Canada: The Supreme Court Of Canada Rules On The Jurisdiction Of A Grievance Arbitrator To Decide Issues Related To Pension Plans

The Supreme Court of Canada recently released its decision in a matter1 which had, for several years, pitted Concordia University (Concordia) against some of its unionized employees with respect to the jurisdiction of the Superior Court of Québec to decide issues involving the Concordia pension plan. The Supreme Court, in a majority decision, ruled that the grievance arbitrator had exclusive jurisdiction to decide the issues at bar.

The Facts

Concordia sponsors the Concordia University Employees' Pension Plan (the Plan). At the time of the action, the Plan had more than 4,000 active and inactive participants. More than 80% of the participants are unionized employees governed by one of the nine collective agreements in effect. Each collective agreement refers, in some fashion or another, to the Plan.

In 1997, Richard Bisaillon (Bisaillon), a unionized employee, filed an Application with the Superior Court of Québec for authorization to commence a class action against Concordia on behalf of all participants in the Plan. He alleged that it illegally amended the Plan in order to provide for the right of the employer to grant itself contribution holidays, to charge Plan administration expenses to the Fund and to receive part of the surplus upon termination of the Plan. According to Bisaillon, in addition to the $56 million which allegedly were used by Concordia for the purposes of contribution holidays and the payment of Plan administration expenses, an amount of $15 million of surplus was allegedly also wrongfully used by the employer in order to fund an early retirement program. Bisaillon sought an order from the Superior Court declaring the amendments made by Concordia to the Plan invalid and asking for repayment to the Plan Fund the sums which Concordia purportedly used wrongfully.

Concordia and the Concordia University Faculty Association (CUFA), one of the certified unions representing more than 30% of the active participants in the Plan, asked that Bisaillon's Application be dismissed. CUFA, with the support of Concordia, alleged, in particular, that the issues raised were within the jurisdiction of the grievance arbitrator pursuant to the collective agreements and could not be decided by the Superior Court.

Decisions of the lower courts

In April 2003, Crépeau J. of the Superior Court sided with CUFA and held that the questions raised, in respect of the unionized employees, were indeed within the exclusive jurisdiction of the grievance arbitrator since the Plan was a benefit provided for in the collective agreement and the claim resulted from its application.

In March 2004, the Court of Appeal of Québec reversed Crépeau J.'s decision and held that the issues raised by the Application were within the jurisdiction of the Court and not that of the grievance arbitrator. According to the Court of Appeal, "[TRANSLATION] the subject-matter of this action has nothing to do with the collective agreement to which the intervenor is a party. Rather, it originates from the interpretation to be given to the pension plan in force at the respondent, Concordia University, a plan based on an innominate contract, which exists independently of any collective agreement."

The Court of Appeal also added that the arbitrator who would be called upon to hear a grievance concerning the issues raised would have no jurisdiction concerning unionized employees not governed by the agreement pursuant to which the grievance would be filed nor with respect to non-unionized employees. Therefore, the arbitrator's award would not be binding on them. In the Court's view, the risk of chaos created by the possibility of contradictory decisions with concerning the validity of the various actions allegedly improperly taken by Concordia justified having the issues decided by the Superior Court.

Decision of the Supreme Court

a) The majority justices

Applying the test developed by the Supreme Court in Weber2, the four majority justices held that the facts alleged by Bisaillon with respect to the amendments to the Plan and their validity were related at least implicitly to the collective agreements and their application and therefore fell within the jurisdiction of the grievance arbitrator. Even if the collective agreements did not specifically deal with the issues at bar, each of them referred to the Plan, by providing, for instance, that the employees were eligible to participate therein in accordance with the specified conditions or that the employer undertook to maintain the coverage and the benefits offered to the employees by the Plan. Provisions of this nature had the effect of including the conditions for the application of the Plan in the collective agreement. In the Court's view, Concordia had undertaken, "at least implicitly, to respect the several rights and obligations provided for in the Plan or arising out of the legislation applicable to it. In doing so, [Concordia] also recognized the in personam and subject-matter jurisdiction of the grievance arbitrator".

The majority justices also recognized that, even if all the participants in the Plan could benefit from a favourable decision of the arbitrator, only those who were governed by the agreement pursuant to which the grievance was filed would be bound by the decision. Although multiple actions and potential conflicts between separate arbitration awards in each bargaining unit were possible, this was not an impediment to recognizing the exclusive jurisdiction of the arbitrator.

b) The dissenting justices

The difference of opinion between the majority justices and the three dissenting justices hinged on the question of whether the motion filed by Bisaillon arose out of the application of the collective agreement. According to the dissenting justices, the analysis set out in Weber led to the conclusion, according to the facts at bar, that the arbitrator did not have jurisdiction to decide the matter.

According to the dissenting justices, the Plan transcended the collective agreements and, therefore, had not been "absorbed" by the latter. The dissenting justices were of the view that the Plan Fund was a patrimony (estate) created for the benefit of the beneficiaries and which formed an indivisible whole. In the case at bar, the Application by Bisaillon related to the funding of the Plan and, thus, all the beneficiaries of the Plan were affected. A decision handed down by an arbitrator with respect to the issues raised by Bisaillon would affect all the other beneficiaries of the Plan and not only those belonging to the bargaining unit filing a grievance. This conclusion, as well as the risk of contradictory decisions, confirmed in the minds of the dissenting justices that the action transcended the collective agreement and did not arise from its application.


By concluding that the conditions of application of the Plan were included in the collective agreement when the latter refers to the plan in a manner similar to that examined in Concordia, the Supreme Court recognized that the grievance arbitrator had a wide jurisdiction with respect to matters relating to the pension plan. Indeed, on this basis, several pension plan issues could be characterized as arising out of the collective agreement and, therefore, would fall under the jurisdiction of the arbitrator, even though they may not be specifically addressed in the collective agreement.

The majority justices alluded to recent decisions of the Court of Appeal of Québec which purported to be even more liberal with respect to the jurisdiction of the arbitrator. These decisions would confer jurisdiction on the arbitrator without the need for any reference whatsoever to the plan in the collective agreement. In this respect, we note that, of the two decisions of the Court of Appeal referred to by the Supreme Court in support of this approach, one did not raise the issue of jurisdiction of the grievance arbitrator and the other dealt with a collective agreement which included a reference to the pension plan. In any event, the Supreme Court expressly avoided making a determination as to the merits of such an approach since the agreements which it was asked to examine in Concordia contained a reference to the Plan.

It will be interesting to see the scope the courts will give to this recent decision of the Supreme Court. In Concordia, the Supreme Court was asked to make a determination as to whether or not issues with respect to the validity of amendments made to the Plan fell within the jurisdiction of the grievance arbitrator. Although the reasons for judgment of the majority justices do not make any distinctions with respect to "conditions of application of the plan" which were incorporated in the collective agreement by way of a reference thereto, a number of pension plan issues are more closely related to the employer and its assets than to the administrator of the Plan and Plan Fund.

For instance, in Lacroix3, the Court of Appeal of Québec held that an action against the employer, sued in its capacity as administrator of the plan for having failed to review certain decisions with respect to the investment of the assets of the fund, did not arise from the collective agreement and, therefore, did not fall within the jurisdiction of the grievance arbitrator although the collective agreement specifically provided that the pension plan formed a part thereof. The application for leave to appeal the decision of the Court of Appeal in Lacroix was dismissed by the Supreme Court on June 22, 2006 (i.e., after the decision was released in Concordia). The decision of the Court of Appeal on this issue is therefore final. It is interesting, as well, to note that the dissenting justices of the Supreme Court in Concordia referred to Lacroix as an illustration of an action which transcended the collective agreement.

In addition, an appeal is currently pending before the Court of Appeal of Québec by various pension committees from a decision of the Superior Court4 which ruled that their application fell within the jurisdiction of a grievance arbitrator. The committees are asking the Court of Appeal to reverse this decision on the grounds that they are not parties to the collective agreements and that a grievance arbitrator has no jurisdiction over them.

Finally, several actions dealing with pension plans involve not only active employees, but also retirees who no longer belong to the bargaining unit. In Concordia, even if the majority justices ruled that the questions at issue fell within the jurisdiction of a grievance arbitrator, they also recognized that the participants not covered by the agreement and non-unionized employees would not be bound by the decision of the arbitrator. With respect to the rights and remedies available to retirees under such circumstances, the decision of the Court unfortunately does not shed any additional light. Indeed, even though the group which Bisaillon sought to represent included retirees, the majority justices did not specifically address retiree issues as part of their decision.


1. Bisaillon v. Concordia University, 2006 SCC19;

2. Weber v. Ontario Hydro, [1995] 2 S.R.C. 929;

3. Lacroix c. Société Asbestos Ltée, J.E. 2004-1808 (C.A.);

4. Comité de retraite du régime de retraite des employés d’Industries Davie inc. membres du syndicat des travailleurs du chantier naval de Lauzon inc. c. Groupe Thibault Van Houtte & Associés ltée, J.E. 2006-807 (C.S.).

Josée Dumoulin is a partner in the firm's Pension & Benefits Department practising out of the Montréal office

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.