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:Maynard v. Ontario (Superintendent of Pensions) and McDonnell Douglas Canada - XDEC-38, XDEC-44

Type/type:Pensions/Rgime de retraite

Decision Date/Date de la dcision:99-05-19

Tribunal/tribunal:PCO/CRRO




Franais

Maynard v. Ontario (Superintendent of Pensions) and McDonnell Douglas Canada

Index No.: XDEC-38
XDEC-44

Date of decision: May 25, 1998
May 19, 1999

Panel members: C.S. (Kit) Moore, Chair, Donald Collins, Kathryn M. Bush

Parties to hearing: Gary Maynard
The Superintendent of Pensions
McDonnell Douglass Canada

SUBJECT: JURISDICTION
PARTIAL WIND UP
COSTS

Summary:

The applicant, Gary Maynard, requested a hearing in relation to the refusal of the Superintendent of Pensions to order the partial wind up of the Pension Plan for Salaried Employees of McDonnell Douglas Canada Ltd.

The Superintendent undertook an investigation of the Plan in respect of the period from January 1, 1990 through December 31, 1994 to determine if a partial wind up of the Plan should be ordered. At the conclusion of the investigation and consideration of these matters, the Superintendent declined to make the Order requested.

XDEC-38 Decision dated May 25, 1998

As a preliminary issue, the Commission was asked to rule on its jurisdiction to conduct a hearing in the circumstances of this particular situation of whether the Commission has jurisdiction to review a refusal by the Superintendent to order a partial wind-up under Section 69 of the Pension Benefits Act where the Superintendent has not exercised any discretion.

The Commission found that it had jurisdiction to hear this matter pursuant to Section 89 of the Pension Benefits Act.

XDEC-44 Decision dated May 19, 1999

The Commission found that the number of Plan members who ceased to be employed by MDCan during the 1990-1994 period together with the restructuring initiatives lead to the conclusion that the conditions which would support the Superintendent ordering a partial wind-up of the Plan under section 69(1)(d) and/or 69(1)(e) of the Act have been satisfied.

The Commission decided that the matter was to be referred back to the Superintendent to determine (i) whether to exercise discretion and order a partial wind-up of the Plan, and (ii) if a partial wind-up is ordered, whether to amend, either or both, of the commencement and end dates of the partial wind-up period.

Appeal:

To Divisional Court: Maynard v. Ontario (Superintendent of Pensions) [2000] O.J. No. 881
by McDonnel Douglas Canada - appeal of both decisions dismissed.
by Maynard - appeal on costs dismissed
Cases referred to:

PCO decision dated November 22, 1990, The Canadian Union of Public Employees et al. v. The Ontario Nurses Association et al., PCO Bulletin 1/4
Re Canadian Union of Public Employees et al. and Ontario Hospital Association; Superintendent of Pensions, Intervenant (1992), 91 D.L.R. (4th) 436 (Div. Ct.)
PCO decision dated April 28, 1995, Imperial Oil Limited Retirement Plan (1988) et al.,PCO Bulletin 6/2
Imperial Oil Ltd. v. Ontario (Superintendent of Pensions) (1996), 15 C.C.P.B. 31
Imperial Oil Ltd. v. Ontario (Superintendent of Pensions) (1996), 16 C.C.P.B. 93
Stelco Inc. v. Ontario (Superintendent of Pensions) (1993), PCO Bulletin 4/1
Stelco Inc. v. Ontario (Superintendent of Pensions) (1994) 4 C.C.P.B. 108 (On Div Ct)
Stelco Inc. v. Ontario (Superintendent of Pensions) (1995) 9 C.C.P.B. 126 (On C.A.)
Firestone Canada Inc. v. Pension Commission of Ontario (1990), 1 O.R. (3d) 122
Re TIE/communications Canada Inc. Pension Plan (1994), 7 C.C.P.B. 120 (PCO)
Central Guaranty Trust Co. (Liquidator of) v. Spectrum Pension Plan (S) (Administrator of), [1993] N.S.J. 14 (N.S.S.C.)

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.

Maynard c. l’Ontario (Surintendant des rgimes de retraite) et McDonnell Douglas Canada

Numro d’index : XDEC-38
XDEC-44

Dates des dcisions : Le 25 mai 1998
Le 19 mai 1999

Groupe d’experts : C.S. (Kit) Moore, prsident, Donald Collins, Kathryn M. Bush

Parties B l’audience : Gary Maynard
Surintendant des rgimes de retraite
McDonnell Douglas Canada Ltd

OBJET : COMPTENCE
LIQUIDATION PARTIELLE
DPENS

Sommaire :

Le demandeur, Gary Maynard, a rclam une audience relativement au refus du Surintendant des rgimes de retraite d’ordonner la liquidation partielle du rgime de retraite des employs salaris de McDonnell Douglas Canada Ltd (MDCan).

Le Surintendant a effectu un examen du rgime pour la priode allant du 1er janvier 1990 au 31 dcembre 1994 afin de dterminer s’il devait ordonner une liquidation partielle du rgime. AprPs avoir termin l’examen et tudi l’affaire, le Surintendant a refus de rendre l’ordonnance demande.

Dcision XDEC-38 date le 25 mai 1998

En question prliminaire, la Commission a t appele B statuer sur sa comptence pour tenir une audience dans les prsentes circonstances, B savoir si elle a comptence pour examiner un refus du Surintendant d’ordonner une liquidation partielle en vertu de l’article 69 de la Loi sur les rgimes de retraite lorsque celui-ci n’a pas exerc son pouvoir discrtionnaire.

La Commission a tabli qu’elle avait comptence pour entendre cette affaire en vertu de l’article 69 de la Loi sur les rgimes de retraite.

Dcision XDEC-44 date le 19 mai 1999

La Commission a tabli que le nombre de participants au rgime qui avaient perdu leur emploi B MDCan durant la priode de 1990 B 1994, conjugu aux travaux de restructuration, l’avaient port B conclure que les conditions qui porteraient le Surintendant B ordonner une liquidation partielle du rgime en vertu de l’alina 69(1)(d) et/ou 69(1)(e) de la Loi avaient t satisfaites.

La Commission a dcid de renvoyer l’affaire devant le Surintendant dans le but de dterminer (i) s’il devait exercer son pouvoir discrtionnaire et ordonner une liquidation partielle du rgime et (ii) s’il ordonnait une liquidation partielle, s’il devait modifier les dates d’entre en vigueur ou de fin de la priode de liquidation partielle.

Appel :

En Cour divisionnaire : Maynard c. l’Ontario (Surintendant des rgimes de retraite) [2000] O.J. No. 881
par McDonnell Douglas Canada - appel des deux dcisions rejet.
par Maynard - appel des dpens rejet.

Jurisprudence :

Dcision de la CRRO date le 22 novembre 1990, The Canadian Union of Public Employees et al. v. The Ontario Nurses Association et al., Bulletin de la CRRO 1/4
Re Canadian Union of Public Employees et al. and Ontario Hospital Association; Superintendent of Pensions, Intervenant (1992), 91 D.L.R. (4th) 436 (Div. Ct.)
Dcision de la CRRO date le 28 avril 1995, Imperial Oil Limited Retirement Plan (1988) et al., Bulletin de la CRRO 6/2
La Compagnie PtroliPre Impriale Lte c. l’Ontario (Surintendant des rgimes de retraite) (1996), 15 C.C.P.B. 31
La Compagnie PtroliPre Impriale Lte c. l’Ontario (Surintendant des rgimes de retraite) (1996), 16 C.C.P.B. 93
Stelco Inc. v. Ontario (Superintendent of Pensions) (1993), Bulletin de la CRRO 4/1
Stelco Inc. v. Ontario (Superintendent of Pensions) (1994) 4 C.C.P.B. 108 (On Div Ct)
Stelco Inc. v. Ontario (Superintendent of Pensions) (1995) 9 C.C.P.B. 126 (On C.A.)
Firestone Canada Inc. v. Pension Commission of Ontario (1990), 1 O.R. (3d) 122
Re TIE/communications Canada Inc. Pension Plan (1994), 7 C.C.P.B. 120 (PCO)
Central Guaranty Trust Co. (Liquidator of) v. Spectrum Pension Plan (S) (Administrator of), [1993] N.S.J. 14 (N.S.S.C.)

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.