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:CBS Canada Co. v. Ontario & C.A.W. Canada, Local 504 - P0164-2001

Type/type:Pensions/Rgime de retraite

Decision Date/Date de la dcision:2003-04-03

Tribunal/tribunal:FST/TSF

 



Franais

CBS Canada Co. v. Ontario (Superintendent of Financial Services) and C.A.W. Canada, Local 504

FST File No.: P0164-2001

Dates of decision: March 4, 2002
April 3, 2003
May 16, 2003

Dates of orders: October 18, 2002
October 21, 2002
December 5, 2002

Panel members: Colin H.H. McNairn, Chair, Louis Erlichman, C.S. Moore

Parties to hearing: CBS Canada Co.
The Superintendent of Financial Services
CAW-Canada Local 504

SUBJECT: JURISDICTION OF SUPERINTENDENT
JURISDICTION OF FINANCIAL SERVICES TRIBUNAL
“EMPLOYER REQUEST” EARLY RETIREMENT BENEFITS ON PARTIAL WIND UP

Summary:

CBS brought the application for a hearing in respect of six Notices of Proposal issued by the Superintendent to refuse to approve six Partial Wind Up Reports filed by CBS. The Superintendent proposed to refuse to approve the reports as they did not treat “employer request” early retirement benefits and related bridge benefits under the Plan as consent benefits under s. 74 of the PBA, and they did not provide for the distribution of the surplus assets related to the partial wind up to the affected partial wind-up group.

March 4, 2002 Decision

The CAW brought a motion to have an issue added to the proceedings, “special early retirement” benefits.

CBS brought a motion to add Asea Brown Boveri Inc. as a party, and to have four approvals of the Superintendent re-instated. The Tribunal refused to make an order adding Asea Brown Boveri Inc. as a party to the proceedings.

The Tribunal found that the Superintendent did have jurisdiction to rescind the approvals of three wind up reports relating to the Westinghouse Hourly Plan. This was based on a breach of the duty of fairness in the granting of these approvals for failure to give CAW-Canada the opportunity to make written submissions, which is an exception to the “functus officio” doctrine. Therefore, the Superintendent did not err in exercising that jurisdiction.

However, the Tribunal concluded that there was no breach of the duty of fairness in the granting of approval of the wind up report relating to the Westinghouse Salaried Plan. Accordingly there was no basis for the Superintendent to rescind that approval. The Superintendent was functus.

The Tribunal held that it had jurisdiction to add an issue that was not addressed in the Notice of Proposal. Where an issue is raised before the Tribunal without the benefit of any findings on the underlying facts or without any considered opinion of the Superintendent, the Tribunal may at its discretion refer the matter back to the Superintendent or address the issue itself as hearings are conducted “de novo”. The issue of “special early retirement benefits” was therefore added.

Thus, the Tribunal ordered the Superintendent to refrain from carrying out the proposal to refuse to approve the partial wind up report for Westinghouse Pension Plan No. 526632 (the Salaried Plan) and to issue a new approval of that partial wind up report under current date.

April 3, 2003 Decision

This is a decision by the Tribunal to approve by incorporation the Minutes of Settlement, whereby the Superintendent agreed to withdraw the Notices of Proposal in the matter, and CBS agreed to make certain additional payments.

May 16, 2003 Decision

This is an order of the Tribunal to include certain named individuals within the partial wind-up group. Eight individuals wer added and one individual was denied this relief.

In addition, the Tribunal stated that this decision should not be taken to mean that the Tribunal would review the situation of any member of a pension plan where the plan sponsor seeks to exclude that member from participation in the partial wind-up group.

Cases referred to:

Gencorp Canada Inc. v. Ontario (Superintendent of Pensions) (1998), 39 O.R. (3d) (C.A.)
Re Scarborough General Hospital and C.U.P.E., Local 1487 (1999), 79 L.A.C. (4th) 246
Ontario Hydro v. Kelly (1998), 39 O.R. (3d) 107
Re Collins & Pension Commission of Ontario (1986), 56 O.R. (2d) 274
Retirement Income Plan for Salaried Employees of Weavexx Corp. v. Ontario (Superintendent of Pensions) (2000), 24 C.C.P.B. 154
Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 817
Wiswell v. Metropolitan Corporation of Greater Winnipeg (1965), 51 D.L.R. (2d) 754
Independent Order of Foresters v. Superintendent of Financial Services et al., FST File No. P0155-2001

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.

Caterpillar of Canada Ltd. c. Ontario (Surintendant des rgimes de retraite) et TCA-Canada, section locale 252

Numro d’index : XDEC-33

Date de la dcision : Le 16 mai 1996

Groupe d’experts : Eileen E. Gillese, prsidente, C.S. (Kit) Moore, Me Elizabeth Greville

Parties B l’audience : Caterpillar of Canada Ltd
Surintendant des rgimes de retraite
TCA-Canada et section locale 252

OBJET : PRESTATIONS ATTEINTES DE L’ARTICLE 74
COMPTENCE DU SURINTENDANT DES RGIMES DE RETRAITE

Sommaire :

Cette audience rclame par Caterpillar of Canada Ltd. portait sur plusieurs avis d’intention mis par le Surintendant des rgimes de retraite de refuser d’approuver les rapports de liquidation partielle affrents B certains rgimes de retraite de Caterpillar of Canada Ltd. pour non-conformit B l’article 74 de la Loi sur les rgimes de retraite.

La Commission a conclu que, dans les circonstances comme celles-ci oj survient un diffrend B la liquidation d’un rgime de retraite, l’interprtation des dispositions pertinentes du rgime de retraite doit Ltre dtermine par le Surintendant en vertu de l’article 70 de la Loi des rgimes de retraite, mLme si le rgime de retraite fait partie de la convention collective. La dcision de la Cour d’appel de l’Ontario dans la cause Firestone Canada v. Pension Commission of Ontario et al. a t raffirme. La cour avait conclu que, en vertu de l’article 74 de la Loi sur les rgimes de retraite, un participant dont le total de l’ge plus le nombre d’annes d’emploi est d’au moins cinquante-cinq, B la date de prise d’effet de la liquidation, a le droit d’atteindre les prestations de retraite anticipe du rgime.

AprPs avoir envisag les dispositions pertinentes du rgime, la Commission a conclu que l’interprtation donne par le Surintendant B la partie 1, section 2(c) des rgimes de retraite des travailleurs horaires et des employs rmunrs B la quinzaine et aux lettres d’entente tait exacte et donnait au groupe le droit de recevoir des prestations B 50 ans.

La requLte prsente par Caterpillar of Canada Ltd. en vue d’obtenir une ordonnance obligeant le Surintendant B approuver les rapports de liquidation partielle dposs a t rejete. La Commission a ordonn au Surintendant de respecter l’ordonnance et, en outre, de prendre les mesures ncessaires pour obtenir des rapports de liquidation partielle modifis respectant l’interprtation de la partie 1, section 2(c) des rgimes de retraite et des lettres d’entente donne dans ces motifs B la lumiPre de l’article 74 de la Loi.

En ce qui concerne la comptence du Surintendant des rgimes de retraite pour interprter les modalits des rgimes de retraite dans le contexte des ententes collectives, la Commission a dclar que l’autorit a le pouvoir inhrent de voir B ce que les rgimes de retraite sont liquids conformment B la Loi. Par consquent, il est vident que le Surintendant a le pouvoir d’interprter les dispositions des rgimes de retraite mLme lorsque celles-ci sont incluses dans les ententes collectives.

Quoi qu’il en soit, il n’est pas vident que cette affaire pourrait Ltre rgle B l’aide du processus des relations de travail. En effet, conformment B la Loi sur les relations de travail, si la convention collective suscite un diffrend entre les parties, le demandeur doit procder par arbitrage. Mais dans le cas prsent, la Commission a conclu que le diffrend n’manait pas du syndicat ni d’un participant au rgime. Aucun grief n’a d’ailleurs t dpos par le syndicat ou un participant au rgime. C’tait le Surintendant et non le syndicat qui tait en dsaccord avec Caterpillar. Enfin, la Commission a dclar qu’elle-mLme et le Surintendant taient tout B fait qualifis pour traiter la question en litige car ils possPdent des connaissances spcialises et une expertise dans le domaine des rgimes de retraite.

Jurisprudence :

Firestone Canada v. Pension Commission of Ontario et al. (1990), 1 O.R. (3d) 122
Weber v. Ontario Hydro, [1995] S.C.J. No. 59
New Brunswick v. O'Leary, [1995] S.C.J. No. 60
St. Anne Nackawic Pulp & Paper Co. c. Syndicat canadien des travailleurs du papier, section locale 219, [1986] 1 R.C.S. 704

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.