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:Brousseau v. Ontario & The Board of Trustees of the Electrical Industry of Ottawa Pension Plan - P0183-2002

Type/type:Pensions/Rgime de retraite

Decision Date/Date de la dcision:2004-10-22

Tribunal/tribunal:FST/TSF

 



Franais

Brousseau v. Ontario (Superintendent of Financial Services) and The Board of Trustees of the Electrical Industry of Ottawa Pension Plan

FST File No.: P0183-2002

Dates of decision: October 27, 2003
October 22, 2004

Panel members: Anne Corbett, Chair, Heather Gavin, David Vincent

Parties to hearing: Marcel Brousseau
The Board of Trustees of the Electrical Industry of Ottawa Pension Plan
The Superintendent of Financial Services

SUBJECT: JURISDICTION OF FINANCIAL SERVICES TRIBUNAL
INTERPRETATION OF PLAN PROVISIONS (ELIGIBILITY TO BENEFITS)

Summary:

The Superintendent had issued an NOP to refuse to order The Board of Trustees of the Electrical Industry of Ottawa Pension Plan to grant credited pension service to Mr. Brousseau, for which Mr. Brousseau requested a hearing before the Tribunal.

The initial decision is on a motion by the Superintendent to dismiss the matter on the basis of issue estoppel. The Tribunal held that issue estoppel did not prevent the Tribunal from holding a hearing on the matter.

It was found that there was no determination with respect to Mr. Brousseau’s entitlement in the Trustee’s 2001 proceedings before the court and that the decision of the court was final. The Tribunal held that the third requirement of issue estoppel was not met because although there was some degree of identification between the respondent in the court proceeding and Mr. Brousseau with respect to the issue of plan interpretation, it was not sufficient to make him a privy.

Finally, the Tribunal concluded that in considering competing interests, even if the doctrine of issue estoppel were to apply, it was appropriate in the case to exercise their discretion not to apply it and to proceed with a hearing on the merits.

On the merits of the case, in its final decision, the Tribunal found the interpretation of the Trustees, as confirmed by the Court, determines the eligibility of Mr. Brousseau to benefits under the Plan. The Tribunal found that the Plan terms had not been correctly applied in his case. The issue was whether credited service should have been applied for certain periods of unemployment in the electrical industry.

Therefore, the Tribunal ordered the Superintendent to refrain from issuing the Notice of Proposal and directed the Trustees to provide certain credited services to Mr. Brousseau.


Cases referred to:

Electrical Industry of Ottawa Pension Plan v. Cybulski [2001] O.J. No. 4593

Angle v. M.N.R. (1974), 17 O.R. (3d) 267
Minott v. O’Shanter Development Co. (1999), 168 D.L.R. (4th) 270
Danyluk v. Ainsworth Technologies Inc. et al. (2001), 201 D.L.R. (4th) 193

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.

Brousseau c. l’Ontario (Surintendant des services financiers) et le Conseil d’administration du rgime de retraite d’Electrical Industry d’Ottawa

No de dossier du TSF : P0183-2002

Dates des dcisions : Le 27 octobre 2003
Le 24 octobre 2004

Groupe d’experts : Anne Corbett, prsidente, Heather Gavin, David Vincent

Parties B l’audience : Marcel Brousseau
Conseil d’administration du rgime de retraite d’Electrical Industry d’Ottawa
Surintendant des services financiers

OBJET : COMPTENCE DU TRIBUNAL DES SERVICES FINANCIERS
INTERPRTATION DES DISPOSITIONS DU RGIME (ADMISSIBILIT AUX PRESTATIONS)

Sommaire :

Le Surintendant avait mis un avis d’intention de refuser d’ordonner au Conseil d’administration du rgime de retraite d’Electrical Industry d’Ottawa d’accorder des annes de service reconnues B M. Brousseau, pour lequel ce dernier a prsent une requLte devant le Tribunal.

La dcision initiale vise une motion du Surintendant en rejet de la cause pour irrecevabilit B remettre en cause une question. Le Tribunal a conclu que cette derniPre ne prvenait pas la tenue d’une audience sur l’affaire.

Le Tribunal a conclu qu’il n’y avait aucune dtermination des droits de M. Brousseau dans l’instance porte devant la cour par le Conseil en 2001 et que la dcision de la cour tait finale. Il a affirm que le troisiPme critPre de l’irrecevabilit B remettre en cause une question n’tait pas respect parce que le degr d’identification entre le dfendeur de l’instance judiciaire et M. Brousseau au regard de l’interprtation du rgime n’tait pas suffisant pour que celui-ci ait connexit d’intrLts.

Enfin, le Tribunal a conclu que, compte tenu des intrLts opposs, mLme si la doctrine d’irrecevabilit B remettre en cause une question s’appliquait, il convenait dans la cause d’exercer son pouvoir discrtionnaire de ne pas l’appliquer et de tenir une audience sur le fond.

Quant au bien-fond de la cause, le Tibunal a conclu que l’interprtation du Conseil, telle confirme par la cour, dtermine l’admissibilit de M. Brousseau aux prestations du rgime. Il a dit que les modalits du rgime avaient t incorrectement appliques dans cette cause. La question portait sur l’application des annes de service reconnues pendant certaines priode de chmage dans l’industrie lectrique.

Par consquent, le Tribunal a ordonn au Surintendant de ne pas mettre l’avis d’intention et a ordonn au Conseil d’accorder certaines annes de service reconnues B M. Brousseau.


Jurisprudence :

Electrical Industry of Ottawa Pension Plan v. Cybulski [2001] O.J. No. 4593

Angle v. M.N.R. (1974), 17 O.R. (3d) 267
Minott v. O’Shanter Development Co. (1999), 168 D.L.R. (4th) 270
Danyluk v. Ainsworth Technologies Inc. et al. (2001), 201 D.L.R. (4th) 193

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.