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:Dustbane Enterprises Limited v. Ontario, 548264 Ontario Inc. & 818787 Ontario Limited - P0095-1999

Type/type:Pensions/Rgime de retraite

Decision Date/Date de la dcision:2000-07-18

Tribunal/tribunal:FST/TSF

 



Franais

Dustbane Enterprises Limited v. Ontario (Superintendent of Financial Services), 548264 Ontario Inc. and 818787 Ontario Limited

FST File No.: P0095-1999

Date of decision: February 15, 2001

Date of order July 18, 2000

Panel members: Kathryn M. Bush, Chair, Louis Erlichman, David Wires

Parties to hearing: Dustbane Enterprises Limited
The Superintendent of Financial Services
548264 Ontario Inc. (Distributor)
818787 Ontario Limited (Distributor)

SUBJECT: DISCLOSURE/INTERROGATORIES
MULTI-EMPLOYER PENSION PLAN
DELAY

Summary:

Dustbane Enterprises was the administrator of a pension plan for its employees, subsidiaries, affiliates and distributors. The company decided to partially wind-up the plan so that the distributors would no longer be part of the plan. The partial wind-up report filed in 1991 showed a deficit of $33,154 and by 1995, the deficit had increased to $212,000. Dustbane Enterprises attempted to apportion the deficit among the distributors, and in 1999, the Superintendent made a Notice of Proposal to make an order requiring Dustbane Enterprises to pay the deficit. Dustbane filed a request for a hearing before the Tribunal in relation to that Notice of Proposal.

Dustbane brought a motion to have the Superintendent disclose certain materials and answer certain interrogatories. The Tribunal in its initial order of July 18, 2000 adopted the test set out in its Monsanto decision and ordered the Superintendent to respond to interrogatories posed by Dustbane, and to disclose certain materials.

The Tribunal held that the plan was not a multi-employer plan within the meaning of s. 1 of the PBA and Dustbane was responsible for the deficit as the employer. Nothing in the history of the plan indicated that the parties had ever regarded the plan as a multi-employer plan until the issue of responsibility for the deficit arose. The nine-year delay in effecting a partial wind-up significantly contributed to the size of the deficit, but did not affect the employer’s liability since the benefits of the plan members should be protected irrespective of delay.

Cases and Legislation referred to:

Ontario Business Corporations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.B.16.
The Canadian Union of Public Employees, Locals No.1144 and 1590 (“CUPE”) and Superintendent of Pensions, the Sisters of St. Joseph for the Diocese of Toronto and Upper Canada (the “Sisters”), St. Michael’s Hospital, St. Joseph’s Health Centre and Provident Centre (the “Hospitals”) (1998) No. XDEC-42, 12/18/98,
Monsanto Canada Inc. and Superintendent of Financial Services, (June 2, 1999) (Financial
Services Tribunal)

Appeal:

Divisional Court:
Dustbane Enterprises Limited v. Ontario (Superintendent of Pensions) [2002] O.J. No. 2943
The Court dismissed the appeal by Dustbane. The court also found the standard of review of the Tribunal’s decision was reasonableness simpliciter.

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.

Dustbane Enterprises Limited c. l’Ontario (Surintendante des services financiers), 548264 Ontario Inc. et 818787 Ontario Limited

No de dossier du TSF : P0095-1999

Date de la dcision : Le 15 fvrier 2001

Date de l’ordonnance : Le 18 juillet 2000

Groupe d’experts : Kathryn M. Bush, prsidente, Louis Erlichman, David Wires

Parties B l’audience : Dustbane Enterprises Limited
Surintendante des services financiers
548264 Ontario Inc. (distributeur)
818787 Ontario Limited (distributeur)

OBJET : DIVULGATION/INTERROGATOIRES
RGIME DE RETRAITE INTERENTREPRISES
DLAI

Sommaire :

Dustbane Enterprises tait l’administrateur d’un rgime de retraite pour ses employs, filiales, affilis et distributeurs. La socit a dcid de procder B une liquidation partielle du rgime pour en exclure les distributeurs. Le rapport de liquidation partielle dpos en 1991 rvlait un dficit de 33 154 $ qui, en 1995, avait augment B 212 000 $. Dustbane Enterprises a tent de rpartir le dficit entre les distributeurs et, en 1999, le Surintendant a mis un avis d’intention de rendre une ordonnance obligeant Dustbane Enterprises B rgler le dficit. Dustbane a dpos une demande d’audience devant le Tribunal relativement B cet avis d’intention.

Dustbane a dpos une motion visant B obliger la Surintendante B divulguer certains renseignements et B rpondre B certains interrogatoires. Le Tribunal a adopt les critPres noncs dans sa dcision dans l’affaire Monsanto et a enjoint B la Surintendante de rpondre aux interrogatoires de Dustbane et de divulguer certains renseignements.

Le Tribunal a conclu que le rgime n’tait pas un rgime interentreprises au sens de l’article 1 de la Loi sur les rgimes de retraite et que Dustbane tait, en tant qu’employeur, responsable du dficit. Rien dans l’histoire du rgime n’indiquait que les parties l’avaient considr comme un rgime interentreprises avant que la responsabilit du dficit n’entre en cause. Le dlai de neuf ans apport B la liquidation partielle a largement contribu B la taille du dficit, mais n’a pas affect la responsabilit de l’employeur puisque les prestations des participants au rgime devraient Ltre protges quel que soit le dlai.

Jurisprudence et lgislation :

Loi sur les socits par action de l’Ontario, L.R.O. 1990, chap. B.16.
Syndicat canadien de la fonction publique (SCFP), sections locales 1144 et 1590 Surintendant des rgimes de retraite, Surs de St. Joseph du diocPse de Toronto dans le Haut-Canada (les Surs , Hpital St. Michael’s, St. Joseph’s Health Centre et Providence Centre (les Hpitaux ) (1998) no XDEC-42, 12/18/98,
Monsanto Canada Inc. and Superintendent of Financial Services, (2 juin 1999) (Tribunal des services financiers)

Appel :

Cour divisionnaire :
Dustbane Enterprises Limited v. Ontario (Superintendent of Pensions) [2002] O.J. No. 2943
La Cour a rejet l’appel de Dustbane. Elle a galement jug que la norme de contrle devant s’appliquer B la dcision du Tribunal tait celle de la dcision raisonnable simpliciter.

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.