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:TIE/Communications Canada Inc. - XDEC-24

Type/type:Pensions/Rgime de retraite

Decision Date/Date de la dcision:94-09-22

Tribunal/tribunal:PCO/CRRO




Franais

TIE/Communications Canada Inc.

Index No.: XDEC-24

Date of decision: September 22, 1994

Panel members: Eileen E. Gillese, Chair, Monica Townson, Darcie Beggs, Kathryn M. Bush, Christopher (Kit) Moore

Parties to hearing: TIE/Communications Canada Inc.
John Davis, Krishnaswamy Natarajan, Apurba K. Das and
M. Szpindel
Plessey Canada (1987) Limited
The Former Employees of Plessey Canada (1987) Limited

SUBJECT: SURPLUS ENTITLEMENT
COSTS AWARDS
JURISDICTION OVER CONTRACT INTERPRETATION

Summary:

This was an application by TIE/communications Canada Inc. for the consent of the Commission for payment of the surplus in the Pension Plan for Employees of TIE/communications Canada Inc., in the amount of $1,359,535 plus investment earnings thereon to it of which it sought $1,249,292 as at April, 1991, plus investment earnings thereon to the date of payment and less expenses. It was prepared to distribute approximately $110,243 to the Plan members.

The Plan was wound up effective April 1, 1991 and the Superintendent had approved the payment of benefit entitlements.

The Commission found that the original pension plan document and Trust Agreement, read together, establish the Applicant's entitlement to surplus on plan termination.

The power to award costs must be expressly conferred. No such authority has been conferred upon the Commission by the legislation. Therefore the Commission could not make a cost award in favour of the plan members.

The Commission was asked to make an order in favour of Plessey Canada, however it found that it did not have jurisdiction to make the order sought by Plessey. It is conceded by the relevant parties that the Applicant was to pay the sum in question pursuant to the settlement agreement. But the issue the Commission was called upon to resolve relates to the terms upon which the payment was to be made and that is a matter of contract law, something over which the Commission does not have jurisdiction.

The Commission granted consent to the withdrawal of surplus in favour of TIE/Communications Canada Inc. and acknowledged that TIE/Communications Canada Inc. haD agreed to pay to the plan members on the date of wind up $110,243, plus interest from April 1, 1991, from the surplus. The consent WAs made subject to TIE/Communications Canada Inc. satisfying the Commission that all benefits and other payments have been made to members, former members and any other persons entitled on plan termination.

Appeal to Divisional Court
Das v. Ontario (Pension Commission) [1996] O.J. 1064 - appeal dismissed

Cases referred to:

Schmidt v. Air Products Canada Ltd., [1994] 2 S.C.R. 611

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.

TIE/Communications Canada Inc.

Numro d’index : XDEC-24

Date de la dcision : Le 22 septembre 1994

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

Parties B l’audience : TIE/Communications Canada Inc.
John Davis, Krishnaswamy Natarajan, Apurba K. Das et
M. Szpindel
Plessey Canada (1987) Limited
Anciens employs de Plessey Canada (1987) Limited

OBJET : ADMISSIBILIT A L’EXCDENT
ATTRIBUTION DES DPENS
COMPTENCE POUR INTERPRTER LE CONTRAT

Sommaire :

TIE/communications Canada Inc. a prsent cette requLte pour obtenir le consentement de la Commission au versement de l’excdent du rgime de retraite des employs de TIE/communications Canada Inc. s’levant B 1 359 535 $ plus les revenus de placement, dont elle rclamait 1 249 292 $ en date d’avril 1991, major des revenus de placement accumuls B partir de cette date jusqu’B la date de paiement et dduction faite des dpenses. La socit tait prLte B distribuer environ 110 243 $ aux participants du rgime.

Le rgime a effectivement t liquid le 1er avril 1991 et le Surintendant avait approuv le versement des prestations payables.

La Commission a conclu que le document original du rgime de retraite et l’accord de fiducie, lus ensemble, tablissait l’admissibilit du demandeur B l’excdent B la liquidation du rgime.

Le pouvoir d’attribuer les dpens doit Ltre expressment confr. Or, la Loi ne confPre aucune telle autorit B la Commission. Par consquent, celle-ci ne pouvait attribuer les dpens en faveur des participants du rgime.

On a demand B la Commission de rendre une ordonnance en faveur de Plessey Canada, mais la Commission a conclu qu’elle n’avait pas comptence pour rendre l’ordonnance rclame par Plessey. Les parties concernes ont admis que le demandeur devait payer la somme en question en vertu de l’entente de rPglement. Mais la question que le Commission a t appele B rsoudre portait sur les modalits du paiement et relPve du droit contractuel qui n’est pas de sa comptence.

La Commission a consenti au retrait de l’excdent en faveur de TIE/Communications Canada Inc. et a reconnu que TIE/Communications Canada Inc. avait accept de verser aux participants du rgime le jour de la liquidation 110 243 $, major de l’intrLt accumul B compter du 1er avril 1991, de l’excdent. Le consentement tait subordonn B ce que TIE/Communications Canada Inc. dmontre B la Commission que toutes les prestations et autres sommes avaient t verses aux participants, anciens participants et autres personnes admissibles au moment de la liquidation du rgime.

Appel en cour divisionnaire
Das v. Ontario (Pension Commission) [1996] O.J. 1064 - appel rejet

Jurisprudence :

Schmidt v. Air Products Canada Ltd., [1994] 2 S.C.R. 611

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.