Pension Benefits — Ontario Employment Law

J. et al. v. G. et al.

Union Expulsion: Limitation Periods and Pension Benefits

This is a procedural ruling regarding limitation periods in a dispute involving union expulsion and pension benefits. The court addressed whether the ultimate limitation period under the Limitation Act, 2002, barred claims that plaintiffs argued arose in 2021 but were arguably discoverable in the mid-1990s, including arguments regarding concealment and the void ab initio nature of the expulsion.

M. v. CEO of Financial Services Regulatory Authority

Pension Appeal: Accrued Rights & Excess Payments

This is an appeal to the Divisional Court from a decision of the Financial Services Tribunal regarding the interpretation of the Pension Benefits Act. The court addressed whether an 'Excess' payment constituted an accrued pension benefit and whether its elimination violated the appellant's accrued rights or reduced the commuted value of the pension upon transfer between plans. The appeal was dismissed, with the court finding no accrued right to the Excess and no reduction in pension benefit value.

A. v Bell Canada

A. v Bell Canada: Class Action Pension Implementation

This is a procedural ruling regarding the implementation of a class action judgment against Bell Canada concerning pension benefits. The court approved the distribution mechanisms, including retroactive payments and recalculated future benefits, to ensure compliance with a prior Court of Appeal decision. Additionally, the court approved class counsel fees of $10 million, a representative plaintiff honorarium of $15,000, and the Class Proceedings Fund levy, while eliminating opt-out rights to ensure fairness.

B. v. La Cité Collégiale et al.

This case concerns a dispute over alleged verbal agreements between an employee and employer regarding the transfer of service years to a supplementary pension plan and the payment of $170,000 to fulfill a 2004 agreement. The court examined the credibility of the plaintiff's testimony, the existence of the verbal agreement, and whether the payment satisfied the employer's obligations, alongside claims for negligent misrepresentation regarding pension income estimates.

United Steel v. Georgia-Pacific LP

Judicial Review: Layoff Termination & Pension Benefits

This is a judicial review of an arbitrator's decision regarding whether indefinite layoff notices constituted termination under the Employment Standards Act and the impact on pension benefits. The Divisional Court found the arbitrator's decision unreasonable due to a failure to consider specific statutory regulations and set the decision aside. The matter was remitted to a different arbitrator for a full rehearing on the merits.

D. v. Imperial Oil Limited

Employer's appeal dismissed; 26 months' notice stands

This is an appeal to the Court of Appeal from a motion judge's decision in a wrongful dismissal action following the sale of a retail business. The employer appealed the award of damages to two dismissed employees, arguing they failed to mitigate by refusing employment with the purchaser, while the employees cross-appealed regarding the calculation of their savings plan benefits. The motion judge found the employees acted reasonably in refusing the purchaser's offers and set a 26-month notice period, but limited their savings plan damages to 3% of their salaries. The Court of Appeal dismissed the employer's appeal and allowed the cross-appeal, concluding the purchaser's job offers were not comparable due to decreased benefits and that the employees were entitled to higher savings plan contributions. A 26-month notice period stands, with the employer ordered to pay 6% matching contributions for the notice period.

Unite Here Local 75 v. Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre

Labour Jurisdiction: Pension Contributions on Gratuities

This is a judicial review or jurisdictional ruling concerning a labour dispute between a union and a healthcare employer regarding pension contributions on gratuities. The court determined that the issue of whether gratuities constitute pensionable earnings falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Pension Benefits Act and the HOOPP plan administrator, rather than the collective agreement arbitration process.

B. v. Canadian National Railway Company

Pension Survivor Benefits: Divorced Spouse Claim Dismissed

This is a merits decision regarding a claim for survivor pension benefits by a divorced spouse of a retired railway employee. The court addressed whether the plaintiff qualified as a 'widow' under the pension plan rules and federal legislation, and whether the claim was statute-barred by the Limitations Act, 2002. The claim was dismissed as the plaintiff was not a widow at the time of death and the claim was filed after the limitation period began.

H. v. Financial Services Commission of Ontario Tribunal

Judicial Review: Pension Benefits Tribunal Decision Dismissed

This is a judicial review of a decision by the Financial Services Commission of Ontario Tribunal concerning pension benefits under the Pension Benefits Act. The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review, finding that the applicant failed to pursue a statutory right of appeal in time and that the Tribunal's findings were reasonable and procedurally fair.

A. v Ontario

Class Action: Pension Benefits & Employee Transfer Settlement

This is a settlement approval motion in a class action lawsuit involving employees transferred from municipal providers to Community Care Access Centres (CCACs). The court reviewed whether the proposed settlement, which addressed alleged breaches of a 'no loss' pension commitment, was fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class. The court also approved an amendment to the class definition to include previously excluded CUPE members and authorized legal fees for Class Counsel.

G. v. Shoppers Drug Mart Inc.

SERP Grow-In Benefits Exclusion Appeal

This is an appeal to the Court of Appeal for Ontario concerning the interpretation of a Supplementary Executive Retirement Plan (SERP) and the exclusion of 'grow-in' benefits from retirement calculations. The Court upheld the application judge's reasonable interpretation of the contractual provisions, applying the Sattva framework, and dismissed the appeal. The Court also declined to award costs from the SERP and did not address the cross-appeal on limitation periods due to the dismissal of the main appeal.

City of Toronto v. CUPE, N.

Judicial Review of Labour Arbitrator Award on Pension Benefits

This is a judicial review of a labour arbitrator's award regarding the interpretation of a collective agreement and pension benefits for an employee on WSIB. The Divisional Court applied the Dunsmuir standard of reasonableness, finding the arbitrator's decision within the range of acceptable outcomes.

R.B. et al v. Shoppers Drug Mart Inc.

This is an interlocutory application regarding whether claims for supplementary pension benefits were barred by the Limitations Act, 2002. The applicants sought declarations regarding their pension rights, arguing that the limitation period did not begin until payments were due, while the respondent contended it began upon issuance of option notices. The court applied principles of contract law regarding anticipatory breach and the discovery of claims to determine if the claims were statute-barred.

M. v. Ontario

Class Action Settlement: Pension Deficiencies & Employee Transfer

This is a motion for approval of settlement in two class actions concerning pension deficiencies following the transfer of employees to new employers. The court assessed whether the settlement was fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class members, considering litigation risks and costs. The court also considered the approval of class counsel fees and whether expanded class definitions were fair and necessary.

R. v. Bell Canada

Pension Benefits: Bell Canada Appeal Dismissed

This decision is an appeal to the Court of Appeal from a motion judge's decision concerning an employee pension plan. The appellants, Vasundara and G.R., argued they were entitled to a pension option not contained in the Bell Canada pension plan. The motion judge found that the respondents had no legal obligation to offer this option. The Court of Appeal agreed and held there was no statutory or common law obligation to offer the option under the Pension Benefits Standards Act. The appeal was dismissed, with costs of $3000 awarded to each respondent.

L. v. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation

Class Action: Pension Plan Termination Jurisdiction

This is an appeal from a motion judge's decision declining to certify a proposed class action brought by former employees of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. The appeal addressed whether the court had jurisdiction to order partial termination of a pension plan under the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985, and whether the misrepresentation claims raised common issues for certification. The Court of Appeal upheld the denial of certification, finding no viable cause of action for partial termination and insufficient commonality for the misrepresentation claim.

S. v. Hudson's Bay Company

Pension Surplus Ownership on Plan Termination

This is an appeal to the Court of Appeal from a trial judge's decision in a class action about surplus pension funds. The plaintiffs were retirees and members of a defined benefit pension plan. The trial judge found that the pension plan's surplus belonged to the plan members, not the employer (Hudson's Bay Company), because the plan assets were impressed with an exclusive benefit trust. The Court of Appeal dismissed the employer's cross-appeal, affirming the trial judge's conclusion that the employer is not a beneficiary of the trust and has no right to the surplus funds on plan termination.

Revios Canada Ltd. v. C.

Pension Interpretation: Executive Supplementary Agreement

This appeal concerns the interpretation of a registered pension plan and an executive supplementary pension agreement (ESPA) regarding early retirement benefits. The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's interpretation that the ESPA did not create substantive rights inconsistent with the pension plan, specifically finding no new rights for executives under age 55 at termination.

Indalex Limited (Re)

Indalex: Pension Deemed Trust Priority in CCAA

This appeal concerns the priority of deemed trusts under the Pension Benefits Act over super-priority charges in CCAA proceedings, and whether the employer breached fiduciary duties to pension beneficiaries. The Court of Appeal for Ontario held that the provincial deemed trust provisions were valid and did not conflict with federal insolvency law, and that the employer breached its fiduciary obligations by failing to protect pension beneficiaries' interests. This decision was appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, which reversed it (Sun Indalex Finance, LLC v. United Steelworkers, 2013 SCC 6). The Supreme Court allowed the main appeals, finding that while the statutory deemed trust applies to the salaried plan, it is superseded by the CCAA DIP charge due to federal paramountcy. The Court also held that a constructive trust remedy was inappropriate, and dismissed the United Steelworkers' appeal regarding costs in the lower court proceedings without altering that costs order.

CAW v. Kitchener Frame Ltd.

Severance Pay Exemption: Pension Benefits Review

This is a judicial review of a labour arbitrator's decision concerning the calculation of severance pay exemptions under the Employment Standards Act, 2000. The Divisional Court addressed whether supplementary and ancillary benefits, such as bridging benefits, constitute 'pension benefits' and whether the commuted value of pension benefits is an appropriate metric for determining the exemption threshold. The court also considered the standard of review applicable to labour arbitrators interpreting employment-related statutes.