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:Imperial Oil Limited v. Ontario - P0130-2000

Type/type:Pensions/Rgime de retraite

Decision Date/Date de la dcision:2002-09-20

Tribunal/tribunal:FST/TSF

 



Franais

Imperial Oil Limited and Ontario (Superintendent of Financial Services)

FST File No.: P0130-2000

Date of decision: September 10, 2001
September 11, 2002
September 20, 2002

Panel members: Colin H.H. McNairn, Chair, Louis Erlichman, William Forbes

Parties to hearing: Imperial Oil Limited
The Superintendent of Financial Services

SUBJECT: DISCLOSURE/INTERROGATORIES
PARTIAL WIND UP REPORT

Summary:

This was a hearing in relation to a Notice of Proposal issued by the Superintendent to refuse to approve partial wind-up reports filed by Imperial Oil.

The matter eventually settled and the request for a hearing was withdrawn on May 12, 2004.

September 10, 2001 Order:

The applicant moved for an order of the Tribunal directing the Superintendent to answer certain interrogatories and to provide disclosure of documents.

The employer posed interrogatories to be answered by the Superintendent under sections 69(1)(d) and 69(1)(e) of the PBA. The Tribunal held that the employer should have the opportunity to explore the possibility that the practice of the Superintendent had been to exclude certain categories of employees from the partial wind-up group. The Tribunal held that obtaining answers to interrogatories would be a more efficient way to demonstrate the Superintendent’s practice and that there was some realistic possibility that the employer could rely on the doctrine of legitimate expectation or estoppel as against the Superintendent.

Therefore, the Tribunal ordered the Superintendent to respond to the interrogatories and disclosure requests, subject to the law of privilege.

September 11, 2002 Order:

The applicant moved for a further order of the Tribunal directing the Superintendent to answer certain interrogatories that it had posed and to produce the documents requested with those interrogatories.

Following the initial order of September 10, 2001, the Superintendent provided responses to the interrogatories and requests, but the applicant maintained that the responses were deficient. The Tribunal held that substantial compliance by the Superintendent was insufficient and ordered the Superintendent to respond to the interrogatories and requests for production as more particularly set out in the applicant’s notice of motion. The Tribunal provided that the Superintendent need not produce any documents or reveal any communications to which the law of privilege applies and that the responses to the interrogatories may be based on a review of one half of the files on partial wind ups that were processed during a specified period.

The Tribunal directed the Superintendent to respond to the interrogatories and requests for production within six weeks of the order on September 10, 2001.

September 20, 2002 Order:

The Superintendent filed a notice of motion for an order of the Tribunal directing the applicant to answer certain interrogatories that it had served on the applicant on October 11, 2001.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to respond to the Superintendent in respect of the interrogatories posed, and gave a six week time limit for a response.

Cases referred to:

Imperial Oil Limited v. Ontario (Superintendent of Financial Services) Pension Bulletin, vol. 11, issue 1 (Jan., 2002)
Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Ontario (Superintendent of Financial Services) Pension Bulletin, vol. 8, issue 2 (Sept., 1999), and (2001) 198 D.L.R. (4th) 109
London Life Insurance Company v.Superintendent of Financial Services et al., FST Decision # 23, February 7, 2001

Policies referred to:

FSCO Pension Guideline W100-101
FSCO Pension Guideline W100-301

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 Compagnie PtroliPre Impriale Lte et l’Ontario (Surintendante des services financiers)

No de dossier du TSF : P0130-2000

Date des dcisions : Le 10 septembre 2001
Le 11 septembre 2002
Le 20 septembre 2002

Groupe d’experts : Colin H.H. McNairn, prsident, Louis Erlichman, William Forbes

Parties B l’audience : Compagnie PtroliPre Impriale Lte
Surintendante des services financiers

OBJET : DIVULGATION/INTERROGATOIRES
RAPPORT DE LIQUIDATION PARTIELLE

Sommaire :

Cette audience portait sur un avis d’intention de la Surintendante de refuser des rapports de liquidation partielle dposs par Impriale Lte.

L’affaire a t rgle et la demande d’audience a t retire le 12 mai 2004.

Ordonnance du 10 septembre 2001 :

Le demandeur a rclam une ordonnance du Tribunal enjoignant B la Surintendante de rpondre B certaines questions et de divulguer des documents.

L’employeur a pos des questions auxquelles la Surintendante devait rpondre en vertu des alinas 69(1)d) et 69(1)e) de la Loi sur les rgimes de retraite. Le Tribunal a conclu que l’employeur devait pouvoir examiner la possibilit que la pratique de la Surintendante tait d’exclure certaines catgories d’employs du groupe vis par la liquidation partielle. Le Tribunal a tabli que les rponses aux questions dmontreraient plus efficacement la pratique de la Surintendante et que l’employeur pourrait peut-Ltre ventuellement appliquer la doctrine des attentes lgitimes ou d’estoppel contre la Surintendante.

Par consquent, le Tribunal a intim B la Surintendante de rpondre aux questions et de divulguer les documents demands, sous rserve du droit en matiPre de privilPge.

Ordonnance du 11 septembre 2002 :

Le demandeur a rclam une autre ordonnance du Tribunal enjoignant B la Surintendante de rpondre B certaines de ses questions et de produire les documents rclams avec les rponses.

Suite B l’ordonnance initiale du 10 septembre 2001, la Surintendante fourni les rponses aux questions et les documents demands, mais le demandeur a affirm que les rponses taient incomplPtes. Le Tribunal a tabli que le respect en substance tait insuffisant et B intim B la Surintendante de rpondre aux questions et aux demandes de documents en se conformant plus prcisment aux modalits de l’avis de motion du demandeur. Le Tribunal a conclu que la Surintendante n’tait pas oblige de produire des documents ni de rvler des communications vises par le droit en matiPre de privilPge et que les rponses aux questions pouvaient Ltre fondes sur un examen de la moiti des dossiers sur les liquidations partielles traites durant une priode prcise.

Le Tribunal a ordonn B la Surintendante de rpondre aux questions et aux demandes de documents dans les six semaines suivant l’ordonnance mise le 10 septembre 2001.

Ordonnance du 20 septembre 2002 :
La Surintendante a dpos un avis de motion d’ordonnance du Tribunal obligeant le demandeur B rpondre B certaines questions qu’elle avait signifies au demandeur le 11 octobre 2001.

Le Tribunal a enjoint au demandeur de rpondre aux questions de la Surintendante, lui accordant un dlai de six semaines pour le faire.

Jurisprudence :

Compagnie PtroliPre Impriale Lte c. l’Ontario (Surintendant des services financiers) Bulletin de la CRRO, vol. 11, numro 1 (janvier 2002)
Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Ontario (Superintendent of Financial Services) Bulletin de la CRRO, vol. 8, numro 2 (sept. 1999) et (2001) 198 D.L.R. (4th) 109
London Life Insurance Company v.Superintendent of Financial Services et al., dcision du TSF no 23, 7 fvrier 2001

Politiques mentionnes :

Directive relative aux rgimes de retraite de la CSFO W100-101
Directive relative aux rgimes de retraite de la CSFO W100-301

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.