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:Etobicoke, The Corporation of the City of - XDEC-36

Type/type:Pensions/Rgime de retraite

Decision Date/Date de la dcision:97-10-04

Tribunal/tribunal:PCO/CRRO




Franais

The Corporation of the City of Etobicoke

Index No.: XDEC-36

Date of decision: October 4, 1997

Panel members: C.S. (Kit) Moore, Chair, Shiraz Y.M. Bharmal, Donald Collins, M. Elizabeth Greville, Judy Robinson, David E. Wires

Parties to hearing: The Corporation of the City of Etobicoke
Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 185

SUBJECT: SURPLUS WITHDRAWAL
UNION CONSENT

Summary:

This was an application by The Corporation of the City of Etobicoke to the Pension Commission of Ontario for the consent of the Commission to payment of surplus funds from the Pension Plan for Employees of the Corporation of the City of Etobicoke, Registration Number 0312629, adjusted for investment earnings thereon to the date of payment and subject to adjustment for any difference between the actual and expected actuarial and related expenses in respect of processing the application.

The application was made pursuant to a surplus sharing agreement whereby approximately 35% of the total surplus determined as at December 31, 1996 after payment of all benefits and annuitization of all pensions in respect of this application would be distributed to 280 former members and other persons entitled to benefits under the Plan as of the effective date of wind-up, in the form of benefit enhancements and a cash payment plus interest, subject to applicable withholding tax, and the remaining 65% reverted to the City of Etobicoke.

The City had indicated that 245 of the 280 former members had returned signed surplus sharing agreements. This response rate of 88% was well in excess of the threshold response of two-thirds established by written Commission policy. It was held that the City had met the requirements relating to consent.

The Commission concluded that the trust agreement established effective January 1, 1976 and a 1988 bylaw amending the plan and the trust agreement reserved the right for reversion of the surplus to the City after all the benefit obligations under the pension plan were provided for.

The application was granted, with four members of the panel consenting, two members dissenting. The Commission consented to the payment of surplus to the City in the amounts requested, consent not to be effective until the Applicant satisfied the Commission that all benefits, benefit enhancements including enhancements pursuant to the surplus sharing agreement and any other payments to which the former members and any other persons who are entitled had been paid, purchased or otherwise provided for to the satisfaction of the Commission.

In the case of this application, the Plan consisted only of former members and other persons entitled to payments under the Plan. The Plan had no members within the meaning of Section 1 of the Act. The Commission was not persuaded by the argument that "former member" is a subset of "member". As a result, the City was not required to obtain the consent of the Union. The Commission's ruling on this preliminary issue was unanimous.

Appeal:

Divisional Court: Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 185 v. Etobicoke (City) [1998] O.J. 2837, appeal dismissed.
Court of Appeal: Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 185 v. Etobicoke (City) [1998] O.J. 3943, motion for leave dismissed

Cases referred to:

Schmidt v. Air Products (1994), 115 D.L.R. (4th) 631, (S.C.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.

La Corporation de la Ville d’Etobicoke

Numro d’index : XDEC-36

Date de la dcision : Le 4 octobre 1997

Groupe d’experts : C.S. (Kit) Moore, prsident, Shiraz Y.M. Bharmal, Donald Collins, Me Elizabeth Greville, Judy Robinson, David E. Wires

Parties B l’audience : La Corporation de la Ville d’Etobicoke
Syndicat canadien de la fonction publique, section locale 185

OBJET : RETRAIT DE L’EXCDENT
CONSENTEMENT DU SYNDICAT

Sommaire :

La Corporation de la Ville d’Etobicoke a dpos une requLte auprPs de la Commission des rgimes de retraite de l’Ontario afin d’obtenir son consentement au versement des sommes excdentaires du rgime de retraite des employs de La Corporation de la Ville d’Etobicoke, numro d’enregistrement 0312629, redresses pour tenir compte des revenus de placement B compter de cette date jusqu’B la date de paiement sous rserve d’un redressement pour toute diffrence entre les dpenses actuarielles et connexes actuelles et attendues au regard du traitement de la demande.

La demande a t faite en vertu d’un accord de partage de l’excdent selon lequel un montant quivalant B environ 35 p. 100 de l’excdent total, dtermin en date du 31 dcembre 1996 aprPs le versement des prestations et la transformation en rente de toutes les pensions au regard de cette demande, serait distribu B 280 anciens participants et autres personnes admissibles B des prestations en vertu du rgime B la date de prise d’effet de la liquidation, sous forme de prestations amliores et d’un paiement en espPces, intrLt en sus, sous rserve de l’impt dduit B la source, et les 65 p. 100 restants reviendraient B la Ville d’Etobicoke.

La Ville avait dclar que 245 des 280 anciens participants avaient retourn des accords de partage de l’excdent signs. Ce taux de rponse de 88 p. 100 surpassait largement le seuil de rponse des deux tiers tabli par une politique crite de la Commission. On a conclu que le Ville avait respect les exigences relatives au consentement.

La Commission a conclu que l’accord de fiducie tabli et entr en vigueur le 1er janvier 1976 et un rPglement administratif de 1988 modifiant le rgime et l’accord de fiducie rservaient le droit de verser l’excdent B la Ville aprPs que tous les engagements contracts au titre du rgime de retraite eussent t respects.

La demande a t accueillie, quatre membres du groupe d’experts tant consentants et deux membres dissidents. La Commission a consenti au versement B la Ville des sommes excdentaires demandes, le consentement entrant en vigueur uniquement aprPs que le demandeur ait convaincu la Commission que toutes les prestations, prestations amliores y compris les amliorations en vertu de l’accord de partage de l’excdent et tout autre paiement auquel les anciens participants et autres personnes avaient droit eussent t pays, achets ou autrement tablis B la satisfaction de la Commission.

Dans le cas de cette demande, le rgime consistait uniquement des anciens participants et autres personnes admissibles B des paiements aux termes du rgime. Ce dernier ne comptait pas de membres au sens de l’article 1 de la Loi. La Commission n’a pas t convaincue par l’argument selon lequel ancien participant est un sous-ensemble de participant . En consquence, la Ville n’tait pas tenue d’obtenir le consentement du syndicat. La dcision de la Commission a t unanime sur cette question prliminaire.

Appel :

Cour divisionnaire : Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 185 v. Etobicoke (City) [1998] O.J. 2837, appel rejet
Cour d’appel : Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 185 v. Etobicoke (City) [1998] O.J. 3943, motion en autorisation rejete

Jurisprudence :

Schmidt v. Air Products (1994), 115 D.L.R. (4th) 631, (S.C.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.