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:Arrowhead Metals Ltd. v. CAW Local 399 and The Royal Trust Company - XDEC-10

Type/type:Pensions/Rgime de retraite

Decision Date/Date de la dcision:92-03-26

Tribunal/tribunal:PCO/CRRO




Franais

Arrowhead Metals Ltd. v. CAW Local 399 and The Royal Trust Company

Index No. XDEC-10

Date of decision: March 26, 1992

Panel members: M. Joseph Regan, Chair, Eileen E. Gillese, Donald Collins, Deborah Hanscom, Glenn Pattinson

Parties to hearing: Arrowhead Metals Ltd.
The National Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers Union of Canada, Local 399
The Royal Trust Company

SUBJECT: SURPLUS WITHDRAWAL
TRUSTEE’S COSTS
PCO’S JURISDICTION
NATURE OF PENSION TRUST

Summary:

Arrowhead Metals Ltd. applied for the consent of the Pension Commission of Ontario (PCO) to the withdrawal of surplus from the Pension Plan for Union Employees of Arrowhead Metals Ltd. The Plan was terminated as at November 8, 1989, at which time the surplus amounted to something in excess of $3,750,000.

The Commission held that it was not limited to a scrutiny of the plan text alone, but that it should examine all plan and trust documents from inception.

The Commission also held that pension trusts are not purpose trusts.

The Commission consented to the payment to the Applicant of any surplus remaining in the Trust Fund in respect of the Plan after the satisfaction of all defined Plan liabilities. The Trust Agreement did not prevent the amendments to the Plan that permitted surplus reversion to the employer.

The Trustee as a party to the proceedings asked for recognition in any order of the provisions of the 1988 Trust Agreement which permit Royal Trust to retain its own counsel and pay their reasonable expenses and compensation; which direct payment of Royal Trust's own charges, as well as its expenses; and which create a charge on the Trust Fund for such charges and expenses.

No authority was cited for the proposition that the PCO had the power to make such an order. It found that it was unaware of any statutory provisions in the Act that would empower it to make such an order and declined to do so.

Cases referred to:

Re Reevie and Montreal Trust Co. of Canada (1986), 53 O. R. (2d) 595 at 596 (Ont. C.A.); leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused 56 O. R. (2D) 192
Otis Canada Inc. v. The Superintendent of Pensions for Ontario et al. (1991), 2 O.R. (3d) 737 (O.C.G.D.)
Hockin et al. v. Bank of British Columbia et al., (1990), 46 B.C.L.R. (2d) 382 (B.C.C.A.)
CrownX Inc. v. Rick Edwards et al. unreported decision of Blair, J., released November 27, 1991 (O.C.G.D.)
Saunders v. Vautier (1841), 4 Beav. 115; affd. Cr. & Ph. 240; 10 L.J. Ch. 354

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.

Arrowhead Metals Ltd. c. TCA, section locale 399 et La Compagnie Trust Royal

Numro d’index : XDEC-10

Date de la dcision : Le 26 mars 1992

Groupe d’experts : M. Joseph Regan, prsident, Eileen E. Gillese, Donald Collins, Deborah Hamscom, Glenn Pattinson

Parties B l’audience : Arrowhead Metals Ltd.
Syndicat national de l'automobile, de l'arospatiale, du transport et des autres travailleurs et travailleuses du Canada, local 399
La Compagnie Trust Royal

OBJET : RETRAIT DE L’EXCDENT
FRAIS DU FIDUCIAIRE
COMPTENCE DE LA COMMISSION DES RGIMES DE RETRAITE DE L’ONTARIO
NATURE DE LA FIDUCIE DE PENSION

Sommaire :

Arrowhead Metals Ltd. a prsent une requLte demandant B la Commission des rgimes de retraite de l’Ontario de consentir au retrait de l’excdent de la caisse de retraite des employs syndiqus de Arrowhead Metals Ltd. Le rgime a t liquid le 8 novembre 1989 et B ce moment-lB l’excdent se chiffrait B plus de 3 750 000 $.

La Commission a dit qu’elle ne se contenterait pas d’un examen approfondi du rgime, mais examinerait plutt tous les documents du rgime et de la fiducie depuis le dbut.

La Commission a galement affirm que les fiducies de pension ne sont pas des fiducies B buts.

La Commission a consenti B ce que l’excdent de la fiducie de pension au regard du rgime soit verse au demandeur aprPs satisfaction des obligations dtermines dcoulant du rgime. Le contrat de fiducie ne prvenait pas les amendements au rgime qui permettaient le retour de l’excdent B l’employeur.

Le fiduciaire, en tant que partie B l’instance, a demand la reconnaissance d’un arrLt dans les dispositions du contrat de fiducie de 1988 permettant au Trust Royal de retenir son propre avocat et de payer ses dpenses raisonnables et sa rmunration; ordonnant le paiement des propres frais et dpenses du Trust Royal; et crant une charge sur le fonds de fiducie pour de telles charges et dpenses.

Aucune autorit n’a t cite concernant la proposition selon laquelle la Commission des rgimes de retraite de l’Ontario a le pouvoir de rendre une telle ordonnance. Elle a conclu qu’elle ne connaissait aucune disposition statutaire dans la loi l’autorisant B rendre une telle ordonnance et a refus de le faire.

Jurisprudence :

Re Reevie and Montreal Trust Co. of Canada (1986), 53 O. R. (2d) 595 at 596 (cour d’appel de l’Ontario); autorisation d’interjeter appel B la C.S.C. refuse, 56 O. R. (2D) 192
Otis Canada Inc. v. The Superintendent of Pensions for Ontario et al. (1991), 2 O.R. (3d) 737 (O.C.G.D.)
Hockin et al. v. Bank of British Columbia et al., (1990), 46 B.C.L.R. (2d) 382 (B.C.C.A.)
CrownX Inc. v. Rick Edwards et al. dcision non rapporte du juge Blair, publie le 27 novembre 1991 (O.C.G.D.)
Saunders v. Vautier (1841), 4 Beav. 115; confirm Cr. & Ph. 240; 10 L.J. Ch. 354

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.