Canada: Pension and Employee Benefits - Recent Case Law Developments

Last Updated: September 16 2007

Article by Caroline Helbronner, © 2007, Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP

Originally published in Blakes Bulletin on Pension and Employee Benefits, August 2007

Surplus Entitlements And Contribution Holidays

Potter v. Bank of Canada. A defined benefit pension plan sponsored by the Bank of Canada was the subject of an action by retired members, who claim the Bank wrongfully paid pension plan expenses from the pension fund. The Bank successfully brought a motion striking out the claim for direct payments to the plan’s beneficiaries and a declaration that the matter could not be brought as a class proceeding. The plaintiffs appealed. The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the motions judge to strike the claim for direct payments to the beneficiaries, stating that restitution to the plan was the only available remedy. The Court did, however, reverse the motions judge’s finding that the matter could not proceed as a class proceeding.

Vivendi Universal Canada Inc. v. Jellinek. Following this action’s certification as a class proceeding, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has now approved a surplus sharing agreement between the employer and the surplus sharing group in the wind-up of a pension plan. The agreement provided that, before the division of the surplus between the employer and surplus sharing group, a portion of surplus would be used to fund the expenses of the wind-up. The court approved the agreement, subject to an amendment that expenses be "reasonable" before they are paid by the pension fund.

Cousins et al. v. Attorney General of Canada and Marine Atlantic Inc. Three applications for judicial review were brought to the Federal Court, corresponding to three partial terminations of three parts of a pension plan administered by Marine. They challenged the alleged failure of the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) to require the company to distribute a share of surplus on partial terminations of the plan, which the applicants claimed was required by the federal Pension Benefits Standards Act (PBSA). The relevant wording of the PBSA is similar although not identical to wording in the Ontario PBA, which was considered by the Supreme Court of Canada in Monsanto.

At trial, the Federal Court dismissed two of the three applications for being "out of time" – that is, a judicial review must have taken place within 30 days from the time of the decision, unless a court permits otherwise. The court was unwilling to grant an extension in this case. On the third application, counsel for the applicants relied on Monsanto and argued that where there is partial termination and wind-up of a pension plan, there must be a proportional payment out of the actuarial surplus at that time. The court agreed that PBSA subsection 29(12) does require proportional distribution of the surplus attributable to the wound-up part of the plan, that wind-up must occur within a reasonable time from termination and, if winding-up does not occur within a reasonable time after termination, the Superintendent shall require that it be done. The Federal Court’s decision in this case has been appealed.

Bankruptcy And Insolvency

Ivaco Inc. (Re). Ivaco became insolvent in 2003 and received creditor protection under the CCAA. Its restructuring attempts were unsuccessful and the company’s assets were liquidated, leaving the sale proceeds to be distributed among creditors. The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal of OSFI and upheld the order of the motions judge, which lifted a stay of proceedings and permitted the bankruptcy applications to proceed, without protecting the claims of the pension beneficiaries. The Supreme Court of Canada has now granted the Ontario Superintendent’s application for leave to appeal.

Retiree Benefits Bennett v. British Columbia. A class proceeding was brought against the Province of British Columbia, claiming it had wrongfully reduced the post-retirement health care benefits of retired workers. The Province had historically paid all premiums of retirees’ extended health care. In 2000, an agreement between the government and its unions resulted in the transfer of payment of post-retiree benefits from the Province’s Consolidated Revenue Fund to the employer’s Inflation Adjustment Account, which led to a reduction in retiree benefits. The plaintiff retirees allege the benefit reduction constituted a breach of the employment contract and of fiduciary duty.

First, the B.C. Supreme Court held it had the jurisdiction to hear the matter and it did not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of a labour arbitrator. In view of the large number of plaintiffs involved, the court also held a class proceeding was appropriate. The Province appealed and the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, finding that only those employees directly employed by the Province could participate in the claim – excluding all class members employed by Crown corporations. Crown retirees were, however, allowed to be included in the claim for breach of fiduciary duty. The appeal was otherwise dismissed, upholding the lower court’s findings with respect to jurisdiction and proceeding by way of class action.

Duty To Accommodate McGill University Health Centre (Montréal General Hospital) v. Syndicat des employes de l’Hopital general de Montréal. The plaintiff was an employee of McGill University Health Centre who took a leave of absence and was unable to return to work following a lengthy rehabilitation period. The plaintiff’s employment was terminated and the hospital cited her prolonged absence as cause for the dismissal. The union filed a grievance and asked the hospital to negotiate a reasonable accommodation with the plaintiff. The arbitrator dismissed the grievance. He found the hospital had accommodated the plaintiff by giving her extended rehabilitation periods more generous than those required in the collective agreement and the agreement contained provisions that allowed the hospital to terminate employees owing to prolonged illness-related absences.

The union applied for judicial review and the Superior Court dismissed the application. On further appeal, the Court of Appeal found the lower court relied too heavily on the collective agreement and failed to address the issue of reasonable accommodation of the plaintiff as an individual. The hospital was granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, which held a termination clause in a collective agreement, while not determinative of accommodation, does give a clear indication of the employer’s intention with respect to reasonable accommodation. As well, the Court found the employer met its duty to accommodate by granting a rehabilitation period significantly longer than that required by the collective agreement.

Grievance Arbitration Or Courts?

Alberta Teachers Association v. Calgary School District #19 (Board of Trustees). Some Alberta teacher trade unions commenced court proceedings against the Board of Education alleging it was in breach of its fiduciary duty by retaining surplus money refunded to it by insurers for excess benefit plan premiums. The Board’s position was the dispute arose under collective agreements and that grievance arbitration, rather than the courts, was the appropriate forum. The Court of Queen’s Bench held the matter fell within the ambit of the collective agreement and any dispute should be handled through grievance arbitration and not the courts. The Court relied on the Supreme Court of Canada’s Bisaillon v. Concordia University, which held a pension surplus dispute fell within the collective agreement and was to be resolved through grievance arbitration. The court also relied on Hydro-Québec for the principle that the collective agreement continues to apply for the lifetime of members and into retirement and, accordingly, any disputes arising under the collective agreement, even after retirement, could be referred to grievance arbitration.

Provincial Health Plan Benefits

Flora v. Ontario Health Insurance Plan. Turned down by doctors as a suitable liver transplant candidate, Flora, an Ontario resident, had a living donor transplant in England. Before the operation, OHIP rejected a request to pay for this procedure, stating it was experimental, and rejected a second request for reimbursement upon Flora’s return to Ontario. This decision was upheld by the Health Services Appeal Board, which ruled the treatment Flora received in England was not generally accepted in Ontario for a person with his medical condition. The Board further ruled that it was acceptable to consider the limited availability of resources in ensuring that patients with a higher chance of recovery receive a priority. On appeal to Divisional Court, the court upheld the Board’s decision. The court held Flora’s treatment was not an insured service and denying funding did not violate his Charter rights.

Importantly, the court distinguished this case from the 2005 Supreme Court of Canada decision in Chaouilli v. Canada (Attorney-General). There, Québec had prohibited an individual from purchasing private insurance and violated a Charter right by depriving the individual of the chance to avoid a life-threatening delay in accessing treatment. Here, there was no similar Charter violation since Ontario health insurance regulations did not prohibit Flora from obtaining and personally paying for out-of-country private medical services. The court found a government scheme that provides health care is not obligated to include all services possible to save lives in all circumstances.


Lomas v. Rio Algoma Ltd. Lomas, a retiree of Rio Algoma Ltd. and beneficiary under its pension plan, claimed Rio’s trust agreement contained exclusive benefit language that prohibited it from using any part of the trust fund for purposes other than providing benefits for plan participants, which meant any surplus belonged to plan members. The employer brought a motion to strike paragraphs in the claim seeking an order to have the plan wound up or, in the alternative, an order directing the employer to make an application to the Superintendent of Financial Services pursuant to the Ontario PBA to have the plan wound up.

The Ontario Superior Court followed the Supreme Court of Canada ruling in Buschau v. Rogers Communications Inc. and struck out the paragraphs seeking an order to have the plan wound up. The Supreme Court had stated it did not have authority to order a wind-up since that authority was held by the Superintendent. The Ontario court, however, found that the issue of whether it had the authority to make an order to direct the employer to seek a partial wind-up pursuant to the PBA was a novel one warranting a hearing and, as such, did not strike this paragraph from the claim. Leave to appeal to the Divisional Court has been granted.

Recent OSFI Decision in Buschau. Following Buschau, the legal representative of members and former members of the Pension Plan for Employees of Premier Cable Systems Limited, and legal representative of Rogers Communications Incorporated (RCI) and Rogers Cable Communications Inc. (employer and administrator of the Premier Plan) made submissions to OSFI concerning the Pension Plan for Employees of Rogers Communications Inc. and, in particular, the portion of that plan previously known as the Premier Plan. In summary, the members requested that OSFI:

  • Consider the Premier Plan already terminated; or
  • Terminate the Premier Plan; or
  • Direct Rogers to terminate the Premier Plan, and
  • After termination of the Premier Plan, remove the current administrator of the Premier Plan; and
  • After termination, wind up the Premier Plan by allowing the fund to be used to buy annuities to cover pension benefits, with the balance of the surplus distributed to members.

RCI argued the merger of the RCI Plan and Premier Plan was not completed because of past court decisions that prevented RCI from completing the merger. Following the Supreme Court’s decision, RCI advised it had decided to revoke the merger, thereby separating the Premier Plan and RCI Plan. RCI further submitted it had decided to amend the Premier Plan by reopening it to a new class of employees.

On the basis of the foregoing submissions, OSFI decided:

  • The decision by RCI to revoke the merger of the Premier Plan and RCI Plan and the reopening of the Premier Plan did not contravene the terms of the Premier Plan or the federal PBSA;
  • As a factual matter, the Premier Plan had not been terminated under the PBSA or by the employer;
  • The Premier Plan had not "terminated" within the meaning of the PBSA; and
  • Not to exercise the Superintendent’s discretion to declare the Premier Plan terminated.

On the question of termination by the regulator, either directly by way of declaration or by directing the employer or administrator to terminate a plan, the decision noted that this was "an extreme measure, usually done only after other regulatory intervention measures have failed." The decision states termination may be appropriate "where the pension benefits are jeopardized, the plan’s funding level is not in accordance with the PBSA and cannot be rectified or the purpose of the plan is frustrated."

On the amendments to reopen the Premier Plan, the decision notes that while the Premier Plan had been closed to new members since 1984, no submissions were made that the closure amendment was irrevocable. Further, the decision includes a review of the relevant plan terms and concludes they permitted the company’s proposed actions of revoking the merger of the Premier Plan with the RCI Plan and reopening the former plan to new members. In conclusion, the decision states "in deciding to revoke the merger and to reopen the [Premier] Plan to new employees, RCI and Cable Inc. are not acting contrary to safe and sound financial or business practices, are not jeopardizing the pension benefits of the members, and are not contravening the PBSA nor the terms of the [Premier] Plan."

Liability Of Actuaries

R v. Norton. Charges against Norton related to actuarial valuation reports prepared in respect of two Slater Steel pension plans. The reports allegedly "improperly, and contrary to the [PBA] and the Regulations overstated the value of the two plans’ assets such that Slater was not obliged to make certain contributions to these pension funds." The charges under the PBA alleged many statutory breaches, including breach of standard of care requirements. The matter was heard by the Ontario Court of Justice and, at trial, Norton was acquitted of the charges.

The court found the Crown had failed to prove the essential ingredients of the charges. In particular, the court found the expert report relied upon by the Crown raised issues of reliability because it evidenced influence by the regulator. The court noted it is "crystal clear" that the expert’s primary responsibility is to the court and, as such, his report must be objective and neutral and be drafted without any interest in the outcome of the litigation or prosecution. The court noted the onus was on the Crown to prove its case and the defence was not required to file an expert report of its own. The court found the Crown’s expert report did not meet the required standard and, therefore, was not to be given much weight. The court concluded that the Crown had not proved the essential elements of the offences with which Norton was charged. On this basis, the charges were dismissed.

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.

Events from this Firm
27 Oct 2016, Seminar, Toronto, Canada

Please join members of the Blakes Commercial Real Estate group as they discuss five key provisions of a commercial real estate purchase agreement that are often the subject of much negotiation but are sometimes misunderstood.

1 Nov 2016, Seminar, Toronto, Canada

What is the emotional culture of your organization?

Every organization and workplace has an emotional culture that can have an impact on everything from employee performance to customer or client satisfaction.

3 Nov 2016, Seminar, Toronto, Canada

Join leading lawyers from the Blakes Pensions, Benefits & Executive Compensation group as they discuss recent updates and legal developments in pension and employee benefits law as well as strategies to identify and minimize common risks.

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.