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:Baxter v. Ontario - P0154-2001

Type/type:Pensions/Rgime de retraite

Decision Date/Date de la dcision:2002-05-31

Tribunal/tribunal:FST/TSF

 



Franais

Baxter v. Ontario (Superintendent of Financial Services)

FST File No.: P0154-2001

Date of decision: May 31, 2002

Panel members: Colin H.H. McNairn, Chair, William Forbes, C.S. Moore

Parties to Hearing: Members and Former Members of Amended Pension Plan for Salaried Employees of National Steel Car
United Steel Workers Union Local 7135
National Steel Car
The Superintendent of Financial Services

SUBJECT: MERGER OF PENSION PLANS
JURISDICTION OF FINANCIAL SERVICES TRIBUNAL

Summary:

The company had applied for consent from the Superintendent to transfer assets from the pension plan for salaried employees to the pension plan for hourly-paid employees. The Superintendent consented to the transfer of assets and a group of members of the salaried pension plan filed a request for a hearing by the Tribunal.

The request was denied by the Tribunal as it found that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the matter as the members did not qualify under s. 89(6) of the PBA as persons entitled to a hearing. The members did not apply to the Superintendent for any approval or consent. The Tribunal held that s. 89(4) of the PBA, which requires the Superintendent to serve a Notice of Proposal to refuse applications for approval or consent, is limited to proposals to refuse to give approval or consent and proposals to impose terms and conditions on approval or consent. It was held that s. 89(4) of the PBA does not also cover proposals to give approvals or consents, and the Superintendent’s action was not tantamount to a refusal to order the return of assets.

On the merits, the Tribunal upheld that the consent granted by the Superintendent. Even if the plan was not a trust, the Tribunal found that the pension benefits and other benefits of members and former members benefits were protected by the asset transfer, and that “other benefits” in subsection 81(5) does not include surplus.

Cases referred to:

C.U.P.E. v. Ontario Hospital Association (1992), 91 D.L.R. (4th) 436
Maynard v. Ontario (Superintendent of Pensions) v. McDonnel Douglas Canada Ltd., [2000] O.J. No. 881
C.U.P.E. v. Ontario (Superintendent of Pensions) v. Ontario (Superintendent of Pensions) and Sisters of St. Joseph, PCO Index No. XDEC-39
The Entitlement 55 Group v. Ontario (Superintendent of Pensions) v. Imperial Oil Limited, PCO Bulletin 6/2 (April 28, 1995)
Schmidt v. Air Products of Canada (1994), 115 D.L.R. (4th) 631
Heilig and Dominion Securities Pitfield Ltd. (1989), 67 O.R. (2d) 577
Retirement Income Plan for Salaried Employees of Weavvex Corp. v. Ontario (Superintendent of Pensions) (2000), 133 O.A.C. 375
Buschau v. RogersCableSystems Inc. (2001), 148 B.C.A.C. 263
Saunders v. Vautier (1814), E.R. 282 aff’d (1841), 41 E.R. 482

Appeal:

Divisional Court: Baxter v. Ontario (Superintendent of Financial Services), [2004] O.J. No. 4909
Appeal allowed in part. The court found the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the issue.
The court agreed with the approval for the asset transfer given by the Superintendent.

Motion for Leave to Appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal was dismissed.


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.

Baxter c. l’Ontario (Surintendant des services financiers)

No de dossier du TSF : P0154-2001

Date de la dcision : Le 31 mai 2002

Groupe d’experts : Colin H.H. McNairn, prsident, William Forbes, C.S. Moore

Parties B l’audience : Participants et anciens participants du rgime de retraite modifi des employs salaris de National Steel Car
Syndicat canadien des mtallurgistes unis d'Amrique, local 7135
National Steel Car
Surintendant des services financiers

OBJET : FUSION DE RGIMES DE RETRAITE
COMPTENCE DU TRIBUNAL DES SERVICES FINANCIERS

Sommaire :

La socit a demand au Surintendant de consentir au transfert de l’actif du rgime de retraite des employs salaris au rgime de retraite des travailleurs horaires. Le Surintendant a consenti au transfert de l’actif et un groupe de participants du rgime de retraite des salaris a dpos une requLte d’audience devant le Tribunal.

Le Tribunal a refus la requLte, ayant dtermin qu’il n’avait pas comptence pour entendre l’affaire tant donn que, aux fins de l’article 89(6) de la Loi sur les rgimes de retraite, les participants n’avaient pas droit B une audience. Les participants n’ont pas prsent de requLte au Surintendant pour obtenir une approbation ou un consentement. Or, le Tribunal a jug que l’article 89(4) de la Loi sur les rgimes de retraite, obligeant le Surintendant B signifier un avis de refus B l’auteur d’une demande d’approbation ou de consentement, se limite B l’intention de refuser l’approbation ou le consentement et B l’intention d’assortir de conditions une approbation ou un consentement. Il a conclu que l’article 89(4) de la Loi ne porte pas sur l’intention d’accorder une approbation ou un consentement et que l’action du Surintendant n’quivalait pas B refuser d’ordonner le retour de l’actif.

Sur le fond, le Tribunal a confirm le consentement accord par le Surintendant. MLme si le rgime n’tait pas une fiducie, le Tribunal a dtermin que les prestations de retraite et autres prestations des participants et anciens participants taient protges par le transfert de l’actif et que les autres prestations vises par le paragraphe 81(5) n’incluent pas le surplus.

Jurisprudence :

Le Syndicat canadien de la fonction publique (SCFP) c. l’Association des hpitaux de l’Ontario (1992), 91 D.L.R. (4th) 436
Maynard v. Ontario (Superintendent of Pensions) v. McDonnel Douglas Canada Ltd., [2000] O.J. No. 881
Le Syndicat canadien de la fonction publique, sections locales Nos 1144 et 1590 c. l’Ontario (Surintendant des rgimes de retraite) et les Surs de St. Joseph, numro d’index XDEC-39 de la Commission des rgimes de retraite de l’Ontario
The Entitlement 55 Group v. Ontario (Superintendent of Pensions) v. Imperial Oil Limited, Bulletin de la Commission des rgimes de retraite de l’Ontario 6/2 (28 avril 1995)
Schmidt v. Air Products of Canada (1994), 115 D.L.R. (4th) 631
Heilig and Dominion Securities Pitfield Ltd. (1989), 67 O.R. (2d) 577
Retirement Income Plan for Salaried Employees of Weavvex Corp. v. Ontario (Superintendent of Pensions) (2000), 133 O.A.C. 375
Buschau v. RogersCableSystems Inc. (2001), 148 B.C.A.C. 263
Saunders v. Vautier (1814), E.R. 282 confirm (1841), 41 E.R. 482

Appel :

Cour divisionnaire : Baxter v. Ontario (Superintendent of Financial Services), [2004] O.J. No. 4909
Appel accueilli en partie. La cour a conclu que le Tribunal avait comptence pour entendre l’affaire.
La cour a souscrit B l’approbation du transfert de l’actif accorde par le Surintendant.

La motion en autorisation d'interjeter appel devant la Cour d’appel de l’Ontario a t rejete.


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.