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:Cluett, Peabody Canada Inc. v. Ontario (Superintendent of Pensions) - XDEC-07

Type/type:Pensions/Rgime de retraite

Decision Date/Date de la dcision:91-05-06

Tribunal/tribunal:PCO/CRRO




Franais

Cluett, Peabody Canada Inc. v. Ontario (Superintendent of Pensions)

Index No.: XDEC-07

Date of decision: May 6, 1991

Panel members: M. Joseph Regan, Donald G. Collins, Deborah K. Hanscom

Parties to hearing: Cluett, Peabody Canada Inc.
Superintendent of Pensions

SUBJECT: JURISDICITON OF PCO
SURPLUS DISTRIBUTION ON PARTIAL WIND UP

Summary:

This was a hearing in relation to a Notice of Proposal by the Superintendent of Pensions to make an Order respecting the partial wind up of the Cluett, Peabody Canada Inc. Employee Retirement Plan Van Raalte Division, C-7208 [PN 0235077] to order the distribution of surplus in the plan in accordance with the Plan provisions.

The applicant, Cluett, Peabody Canada Inc., brought a preliminary motion objecting to the jurisdiction of the PCO.

The Commission reserved its decision on jurisdiction and proceeded to hear the matter, as to require the Commission to halt its proceedings whenever its jurisdiction is objected to would render its hearing and appeal powers largely nugatory. The Commission ultimately decided that it had jurisdiction to hear the matter, and was not restricted by its earlier decision in Otis Canada Inc. and Steel Workers Local 7062, which was largely decided based on the lack of legislative mandate.

The Commission found that there was a limitation on the power of Cluett to amend the plan is effective to invalidate the amendments in the 1979 Plan text providing for a surplus reversion to Cluett. Therefore, the 1962 Plan text provisions prevailed. Based on those provisions it was found that the Plan members are entitled to share the current surplus in the Plan.

Therefore the Commission confirmed the decision of the Superintendent and Ordered the Superintendent to carry out the Proposed Order dated November 7, 1990 directed to Cluett, Peabody Canada Inc.

Cases referred to:

Re Cedarvale Tree Services Ltd. and Labourers’ International Union of North American, Local 183, [1971] 3 O.R. 832
PCO decision dated February 8, 1990, Otis Canada Inc. and Steel Workers Local 7062, XDEC-04
Re Reevie et al. And Montreal Trust Co. of Canada et al. (1986), 53 O.R. (2d) 595
Hockin et al. v. Bank of British Columbia et al. (1990), 46 B.C.L.R. (2d) 382
R. v. McKibbon (1981), 34 O.R. (2d) 185
CAW-Canada v. WhiteFarm Manufacturing Canada Limited et al. [1990] O.J. No. 1988
Re Collins et al and the Pension Commission of Ontario et al (1986) 56 O.R. (2d) 274

Other References:

Waters, Law of Trusts in Canada, 2nd ed. (1984)

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.

Cluett, Peabody Canada Inc. c. l’Ontario (Surintendant des rgimes de retraite)

Numro d’index : XDEC-07

Date de la dcision : Le 6 mai 1991

Groupe d’experts : M. Joseph Regan, Donald G. Collins, Deborah K. Hanscom

Parties B l’audience : Cluett, Peabody Canada Inc.
Surintendant des rgimes de retraite

OBJET : COMPTENCE DE LA COMMISSION DES RGIMES DE RETRAITE DE L’ONTARIO
DISTRIBUTION DE L’EXCDENT AU MOMENT DE LA LIQUIDATION PARTIELLE

Sommaire :

Cette audience portait sur un avis d’intention du Surintendant des rgimes de retraite de rendre une ordonnance concernant la liquidation partielle du rgime de retraite Cluett, Peabody Canada Inc. Employee Retirement Plan Van Raalte Division, C-7208 [PN 0235077], en vue d’ordonner la distribution de l’excdent du rgime conformment aux dispositions de celui-ci.

Le demandeur, Cluett, Peabody Canada Inc., a dpos une motion prliminaire en opposition B la comptence de la Commission des rgimes de retraite de l’Ontario.

La Commission a diffr sa dcision sur la comptence et a procd B l’audience de l’affaire, car si elle tait tenue d’interrompre ses procdures chaque fois que sa comptence tait remise en question, ses pouvoirs d’audience et d’appel seraient largement inoprants. La Commission a dcid au bout du compte qu’elle avait comptence pour entendre l’affaire et n’tait pas limite par sa dcision antrieure dans la cause Otis Canada Inc. and Steel Workers Local 7062, en grande partie fonde sur le manque de mandat lgislatif.

La Commission a conclu que le pouvoir de Cluett de modifier le rgime tait limit et que cela invalidait les modifications au libell du rgime de 1979 prvoyant le retour de l’excdent B Cluett. Par consquent, le libell du rgime de 1962 a prvalu. Aux termes de ces dispositions, elle a conclu que les participants au rgime avaient le droit de partager l’excdent actuel.

Par consquent, la Commission a confirm la dcision du Surintendant et a ordonn B celui-ci d’excuter l’ordonnance propose du 7 novembre 1990 visant Cluett, Peabody Canada Inc.

Jurisprudence :

Re Cedarvale Tree Services Ltd. and Labourers’ International Union of North American, Local 183, [1971] 3 O.R. 832
Dcision de la Commission des rgimes de retraite de l’Ontario date le 8 fvrier 1990, Otis Canada Inc. and Steel Workers Local 7062, XDEC-04
Re Reevie et al. And Montreal Trust Co. of Canada et al. (1986), 53 O.R. (2d) 595
Hockin et al. v. Bank of British Columbia et al. (1990), 46 B.C.L.R. (2d) 382
R. v. McKibbon (1981), 34 O.R. (2d) 185
CAW-Canada v. WhiteFarm Manufacturing Canada Limited et al. [1990] O.J. No. 1988
Re Collins et al and the Pension Commission of Ontario et al (1986) 56 O.R. (2d) 274

Autres rfrences :

Waters, Law of Trusts in Canada, 2e d. (1984)

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.