the Superintendent could advise the Commission of the basis upon which he approved the wind up report.

The Commission held that it has the power to control its own procedures and the PBA does not prohibit the Superintendent from participating in an appearance. Moreover, the Superintendent’s participation assists in the discharge of the obligation created by section 80(4) of the PBA requiring the Commission to satisfy itself that the action contemplated is in the best interests of all the beneficiaries of the pension plan.

The Commission did not decide for all purposes whether the Superintendent has full status or limited intervenor rights only. It was held that the Superintendent is entitled to lead evidence, cross-examine witnesses and make argument with respect to his decision relating to his approval of wind up report.

XDEC-04 Decision dated February 8, 1990

The Commission did not make any conclusions as to surplus ownership but found that for the purposes of clause 80(4) of the PBA, Otis Canada Inc. had met the requirements of the PBA for consent to the surplus withdrawal.

It was held that subsection 80(8) of the PBA did not give the Commission the power to determine issues of ownership, therefore while the Commission consented to the payment of surplus funds to Otis it was on the condition that Otis obtain a court order declaring its entitlement to the surplus.

Related Cases:

Otis Canada Inc. v. Ontario (Superintendent of Pensions), [1991] O.J. No. 251

Cases Referred to:

Re Collins et al. and the Pension Commission of Ontario et al. (1986) 56 O.R.(2d) 274
Re Bachelor et al. And the Pension Commission of Ontario et al., 56 O.R. (2d) 274
The Law Society of Upper Canada v. French, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 767
Jones v. A.G. of New Brunswick, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 182

Other References:

D.W.M. Waters, The Law of Trusts in Canada, (2nd Edition) 1984
Black's Law Dictionary (4th Edition)


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.

Otis Canada Inc. c. l’Ontario (Surintendant des rgimes de retraite), le Syndicat canadien des mtallurgistes unis d'Amrique, section locale 7062 et d’autres

Numro d’index : XDEC-02
XDEC-04

Date des dcision : Le 13 juin 1989
Le 8 fvrier 1990

Groupe d’experts : M. J. Kruger, prsident, Mme L. Gordon, M. D. Collins, Prof. E. Gillese, M. J. St. Georges (M. D. Stouffer et Mme M. Townson pour le no XDEC-04)

Parties B l’audience : Otis Canada Inc.
Syndicat canadien des mtallurgistes unis d'Amrique, section locale 7062
Surintendant des rgimes de retraite
Certains employs et retraits d’Otis of Canada Inc.
Reprsentants du comit spcial

OBJET : RLE DU SURINTENDANT A L’AUDIENCE
PROPRIT ET RETRAIT DE L’EXCDENT

Sommaire :

Cette audience portait sur une requLte prsente B la Commission par Otis Canada Inc. en vue d’obtenir l’autorisation de retirer l’excdent de la caisse du rgime de retraite du Syndicat canadien des mtallurgistes unis d'Amrique, section locale 7062, d’Otis Canada Inc., liquid le 2 octobre 1987.

Dcision XDEC-02 date le 13 juin 1989

Cette dcision portait sur une question prliminaire porte devant la Commission, B savoir quel rle revenait au Surintendant B l’audience d’une demande de retrait d’excdent.

L’approbation par le Surintendant en vertu du paragraphe 71(2) de la Loi sur les rgimes de retraite est une condition pralable B une affaire porte devant la Commission en vertu des articles 79 et 80 de ladite Loi. Bien que ces articles ne fournissent aucune prcision quant au rle du Surintendant, la Commission a conclu que le principe expresso unius est exclusio alterius ne s’appliquait pas et que le lgislateur entendait permettre au Surintendant d’informer la Commission des motifs sur lesquels il s’tait fond pour approuver le rapport de liquidation.

La Commission a dcid qu’elle a le pouvoir de matriser ses propres instances et que la Loi sur les rgimes de retraite n’empLche pas le Surintendant de participer B une comparution. En outre, la participation du Surintendant aide la Commission B s’acquitter des engagements crs par l’article 80(4) de la Loi sur les rgimes de retraite, B savoir se convaincre elle-mLme que la dmarche envisage est dans le meilleur intrLt de tous les bnficiaires du rgime de retraite.

La Commission n’a pas dcid B tous gards si le Surintendant tait une partie B part entiPre ou s’il avait seulement le droit d’intervenir de faon limite. Elle a conclu que le Surintendant a le droit de produire des preuves, de contre-interroger les tmoins et d’invoquer des arguments au regard de sa dcision d’approuver le rapport de liquidation.

Dcision XDEC-04 date le 8 fvrier 1990

La Commission n’a pas fait de constatations quant B la proprit de l’excdent mais a tabli qu’aux fins du paragraphe 80(4) de la Loi sur les rgimes de retraite, Otis Canada Inc. avait respect les exigences de la Loi relatives B l’obtention du consentement au retrait des sommes excdentaires.

La Commission a conclu que le paragraphe 80(8) de la Loi sur les rgimes de retraite ne lui donnait pas le pouvoir de dterminer la question de la proprit. Par consquent, elle consentait au versement des sommes excdentaires B Otis, B condition que la socit obtienne une ordonnance d’un tribunal dclarant son admissibilit B l’excdent.

Causes connexes :

Otis Canada Inc. c. l’Ontario (Surintendant des rgimes de retraite), [1991] O.J. No. 251

Jurisprudence :

Re Collins et al. and the Pension Commission of Ontario et al. (1986) 56 O.R.(2d) 274
Re Bachelor et al. And the Pension Commission of Ontario et al., 56 O.R. (2d) 274
The Law Society of Upper Canada v. French, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 767
Jones v. A.G. of New Brunswick, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 182

Autres rfrences :

D.W.M. Waters, The Law of Trusts in Canada, (2e dition) 1984
Black's Law Dictionary (4e dition)