THE FINANCIAL SERVICES COMMISSION OF ONTARIO

JANUARY 2003 • VOLUME 12, ISSUE 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

General Announcements Consents to Payments of Surplus out of

Important Notice to Administrators .................1 Wound Up Pension Plans..........................60
Introduction of Bill 198 ....................................2 Declaration that the Pension Benefits
Guarantee Fund Applies to
Pension Division Staff Changes ........................3
Pension Plans — Subsection 83(1)
Contacts for Plan Specific Enquiries .................3 of the PBA ..................................................67
Pension Advisory Committees — Membership Allocations of Money from the
as at November 2002...................................4 Pension Benefits Guarantee Fund .............75

Hearings/Court Matters Tribunal Activities

Enforcement Matters .........................................5 Appointments of Tribunal Members...............81
Court Matters ....................................................6 Pension Hearings Before the Financial
Services Tribunal........................................82
Superintendent of Financial Services Financial Services Tribunal Decisions

✁ Appointment of Administrators —
with Reasons..............................................95
Section 71 of the PBA..................................7
Please complete and return this form if you no longer wish to receive the Notices of Proposal to Make an Order..............9
Pension Bulletin or if your address label is incorrect, or if you wish to Notices of Proposal to
receive the Pension Bulletin in French: Make a Declaration....................................37
Notices of Proposal to Refuse to
I do not wish to continue receiving the Pension Bulletin.
Make an Order...........................................47
My label is incorrect. Please revise as follows: Orders that Pension Plans be
Wound Up .................................................50
Name

Title

Organization

Address

City Province

Country Postal Code

Please send copies of the Pension Bulletin in French.

UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

Thank you for your assistance with the Mailing List Review. FIDELIS

Ontario
Pension Bulletin Pension Bulletin

UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS FIDELIS

Ontario Ontario

All publications provided by the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) in written or electronic
formats have been prepared by FSCO to provide general information about pension matters to the public.

Information in this Bulletin or any FSCO publication is provided by FSCO upon the express understanding
that neither FSCO nor any member of the staff of FSCO is providing legal, actuarial, accounting or other
professional advice or services whatsoever with respect to the material contained in this Bulletin or any
FSCO publication. FSCO and staff of FSCO are not responsible for any action, costs, damages or liability
arising from the use of any information contained in FSCO publications nor in respect of the consequences of
anything done or omitted to be done by any person in reliance upon the whole or any part of the contents
of this Bulletin or any FSCO product.

The Financial Services Commission of Ontario Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 28 as amended, the Pension
Benefits Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8 as amended, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 909 as amended, the terms of the pension
plan and trust, if any, and the policies, procedures and practices of FSCO should be considered in
determining specific legal requirements, and professional advice should be sought.

This material is owned by the Government of Ontario and protected by copyright law. It may not
be reproduced or redistributed for commercial purposes without the prior written permission of the
Queen’s Printer for Ontario.

If it is reproduced or redistributed for non-commercial purposes, Crown copyright is to be

acknowledged.

PERMISSION PLACE
To request permission to reproduce all or part of this material for commercial purposes, please STAMP
HERE
contact the Queen’s Printer’s representative:
Senior Copyright Analyst
Publications Ontario
(416) 326-5153
E-mail: [email protected]
The Editor, Pension Bulletin

© Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2003

Financial Services Commission of Ontario
5160 Yonge Street, 17th Floor
ISBN 1481- 6156 Box 85
Ce document est disponible en français North York, ON
M2N 6L9

Volume 12, Issue 1

 Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

GENERAL ANNOUNCEMENTS
Important Notice to Administrators
Please note the following information concerning the filing requirements of your Annual
Information Return (AIR) and your Pension Fund Financial Statement. Both of these documents are
required to be filed under the Pension Benefits Act, R.S.O. 1990.
Annual Information Return
The AIR form is mailed out by the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) 3 months after
the fiscal year end of your pension plan. The AIR must be completed and returned with the required
annual filing fee prior to the due date specified on page 5 of the AIR form.

Please submit your completed AIR for processing to:

Ministry of Finance
Revenue Operations and Client Services Branch
P.O. Box 620
33 King Street West
Oshawa ON L1H 8E9

Pension Fund Financial Statements

Section 76 of Regulation 909, R.R.O. 1990, as amended, contains the requirements for filing the
annual Financial Statements for the pension fund or plan in detail. In addition to filing the
Financial Statements, if at the end of the fiscal year end of a pension plan, the plan has $3,000,000
or more in assets calculated at market value, the administrator must ALSO file an auditor’s report in
respect of the financial statement.

Please submit your completed Financial Statements directly to the Financial

Services Commission of Ontario at:

Financial Services Commission of Ontario

Pension Plans Branch
5160 Yonge Street, 4th Floor
P.O. Box 85
North York ON M2N 6L9

To avoid delays in processing, please send your

Financial Statements and the AIR to the correct address.

1
Volume 11, Issue 3
Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

Introduction of Bill 198

On December 4, 2002, the Minister announced that the government received unanimous consent
to withdraw the amendments to the PBA from Bill 198. The Minister said in a media release:

“This government has made a clear commitment to further consultations. We are committed to
ongoing efforts with our stakeholders and determining the best steps to address the pension issues.”
The Minister also stated that the government is committed to working with stakeholders to create an
expert committee to examine how Ontario should address these issues.

On October 30, 2002, the Hon. Janet Ecker, Minister of Finance, introduced Bill 198, “Keeping the
Promise for a Strong Economy Act (Budget Measurers), 2002”. Part XXV contained amendments to the
Pension Benefits Act (PBA) that would, if enacted, have amended the rules regarding the payment of
surplus from pension plans, partial wind ups, contribution holidays, and refunds to employers from
defined contribution plans in certain situations. In addition, the Bill provided for the payment of
pension benefits of members who could not be found when a plan fully wound up in a trust unit
administered by the Financial Services Commission of Ontario.

2
Volume 12, Issue 1
 Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

Pension Division Staff Changes

Roger Smithies has been seconded to act as Manager of the Pension and Income Security Policy
Branch of the Ministry of Finance. Jerry Williams has assumed the position of Acting Manager of
the Pension Policy Unit. Fatima Vieira joined the Pension Policy Unit as a Policy Analyst.

Contacts for Plan Specific Enquiries

Contact Name Title Phone Number Allocation Alpha Range

Jaan Pringi Sr. Pension Officer (416) 226-7826
Gulnar Chandani Pension Officer (416) 226-7770 #’s–Associated
Penny McIlraith Pension Officer (416) 226-7822 Associates–Bulk
Irene Mook-Sang Pension Officer (416) 226-7824 Bull–Cem
Stanley Chan Pension Officer (416) 226-7829 Cen–Cz
Kathy Carmosino Pension Officer (416) 226-7823 I–King
Preethi Anthonypillai Pension Officer (416) 226-7812 Kinh–Mark
Gino Marandola Sr. Pension Officer (416) 226-7820
Calvin Andrews Pension Officer (416) 226-7768 Gko–H
Anna Vani Pension Officer (416) 226-7833 D–Em
John Graham Pension Officer (416) 226-7774 Marl–Nes
Julina Lam Pension Officer (416) 226-7815 Net–Pep
Anna Vani Pension Officer (416) 226-7833 Peq–Rob
Rosemin Jiwa Jutha Sr. Pension Officer (416) 226-7816
John Khing Shan Pension Officer (416) 590-7237 En–Gkn
Peter Dunlop Pension Officer (416) 226-7860 Roc–Sons
Hae-Jin Kim Pension Officer (416) 226-7876 Sont–The Drop
David Allan Pension Officer (416) 226-7803 The Droq–Unicorp
Mark Lucyk Pension Officer (416) 226-7781 Unicorp–Z
Robin Gray Pension Officer (416) 226-7855

3
Volume 12, Issue 1
Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

FSCO Pension Advisory Committees — Membership as at November 2002

Accounting and Assurance Advisory Committee

Besler, Jason Cassidy, Jim
Eigl, Charlie (Chair) Finn, Mary Ann
French, Mike Koehli, Ron
Racanelli, Nick Turner, Eric
Wade, Jack Walker, Albert

Actuarial Advisory Committee

Cohen, Lorne (Vice-Chair) DiRisio, Wendy
Figueiredo, Karen (Chair) Hart, David
Hutchinson, Laurie Levy, Thomas
Morrison, Dan Peng, Peter
Pitcher, Clare Robertson, Marcus
Rosenblat, Rob

Investment Advisory Committee

Bertram, Bob Franks, Jim
Grantier, Bruce Kyle, Claire
Mercier, Eileen Mills, Daniel
Pennal, Peter Phelps, Tom (Vice-Chair)
Pond, Robin Schaefer, Klaus
With, Alf (Chair)

Legal Advisory Committee

Forgie, Jeremy Gold, Murray (Vice-Chair)
Healy, Priscilla Lokan, Andrew
Nachshen, Gary (Chair) O’Reilly, Hugh
Picard, Mary Rienzo, Doug
Whiston, Bethune

4
Volume 12, Issue 1
 Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

HEARINGS/COURT MATTERS
The information set out below is current to iii. Dubreuil Forest Products Limited
November 26, 2002. Charges were laid for failing to file a financial
statement. The first appearance for the charges
Enforcement Matters occurred on March 5, 2002. The matter was sub-
i. Canadian Corporation Creation Center sequently adjourned to August 27, 2002. On
(CCCC) August 27, 2002, Dubreuil Forest Products
Charges under the Pension Benefits Act (the pleaded guilty to both counts on the informa-
“Act”) were laid against the CCCC Pension Plan tion, convictions were entered and a fine of
administrator, the individual trustees, CCCC $10,000.00 was imposed.
and related companies on September 12, 2001. iv. Chris Bain
The charges relate to a scheme whereby locked Microcolor Dispersions Inc. (“Microcolor”)
in accounts were assigned to the defendant com- failed to remit both employer and employee
panies in return for the promise to extend a loan contributions to its pension plan in breach of
to the locked in account holder. A first appear- the Act. Both the Company and its then part
ance occurred on October 9, 2001. A second owner/director Chris Bain, were charged under
appearance occurred on December 6, 2001, at the Act. Bain was charged in his personal capac-
which time one of the individual trustees plead- ity with being a director who had acquiesced or
ed guilty to a charge of failing to administer the permitted Microcolor to breach the Act. Both
CCCC Pension Plan in accordance with the Act. Bain and the company were convicted. A proba-
A fine of $5000 inclusive of victim surcharge tion order was made against Bain requiring him
was levied. The charges against some of the to make additional payments to the pension
defendants were withdrawn on June 17, 2002. fund. He failed to comply with the order and
The final set of related charges against Sandra was charged with breach of the probation order.
Weinstein was withdrawn on August 23, 2002. The trial is scheduled for January 27, 2003.
ii. Club 300 Bowl (BC) v. Microcolor Dispersion Inc.
Charges were laid against the corporation and Microcolor was charged and convicted of failing
both directors and officers for failing to pay to remit both employer and employee contribu-
funds deducted from employees’ pay into the tions into its pension plan, in respect of a cer-
pension plan, failing to pay the required tain period, in breach of the Act. The required
employer’s contributions into the pension plan, contributions were not made and the company
failing to file Annual Information Returns and has been charged again in respect of a later peri-
Financial Statements for fiscal years 1995 to od. A judicial pre-trial is scheduled for January
1998 and failing to file a wind-up report. The 13, 2003.
first appearance for the charges occurred on
July 24, 2002. The fourth court appearance is vi. John Parker
December 4, 2002. John Parker is a director of Microcolor. He has
been charged in his personal capacity with per-
mitting or acquiescing in Microcolor’s failure to
remit the employer and employees’ contribu-
tions into the pension plan. The next appear-
ance will take place on November 8, 2002.
5
Volume 12, Issue 1
Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

vii. Mimik Industries Inc. On November 22, 2002, the Court of Appeal
Charges were laid against the employer, Mimik unanimously dismissed the appeal, holding that
Industries Inc., and against an officer of the subsection 70(6) of the PBA requires a distribu-
employer for failing to remit the required con- tion of surplus on partial wind up and that the
tributions to the pension plan. The charges are doctrine of legitimate expectation does not apply.
based on the employer’s failure to pay the entire ii. Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan
amount of arrears due under a probation order (Anne Stairs)
dated October 9, 1997 — approximately On May 24, 2002, the Divisional Court heard
$31,500 is outstanding. A judicial pre-trial is an appeal by Anne Stairs against the Financial
scheduled for February 5, 2003. Services Tribunal’s decision that directed the
viii. Rellok Ltd. Superintendent to refuse to carry out a proposal
Charges were laid for failing to pay the filing to order the Teachers’ Pension Plan Board to
fees for annual information return for two con- pay certain survivor benefits to Ms. Stairs, a
secutive years. The first appearance was on former spouse of the plan member who died
June 28, 2002, when the matter was adjourned before reaching retirement age. The Tribunal
to July 30, 2002. On July 30, 2002, the matter held that a separation agreement awarding
was adjourned to September 27, 2002. On Ms. Stairs an interest in the plan member’s pen-
September 27, 2002, Rellok Ltd. pleaded guilty sion benefits (including death benefits) could
to both counts on the information, convictions not be enforced under the Act, as death benefits
were entered on both counts and Rellok was were not property and the plan member’s
fined $2,000.00. spouse at the time of his death was not a party
to the separation agreement.
Court Matters The Divisional Court released its decision on
June 18, 2002. The appeal was allowed. The
i. Monsanto Canada Inc. Court found that death benefits were property
On April 29 and 30, 2002, the Court of Appeal that could be assigned and that subsection
heard the appeal of the Divisional Court’s deci- 48(13) of the Act clearly gave Ms. Stairs an
sion brought by Monsanto Canada Inc., the interest in the death benefits. The Divisional
Association of Canadian Pension Management, Court held that the standard of review is rea-
and the National Trust Company. The issues are sonableness, but the standard is correctness
whether the Act compels a distribution of sur- when the Tribunal interprets family law or the
plus on partial wind up and whether the doc- common law.
trine of legitimate expectation applies. The The parties returned to argue the amount of
Divisional Court had unanimously allowed the Ms. Stairs entitlement before the Divisional
Superintendent’s appeal of the Financial Court on September 3, 2002. The court reserved
Services Tribunal’s majority decision, which its decision.
held that the Act does not compel a distribution
of surplus on partial wind up and that the doc-
trine of legitimate expectation applied.

6
Volume 12, Issue 1
 Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

SUPERINTENDENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES

Appointment of Administrators — Section 71 of the PBA

1. Thompson Actuarial as the Administrator of the Commercial Aluminum (1993) Limited Hourly
Employees Pension Plan (Registration No. 1010289), effective immediately.
DATED at Toronto, Ontario, this 4th day of October, 2002.
2. PricewaterhouseCoopers as the Administrator of the Pension Plan for Non-Bargaining Salaried
Employees of Trailmobile Trailer Canada Ltd. (Registration No. 337006), effective immediately.
DATED at Toronto, Ontario, this 1st day of October, 2002.
3. Maritime Life Assurance Company as the Administrator of the Registered Pension Plan for
Cunningham Foundry, a Division Of Quint Industries Inc. (Registration No. 0432450), effective
immediately.
DATED at Toronto, Ontario, this 11th day of September, 2002.
4. London Life Insurance Company as the Administrator of the Employee Retirement Plan for the
Employees of Piccione Machine Tool & Gear Mfg. Ltd. (Registration No. 582080), effective
immediately.
DATED at Toronto, Ontario, this 10th day of September, 2002.
5. Morneau Sobeco as the Administrator of the Algoma Steel Inc. Salaried Pension Plan for
Employees in Canada (Registration No. 335810), effective immediately.
DATED at Toronto, Ontario, this 6th day of September, 2002.
6. Morneau Sobeco as the Administrator of the Non-Contributory Pension Plan Covering Hourly Paid
Bargaining Unit Employees of Algoma Steel Inc. (Registration No. 335802), effective immediately.
DATED at Toronto, Ontario, this 6th day of September, 2002.
7. Morneau Sobeco as the Administrator of the Pension Plan for Employees of General Publishing
Co. Limited (Registration No. 0563148), effective immediately.
DATED at Toronto, Ontario, this 5th day of September, 2002.
8. Morneau Sobeco as the Administrator of the Pension Plan For Salaried Employees of the Real
Estate Division of Olympia & York Developments (Registration No. 570754), effective immediately.
DATED at Toronto, Ontario, this 13th day of August, 2002.
9. Mackenzie Financial as the Administrator of the Registered Pension Plan for the Employees of
P.R. Manufacturing Incorporated (Registration No. 1055029), effective immediately.
DATED at Toronto, Ontario, this 17th day of July, 2002.
10. Clarica Financial as the Administrator of the Registered Pension Plan for Employees of Superpac
Acquisitions Inc. (Registration No. 1054071), effective immediately.
DATED at Toronto, Ontario, this 17th day of July, 2002.

7
Volume 12, Issue 1
Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

11. Manulife Financial as the Administrator of the Pension Plan for OSF Inc. (Registration No. 594366),
effective immediately.
DATED at Toronto, Ontario, this 16th day of July, 2002.
12. Morneau Sobeco as the Administrator of the Peterborough Paper Converters Pension Plan
(Registration No. 283358), effective immediately.
DATED at Toronto, Ontario, this 16th day of July, 2002.
13. Standard Life Assurance Company as the Administrator of the Pension Plan for the Employees of
Danbel Inc. (Registration No. 1047687), effective immediately.
DATED at Toronto, Ontario, this 3rd day of July, 2002.
14. Canada Life Assurance Company as the Administrator of the Pension Plan for Salaried
Employees of Mosler Canada Inc. (Registration No. 941732), effective immediately.
DATED at Toronto, Ontario, this 23rd day of May, 2002.

8
Volume 12, Issue 1
 Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

Notices of Proposal to Make an Order

IN THE MATTER OF the Pension Benefits Act, the advance contribution and an overpay-
R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8, as amended by the Financial ment resulted. The advance contributions,
Services Commission of Ontario Act, 1997, S.O. after taking into account interest owed to
1997, c.28 (the “Act”); the fund in respect of late contribution pay-
AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal by the ments, resulted in an overpayment of
Superintendent of Financial Services to Make an $17,376.10 as at June 30, 2001.
Order under subsection 78(4) of the Act, con- 3. Evidence of the overpayments to the fund
senting to a payment out of the Retirement has been submitted to the Financial Services
Plan for Certain Unionized Employees Commission of Ontario.
of Beta Brands Limited, Registration 4. There were no member submissions made
No. 1050210; about the repayment.
TO: Beta Brands Limited
5. The application appears to comply with
Attention: Mr. George Harrison section 78(4) of the Act.
CFO & Secretary
6. Such further and other reasons as come to
1156 Dundas Street East
my attention.
London ON N5W 5Y4
In accordance with subsection 105.(1) of the
Act, an extension of the time limit under sub-
NOTICE OF PROPOSAL
section 78(4) has been given.
I PROPOSE TO MAKE AN ORDER under
YOU ARE ENTITLED TO A HEARING by
s. 78(4) of the Act, consenting to the payment
the Financial Services Tribunal (the “Tribunal”),
out of the Retirement Plan for Certain
pursuant to subsection 89(6) of the Act, if, with-
Unionized Employees of Beta Brands Limited,
in thirty (30) days after this Notice of Proposal
Registration No. 1050210 (the “Plan”), to Beta
is served on you, you deliver to the Tribunal a
Brands Limited in the amount of $17,376.10 as
written notice that you require a hearing.1
at June 30, 2001, plus interest at the fund rate
of return thereon to the date of payment. Your written notice requiring a hearing must be
delivered to:
I PROPOSE TO MAKE THIS ORDER FOR
Financial Services Tribunal
THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
14th Floor, 5160 Yonge Street
1. Beta Brands Limited is the employer as
North York ON M2N 6L9
defined in the Plan (the “Employer”).
Attn: The Registrar
2. As a result of an advance contribution of
$50,000 to the Plan while an actuarial valua-
tion was prepared, the 1998 employer cur-
rent service cost and special payments made
in December 1999 did not take into account

1NOTE — PURSUANT to section 112 of the Act, any Notice, Order or other document is sufficiently given, served, or delivered if

delivered personally or sent by first class mail and any document sent by first class mail shall be deemed to be given, served, or
delivered on the seventh day after mailing.

9
Volume 12, Issue 1
Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

IF YOU DO NOT DELIVER TO THE

TRIBUNAL, WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS
FROM THE DATE THIS NOTICE OF
PROPOSAL IS SERVED ON YOU, A
WRITTEN NOTICE THAT YOU REQUIRE
A HEARING, I MAY MAKE THE ORDER
PROPOSED HEREIN.
DATED at Toronto, Ontario, this 19th day of
June, 2002.
K. David Gordon
Deputy Superintendent, Pension Division
cc: Mr. Eric Poirier,
Mercer Human Resource Consulting
Mr. Michael E. Labute,
Mercer Human Resource Consulting

10
Volume 12, Issue 1
 Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

IN THE MATTER OF the Pension Benefits Act, insurer had collected all the required docu-
R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8, as amended by the Financial mentation and completed its administrative
Services Commission of Ontario Act, 1997, S.O. work, it was ascertained that the amount
1997, c.28 (the “Act”); the company paid the insurer exceeded the
AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal by the final cost of the annuities. The insurance
Superintendent of Financial Services to Make an company refunded the excess amount plus
Order under subsection 78(4) of the Act, consent- accumulated interest to the trust fund of the
ing to a payment out of the Pension Plan for Plan in 2000. The company is making an
Salaried Union Employees of BICC Phillips application for a refund from the trust fund
Inc. (Located at Brockville, Ontario), of the excess amount.
Registration No. 370205; 3. Evidence of the overpayment to the fund in
TO: BICC Canada Inc. the form of a copy of the initial annuity
c/o Balfour Beatty Construction, quote summary from Industrial Alliance Life
Inc. Insurance Company and the final reconcili-
ation from Industrial Alliance, indicating
Attention: Ms. Joanne Bonfiglio
the refund amount plus interest as at August
254 South Main Street
22, 2000, has been submitted to the
New City NY 10956 USA Financial Services Commission of Ontario.
5. There were three member submissions made
NOTICE OF PROPOSAL
about the repayment in response to the
I PROPOSE TO MAKE AN ORDER under notice of the application provided to them
s. 78(4) of the Act, consenting to the payment by the company, none of which contained
out of the Pension Plan for Salaried Union substantive submissions regarding the appli-
Employees of BICC Phillips Inc. (Located at cation or Act or the Plan documents.
Brockville, Ontario), Registration No. 370205
6. The application appears to comply with sec-
(the “Plan”), to BICC Cables Canada Inc. in the
tion 78(4) of the Act.
amount of $23,735 as at August 22, 2000,
7. Such further and other reasons as come to
adjusted for expenses, plus investment earnings
my attention.
thereon to the date of payment.
In accordance with subsection 105.(1) of the
I PROPOSE TO MAKE THIS ORDER FOR
Act, an extension of the time limit under sub-
THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
section 78(4) has been given.
1. BICC Canada Inc. is the employer as defined
in the Plan (the “Employer”), as amended
by the Articles of Amalgamation at January
1, 2001.
2. As a result of the purchase of annuities in
1999 for the remaining members of the
Plan, the company was required to make an
additional contribution to the Plan to fund
the cost of the annuity purchase. After the

11
Volume 12, Issue 1
Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

YOU ARE ENTITLED TO A HEARING by

the Financial Services Tribunal (the “Tribunal”),
pursuant to subsection 89(6) of the Act, if, with-
in thirty (30) days after this Notice of Proposal
is served on you, you deliver to the Tribunal a
written notice that you require a hearing.1
Your written notice requiring a hearing must be
delivered to:
Financial Services Tribunal
14th Floor, 5160 Yonge Street
North York ON M2N 6L9
Attn: The Registrar
IF YOU DO NOT DELIVER TO THE
TRIBUNAL, WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS
FROM THE DATE THIS NOTICE OF
PROPOSAL IS SERVED ON YOU, A
WRITTEN NOTICE THAT YOU REQUIRE
A HEARING, I MAY MAKE THE ORDER
PROPOSED HEREIN.
DATED at Toronto, Ontario, this 24th day of
June, 2002.
K. David Gordon
Deputy Superintendent, Pension Division
cc: Mr. Duncan Richardson, Mercer Human
Resource Consulting
Mr. Willard M. Burke
Mr. Donald W. Conlin
Mr. Arthur W. Lane

1NOTE — PURSUANT to section 112 of the Act, any Notice, Order or other document is sufficiently given, served, or delivered if

delivered personally or sent by first class mail and any document sent by first class mail shall be deemed to be given, served, or
delivered on the seventh day after mailing.

12
Volume 12, Issue 1
 Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

IN THE MATTER OF the Pension Benefits Act, Attention: Jorden Sleeth

R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8, as amended by the Financial Receiver and Trustee in
Services Commission of Ontario Act, 1997, R.S.O. Bankruptcy for William H.
1997, c.28; Kaufman Inc.
AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal of the
Superintendent of Financial Services to Make an NOTICE OF PROPOSAL TO MAKE
Order under section 69 of the Pension Benefits AN ORDER
Act, as amended by the Financial Services I PROPOSE TO MAKE AN ORDER that the
Commission of Ontario Act, 1997, R.S.O. 1997, Pension Plan for the Employees of Kaufman of
c.28, respecting the Pension Plan for the Collingwood, The Furniture Division of William
Employees of Kaufman of Collingwood, H. Kaufman Inc., No. 0340349, be wound up in
The Furniture Division of William H. full, effective July 14, 2000.
Kaufman Inc., Registration Number I propose to make this order pursuant to subsec-
0340091 (the “Pension Plan”); tion 69(1) of the Pension Benefits Act, R.S.O.
TO: The Standard Life Assurance 1990, c. P.8, as amended (the “Act”).
Company I PROPOSE TO MAKE THIS ORDER FOR
1245 Sherbrooke Street West THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
Montreal PQ H3G 1G3
1. There was a cessation or suspension or
Attention: Jean-Claude Lebel employer contributions to the pension
Pension Actuary fund.
Administrator of the Pension 2. A significant number of the members of the
Plan for the Employees of pension plan ceased to be employed by the
Kaufman of Collingwood, employer as a result of the discontinuance
The Furniture Division of of all or part of the business of the employer
William H. Kaufman Inc. or as a result the reorganization of the busi-
AND TO: Kaufman of Collingwood, ness of the employer.
The Furniture Division of 3. The employer is bankrupt within the mean-
William H. Kaufman Inc. ing of the Bankruptcy Act (Canada).
201 Balsalm Street
4. A significant number of members of the
Collingwood ON L9Y 3Y7
pension plan cease to be employed by the
Attention: Barry Knox employer as a result of the discontinuance
Controller of all or part of the business of the employer
Employer or as a result of the reorganization of the
AND TO: Ernst & Young Inc. business of the employer.
Ernst & Young Tower 5. All or a significant portion of the business
P.O. Box 251, 222 Bay Street carried on by the employer at a specific loca-
Toronto-Dominion Centre tion is discontinued.
Toronto ON M5K 1J7

13
Volume 12, Issue 1
Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

6. All or part of the employer’s business or all IF YOU DO NOT DELIVER TO THE
or part of the assets of the employer’s busi- TRIBUNAL, WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS
ness are sold, assigned or otherwise disposed FROM THE DATE OF THIS NOTICE OF
of and the person who acquires the business PROPOSAL IS SERVED ON YOU, A
or assets does not provide a pension plan for WRITTEN NOTICE THAT YOU REQUIRE
the members of the employer’s pension plan A HEARING, I MAY MAKE THE ORDER
who become employees of the person. PROPOSED HEREIN.
7. Such further reasons as may come to my DATED at Toronto, Ontario, this 25th day of
attention. June, 2002.
YOU ARE ENTITLED TO A HEARING by K. David Gordon
the Financial Services Tribunal (the “Tribunal”), Deputy Superintendent, Pension Division
pursuant to section 89(6) of the Act, if, within
thirty (30) days after the Notice of Proposal is
served on you, you deliver to the Tribunal a
written notice that you require a hearing.1
Any notice requiring a hearing shall be deliv-
ered to:
Financial Services Tribunal
5160 Yonge Street
14th Floor
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6L9
Attention: The Registrar
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, contact
the Registrar of the Tribunal by phone at 416-
226-7752, toll free at 1-800-668-0128, ext. 7752,
or by fax at 416-226-7750.

1NOTE — PURSUANT to section 112 of the Act, any Notice, Order or other document is sufficiently given, served or delivered if

delivered personally or sent by first class mail and any document sent by first class mail shall be deemed to be given, served or
delivered on the seventh day after the date of mailing.

14
Volume 12, Issue 1
 Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

IN THE MATTER OF the Pension Benefits Act, Attention: Jorden Sleeth

R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8, as amended by the Financial Receiver and Trustee in
Services Commission of Ontario Act, 1997, R.S.O. Bankruptcy for William H.
1997, c.28; Kaufman Inc.
AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal of the AND TO: United Steelworkers of
Superintendent of Financial Services to Make an America
Order under section 69 of the Pension Benefits 89 Dawson Road
Act, as amended by the Financial Services Guelph ON N1H 1B1
Commission of Ontario Act, 1997, R.S.O. 1997,
Attention: Ken Dawson
c.28, respecting the Pension Plan for the
Employees of Kaufman Footwear,
NOTICE OF PROPOSAL TO MAKE
Division of William H. Kaufman Inc.,
AN ORDER
Registration Number 0340349 (the
“Pension Plan”) I PROPOSE TO MAKE AN ORDER that the
Pension Plan for the Employees of Kaufman
TO: The Standard Life Assurance
Footwear, Division of William H. Kaufman Inc.,
Company
No. 0340349, be wound up in full effective July
1245 Sherbrooke Street West
21, 2000.
Montreal PQ H3G 1G3
I propose to make this order pursuant to subsec-
Attention: Jean-Claude Lebel
tion 69(1) of the Pension Benefits Act, R.S.O.
Pension Actuary
1990, c. P.8, as amended (the “Act”).
Administrator of the Pension
I PROPOSE TO MAKE THIS ORDER FOR
Plan for the Employees of
THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
Kaufman Footwear, Division
of William H. Kaufman Inc. 1. There was a cessation or suspension or
employer contributions to the pension
AND TO: Kaufman Footwear, Division
fund.
of William H. Kaufman Inc.
P.O. Box 9005 2. A significant number of the members of the
410 King Street West pension plan ceased to be employed by the
Kitchener ON N2G 4J8 employer as a result of the discontinuance
of all or part of the business of the employer
Attention: S.I. Snyder
or as a result the reorganization of the busi-
Vice President, Finance
ness of the employer.
Employer
3. The employer is bankrupt within the mean-
AND TO: Ernst & Young Inc.
ing of the Bankruptcy Act (Canada).
Ernst & Young Tower
4. A significant number of members of the
P.O. Box 251, 222 Bay Street
pension plan cease to be employed by the
Toronto-Dominion Centre
employer as a result of the discontinuance
Toronto ON M5K 1J7
of all or part of the business of the employer
or as a result of the reorganization of the
business of the employer.

15
Volume 12, Issue 1
Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

5. All or a significant portion of the business IF YOU DO NOT DELIVER TO THE

carried on by the employer at a specific loca- TRIBUNAL, WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS
tion is discontinued. FROM THE DATE OF THIS NOTICE OF
6. Such further reasons as may come to my PROPOSAL, IS SERVED ON YOU, A
attention. WRITTEN NOTICE THAT YOU REQUIRE
A HEARING, I MAY MAKE THE ORDER
YOU ARE ENTITLED TO A HEARING by
PROPOSED HEREIN.
the Financial Services Tribunal (the “Tribunal”),
pursuant to section 89(6) of the Act, if, within DATED at Toronto, Ontario, this 25th day of
thirty (30) days after the Notice of Proposal is June, 2002.
served on you, you deliver to the Tribunal a K. David Gordon
written notice that you require a hearing.1 Deputy Superintendent, Pension Division
Any notice requiring a hearing shall be deliv-
ered to:
Financial Services Tribunal
5160 Yonge Street
14th Floor
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6L9
Attention: The Registrar
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, contact the
Registrar of the Tribunal by phone at 416-226-
7752, toll free at 1-800-668-0128, ext. 7752, or
by fax at 416-226-7750.

1NOTE — Pursuant to section 112 of the Act any Notice, Order or other document is sufficiently given, served or delivered if deliv-
ered personally or sent by first class mail and any document sent by first class mail shall be deemed to be given, served or delivered
on the seventh day after the date of mailing.

16
Volume 12, Issue 1
 Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

IN THE MATTER OF the Pension Benefits Act, additional contribution to the Plan to fund
R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8, as amended by the Financial the cost of the annuity purchase. After the
Services Commission of Ontario Act, 1997, S.O. insurer had collected all the required docu-
1997, c.28 (the “Act”); mentation and completed its administrative
AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal by the work, it was ascertained that the amount
Superintendent of Financial Services to Make an the company paid the insurer exceeded the
Order under subsection 78(4) of the Act, con- final cost of the annuities. The insurance
senting to a payment out of the Pension Plan company refunded the excess amount plus
for Hourly Employees of BICC Phillips accumulated interest to the trust fund of the
Inc. (Located at its Brockville Factory), Plan in 2000. The company is making an
Registration No. 293753; application for a refund from the trust fund
of the excess amount.
TO: BICC Canada Inc.
c/o Balfour Beatty Construction, 3. Evidence of the overpayment to the fund in
Inc. the form of a copy of the initial annuity
quote summary from Industrial Alliance Life
Attention: Ms. Joanne Bonfiglio
Insurance Company and the final reconcili-
254 South Main Street
ation from Industrial Alliance, indicating
New City NY 10956 USA
the refund amount plus interest as at August
22, 2000, has been submitted to the
NOTICE OF PROPOSAL Financial Services Commission of Ontario.
I PROPOSE TO MAKE AN ORDER under s. 4. There were ten member submissions made
78(4) of the Act, consenting to the payment out about the repayment in response to the
of the Pension Plan for Hourly Employees of notice of the application provided to them
BICC Phillips Inc. (Located at its Brockville by the company, none of which contained
Factory), Registration No. 293753 (the “Plan”), substantive submissions regarding the appli-
to BICC Canada Inc. in the amount of $782,818 cation or Act or the Plan documents.
as at August 22, 2000, adjusted for expenses,
5. The application appears to comply with sec-
plus investment earnings thereon to the date
tion 78(4) of the Act.
of payment.
6. Such further and other reasons as come to
I PROPOSE TO MAKE THIS ORDER FOR
my attention.
THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
In accordance with subsection 105.(1) of the
1. BICC Canada Inc. is the employer as defined
Act, an extension of the time limit under sub-
in the Plan (the “Employer”), as amended
section 78(4) has been given.
by the Articles of Amalgamation at January
1, 2001.
2. As a result of the purchase of annuities in
1999 for the remaining members of the
Plan, the company was required to make an

17
Volume 12, Issue 1
Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

YOU ARE ENTITLED TO A HEARING by cc: Mr. Duncan Richardson, Mercer Human
the Financial Services Tribunal (the “Tribunal”), Resource Consulting
pursuant to subsection 89(6) of the Act, if, with- Mr. William Greenham
in thirty (30) days after this Notice of Proposal Mr. Roger Eyre
is served on you, you deliver to the Tribunal a Mr. Malcolm Blair
written notice that you require a hearing.1 Mr. Giovanni Hrelia
Your written notice requiring a hearing must be Mr. Robert C. Andress
delivered to: Mr. W.G. Haggart
Mr. Earl G. Mott
Financial Services Tribunal
Mr. J. Richard Gill
14th Floor, 5160 Yonge Street
Mr. Arthur W. Lane
North York ON M2N 6L9
Mr. Donald W. Conlin
Attn: The Registrar
IF YOU DO NOT DELIVER TO THE
TRIBUNAL, WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS
FROM THE DATE THIS NOTICE OF
PROPOSAL IS SERVED ON YOU, A
WRITTEN NOTICE THAT YOU REQUIRE
A HEARING, I MAY MAKE THE ORDER
PROPOSED HEREIN.
DATED at Toronto, Ontario, this 26th day of
June, 2002.
K. David Gordon
Deputy Superintendent, Pension Division

1NOTE — PURSUANT to section 112 of the Act, any Notice, Order or other document is sufficiently given, served, or delivered if

delivered personally or sent by first class mail and any document sent by first class mail shall be deemed to be given, served, or
delivered on the seventh day after mailing.

18
Volume 12, Issue 1
 Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

IN THE MATTER OF the Pension Benefits Act, to the fund by the employer rather than
R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8, as amended by the Financial from the fund as a contribution holiday out
Services Commission of Ontario Act, 1997, S.O. of surplus.
1997, c.28 (the “Act”); 3. Evidence of the overpayment to the fund for
AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal by the 2000, 2001 and January 2002 has been sub-
Superintendent of Financial Services to Make an mitted to the Financial Services Commission
Order under subsection 78(4) of the Act, con- of Ontario.
senting to a payment out of the Boehringer 4. There were no member submissions made
Ingelheim (Canada) Ltd./Ltée Employees’ about the repayment.
Pension Plan, Registration No. 356162;
5. The application appears to comply with sec-
TO: Boehringer Ingelheim tion 78(4) of the Act.
(Canada) Ltd./Ltée
6. Such further and other reasons as come to
Attention: Louise Muller my attention.
Manager, Human Resources
In accordance with subsection 105.(1) of the
5180 South Service Road
Act, an extension of the time limit under sub-
Burlington ON L7L 5H4
section 78(4) has been given.
YOU ARE ENTITLED TO A HEARING by
NOTICE OF PROPOSAL
the Financial Services Tribunal (the “Tribunal”),
I PROPOSE TO MAKE AN ORDER under s.
pursuant to subsection 89(6) of the Act, if, with-
78(4) of the Act, consenting to the payment out
in thirty (30) days after this Notice of Proposal
of the Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada) Ltd./Ltée
is served on you, you deliver to the Tribunal a
Employees’ Pension Plan, Registration No.
written notice that you require a hearing.1
356162 (the “Plan”), to a refund of employer
Your written notice requiring a hearing must be
contributions in the amount of $1,351,669.22
delivered to:
as at January 16, 2002.
Financial Services Tribunal
I PROPOSE TO MAKE THIS ORDER FOR
14th Floor, 5160 Yonge Street
THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
North York ON M2N 6L9
1. Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada) Ltd./Ltée is
Attn: The Registrar
the employer as defined in the Plan (the
“Employer”).
2. As a result of the delay caused by Royal
Trust to effect the payments from the fund
in a timely manner, employer contributions
for 2000, 2001 and January 2002 were made

1NOTE — PURSUANT to section 112 of the Act, any Notice, Order or other document is sufficiently given, served, or delivered if

delivered personally or sent by first class mail and any document sent by first class mail shall be deemed to be given, served, or
delivered on the seventh day after mailing.

19
Volume 12, Issue 1
Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

IF YOU DO NOT DELIVER TO THE

TRIBUNAL, WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS
FROM THE DATE THIS NOTICE OF
PROPOSAL IS SERVED ON YOU, A
WRITTEN NOTICE THAT YOU REQUIRE
A HEARING, I MAY MAKE THE ORDER
PROPOSED HEREIN.
DATED at Toronto, Ontario, this 2nd day of
July, 2002.
K. David Gordon
Deputy Superintendent, Pension Division
cc: Ms. Renate Leis, Buck Consultants Limited

20
Volume 12, Issue 1
 Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

IN THE MATTER OF the Pension Benefits Act, 2. The Plan was partially wound up, effective
R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8, as amended by the Financial January 10, 2001.
Services Commission of Ontario Act, 1997, S.O. 3. As at January 10, 2001, the surplus in the
1997, c.28 (the “Act”); Plan was estimated at $33,718,817.
AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal by the 4. The Plan provides for payment of surplus
Superintendent of Financial Services to Make an to the Employer on the partial wind up of
Order under subsection 78(1) of the Act, con- the Plan.
senting to a payment out of the AFG
5. The application discloses that by written
Industries Ltd. Salaried Pension Plan,
agreement made by the Employer and on
Registration No. 1070853;
behalf of the 100% of the consenters, the
TO: AFG Industries Ltd. surplus in the Plan at the date of payment,
1400 Lincoln Street after deduction of wind up expenses, is to be
Kingsport TN 37660 U.S.A. distributed:
Attention: Steven E. Kramer a) approximately 42.42% to the Employer;
Vice President, Human Resources and
and General Counsel
b) approximately 42.43% to the beneficia-
Applicant and Employer ries of the Plan as defined in the Surplus
Distribution Agreement.
NOTICE OF PROPOSAL
6. The Employer has applied, pursuant to sec-
I PROPOSE TO MAKE AN ORDER under s. tion 78 of the Act and clause 8(1)(b) of the
78(1) of the Act, consenting to the payment out Regulation, for consent of the Superin-
of the AFG Industries Ltd. Salaried Pension Plan, tendent of Financial Services to the payment
Registration No. 1070853 (the “Plan”), to AFG of approximately 42.42% of the surplus in
Industries Ltd. in the amount of $14,303,441 as the Plan.
at January 10, 2001, plus earnings thereon to
7. The application appears to comply with sec-
the date of payment.
tion 78 and subsection 79(3)(a) & (b) of the
I PROPOSE TO MAKE THE ORDER effective Act and with clause 8(1)(b) and subsections
only after the Applicant satisfies me that all the 28(5), 28(5.1) and 28(6) of the Regulation.
consenting members’ and former members’ enti-
8. Such further and other reasons as come to
tlements from the Plan, have been first trans-
my attention.
ferred out and paid to the members or otherwise
YOU ARE ENTITLED TO A HEARING by
provided for.
the Financial Services Tribunal (the “Tribunal”),
I PROPOSE TO MAKE THIS ORDER FOR
pursuant to subsection 89(6) of the Act, if, with-
THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
in thirty (30) days after this Notice of Proposal
1. AFG Industries Ltd. is the employer as is served on you, you deliver to the Tribunal a
defined in the Plan (the “Employer”). written notice that you require a hearing.1
1NOTE — PURSUANT to section 112 of the Act, any Notice, Order or other document is sufficiently given, served, or delivered if

delivered personally or sent by first class mail and any document sent by first class mail shall be deemed to be given, served, or
delivered on the seventh day after mailing.

21
Volume 12, Issue 1
Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

Your written notice requiring a hearing must be

delivered to:
Financial Services Tribunal
14th Floor, 5160 Yonge Street
North York ON M2N 6L9
Attn: The Registrar
IF YOU DO NOT DELIVER TO THE
TRIBUNAL, WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS
FROM THE DATE THIS NOTICE OF
PROPOSAL IS SERVED ON YOU, A
WRITTEN NOTICE THAT YOU REQUIRE
A HEARING, I MAY MAKE THE ORDER
PROPOSED HEREIN.
DATED at Toronto, Ontario, this 2nd day of
August, 2002.
K. David Gordon
Deputy Superintendent, Pension Division
cc: Geoffrey Gibson, Towers Perrin Inc.
Audrey Mak, Fraser Milner Casgrain
Mark Zigler, Koskie Minsky

22
Volume 12, Issue 1
 Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

IN THE MATTER OF the Pension Benefits Act, 2. The Plan was wound up, effective February
R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8, as amended by the Financial 1, 2001.
Services Commission of Ontario Act, 1997, S.O. 3. As at February 1, 2001, the surplus in the
1997, c.28 (the “Act”); Plan was estimated at $92,800.
AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal by the 4. The Plan provides for payment of surplus to
Superintendent of Financial Services to Make an the Employer on the wind up of the Plan.
Order under subsection 78(1) of the Act, con-
5. The application discloses that by written
senting to the payment out of the Dry-Ac Ltd.
agreement made by the Employer, and the
Executive Pension Plan, Registration
sole member (as defined in the application)
No. 987057;
entitled to payments, the surplus in the Plan
TO: Dry-Ac Ltd. at the date of payment, is to be distributed
98 Daffodil Crescent 100% to the Employer.
Ancaster ON L9K 1E2
6. The Employer has applied, pursuant to sec-
Attention: Eugene Campbell tion 78 of the Act and clause 8(1)(b) of the
President & Secretary Regulation, for consent of the
Applicant and Employer Superintendent of Financial Services to the
payment of 100% of the surplus in the Plan.
NOTICE OF PROPOSAL 7. The application appears to comply with
I PROPOSE TO MAKE AN ORDER under s. section 78 and subsection 79(3)(a) & (b) of
78(1) of the Act, consenting to the payment out the Act and with clause 8(1)(b) of the
of the Dry-Ac Ltd. Executive Pension Plan, Regulation.
Registration No. 987057 (the “Plan”), to Dry-Ac YOU ARE ENTITLED TO A HEARING by
Ltd. in the amount of $92,800 as at February 1, the Financial Services Tribunal (the “Tribunal”),
2001, plus earnings there onto the date of pursuant to subsection 89(6) of the Act, if, with-
payment. in thirty (30) days after this Notice of Proposal
I PROPOSE TO MAKE THE ORDER effective is served on you, you deliver to the Tribunal a
only after the Applicant satisfies me that a pro- written notice that you require a hearing.1
vision has been made for the payment of liabili- Your written notice requiring a hearing must be
ties of the pension plan as calculated for pur- delivered to:
poses of termination of the pension plan.
Financial Services Tribunal
I PROPOSE TO MAKE THIS ORDER FOR 14th Floor, 5160 Yonge Street
THE FOLLOWING REASONS: North York ON M2N 6L9
1. Dry-Ac Ltd. is the employer as defined in Attn: The Registrar
the Plan (the “Employer”).

1NOTE – PURSUANT to section 112 of the Act, any Notice, Order or other document is sufficiently given, served, or delivered if

delivered personally or sent by first class mail and any document sent by first class mail shall be deemed to be given, served, or
delivered on the seventh day after mailing.

23
Volume 12, Issue 1
Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

IF YOU DO NOT DELIVER TO THE

TRIBUNAL, WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS
FROM THE DATE THIS NOTICE OF
PROPOSAL IS SERVED ON YOU, A
WRITTEN NOTICE THAT YOU REQUIRE
A HEARING, I MAY MAKE THE ORDER
PROPOSED HEREIN.
DATED at Toronto, Ontario, this 14th day of
August, 2002.
K. David Gordon
Deputy Superintendent, Pension Division
cc: Jean Robichaud, The Standard Life
Assurance Company

24
Volume 12, Issue 1
 Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

IN THE MATTER OF the Pension Benefits Act, I PROPOSE TO MAKE THIS ORDER FOR
R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8, as amended by the Financial THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
Services Commission of Ontario Act, 1997, S.O. 1. Furmanite Canada Ltd. is the employer as
1997, c.28 (the “Act”); defined in the Plan (the “Employer”).
AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal by the 2. The Plan was wound up, effective September
Superintendent of Financial Services to Make an 30, 1997.
Order under subsection 78(1) of the Act, con-
3. As at September 30, 1997, the surplus in the
senting to a payment out of the Staff Pension
Plan was estimated at $159,340.
Plan for Employees of Furmanite Canada
4. The Plan provides for payment of surplus to
Ltd., Registration No. 428557;
the Employer on the wind up of the Plan.
TO: Furmanite Canada Ltd.
5. The application discloses that by written
862 Upper Canada Drive, Unit 9
agreement made by the Employer, and
Sarnia ON N7T 7H3
100% of the active members and other
Attention: Mr. Dan Stitt
members (as defined in the application) and
President
100% of the former members and other per-
Applicant and Employer sons entitled to payments, the surplus in the
Plan at the date of payment, after deduction
NOTICE OF PROPOSAL of wind up expenses is to be distributed:
I PROPOSE TO MAKE AN ORDER under s. a) a minimum of 45% of surplus without
78(1) of the Act, consenting to the payment out interest as at September 30, 1997,
of the Staff Pension Plan for Employees of equalling $71,010, to a maximum of
Furmanite Canada Ltd., Registration No. 40% of the final valuation of the surplus
428557 (the “Plan”), to Furmanite Canada Ltd. prior to distribution will be distributed
in the amount of $88,330 as at September 30, to the beneficiaries of the Plan as
1997, plus investment earnings and other defined in the Surplus Distribution
adjustments thereto, to the date of payment. Agreement; and
I PROPOSE TO MAKE THE ORDER effective b) the balance of the surplus refunded to
only after the Applicant satisfies me that all the Employer after the members and for-
benefits, benefit enhancements (including ben- mer members received their share.
efits and benefit enhancements pursuant to the
6. The Employer has applied, pursuant to sec-
Surplus Distribution Agreement defined in para-
tion 78 of the Act, and clause 8(1)(b) of the
graph 5 below) and any other payments to
Regulation, for consent of the Superintendent
which the members, former members, and any
of Financial Services to the payment of 55%
other persons entitled to such payments have
of the surplus in the Plan (after adding invest-
been paid, purchased, or otherwise provided for.
ment earnings and deducting the expenses
related to the wind up of the Plan and adjust-
ments for Surplus agreement).

25
Volume 12, Issue 1
Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

7. The application appears to comply with sec-

tion 78 and subsection 79(3)(a)&(b) of the
Act and with clause 8(1)(b) and subsection
28(6) of the Regulation.
8. Such further and other reasons as come to
my attention.
YOU ARE ENTITLED TO A HEARING by
the Financial Services Tribunal (the “Tribunal”),
pursuant to subsection 89(6) of the Act, if, with-
in thirty (30) days after this Notice of Proposal
is served on you, you deliver to the Tribunal a
written notice that you require a hearing.1
Your written notice requiring a hearing must be
delivered to:
Financial Services Tribunal
14th Floor, 5160 Yonge Street
North York ON M2N 6L9
Attn: The Registrar
IF YOU DO NOT DELIVER TO THE
TRIBUNAL, WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS
FROM THE DATE THIS NOTICE OF
PROPOSAL IS SERVED ON YOU, A
WRITTEN NOTICE THAT YOU REQUIRE
A HEARING, I MAY MAKE THE ORDER
PROPOSED HEREIN.
DATED at Toronto, Ontario, this 11th day of
September, 2002.
K. David Gordon
Deputy Superintendent, Pension Division
cc: Marian McKillop, Corporate Benefit
Analysts, Inc.

1NOTE — PURSUANT to section 112 of the Act, any Notice, Order or other document is sufficiently given, served, or delivered if

delivered personally or sent by first class mail and any document sent by first class mail shall be deemed to be given, served, or
delivered on the seventh day after mailing.

26
Volume 12, Issue 1
 Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

IN THE MATTER OF the Pension Benefits Act, 2. As at July 1, 2000, the surplus in the Plan
R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8, as amended by the Financial was estimated at $152,842,041.
Services Commission of Ontario Act, 1997, S.O. 3. The Plan provides for payment of surplus to
1997, c.28 (the “Act”); the Employer while the Plan continues.
AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal by the 4. The application discloses that by written
Superintendent of Financial Services to Make agreement made by the Employer and all of
an Order under subsection 78(1) of the Act, the active members and other members (as
consenting to a payment out of the defined in the application), all of the former
Contributory Pension Plan for Salaried members and other persons entitled to pay-
Employees of McMaster University ments from the fund and all persons in
Including McMaster Divinity College respect of whom the administrator has pur-
2000, Registration No. 1079920; chased an annuity or ancillary benefit —
TO: McMaster University other than those persons who requested the
1280 Main Street West administrator to do so, the distributable sur-
Gilmour Hall — 202 plus in the Plan at the date of payment, after
Hamilton ON L8S 4K1 deduction of expenses is to be distributed:
Attention: Karen Belaire a) 50% to the Employer; and
Vice-President Administration b) 50% to the beneficiaries of the Plan as
Applicant and Employer defined in the Surplus Distribution
Agreement.
NOTICE OF PROPOSAL 5. The Employer has applied, pursuant to sec-
I PROPOSE TO MAKE AN ORDER under tion 78 of the Act, and section 10 of the
s. 78(1) of the Act, consenting to the payment Regulation, for consent of the Superintendent
out of the Contributory Pension Plan for of Financial Services to the payment of 50%
Salaried Employees of McMaster University of the surplus to be distributed from the Plan
Including McMaster Divinity College 2000, (after adding 50% of investment earnings and
Registration No. 1079920 (the “Plan”), to deducting 50% of the expenses thereto).
McMaster University in the amount of 50 per- 6. The application appears to comply with sec-
cent of the Distributable Surplus as at July 1, tion 78 and subsection 79(1) of the Act and
2000, as defined in the Surplus Sharing with section 10 and subsections 25(1), 25(2)
Agreement plus investment earnings thereon to and 25(4) of the Regulation.
the date of payment. The Distributable Surplus
7. Such further and other reasons as come to
is estimated to be $152,842,041.
my attention.
I PROPOSE TO MAKE THIS ORDER FOR
THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
1. McMaster University is the employer as
defined in the Plan (the “Employer”).

27
Volume 12, Issue 1
Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

YOU ARE ENTITLED TO A HEARING by

the Financial Services Tribunal (the “Tribunal”),
pursuant to subsection 89(6) of the Act, if, with-
in thirty (30) days after this Notice of Proposal
is served on you, you deliver to the Tribunal a
written notice that you require a hearing.1
Your written notice requiring a hearing must be
delivered to:
Financial Services Tribunal
14th Floor, 5160 Yonge Street
North York ON M2N 6L9
Attn: The Registrar
IF YOU DO NOT DELIVER TO THE
TRIBUNAL, WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS
FROM THE DATE THIS NOTICE OF
PROPOSAL IS SERVED ON YOU, A
WRITTEN NOTICE THAT YOU REQUIRE
A HEARING, I MAY MAKE THE ORDER
PROPOSED HEREIN.
DATED at Toronto, Ontario, this 13th day of
September, 2002.
K. David Gordon
Deputy Superintendent, Pension Division
cc: Randy V. Bauslaugh, Blake Cassels &
Graydon LLP
Michael Mazzuca, Koskie Minsky

1NOTE — PURSUANT to section 112 of the Act, any Notice, Order or other document is sufficiently given, served, or delivered if

delivered personally or sent by first class mail and any document sent by first class mail shall be deemed to be given, served, or
delivered on the seventh day after mailing.

28
Volume 12, Issue 1
 Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

IN THE MATTER OF the Pension Benefits Act, I PROPOSE TO MAKE THIS ORDER FOR
R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8, as amended by the Financial THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
Services Commission of Ontario Act, 1997, S.O. 1. The Applicant is the Liquidator of
1997, c.28 (the “Act”); Distributionco Inc., who is duly authorized
AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal by the by The T. Eaton Company Limited (the
Superintendent of Financial Services to Make an employer as defined in the Plan), to receive
Order under subsection 78(1) of the Act, con- the surplus assets.
senting to a payment out of the Eaton 2. The Plan was wound up, effective September
Superannuation Plan for Designated 11, 1999.
Employees, Registration No. 0593673;
3. As at December 31, 2002, the surplus in the
TO: Richter and Partners Inc. Plan was estimated at $1,773,700.
c/o Fasken Martineau DuMoulin
4. The Plan provides for payment of surplus to
LLP
the Employer on the wind up of the Plan.
66 Wellington Street West
5. The application discloses that by written
Suite 4200, Toronto Dominion
agreement made by the Applicant, and
Bank Tower
100% of the active members and other
Box 20, Toronto-Dominion Centre
members (as defined in the application) and
Toronto ON M5K 1N6
100% of the former members and other per-
Attention: Brent K. Duguid
sons entitled to payments, the surplus in the
Applicant Plan at the date of payment, after deduction
of wind up expenses is to be distributed:
NOTICE OF PROPOSAL
a) 20% to the Employer; and
I PROPOSE TO MAKE AN ORDER under s.
b) 80% to the beneficiaries of the Plan
78(1) of the Act, consenting to the payment out
as defined in the Surplus Distribution
of the Eaton Superannuation Plan for Designated
Agreement.
Employees, Registration No. 0593673 (the
6. The Applicant has applied, pursuant to sec-
“Plan”), to Richter and Partners Inc., Liquidator
tion 78 of the Act, and clause 8(1)(b) of the
of Distributionco Inc. in the amount of $354,700
Regulation, for consent of the Superintendent
as at December 31, 2001, plus investment earn-
of Financial Services to the payment of 20%
ings thereon to the date of payment, and adjust-
of the surplus in the Plan as at December 31,
ed for actual expenses incurred in connection
2001, plus investment earnings and deduct-
with this Application.
ing the expenses related to this application.
I PROPOSE TO MAKE THE ORDER effective
7. The application appears to comply with sec-
only after the Applicant satisfies me that the
tion 78 and subsection 79(3)(a) and (b) of
payment of the members’ negotiated share of
the Act and with clause 8(1)(b) and subsec-
the surplus has been made.
tions 28(5), 28(5.1) and 28(6) of the
Regulation.
8. Such further and other reasons as come to
my attention.

29
Volume 12, Issue 1
Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

YOU ARE ENTITLED TO A HEARING by

the Financial Services Tribunal (the “Tribunal”),
pursuant to subsection 89(6) of the Act, if, with-
in thirty (30) days after this Notice of Proposal
is served on you, you deliver to the Tribunal a
written notice that you require a hearing.1
Your written notice requiring a hearing must be
delivered to:
Financial Services Tribunal
14th Floor, 5160 Yonge Street
North York ON M2N 6L9
Attn: The Registrar
IF YOU DO NOT DELIVER TO THE
TRIBUNAL, WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS
FROM THE DATE THIS NOTICE OF
PROPOSAL IS SERVED ON YOU, A
WRITTEN NOTICE THAT YOU REQUIRE
A HEARING, I MAY MAKE THE ORDER
PROPOSED HEREIN.
DATED at Toronto, Ontario, this 20th day of
September, 2002.
K. David Gordon
Deputy Superintendent, Pension Division
cc: Paul Macphail, PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc.

1NOTE — PURSUANT to section 112 of the Act, any Notice, Order or other document is sufficiently given, served, or delivered if

delivered personally or sent by first class mail and any document sent by first class mail shall be deemed to be given, served, or
delivered on the seventh day after mailing.

30
Volume 12, Issue 1
 Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

IN THE MATTER OF the Pension Benefits Act, 2. As at July 1, 2000, the surplus in the Plan
R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8, as amended by the Financial was estimated at $318,213,000.
Services Commission of Ontario Act, 1997, S.O. 3. The Plan provides for payment of surplus to
1997, c.28 (the “Act”); the Employer while the Plan continues.
AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal by the 4. The application discloses that by written
Superintendent of Financial Services to Make an agreement made by the Employer, and all of
Order under subsection 78(1) of the Act, con- the active members and other members (as
senting to the payment out of the defined in the application), all of the former
Contributory Pension Plan for Salaried members and other persons entitled to pay-
Employees of McMaster University ments from the fund, and all persons in
Including McMaster Divinity College respect of whom the administrator has pur-
2000, Registration No. 1079920; chased an annuity or ancillary benefit —
TO: McMaster University other than those persons who requested the
1280 Main Street West administrator to do so, the distributable sur-
Gilmour Hall — 202 plus in the Plan at the date of payment, after
Hamilton ON L8S 4K1 deduction of expenses is to be distributed:
Attention: Karen Belaire a) 50% to the Employer; and
Vice-President Administration b) 50% to the beneficiaries of the Plan as
Applicant and Employer defined in the Surplus Distribution
Agreement.
AMENDED NOTICE OF PROPOSAL 5. The Employer has applied, pursuant to sec-
(Amended September 27, 2002) tion 78 of the Act, and section 10 of the
I PROPOSE TO MAKE AN ORDER under s. Regulation, for consent of the Superintendent
78(1) of the Act, consenting to the payment out of Financial Services to the payment of 50%
of the Contributory Pension Plan for Salaried of the excess of the Distributable Surplus over
Employees of McMaster University Including the expenses in respect of the surplus distrib-
McMaster Divinity College 2000, Registration ution (as described in the Surplus Sharing
No. 1079920 (the “Plan”), to McMaster Agreement) plus 50% of the net investment
University in the amount of 50 percent of the earnings on such excess (as described in the
Distributable Surplus as at July 1, 2000, as Surplus Sharing Agreement).
defined in the Surplus Sharing Agreement plus 6. The application appears to comply with sec-
investment earnings thereon to the date of pay- tion 78 and subsection 79(1) of the Act and
ment. The Distributable Surplus is estimated to with section 10 and subsections 25(1), 25(2)
be $152,842,041. and 25(4) of the Regulation.
I PROPOSE TO MAKE THIS ORDER FOR 7. Such further and other reasons as come to
THE FOLLOWING REASONS: my attention.
1. McMaster University is the employer as
defined in the Plan (the “Employer”).

31
Volume 12, Issue 1
Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

YOU ARE ENTITLED TO A HEARING by

the Financial Services Tribunal (the “Tribunal”),
pursuant to subsection 89(6) of the Act, if, with-
in thirty (30) days after this Notice of Proposal
is served on you, you deliver to the Tribunal a
written notice that you require a hearing.1
Your written notice requiring a hearing must be
delivered to:
Financial Services Tribunal
14th Floor, 5160 Yonge Street
North York ON M2N 6L9
Attn: The Registrar
IF YOU DO NOT DELIVER TO THE
TRIBUNAL, WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS
FROM THE DATE THIS NOTICE OF
PROPOSAL IS SERVED ON YOU, A
WRITTEN NOTICE THAT YOU REQUIRE
A HEARING, I MAY MAKE THE ORDER
PROPOSED HEREIN.
DATED at Toronto, Ontario, this 27th day of
September, 2002.
K. David Gordon
Deputy Superintendent, Pension Division
By Delegated Authority
cc: Randy V. Bauslaugh, Blake Cassels &
Graydon LLP
Michael Mazzuca, Koskie Minsky

1NOTE — PURSUANT to section 112 of the Act, any Notice, Order or other document is sufficiently given, served, or delivered if
delivered personally or sent by first class mail and any document sent by first class mail shall be deemed to be given, served, or
delivered on the seventh day after mailing.

32
Volume 12, Issue 1
 Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

IN THE MATTER OF the Pension Benefits Act, who ceased to be employed by Slater Steel Inc.
R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8, as amended by the Financial (“Slater Steel”) effective from March 13,1998 to
Services Commission of Ontario Act, S.O. 1997, January 26, 2000, as a result of the reorganiza-
c.28 (the “PBA”); tion of the business of Slater Steel.
AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal of the REASONS FOR THE ORDER:
Superintendent of Financial Services to Make an 1. Slater Steel is the employer and administra-
Order under section 69(1) (d) of the PBA relat- tor of the Plan.
ing to the Slater Steel Inc. Pension Plan
2. There was a reorganization of senior man-
for Corporate Employees and Salaried
agement of Slater Steel in 1998 resulting in
Employees of the Hamilton Specialty Bar
the termination of a number of senior man-
Division, Registration Number 308338;
agers and the elimination of positions for-
TO: Slater Steel Inc. merly held by the terminated managers.
Hamilton Specialty Bar
3. In 1998, there was a significant change
Division
relating to the restructuring of the senior
P.O. Box 2943, Hamilton
management of Slater Steel, a centralized
Stn LCD 1
approach to management and a capitaliza-
Hamilton ON L8N 3P9
tion of synergies that exist among core busi-
Employer and Administrator nesses. Specifically, these changes related
AND TO: Osler Hoskin & Harcourt to the combining of purchasing functions,
Barristers and Solicitors sales and marketing activities from Hamilton
Box 50, 1 Canadian Place Speciality Bar Division (HSB), Fort Wayne
Toronto ON M5X 1B8 and Sorel Operations.
Counsel to the Employer and 4. There was a general cost cutting initiative
Administrator undertaken which culminated in multiple
AND TO: Murray Gold terminations in October 1998. Slater Steel
Koskie Minsky voluntarily declared a partial wind up effec-
Barristers and Solicitors tive October 31, 2001, in respect of all active
20 Queen Street West members of the Plan whose employment
Suite 900, Box 52 was involuntarily terminated, who were
Toronto ON M5H 3R3 offered early retirement with non-pension
enhancements or who resigned during
Counsel to former employees
October 1998.
NOTICE OF PROPOSAL 5. In 1998, there were capital expenditures to
replace aging equipment to improve produc-
I PROPOSE TO MAKE AN ORDER under
tivity. There was the completion of a new
section 69 (1) (d) of the PBA that the Slater Steel
arc furnace at HSB facility. The furnace was
Inc. Pension Plan for Corporate Employees and
commissioned on a full time basis in
Salaried Employees of the Hamilton Specialty
November 1997 and was designed to reduce
Bar Division, Registration Number 308338 (the
costs, increase production and lower envi-
“Plan”), be wound up, in part in relation to
ronmental impacts.
those members and former members of the Plan

33
Volume 12, Issue 1
Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

6. Slater divested itself of the Melburn Truck IF YOU FAIL TO REQUEST A HEARING
Lines subsidiary in February 1999. WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS, I MAY MAKE
7 Between March 13, 1998 and January 26, THE ORDER PROPOSED IN THIS NOTICE.
2000, a significant number of members of THE ADMINISTRATOR IS REQUIRED pur-
the Plan ceased to be employed by Slater suant to subsection 89(5) of the Act to transmit
Steel, as a result of the reorganization of the a copy of this Notice of Proposal to the follow-
business of Slater Steel within the meaning ing persons: all members and former members
of clause 69(1)(d) of the PBA. of the Plan who were employed by Slater Steel
8. Such further and other reasons as may come and who ceased to be employed by Slater Steel
to my attention. effective between March 13, 1998 and January
26, 2000.
YOU ARE ENTITLED TO A HEARING by
the Financial Services Tribunal (the “Tribunal”), DATED at Toronto, Ontario, this 27th day of
pursuant to s. 89(6) of the PBA to request a September, 2002.
hearing, you must deliver to the Tribunal a writ- K. David Gordon
ten notice that you require a hearing, within Deputy Superintendent, Pension Division
thirty (30) days after this Notice of Proposal is By Delegated Authority
served on you.1
Your written notice must be delivered to:
Financial Services Tribunal
5160 Yonge Street
14th Floor
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6L9
Attention: The Registrar
For further information, contact the registrar of
the Tribunal by phone at 416-226-7752, toll free
at 1-800-668-0128, ext. 7752, or by fax at 416-
226-7750.

1NOTE — PURSUANT TO section 112 of the Act, any Notice, Order or other document is sufficiently given, served or delivered if

delivered personally or sent by first class mail and any document sent by first class mail shall be deemed to be given, served or
delivered on the seventh day after the date of mailing.

34
Volume 12, Issue 1
 Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

IN THE MATTER OF the Pension Benefits Act, ments and taxes charged for services to the
R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8, as amended by the Financial members after January 1, 2000, in respect of the
Services Commission of Ontario Act, 1997, S.O. distribution of Surplus.
1997, c.28 (the “Act”); I PROPOSE TO MAKE THE ORDER effective
AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal of the only after the Applicant satisfies me that the
Superintendent of Financial Services to Make an payment of the members’ share of the negotiat-
Order under subsection 78(1) of the Act, consent- ed surplus has been made.
ing to a payment out of the Pension Plan for REASONS FOR THE ORDER:
Employees of The Wool Bureau of Canada
1. The Applicant is the employer named in the
Limited, Registration No. 0314187;
Plan.
TO: Woolmark Americas, Ltd.
2. The Plan was wound up, effective December
7 Purdue Road
31, 1998.
Edison, New Jersey
3. The Employer has applied, pursuant to sec-
USA 08820
tion 78 of the Act and clause 8(1)(b) of
Attention: John McGowan
Regulation 909 made under the Act, for
President
consent of the Superintendent of Financial
Applicant, Employer and Services to the payment of part of the sur-
Administrator of the Plan plus in the Plan on wind up.
4. As of December 31, 1998, the surplus in the
NOTICE OF PROPOSAL
Plan was estimated at approximately
I PROPOSE TO MAKE AN ORDER under $2,157,892.
subsection 78(1) of the Act, consenting to pay-
5. The Applicant and the members and former
ment out of the Pension Plan for Employees of
members of the Plan entered into a Surplus
The Wool Bureau of Canada Limited,
Distribution Agreement and Release dated as
Registration No. 0314187 (the “Plan”), to
of March 28, 2001, wherein it was agreed
Woolmark Americas, Ltd., of the Net Company
that the Applicant would receive the Net
Surplus. Net Company Surplus means 50% of
Company Surplus as defined therein. Net
the Surplus less the reasonable legal fees, dis-
Company Surplus is defined as 50% of the
bursements and taxes charged to the Applicant
Surplus less the reasonable legal fees, dis-
after January 1, 1999, in respect of the wind up
bursements and taxes charged to the
of the Plan and the distribution of Surplus.
Applicant after January 1, 1999, in respect of
Surplus means the surplus in the Plan, plus
the wind up of the Plan and the distribution
investment earnings thereon, after deducting
of Surplus. Surplus was defined in that
actuarial expenses in connection with the wind
agreement as the sum of the amount
up of the Plan including the distribution of sur-
remaining in the Plan, plus investment
plus, but prior to deducting the reasonable legal
earnings thereon, after deducting actuarial
fees, disbursements and taxes charged to the
expenses in connection with the wind up of
Applicant after January 1, 1999, in respect of
the Plan including the distribution of sur-
the wind up of the Plan and the distribution of
plus, but prior to deducting the reasonable
Surplus and the reasonable legal fees, disburse-
legal fees, disbursements and taxes charged

35
Volume 12, Issue 1
Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

to the Applicant after January 1, 1999, in YOU ARE ENTITLED TO A HEARING by

respect of the wind up of the Plan and the the Financial Services Tribunal (the “Tribunal”),
distribution of Surplus and the reasonable pursuant to s. 89(6) of the Act. To request a
legal fees, disbursements and taxes charged hearing, you must deliver to the Tribunal a writ-
for services to the Members after January 1, ten notice that you require a hearing, within
2000, in respect of the distribution of thirty (30) days after this Notice of Proposal is
Surplus. The Applicant has estimated that served on you.1
the amount to be refunded to the Applicant, Your written notice must be delivered to:
as at December 31, 2000, and before the Financial Services Tribunal
deduction of the Applicant’s legal fees and 5160 Yonge Street
disbursements and taxes is $1,138,320.54. 14th Floor
6. The Plan, which was established as of July 1, Toronto, Ontario
1975, as the Pension Plan for the Employees M2N 6L9
of the Wool Bureau of Canada Limited Attention: The Registrar
(1975), provides for the payment of surplus
For further information, contact the registrar of
to the Employer on the wind up of the Plan.
the Tribunal by phone at 416-226-7752, toll free
7. The application discloses that the name of at 1-800-668-0128, ext. 7752, or by fax at 416-
the Plan was changed to the Pension Plan 226-7750.
for the Employees of the Wool Bureau of
IF YOU FAIL TO REQUEST A HEARING
Canada Limited effective January 1, 1988
WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS, I MAY MAKE
and that the name of the Applicant was
THE ORDER PROPOSED IN THIS NOTICE.
changed from The Wool Bureau of Canada
DATED at North York, Ontario, this 8th day of
Limited to Woolmark Americas, Ltd. in 1998.
October, 2002.
8. The application appears to comply with sec-
K. David Gordon
tion 78 and subsections 79(3)(a) and (b) of
Deputy Superintendent, Pension Division
the Act and with clause 8(1)(b) and subsec-
Financial Services Commission of Ontario
tions 28(5), 28(5.1) and 28(6) of the
Regulation.
9. Such further and other reasons as may come
to my attention.

1NOTE — PURSUANT to section 112 of the Act, any Notice, Order or other document is sufficiently given, served or delivered if

delivered personally or sent by first class mail and any document sent by first class mail shall be deemed to be given, served or
delivered on the seventh day after the date of mailing.

36
Volume 12, Issue 1
 Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

Notices of Proposal to Make a Declaration

IN THE MATTER OF the Pension Benefits Act, 4. A wind up report was filed by the employer
R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8, as amended (the “Act”); and the Superintendent of Pensions
AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal of the approved the wind up report on September
Superintendent of Financial Services to Make a 17, 1992; and
Declaration under section 83 of the Act relating 5. All benefits and surplus assets were paid out
to the Retirement Plan for Employees of the plan in 1992 with no assets remain-
of Pigott Construction Limited and ing in the Plan; and
Participating Companies, Registration 6. In the year 2000, a deferred vested member
Number C-4989; of the Plan, Colin Holland, claimed he was
TO: Buck Consultants Limited omitted in error from the disbursement of
P.O. Box 15 benefits on wind up and provided evidence
Suite 1500 that he was entitled to a benefit upon wind
95 Wellington Street West up; and
Toronto ON M5J 2N7 7. Buck Consultants was appointed administra-
Attention: Ms. Wafaa Babcock, F.S.A., F.C.I.A. tor of the Plan by the Superintendent of
Administrator Financial Services on July 6, 2000.
Pigott Construction Ltd. NOW THEREFORE TAKE NOTICE I PRO-
P.O. Box 2309 POSE TO CONSIDER MAKING A DECLA-
Hamilton ON L8N 3G7 RATION in respect of the Plan, under section
83 of the Act, that the Guarantee Fund applies
Attention: W. Grant Dickinson
to the Plan for the following reasons:
Vice-President, Finance
REASONS FOR THE PROPOSED
Employer
DECLARATION:
NOTICE OF PROPOSAL TO MAKE 1. Colin Holland was entitled to a benefit from
A DECLARATION the Plan upon wind up but never received
it; and
WHEREAS:
2. A supplementary wind up report for the
1. The Retirement Plan for Employees of Pigott
Plan as at April 30, 2002, reveals that to pro-
Construction Limited and Participating
vide the benefit for Colin Holland and to
Companies (the “Plan”), is registered under
meet the expenses and other allowances
the Act as Registration Number C-4989; and
incurred in determining and distributing his
2. The Plan provides defined benefits that are
entitlement, would require an amount of
not exempt from the application of the
$18,040 as at April 30, 2002; and
Pension Benefits Guarantee Fund (the
3. There are currently no assets in the Plan to
“Guarantee Fund”), by the Act or the regula-
provide the benefit entitlement of Colin
tions made thereunder; and
Holland and other expenses; and
3. The Plan was wound up by the employer
effective December 31, 1991; and

37
Volume 12, Issue 1
Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

4. There are reasonable and probable grounds

for concluding that the funding require-
ments of the Act and regulation cannot be
satisfied; and
5. Such further reasons as may come to my
attention.
YOU ARE ENTITLED TO A HEARING by
the Financial Services Tribunal (the “Tribunal”),
pursuant to subsection 89(6) of the Act, if, with-
in thirty (30) days after this Notice of Proposal
is served on you, you deliver to the Tribunal a
written notice that you require a hearing.1
Any notice requiring a hearing shall be deliv-
ered to:
Financial Services Tribunal
5160 Yonge Street
14th Floor
North York ON M2N 6L9
Attention : The Registrar
IF YOU DO NOT DELIVER TO THE
TRIBUNAL, WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS
FROM THE DATE THIS NOTICE OF
PROPOSAL IS SERVED ON YOU, A
WRITTEN NOTICE THAT YOU REQUIRE
A HEARING, I MAY MAKE THE DECLARA-
TION PROPOSED HEREIN.
DATED at North York, Ontario, this 12th day of
July, 2002.
K. David Gordon
Deputy Superintendent, Pensions
Financial Services Commission of Ontario

1NOTE — PURSUANT to section 112 of the Act, any Notice, Order or other document is sufficiently given, served or delivered if

delivered personally or sent by first class mail and any documents sent by first class mail shall be deemed to be given, served or
delivered on the seventh day after the day of mailing.

38
Volume 12, Issue 1
 Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

IN THE MATTER OF the Pension Benefits Act, NOTICE OF PROPOSAL TO MAKE

R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8, as amended by the Financial A DECLARATION
Services Commission of Ontario Act, 1997, S.O. WHEREAS:
1997, c.28;
1. The Gallaher Thorold Paper Co. Hourly Paid
AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal by the Pension Plan, Registration Number 1039981
Superintendent of Financial Services to Make a (the “Pension Plan”), is registered under the
Declaration under Section 83 of the Pension Pension Benefits Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8, as
Benefits Act, as amended by the Financial Services amended by the Financial Services Commission
Commission of Ontario Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 28, of Ontario Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c.28 (the
respecting the Gallaher Thorold Paper Co. “Act”); and
Hourly Paid Pension Plan, Registration
2. The Pension Plan provides defined benefits
Number 1039981;
that are not exempt from the application of
TO: Morneau Sobeco the Pension Benefits Guarantee Fund (the
895 Don Mills Road “Guarantee Fund”), by the Act or the regula-
One Morneau Sobeco Centre tions made thereunder; and
Suite 700
3. On July 15, 2002, the Superintendent of
Toronto ON M3C 3W3
Financial Services issued an Order dated July
Attention: Mr. David R. Kearney 12, 2002, that the Plan be wound up effec-
Administrator tive May 25, 1999; and
Gallaher Thorold Paper Co. 4. The Superintendent of the Financial Services
67 Front Street North Commission appointed Morneau Sobeco as
Thorold ON L2V 3Z7 the administrator (the “Administrator”) of
Attention: Mr. David Rennie, Vice President, the Plan on July 10, 2002.
Human Resources NOW THEREFORE TAKE NOTICE that I
Employer propose to consider to make a declaration, pur-
suant to section 83 of the Act, that the
Ernst & Young Inc.
Guarantee Fund applies to the Plan for the fol-
Ernst & Young Tower
lowing reasons:
P.O. Box 251, 222 Bay Street
Toronto-Dominion Centre 1. The funded ratio of the Plan at wind up has
Toronto ON M5K 1J7 been estimated to be 73.60%.
Attention: Mr. Philip Kan, Manager 2. The employer, Gallaher Thorold Paper Co.,
was assigned into bankruptcy on June 15,
Trustee in Bankruptcy for
1999.
Gallaher Thorold Paper Co.
3. The trustee in bankruptcy for Gallaher
Thorold Paper Co. has advised the
Administrator that there are no funds avail-
able from the estate of Gallaher Thorold
Paper Co. to make payment to the Plan.

39
Volume 12, Issue 1
Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

4. The Administrator advised that it is of the

opinion that there are reasonable and prob-
able grounds for concluding that the fund-
ing requirements of the Act and regulation
cannot be satisfied.
YOU ARE ENTITLED TO A HEARING by
the Financial Services Tribunal (the “Tribunal”),
pursuant to subsection 89(6) of the Act, if, with-
in thirty (30) days after this Notice of Proposal
is served on you, you deliver to the Tribunal a
written notice that you require a hearing.1
Any notice requiring a hearing shall be deliv-
ered to:
Financial Services Tribunal
5160 Yonge Street
14th Floor
North York Ontario M2N 6L9
Attention: The Registrar
IF YOU DO NOT DELIVER TO THE
TRIBUNAL, WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS
FROM THE DATE THIS NOTICE OF
PROPOSAL IS SERVED ON YOU, A
WRITTEN NOTICE THAT YOU REQUIRE
A HEARING, I MAY MAKE THE DECLARA-
TION PROPOSED HEREIN.
DATED at North York, Ontario, this 2nd day of
October, 2002.
K. David Gordon
Deputy Superintendent, Pensions
Financial Services Commission of Ontario

1NOTE — PURSUANT to section 112 of the Act, any Notice, Order or other document is sufficiently given, served or delivered if

delivered personally or sent by first class mail and any document sent by first class mail shall be deemed to be given, served or
delivered on the seventh day after the day of mailing.

40
Volume 12, Issue 1
 Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

IN THE MATTER OF the Pension Benefits Act, NOTICE OF PROPOSAL TO MAKE

R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8, as amended by the Financial A DECLARATION
Services Commission of Ontario Act, 1997, R.S.O. WHEREAS:
1997, c.28;
1. The Pension Plan for Employees of Vulcan
AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal by the Packaging Inc., Registration No. 0364323
Superintendent of Financial Services to Make a (the “Pension Plan”), is registered under the
Declaration under Section 83 of the Pension Pension Benefits Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8, as
Benefits Act, as amended by the Financial Services amended by the Financial Services Commission
Commission of Ontario Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c.28, of Ontario Act, 1997, c.28 (the “Act”); and
respecting the Pension Plan for Employees
2. The Pension Plan provides defined benefits
of Vulcan Packaging Inc. (the “Pension
that are not exempt from the application
Plan”), Registration Number 0364323;
of the Pension Benefits Guarantee Fund
TO: Morneau Sobeco (the “Guarantee Fund”), by the Act or the
1500 Don Mills Road regulations made thereunder; and
Suite 500
3. The Pension Plan was wound up effective
Toronto ON M3B 3K4
May 15, 1997; and
Attention: Mr. Al Kiel
4. The Superintendent of Pensions initially
Partner
appointed Deloitte & Touche Inc. as the
Administrator of the Pension administrator (the “Administrator”) of the
Plan for Employees of Vulcan Pension Plan on August 1, 1997 and on July
Packaging Inc. 11, 2002, appointed Morneau Sobeco as
AND TO: Vulcan Packaging Inc. Administrator to replace Deloitte & Touche;
15 Bethridge Road and
Rexdale ON M9W 1M6 NOW THEREFORE TAKE NOTICE I propose
Attention: Mr. Alex Telfer to consider to make a declaration, pursuant to
President section 83 of the Act, that the Guarantee Fund
Employer applies to the Pension Plan for the following
reasons:
AND TO: Ernst & Young Inc.
175 Commerce Valley Drive West 1. The Supplement to the Actuarial Valuation
Suite 600 Report filed by the Administrator indicates
Thornhill ON L3T 7P6 an estimated funding deficiency of
$1,252,900 as at May 31, 2002 and an esti-
Attention: Mr. Harold Reiter
mated claim against the Guarantee Fund as
Trustee in Bankruptcy,
at May 31, 2002 of $1,223,400.
Vulcan Packaging Inc.
2. Ernst & Young Inc. was appointed Trustee in
Bankruptcy of Vulcan Packaging Inc. on
May 15, 1997.

41
Volume 12, Issue 1
Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

3. The Trustee in Bankruptcy for Vulcan

Packaging Inc. has advised the Administrator
that there are no funds available from the
estate of Vulcan Packaging Inc. to make pay-
ment to the Pension Plan.
4. The Administrator has advised that there are
reasonable and probable grounds for consid-
ering that the funding requirements of the
Act and Regulation cannot be satisfied.
YOU ARE ENTITLED TO A HEARING by
the Financial Services Tribunal (the “Tribunal”),
pursuant to subsection 89(6) of the Act, if, with-
in thirty (30) days after this Notice of Proposal
is served on you, you deliver to the Tribunal a
written notice that you require a hearing.1
Any notice requiring a hearing shall be deliv-
ered to:
Financial Services Tribunal
5160 Yonge Street
14th Floor
North York ON M2N 6L9
Attention: The Registrar
IF YOU DO NOT DELIVER TO THE
TRIBUNAL, WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS
FROM THE DATE THIS NOTICE OF
PROPOSAL IS SERVED ON YOU, A
WRITTEN NOTICE THAT YOU REQUIRE
A HEARING, I MAY MAKE THE DECLARA-
TION PROPOSED HEREIN.
DATED at North York, Ontario, this 3rd day of
October, 2002.
K. David Gordon
Deputy Superintendent, Pension Division

1NOTE — PURSUANT to section 112 of the Act, any Notice, Order or other document is sufficiently given, served or delivered

personally or sent by first class mail and any documents sent by first class mail shall be deemed to be given, served or delivered on
the seventh day after the day of mailing.

42
Volume 12, Issue 1
 Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

IN THE MATTER OF the Pension Benefits Act, NOTICE OF PROPOSAL TO MAKE

R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8, as amended (the “PBA”); A DECLARATION
AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal by the WHEREAS:
Superintendent of Financial Services to Make a 1. The Algoma Steel Inc. Salaried Employees
Declaration under Section 83 of the PBA, Pension Plan for Employees in Canada,
respecting The Algoma Steel Inc. Salaried Registration No. 0335810 (the “Pension
Employees Pension Plan for Employees in Plan”), is registered under the PBA;
Canada, Registration Number 0335810;
2. The Pension Plan provides defined benefits
TO: Morneau Sobeco that are not exempt from the application
895 Don Mills Road of the Pension Benefits Guarantee Fund
Suite 700 (the “Guarantee Fund”), by the PBA or the
One Morneau Sobeco Centre regulations made thereunder;
Toronto ON M3C 1W3
3. Algoma Steel Inc. (“Algoma”) instituted pro-
Attention: Mr. Al Kiel ceedings under the Companies’ Creditors
Partner Arrangement Act, and its Plan of
Administrator Reorganization was approved by its creditors
AND TO: Algoma Steel Inc. and sanctioned by the court on December
105 West Street 19, 2001;
Sault Ste. Marie ON P6A 7B4 4. The Pension Plan was terminated effective
Attention: Mr. Paul C. Finley September 17, 2001, by Algoma Steel Inc. (in
General Counsel and Corporate accordance with section 68 of the PBA; and
Secretary 5. The Superintendent of Financial Services
Employer appointed Morneau & Sobeco as administra-
tor (the “Administrator”) of the Pension
AND TO: The United Steelworkers
Plan on September 6, 2002.
of America
c/o Days Inn, 320 Bay Street, NOW THEREFORE TAKE NOTICE that I
Room 15 propose to make a declaration, pursuant to sec-
Sault Ste. Marie ON P6A 1X1 tion 83 of the PBA, that the Guarantee Fund
applies to the Pension Plan for the following
Attention: Mr. Ian Kersley
reasons:
President
1. The Report on the Plan Wind-up and
Local Union 2724
Pension Benefits Guarantee Fund Application
as at September 17, 2001, indicates an esti-
mated funding deficiency of $79,977,000 and
an estimated funded ratio of 75.68%.
2. The Superintendent of Financial Services
and Algoma entered into an agreement
dated January 29, 2002, which specifically
requires Algoma to file the application for a

43
Volume 12, Issue 1
Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

declaration that the Guarantee Fund applies IF YOU DO NOT DELIVER TO THE
to the Pension Plan. TRIBUNAL, WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS
3. The Superintendent of Financial Services is FROM THE DATE THIS NOTICE OF
satisfied that Algoma could not meet the PROPOSAL IS SERVED ON YOU, A
funding requirements of the PBA for the WRITTEN NOTICE THAT YOU REQUIRE
Plan, as of the effective date of the wind up A HEARING, I MAY MAKE THE DECLARA-
of the Plan. TION PROPOSED IN THIS NOTICE.
YOU ARE ENTITLED TO A HEARING by DATED at North York, Ontario, this 18th day of
the Financial Services Tribunal (the “Tribunal”), October, 2002.
pursuant to section 89(6) of the PBA, if, within K. David Gordon
thirty (30) days after this Notice of Proposal is Deputy Superintendent, Pension Division
served on you, you deliver to the Tribunal a By Delegated Authority
written notice that you require a hearing.1
Any notice requiring a hearing shall be deliv-
ered to:
Financial Services Tribunal
5160 Yonge Street
14th Floor
North York ON M2N 6L9
Attention: The Registrar
For further information, contact the Registrar of
the Tribunal by telephone at 416-226-7152, toll
free at 1-800-668-0128 ext 7752, or by fax at
416-226-7750.

1NOTE — PURSUANT TO section 112 of the PBA, any Notice, Order or other document is sufficiently given, served or delivered if

delivered personally or sent by first class mail and any document sent by first class mail shall be deemed to be given, served or
delivered on the seventh day after the day of mailing.

44
Volume 12, Issue 1
 Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

IN THE MATTER OF the Pension Benefits Act, NOTICE OF PROPOSAL TO MAKE

R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8, as amended (the “PBA”); A DECLARATION
AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal by the WHEREAS:
Superintendent of Financial Services to Make 1. The Non-Contributory Pension Plan
a Declaration under Section 83 of the PBA, Covering Hourly Paid Bargaining Unit
respecting the Non-Contributory Pension Employees of Algoma Steel Inc. Registration
Plan Covering Hourly Paid Bargaining No. 0335802 (the “Pension Plan”), is regis-
Unit Employees of Algoma Steel Inc., tered under the PBA;
Registration Number 0335802;
2. The Pension Plan provides defined benefits
TO: Morneau Sobeco that are not exempt from the application of
895 Don Mills Road the Pension Benefits Guarantee Fund (the
Suite 700 “Guarantee Fund”), by the PBA or the regu-
One Morneau Sobeco Centre lations made thereunder;
Toronto ON M3C 1W3
3. Algoma Steel Inc. (“Algoma”) instituted
Attention: Mr. Al Kiel proceedings under the Companies’ Creditors
Partner Arrangement Act, and its Plan of Reorgan-
Administrator ization was approved by its creditors and
AND TO: Algoma Steel Inc. sanctioned by the court on December 19,
105 West Street 2001;
Sault Ste. Marie ON P6A 7B4 4. The Pension Plan was terminated effective
Attention: Mr. Paul C. Finley September 17, 2001, by Algoma in accor-
General Counsel and Corporate dance with section 68 of the PBA; and
Secretary 5. The Superintendent of Financial Services
Employer appointed Morneau Sobeco as administrator
(the “Administrator”) of the Pension Plan
AND TO: The United Steelworkers of
on September 6, 2002.
America
68 Dennis Street NOW THEREFORE TAKE NOTICE that I
Sault Ste. Marie ON P6A 2W9 propose to make a declaration, pursuant to sec-
tion 83 of the PBA, that the Guarantee Fund
Attention: Mr. Tom Bonell
applies to the Pension Plan, for the following
President, Local Union 2251
reasons:
Union
1. The Report on the Plan Wind-up and
Pension Benefits Guarantee Fund
Application as at September 17, 2001, indi-
cates that the Pension Plan has an estimated
funding deficiency of $361,983,300 and an
estimated funded ratio of 52.94%.
2. The Superintendent of Financial Services
and Algoma entered into an agreement

45
Volume 12, Issue 1
Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

dated January 29, 2002, which specifically IF YOU DO NOT DELIVER TO THE
requires Algoma to file the application for a TRIBUNAL, WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS
declaration that the Guarantee Fund applies FROM THE DATE THIS NOTICE OF
to the Pension Plan. PROPOSAL IS SERVED ON YOU, A
3. The Superintendent of Financial Services is WRITTEN NOTICE THAT YOU REQUIRE
satisfied that Algoma could not meet the A HEARING, I MAY MAKE THE DECLARA-
funding requirements of the PBA for the TION PROPOSED IN THIS NOTICE.
Plan, as of the effective date of the wind up DATED at North York, Ontario, this 18th day of
of the Plan. October, 2002.
YOU ARE ENTITLED TO A HEARING by K. David Gordon
the Financial Services Tribunal (the “Tribunal”), Deputy Superintendent, Pension Division
pursuant to section 89(6) of the PBA, if, within By Delegated Authority
thirty (30) days after this Notice of Proposal is
served on you, you deliver to the Tribunal a
written notice that you require a hearing.1
Any notice requiring a hearing shall be deliv-
ered to:
Financial Services Tribunal
5160 Yonge Street
14th Floor
North York ON M2N 6L9
Attention: The Registrar
For further information, contact the Registrar of
the Tribunal by phone at 416-226-7152, toll free
at 1-800-668-0128, ext. 7752, or by fax at 416-
226-7750.

1NOTE — PURSUANT to section 112 of the PBA, any Notice, Order or other document is sufficiently given, served or delivered if

delivered personally or sent by first class mail and any document sent by first class mail shall be deemed to be given, served or
delivered on the seventh day after the day of mailing.

46
Volume 12, Issue 1
 Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

Notices of Proposal to Refuse to Make an Order

IN THE MATTER OF the Pension Benefits Act, and permanently disabled” as defined in
R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8 as amended (the “PBA”); section 1 of the Plan:
AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal of the “totally and permanently disabled” means,
Superintendent of Financial Services to Refuse in relation to an individual, suffering from a
to Make an Order under section 87(1) of the physical or mental impairment that pre-
PBA, respecting the Public Service Pension vents the individual from engaging in any
Plan, Registration No. 0208777; employment for which the individual is rea-
TO: Gillis Zago Barristers LLP sonably suited by virtue of his or her educa-
200 Main Street North tion, training or experience and that can
Brampton ON L6V 1P1 reasonably be expected to last for the
remainder of the individual’s lifetime.
Attn: Mr. Stewart C.E. Gillis
3. Section 31(3) of the Plan authorizes the
Solicitors for Mr. George
Board to make rules and procedures and to
Polygenis (the “Applicant”)
delegate its duties and responsibilities to a
AND TO: Ontario Pension Board
committee or other person.
1 Adelaide Street East, Suite 1100
4. The Board has established Disability
Toronto ON M5C 2X6
Procedures and Adjudication Procedures set-
Attn: Mr. Ignas Nastajus, Secretary
ting out the rules and procedures which
Adjudication & Policy Committees
apply when a member applies for a disability
Administrator pension.
5. The Adjudication Procedures provide a for-
NOTICE OF PROPOSAL
mal adjudication process in order to, inter
I PROPOSE TO REFUSE TO MAKE AN alia, determine eligibility for disability bene-
ORDER under section 87(1) of the PBA that the fits. The Adjudication Committee of the
Pension Policy Committee of the Ontario Board (the “Adjudication Committee”) adju-
Pension Board reconsider its decision denying a dicates the member’s claim. The member has
disability pension to the Applicant under sec- a right to appeal the decision to the Pension
tion 14(1) of the Public Service Pension Plan, Policy Committee (the “Committee”). Article
Registration No. 0208777 (the “Plan”); 7.5.7 of the Adjudication Procedures states,
REASONS FOR THE REFUSAL: “The decision of the Pension Policy
1. The Applicant’s employment as an LCBO Committee shall be final.”
branch manager ended in March 1997. 6. The Adjudication Committee of the Ontario
2. The Applicant applied for a disability pen- Pension Board (the “Board”) rejected the
sion under section 14(1) of the Plan. Section Applicant’s claim in November 2000, finding
14(1) of the Plan gives the Board the duty to that he was not “totally and permanently
determine whether an applicant is entitled disabled” as defined in section 1 of the Plan.
to a disability pension. A Plan member with 7. The Applicant appealed that decision to the
sufficient credit or continuous membership Pension Policy Committee and submitted
in the Plan is entitled to a disability pension additional medical information in March
if the Board finds the member to be “totally 2001. The Committee met in May 2001 and

47
Volume 12, Issue 1
Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

decided to request additional information in pension fund are administered in accor-

the form of an independent medical exami- dance with this Act and the regulations.”
nation arranged by the Board’s medical con- 13. The Committee’s decision states that the
sultants. The Committee is authorized to Committee decided to uphold the
request further information by article 7.5.4 Adjudication Committee’s denial of the
of the Adjudication Procedures. Applicant’s disability pension application
8. The Board’s medical consultants received “after a careful review of the [Applicant]’s
the findings of the independent medical case file and the medical findings.” The
examiner and issued their own summary Committee found that the Applicant was
report to the Committee. not “totally and permanently disabled” as
9. On November 20, 2001, the Committee met defined in section 1 of the Plan.
and rejected the applicant’s claim with writ- 14. The Committee made its decision in accor-
ten reasons, referred to in paragraphs 12 and dance with the applicable rules and proce-
13 below. dures established by the Board under the
10. On June 27, 2002, the Applicant requested Plan for the consideration of disability pen-
the Superintendent of Financial Services sion applications and in accordance with
(the “Superintendent”) to issue an Order the definition of “totally and permanently
overturning the Committee’s decision and disabled” under the Plan.
either substituting a finding of disability or 15. For the reasons set out above, the
directing a reconsideration of the case. Superintendent is not of the opinion, on
11. The Superintendent can make an Order reasonable and probable grounds, that the
under section 87(1) of the PBA if he is of the Plan is not being administered in accor-
opinion, on reasonable and probable dance with the PBA, the regulations or
grounds, that a pension plan is not being the Plan.
administered in accordance with the PBA, 16. Such and further reasons as may come to
the regulations or the pension plan. my attention.
12. A “disability pension” is an ancillary benefit YOU ARE ENTITLED TO A HEARING by
under s. 40 of the PBA. Section 10(1)5 of the the Financial Services Tribunal (the “Tribunal”),
PBA requires that the documents that create pursuant to section 89(6) of the PBA. To request
and support a pension plan set out the a hearing, you must deliver to the Tribunal a
“requirements for entitlement under the written notice that you require a hearing, with-
pension plan to any pension benefit or in thirty (30) days after this Notice of Proposal
ancillary benefit.” Section 19(1) of the PBA is served on you.1
states, “The administrator of a pension plan
shall ensure that the pension plan and the

1NOTE — PURSUANT to section 112 of the PBA, any Notice, Order or other document is sufficiently given, served or delivered if

delivered personally or sent by first class mail and any document sent by first class mail shall be deemed to be given, served or
delivered on the seventh day after the date of mailing.

48
Volume 12, Issue 1
 Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

Your written notice must be delivered to:

Financial Services Tribunal
5160 Yonge Street
14th Floor
North York, Ontario
M2N 6L9
Attention: The Registrar
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, contact
the Registrar of the Tribunal by phone at 416-
226-7752, toll free at 1-800-668-0128, ext. 7752,
or by fax at 416-226-7750.
IF YOU FAIL TO REQUEST A HEARING
WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS, I MAY
REFUSE TO MAKE THE REQUESTED
ORDER AS PROPOSED IN THIS NOTICE.
DATED at North York, Ontario, October 11, 2002.
K. David Gordon
Deputy Superintendent, Pension Division
By Delegated Authority

49
Volume 12, Issue 1
Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

Orders that Pension Plans Be Wound Up

IN THE MATTER OF the Pension Benefits Act, I THEREFORE ORDER that Plan be wound
R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8, as amended (the “PBA”); up in whole for those members of the Plan who
AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal of the ceased to be employed effective between
Superintendent of Financial Services to Make an November 30, 1998 and February 22, 1999.
Order under section 69 of the PBA, relating to REASONS:
the Pension Plan for Unionized Employees 1. There was a cessation or suspension of
of Northern Globe Building Materials employer contributions to the pension fund,
(Thorold Division), Registration Number pursuant to clause 69(1)(a) of the PBA.
680405 (formerly C-104311) (the “Plan”);
2. A significant number of members of the
TO: Arthur Andersen Inc. pension plan ceased to be employed by the
4 King Street West employer as a result of the discontinuance
Suite 1050 of all or part of the business of the employer
Toronto ON M5H 1B6 or as a result of the reorganization of the
Attention: Mr. David R. Kearney business of the employer, pursuant to clause
Administrator 69(1)(d) of the PBA.
AND TO: Striker Paper Canada, Inc. 3. All or a significant portion of the business
100 Ormond Street South carried on by the employer at a specific loca-
P.O. Box 10 tion was discontinued, pursuant to clause
Thorold ON L2V 3Y7 69(1)(e) of the PBA.
Attention: Ms. Patricia Gough, Manager THE ADMINISTRATOR IS REQUIRED, pur-
suant to section 89(5) of the PBA, to transmit a
Employer
copy of this Order to the following persons:
ORDER Communications
Energy and Paper Workers
ON April 29, 2002, the Deputy Superintendent,
Union of Canada
Pensions, of the Financial Services Commission
5890 Aspen Court
of Ontario issued a Notice of Proposal to Make
Niagara Falls ON L2G 7V3
an Order dated April 25, 2002, to the Employer
and to the Administrator of the Pension Plan Attention: Mr. Michael Lambert,
for Unionized Employees of Northern Globe National Representative
Building Materials (Thorold Division), Registra- Union
tion No. 680405 (the “Plan”), pursuant to section BDO Dunwoody Limited
69(1) of the Act, that the Plan be wound up in Royal Bank Plaza
whole for those members of the Plan who ceased P.O. Box 33
to be employed effective between November 30, Toronto ON M5J 2J9
1998 and February 22, 1999.
Attention: Mr. Mark Chow
NO REQUEST for a hearing has been received Receiver and Trustee in
by the Financial Services Tribunal in connection Bankruptcy for Striker Paper
with this matter. Canada, Inc.

50
Volume 12, Issue 1
 Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

DATED at North York, Ontario, June 20, 2002.

Tom Golfetto
Director, Pension Plans Branch
By Delegated Authority from
Superintendent of Financial Services

51
Volume 12, Issue 1
Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

IN THE MATTER OF the Pension Benefits Act, REASONS:

R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8, as amended (the “Act”); 1. There was a cessation or suspension of
AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal of the Employer contributions to the pension
Superintendent of Financial Services to Make an fund, pursuant to clause 69(1)(a) of the Act.
Order under section 69 of the Act, relating to 2. The Employer failed to make contributions
the Gallaher Thorold Paper Co. Hourly to the pension fund as required by the Act
Paid Pension Plan, Registration Number or the regulations, pursuant to clause
1039981(the “Plan”); 69(1)(b) of the Act.
TO: Morneau Sobeco 3. A significant number of members of the
1500 Don Mills Road pension plan ceased to be employed by the
Suite 500 Employer as a result of the discontinuance
Toronto ON M3B 3K4 of all or part of the business of the Employer
Attention: Mr. David R. Kearney or as a result of the reorganization of the
Administrator business of the Employer, pursuant to clause
69(1)(d) of the Act.
AND TO: Gallaher Thorold Paper Co.
67 Front Street North 4. All or a significant portion of the business
Thorold ON L2V 3Z7 carried on by the Employer at a specific
location was discontinued, pursuant to
Attention: Mr. David Rennie, Vice-President,
clause 69(1)(e) of the Act.
Human Resources
DATED at North York, Ontario, this 12th day of
Employer
July, 2002.
ORDER Tom Golfetto
Director, Pension Plans Branch
ON or about March 26, 2002, the Deputy
By Delegated Authority from
Superintendent, Pensions, issued a Notice of
Superintendent of Financial Services
Proposal to Make an Order dated March 26,
2002, to the Employer and to the Administrator cc: Communications
of the Gallaher Thorold Paper Co. Hourly Paid Energy and Paper Workers
Pension Plan, Registration Number 1039981 Union of Canada
(the “Plan”), pursuant to section 69(1) of the Locals 290 and 1521
Act, that the Plan be wound up in whole effec- 5890 Aspen Court
tive May 25, 1999. Niagara Falls ON L2G 7V3
NO REQUEST for a hearing has been received Attention: Michael Lambert
by the Financial Services Tribunal in connection International Union of
with this matter. Operating Engineers
I THEREFORE ORDER that the Plan be Local 772
wound up in whole effective May 25, 1999. 370 Main Street East, Suite 302
Hamilton ON L8N 1J6

52
Volume 12, Issue 1
 Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

Attention: Mr. Greg Hoath

Ernst & Young Inc.
Ernst & Young Tower
P.O. Box 251, 222 Bay Street
Toronto-Dominion Centre
Toronto ON M5K 1J7
Attention: Mr. Philip Kan

53
Volume 12, Issue 1
Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

IN THE MATTER OF the Pension Benefits Act, IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the
R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8, as amended (the “Act”) ; Pension Plan for Executives of William H.
AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal of the Kaufman Inc., Registration No. 999631, be
Superintendent of Financial Services to Make wholly wound up effective July 21, 2000.
an Order, pursuant to section 69 of the Act, THE REASONS for this order are:
respecting the Pension Plan for Executives 1. There was a cessation or suspension of
of William H. Kaufman Inc., Registration Employer contributions to the pension
No. 999631 (the “Plan”); fund, within the meaning of clause 69(1)(a)
TO: The Standard Life Assurance of the Act.
Company 2. The Employer failed to make contributions
1245 Sherbrooke Street West to the pension fund as required by the Act
Montreal PQ H3G 1G3 or the regulations within the meaning of
Attention: Jean-Claude Lebel clause 69(1)(b) of the Act.
Pension Actuary 3. The Employer is bankrupt within the mean-
Administrator ing of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act
AND TO: William H. Kaufman Inc. (Canada), R. S. C. 1985, c. B-3, as amended,
Kitchener Stn. C, pursuant to clause 69(1)(c) of the Act.
410 King St. West 4. A significant number of members of the
P.O. Box 9005 Plan ceased to be employed by the Employer
Kitchener ON N2G 4J8 as a result of the discontinuance of all or
Attention: Stuart Snyder part of the business of the Employer or as a
Secretary Treasurer result of the reorganization of the business
of the Employer within the meaning of
Employer
clause 69(1)(d) of the Act.
REVISED ORDER 5. All or a significant portion of the business
carried on by the Employer at a specific
ON the 17th day of August, 2001, the
location was discontinued within the mean-
Superintendent of Financial Services issued to
ing of clause 69(1)(e) of the Act.
William H. Kaufman Inc. (the “Employer”) and
to Standard Life Assurance Company, the THE ADMINISTRATOR IS REQUIRED, pur-
administrator of the Plan (the “Administrator”), suant to section 69(2) of the Act, to give notice
pursuant to section 69(1) of the Act, a Notice of of this Order to the following persons:
Proposal to Make an Order that the Plan be Ernst & Young Inc.
wholly wound up effective July 21, 2000. Toronto-Dominion Centre
NO REQUEST for a hearing from the Employer 222 Bay Street
or from the Administrator has been received by P.O. Box 251
the Financial Services Tribunal in connection Toronto ON M5K 1J7
with this matter.

54
Volume 12, Issue 1
 Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

Attention: Philip Kan

Interim Receiver and
Receiver and Trustee in
Bankruptcy for William H.
Kaufman Inc.
DATED at North York, Ontario, this 14th day of
November, 2001.
Revised Order signed at North York, Ontario,
this 7th day of August, 2002.
Tom Golfetto
Director, Pension Plans Branch
By Delegated Authority from
Superintendent of Financial Services
Financial Services Commission of Ontario

55
Volume 12, Issue 1
Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

IN THE MATTER OF the Pension Benefits Act, ORDER

R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8, as amended; ON the 27th day of June, 2002, the Deputy
AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal of the Superintendent, Pension Division, issued a Notice
Superintendent of Financial Services to Make of Proposal to Make an Order dated the 25th day
an Order, pursuant to section 69 of the Pension of June, 2002, pursuant to subsection 69(1) of
Benefits Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8, as amended, the Pension Benefits Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8, as
respecting the Pension Plan for the amended (the “Act”), to the Administrator and to
Employees of Kaufman Footwear, Division the Employer to wind up in whole the Pension
of William H. Kaufman Inc., Registration Plan for the Employees of Kaufman Footwear,
No. 0340349 (the “Pension Plan”); Division of William H. Kaufman Inc., Registration
TO: The Standard Life Assurance No. 0340349.
Company NO Notice requiring a hearing was delivered to
1245 Sherbrooke Street West the Financial Services Tribunal (the “Tribunal”),
Montreal PQ H3G 1G3 by the Administrator and/or the Employer with-
Attention: Jean-Claude Lebel in the time prescribed by subsection 89(6) of
Pension Actuary the Act.
Administrator IT IS THEREFORE HEREBY ORDERED that
the Pension Plan for the Employees of Kaufman
AND TO: Kaufman Footwear, Division
Footwear, Division of William H. Kaufman Inc.,
of William H. Kaufman Inc.
Registration No. 0340349, be wound up in whole,
P.O. Box 9005
effective July 21, 2000, for the following reasons:
410 King Street West
Kitchener ON N2G 4J8 1. There was a cessation or suspension of
Employer contributions to the pension
Attention: S.I. Snyder
fund.
Vice President, Finance
2. A significant number of the members of the
Employer
Pension Plan ceased to be employed by the
AND TO: Ernst & Young Inc.
Employer as a result of the discontinuance
Ernst & Young Tower
of all or part of the business of the Employer
P.O. Box 251, 222 Bay Street
or as a result the reorganization of the busi-
Toronto-Dominion Centre
ness of the Employer.
Toronto ON M5K 1J7
3. The Employer is bankrupt within the mean-
Attention: Jorden Sleeth
ing of the Bankruptcy Act (Canada).
Receiver and Trustee in
4. A significant number of members of the
Bankruptcy for William H.
Pension Plan cease to be employed by the
Kaufman Inc.
Employer as a result of the discontinuance
of all or part of the business of the Employer
or as a result of the reorganization of the
business of the Employer.

56
Volume 12, Issue 1
 Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

5. All or a significant portion of the business

carried on by the Employer at a specific
location is discontinued.
DATED at Toronto, Ontario, this 11th day of
September, 2002.
Tom Golfetto
Director, Pension Plans Branch
By Delegated Authority from the
Superintendent of Financial Services

57
Volume 12, Issue 1
Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

IN THE MATTER OF the Pension Benefits Act, ORDER

R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8, as amended; ON the 27th day of June, 2002, the Deputy
AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal of the Superintendent, Pension Division, issued a Notice
Superintendent of Financial Services to Make an of Proposal to Make an Order dated the 25th day
Order, pursuant to section 69 of the Pension of June, 2002, pursuant to subsection 69(1) of the
Benefits Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8, as amended, Pension Benefits Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8, as amend-
respecting the Pension Plan for the ed (the “Act”), to the Administrator and to the
Employees of Kaufman of Collingwood, Employer to wind up in whole the Pension Plan
The Furniture Division of William H. for the Employees of Kaufman of Collingwood,
Kaufman Inc., Registration No. 0340091 The Furniture Division of William H. Kaufman
(the “Pension Plan”); Inc., Registration No. 0340091.
TO: The Standard Life Assurance NO Notice requiring a hearing was delivered to
Company the Financial Services Tribunal (the “Tribunal”),
1245 Sherbrooke Street West by the Administrator and/or the Employer with-
Montreal PQ H3G 1G3 in the time prescribed by subsection 89(6) of
Attention: Jean-Claude Lebel the Act.
Pension Actuary IT IS THEREFORE HEREBY ORDERED
Administrator that the Pension Plan for the Employees of
Kaufman of Collingwood, The Furniture
AND TO: Kaufman of Collingwood,
Division of William H. Kaufman Inc.,
The Furniture Division of
Registration No. 0340091, be wound up in
William H. Kaufman Inc.
whole, effective July 14, 2000, for the follow-
201 Balsam Street
ing reasons:
Collingwood ON L9Y 3Y7
1. There was a cessation or suspension of
Attention: Barry Knox
Employer contributions to the pension
Controller
fund.
Employer
2. A significant number of the members of the
AND TO: Ernst & Young Inc.
Pension Plan ceased to be employed by the
Ernst & Young Tower
employer as a result of the discontinuance
P.O. Box 251, 222 Bay Street
of all or part of the business of the employer
Toronto-Dominion Centre
or as a result the reorganization of the busi-
Toronto ON M5K 1J7
ness of the employer.
Attention: Jorden Sleeth
3. The Employer is bankrupt within the mean-
Receiver and Trustee in ing of the Bankruptcy Act (Canada).
Bankruptcy for William H.
4. A significant number of members of the
Kaufman Inc.
Pension Plan cease to be employed by the
Employer as a result of the discontinuance
of all or part of the business of the Employer
or as a result of the reorganization of the
business of the Employer.

58
Volume 12, Issue 1
 Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

5. All or a significant portion of the business

carried on by the Employer at a specific
location is discontinued.
6. All or part of the Employer’s business or all
or part of the assets of the Employer’s busi-
ness are sold, assigned or otherwise disposed
of and the person who acquires the business
or assets does not provide a pension plan for
the members of the Employer’s pension
plan who becomes employees of the person.
DATED at Toronto, Ontario, this 11th day of
September, 2002.
Tom Golfetto
Director, Pension Plans Branch
by Delegated Authority from the
Superintendent of Financial Services

59
Volume 12, Issue 1
Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

Consents to Payments out of Wound Up Pension Plans

IN THE MATTER OF the Pension Benefits Act, ment out of the Pension Plan for Salaried
R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8, as amended by the Financial Employees of Newman Steel Ltd. and its
Services Commission of Ontario Act, 1997, S.O. Associated Companies, Registration No. 283481
1997, c.28 (the “Act”); (the “Plan”), to PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc. in
AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal by the the amount of $206,400 (representing 40% of
Superintendent of Financial Services to Make an the surplus of $516,000 determined to be in the
Order under subsection 78(1) of the Act, con- Plan as at November 4, 1991), plus the gains
senting to a payment out of the Pension Plan (net losses) thereon from November 4, 1991 to
for Salaried Employees of Newman Steel the date of payment, less 40% of all expenses
Ltd. and its Associated Companies, incurred in connection with the administration
Registration No. 283481; of the wind up of the Plan, including, without
limitation, 40% of the reasonable legal and
TO: PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc.
actuarial fees and expenses of those Plan mem-
c/o Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP
bers included in the surplus sharing group who
Box 25, Commerce Court West
are represented by Anthony Wellenreiter of the
199 Bay Street
law firm Wellenreiter & Wellenreiter.
Toronto ON M5L 1A9
NO Notice requiring a hearing was delivered to
Attention: Elizabeth Boyd
the Financial Services Tribunal by the Applicant
Counsel to Pricewaterhouse-
or any other party within the time prescribed by
Coopers Inc.
subsection 89(6) of the Act.
Reesha Hosein
Counsel to Pricewaterhouse THE SUPERINTENDENT OF FINANCIAL
Coopers Inc. SERVICES THEREFORE CONSENTS to the
payment out of the Pension Plan for Salaried
Applicant and receiver and
Employees of Newman Steel Ltd. and its
manager of Newman Steel Ltd.
Associated Companies, Registration No. 283481,
KPMG Inc.
to PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc., an amount of
Suite 3300, Commerce Court West
$206,400 (representing 40% of the surplus of
P.O. Box 31 Stn. Commerce Court
$516,000 determined to be in the Plan as at
Toronto ON M5L 1B2
November 4, 1991), plus the gains (net losses)
Attention: Michael Creber thereon from November 4, 1991, to the date of
Senior Vice-President payment, less 40% of all expenses incurred in
Plan Administrator connection with the administration of the wind
up of the Plan, including, without limitation,
CONSENT 40% of the reasonable legal and actuarial fees
ON or about May 31, 2002, the Superintendent and expenses of those Plan members included
of Financial Services caused to be served on the in the surplus sharing group who are represent-
Applicant, PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc. and ed by Anthony Wellenreiter of the law firm
KPMG Inc., the Plan Administrator, a Notice of Wellenreiter & Wellenreiter.
Proposal dated May 28, 2002, to consent, pur-
suant to subsection 78(1) of the Act, to a pay-

60
Volume 12, Issue 1
 Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

THIS CONSENT IS EFFECTIVE ONLY

AFTER the Applicant satisfies me that all bene-
fits, benefit enhancements (including benefits
and benefit enhancements pursuant to the
Surplus Sharing Agreement) and any other pay-
ments to which the members, former members,
and any other persons entitled to such pay-
ments have been paid, purchased, or otherwise
provided for.
DATED at Toronto, Ontario, this 16th day of
July, 2002
Tom Golfetto
Director, Pension Plans Branch
By Delegated Authority from the
Superintendent of Financial Services
cc: Mr. Husein Djuk
P.O. Box 312
North Rustico PEI C0A 1X0

61
Volume 12, Issue 1
Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

IN THE MATTER OF the Pension Benefits Act, expenses, plus investment earnings thereon to
R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8, as amended by the Financial the date of payment, to BICC Canada Inc.
Services Commission of Ontario Act, 1997, S.O. DATED at Toronto, Ontario, this 19th day of
1997, c.28 (the “Act”); August, 2002.
AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal by the Tom Golfetto
Superintendent of Financial Services to make an Director, Pension Plans Branch
Order under subsection 78(4) of the Act, con- By Delegated Authority from the
senting to a payment out of the Pension Plan Superintendent of Financial Services
for Hourly Employees of BICC Phillips
cc: Mr. Duncan Richardson, Mercer Human
Inc. Located at its Brockville Factory,
Resource Consulting
Registration No. 293753;
Mr. William Greenham
TO: BICC Canada Inc. Mr. Roger Eyre
c/o Balfour Beatty Construction, Mr. Malcolm Blair
Inc. Mr. Giovanni Hrelia
Attention: Ms. Joanne Bonfiglio Mr. Robert C. Andress
254 South Main Street Mr. W.G. Haggart
New City NY 10956 USA Mr. Earl G. Mott
Mr. J. Richard Gill
CONSENT Mr. Arthur W. Lane
ON or about June 28, 2002, the Superintendent Mr. Donald W. Conlin
of Financial Services caused to be served on
BICC Canada Inc. a Notice of Proposal dated
June 26, 2002, to consent, pursuant to subsec-
tion 78(4) of the Act, to payment out of the
Pension Plan for Hourly Employees of BICC
Phillips Inc. Located at its Brockville Factory,
Registration No. 293753, to BICC Canada Inc.
in the amount of $728,818 as at August 22,
2000, adjusted for expenses, plus investment
earnings thereon to the date of payment.
NO Notice requiring a hearing was delivered to
the Financial Services Tribunal by the Applicant
or any other party within the time prescribed by
subsection 89(6) of the Act.
THE SUPERINTENDENT OF FINANCIAL
SERVICES THEREFORE CONSENTS to the
payment out of the Pension Plan for Hourly
Employees of BICC Phillips Inc. Located at its
Brockville Factory, Registration No. 293753, of
$728,818 as at August 22, 2000, adjusted for

62
Volume 12, Issue 1
 Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

IN THE MATTER OF the Pension Benefits Act, of $23,735 as at August 22, 2000, adjusted for
R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8, as amended by the Financial expenses, plus investment earnings thereon to
Services Commission of Ontario Act, 1997, S.O. the date of payment, to BICC Canada Inc.
1997, c.28 (the “Act”); DATED at Toronto, Ontario, this 19th day of
AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal by the August, 2002.
Superintendent of Financial Services to Make an Tom Golfetto
Order under subsection 78(4) of the Act, consent- Director, Pension Plans Branch
ing to a payment out of the Pension Plan for By Delegated Authority from the
Salaried Union Employees of BICC Phillips Superintendent of Financial Services
Inc. (Located at Brockville, Ontario),
cc: Mr. Duncan Richardson, Mercer Human
Registration No. 370205
Resource Consulting
TO: BICC Canada Inc. Mr. Willard M. Burke
c/o Balfour Beatty Construction, Mr. Donald W. Conlin
Inc. Mr. Arthur W. Lane
Attention: Ms. Joanne Bonfiglio
254 South Main Street
New City NY 10956 USA

CONSENT
ON or about June 24, 2002, the Superintendent
of Financial Services caused to be served on BICC
Canada Inc. a Notice of Proposal dated June 24,
2002, to consent, pursuant to subsection 78(4) of
the Act, to payment out of the Pension Plan for
Salaried Union Employees of BICC Phillips Inc.
(Located at Brockville, Ontario), Registration
No. 370205, to BICC Canada Inc. in the amount
of $23,735 as at August 22, 2000, adjusted for
expenses, plus investment earnings thereon to
the date of payment.
NO Notice requiring a hearing was delivered to
the Financial Services Tribunal by the Applicant
or any other party within the time prescribed by
subsection 89(6) of the Act.
THE SUPERINTENDENT OF FINANCIAL
SERVICES THEREFORE CONSENTS to the
payment out of the Pension Plan for Salaried
Union Employees of BICC Phillips Inc. (Located
at Brockville, Ontario), Registration No. 370205,

63
Volume 12, Issue 1
Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

IN THE MATTER OF the Pension Benefits Act, DATED at Toronto, Ontario, this 19th day of
R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8, as amended by the Financial August, 2002.
Services Commission of Ontario Act, 1997, S.O. Tom Golfetto
1997, c.28 (the “Act”); Director, Pension Plans Branch
AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal by the By Delegated Authority from the
Superintendent of Financial Services to Make an Superintendent of Financial Services
Order under subsection 78(4) of the Act, con- cc: Mr. Eric Poirier, Mercer Human Resource
senting to a payment out of the Retirement Consulting
Plan for Certain Unionized Employees Mr. Michael E. Labute, Mercer Human
of Beta Brands Limited, Registration Resource Consulting
No. 1050210;
TO: Beta Brands Limited
Attention: Mr. George Harrison, CFO &
Secretary
1156 Dundas Street East
London ON N5W 5Y4

CONSENT
ON or about June 19, 2002, the Superintendent
of Financial Services caused to be served on
Beta Brands Limited a Notice of Proposal dated
June 19, 2002, to consent, pursuant to sub-
section 78(4) of the Act, to payment out of
The Retirement Plan for Certain Unionized
Employees of Beta Brands Limited, Registration
No. 1050210, to Beta Brands Limited in the
amount of $17,376.10 as at June 30, 2001, plus
interest, at the fund rate of return thereon to the
date of payment.
NO Notice requiring a hearing was delivered to
the Financial Services Tribunal by the Applicant
or any other party within the time prescribed by
subsection 89(6) of the Act.
THE SUPERINTENDENT OF FINANCIAL
SERVICES THEREFORE CONSENTS to the
payment out of The Retirement Plan for Certain
Unionized Employees of Beta Brands Limited,
Registration No. 1050210, of $17,376.10 as at
June 30, 2001, plus interest, at the fund rate of
return thereon to the date of payment, to Beta
Brands Limited.
64
Volume 12, Issue 1
 Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

IN THE MATTER OF the Pension Benefits Act, DATED at Toronto, Ontario, this 21st day of
R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8, as amended by the Financial August, 2002.
Services Commission of Ontario Act, 1997, S.O. Tom Golfetto
1997, c.28 (the “Act”); Director, Pension Plans Branch
AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal by the By Delegated Authority from the
Superintendent of Financial Services to Make an Superintendent of Financial Services
Order under subsection 78(4) of the Act, con- cc: Ms. Renate Leis, Buck Consultants Limited
senting to a payment out of the Boehringer
Ingelheim (Canada) Ltd./Ltée Employees
Pension Plan, Registration No. 356162;
TO: Boehringer Ingelheim
(Canada) Ltd./Ltée
Attention: Ms. Louise Muller
Manager, Human Resources
5180 South Service Road
Burlington ON L7L 5H4

CONSENT
ON or about July 2, 2002, the Superintendent of
Financial Services caused to be served on
Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada) Ltd./Ltée a
Notice of Proposal dated July 2, 2002 to con-
sent, pursuant to subsection 78(4) of the Act, to
payment out of the Boehringer Ingelheim
(Canada) Ltd./Ltée Employees’ Pension Plan,
Registration No. 356162, to Boehringer
Ingelheim (Canada) Ltd./Ltée in the amount of
$1,351,669.22 as at January 16, 2002.
NO Notice requiring a hearing was delivered to
the Financial Services Tribunal by the Applicant
or any other party within the time prescribed by
subsection 89(6) of the Act.
THE SUPERINTENDENT OF FINANCIAL
SERVICES THEREFORE CONSENTS to the
payment out of the Boehringer Ingelheim
(Canada) Ltd./Ltée Employees’ Pension Plan,
Registration No. 356162, of $1,351,669.22 as at
January 16, 2002, to Boehringer Ingelheim
(Canada) Ltd./Ltée.

65
Volume 12, Issue 1
Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

IN THE MATTER OF the Pension Benefits Act, DATED at Toronto, Ontario, this 22nd day of
R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8, as amended by the Financial August, 2002.
Services Commission of Ontario Act, 1997, S.O. Tom Golfetto
1997, c.28 (the “Act”); Director, Pension Plans Branch
AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal by the By Delegated Authority from the
Superintendent of Financial Services to Make an Superintendent of Financial Services
Order under subsection 78(4) of the Act, consent-
ing to a payment out of the Wajax Industries
Limited Pension Plan, Registration
No. 281006;
TO: Wajax Limited
3280 Wharton Way
Mississauga Ontario L4X 2C5
Attention: Barbara Haddad
Manager, Compensation & Benefits

CONSENT
ON or about June 12, 2002, the Superintendent
of Financial Services caused to be served on
Wajax Limited a Notice of Proposal dated June
10, 2002, to consent, pursuant to subsection
78(4) of the Act, to payment out of the Wajax
Industries Limited Pension Plan, Registration
No. 281006, to Wajax Limited in the amount of
$21,160.44 as at November 30, 2001, plus invest-
ment earnings thereon to the date of payment.
NO Notice requiring a hearing was delivered to
the Financial Services Tribunal by the Applicant
or any other party within the time prescribed by
subsection 89(6) of the Act.
THE SUPERINTENDENT OF FINANCIAL
SERVICES THEREFORE CONSENTS to the
payment out of the Wajax Industries Limited
Pension Plan, Registration No. 281006, of
$21,160.44 as at November 30, 2001, plus inter-
est at the fund rate of return thereon to the date
of payment, to Wajax Limited.

66
Volume 12, Issue 1
 Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

Declaration that the Pension Benefits Guarantee Fund Applies to

Pension Plans — Subsection 83(1) of the PBA
IN THE MATTER OF the Pension Benefits Act, DECLARATION
R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8, as amended by the WHEREAS:
Financial Services Commission of Ontario Act, 1. The Revised Pension Plan for Employees of
1997, R.S.O. 1997, c. 28; the Employer, Registration Number 0224923
AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal by the (the “Pension Plan”), is registered under the
Superintendent of Financial Services to Make a Pension Benefits Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8, as
Declaration under Section 83 of the Pension amended by the Financial Services Commission
Benefits Act, as amended by the Financial Services of Ontario Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c.28 (the
Commission of Ontario Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c.28, “Act”); and
respecting the Revised Pension Plan for 2. The Pension Plan provides defined benefits
Employees of the Employer (the “Pension that are not exempt from the application of
Plan”), Registration Number 0224923; the Pension Benefits Guarantee Fund (the
TO: The Canada Life Assurance “Guarantee Fund”), by the Act or the regula-
Company tions made thereunder; and
330 University Avenue 3. The Pension Plan was wound up effective
Toronto ON M5G 1R8 March 1, 1996; and
Attention: Ms. Milica Stojsin 4. The Superintendent of Pensions appointed
Plan Wind-up Consultant Canada Life Assurance Company as the
Administrator of the Revised administrator (the “Administrator”) of the
Pension Plan for Employees Pension Plan on June 10, 1996; and
of the Employer 5. On February 26, 2002, I issued a Notice of
AND TO: Brown & Collett Limited Proposal dated February 15, 2002, to Make a
2365 Matheson Blvd. Declaration that the Guarantee Fund applies
Mississauga ON L4W 5C2 to the Pension Plan; and
Attention: Mr. R.W. Bernard 6. No notice requiring a hearing by the
Controller Financial Services Tribunal, pursuant to sub-
Employer section 89(6) of the Act, has been received.
AND TO: PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc. NOW THEREFORE TAKE NOTICE I declare,
(formerly Price Waterhouse pursuant to section 83 of the Act, that the PBGF
Limited) applies to the Pension Plan for the following
5700 Yonge Street reasons:
Suite 1900 1. The Supplement to the Actuarial Report filed
North York ON M4M 4K7 by the Administrator indicates an estimated
Attention: Mr. Craig Munro claim against the Guarantee Fund of
$436,300 as at March 31, 2002.
Receiver and Trustee in
Bankruptcy for Brown & 2. PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc. was appointed
Collett Limited Trustee in Bankruptcy of Brown & Collett
Limited on March 1, 1996 and as Receiver
on April 22, 1996.

67
Volume 12, Issue 1
Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

3. The Trustee in Bankruptcy has advised

the Administrator that there are no funds
available from the estate of Brown & Collett
Limited to make payment to the Pension
Plan.
DATED at North York, Ontario, this 5th day of
July, 2002.
K. David Gordon
Deputy Superintendent, Pensions

68
Volume 12, Issue 1
 Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

IN THE MATTER OF the Pension Benefits Act, 2. The Pension Plan provides defined benefits
R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8, as amended by the Financial that are not exempt from the application of
Services Commission of Ontario Act, 1997, R.S.O. the Pension Benefits Guarantee Fund (the
1997, c.28; “Guarantee Fund”), by the Act or the regula-
AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal by the tions made thereunder; and
Superintendent of Financial Services to Make a 3. The Pension Plan was wound up effective
Declaration under Section 83 of the Pension December 31, 1986; and
Benefits Act, as amended by the Financial Services 4. The Superintendent of Pensions appointed
Commission of Ontario Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, Deloitte & Touche Inc. as the administrator
c.28, respecting the Retirement Plan for (the “Administrator”) of the Pension Plan
Salaried Employees of Airvector Inc. on March 20, 1997 and on August 11, 2002,
(the “Pension Plan”), Registration appointed Morneau Sobeco as Administrator
Number C-9339; to replace Deloitte & Touche Inc.; and
TO: Morneau Sobeco 5. On March 1, 2002, the Deputy
Deloitte & Touche Inc. Superintendent, Pension Division, issued a
1500 Don Mills Road Notice of Proposal dated March 1, 2002, to
Toronto ON M3B 3K4 Make a Declaration that the Guarantee Fund
Attention: Mr. Al Kiel applies to the Pension Plan; and
Partner 6. No notice requiring a hearing by the
Administrator of the Financial Services Tribunal, pursuant to sub-
Retirement Plan for Salaried section 89 (6) of the Act, has been received.
Employees of Airvector Inc. NOW THEREFORE TAKE NOTICE I declare,
AND TO: Airvector Inc. pursuant to sections 83 and 89 of the Act, that
201 Speers Road the Guarantee Fund applies to the Pension Plan
P.O. Box 430 for the following reasons:
Oakville ON L6J 5A8 1. The Addendum to the Actuarial Valuation
Attention: Camile Adib Report filed by the Administrator indicates an
President estimated claim against the Guarantee Fund
Employer of $258,900.00 as at December 31, 2001.
2. The place of business of the Employer
DECLARATION is closed due to the bankruptcy of the
WHEREAS: Employer.
1. The retirement Plan for Salaried Employees 3. The Administrator has advised since the
of Airvector Inc., Registration No. C-9339 Employer is no longer in business, there
(the “Pension Plan”), is registered under the are no further funds expected from the
Pension Benefits Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8, as Employer or from any other sources for
amended by the Financial Services Commission the Pension Plan.
of Ontario Act, 1997, c.28, (the “Act”); and

69
Volume 12, Issue 1
Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

DATED at North York, Ontario, this 25th day of

July, 2002.
Tom Golfetto
Director, Pension Plans Branch
By Delegated Authority from the
Superintendent of Financial Services

70
Volume 12, Issue 1
 Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

IN THE MATTER OF the Pension Benefits Act, Attention: Mr. Joe McCabe
R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8, as amended by the Financial Union
Services Commission of Ontario Act, 1997, R.S.O.
1997, c.28; DECLARATION
AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal by the WHEREAS:
Superintendent of Financial Services to Make a
1. The Staff Pension Plan for Hourly Paid
Declaration under Section 83 of the Pension
Employees of Vulcan Packaging Inc.,
Benefits Act, as amended by the Financial Services
Registration No. 0379214 (the “Pension
Commission of Ontario Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c.28,
Plan”), is registered under the Pension
respecting the Staff Pension Plan for Hourly
Benefits Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8, as amended
Paid Employees of Vulcan Packaging Inc.
by the Financial Services Commission of
(the “Pension Plan”), Registration
Ontario Act, 1997, c. 28 (the “Act”); and
Number 0379214;
2. The Pension Plan provides defined benefits
TO: Morneau Sobeco
that are not exempt from the application of
Deloitte & Touche Inc.
the Pension Benefits Guarantee Fund (the
1500 Don Mills Road
“PBGF”), by the Act or the regulations made
Toronto ON M3B 3K4
thereunder; and
Attention: Mr. Al Kiel
3. The Pension Plan was wound up effective
Partner
May 15, 1997; and
Administrator of the Staff
4. The Superintendent of Pensions appointed
Pension Plan for Hourly Paid
Deloitte & Touche Inc. as the administrator
Employees of Vulcan
(the “Administrator”) of the Pension Plan
Packaging Inc.
on August 1, 1997; and
AND TO: Vulcan Packaging Inc.
5. On February 15, 2002, I issued a Notice of
15 Bethridge Road
Proposal dated February 12, 2002, to Make a
Rexdale ON M9W 1M6
Declaration that the PBGF applies to the
Attention: Mr. Alex Telfer Pension Plan; and
President
6. No notice requiring a hearing by the
Employer Financial Services Tribunal, pursuant to sub-
AND TO: Ernst & Young Inc. section 89 (6) of the Act, has been received.
175 Commerce Valley Drive West NOW THEREFORE TAKE NOTICE I declare,
Suite 600 pursuant to sections 83 and 89 of the Act, that
Thornhill ON L3T 7P6 the PBGF applies to the Pension Plan for the fol-
Attention: Mr. Harold Reiter lowing reasons:
Trustee in Bankruptcy, 1. The Supplement to the Actuarial Valuation
Vulcan Packaging Inc. Report filed by the Administrator indicates
AND TO: CAW Local 1008 an estimated funding deficiency of $861,100
467 St. Clair Street as at August, 1, 2001 and an estimated claim
Chatham ON N7L 3K6 against the Guarantee Fund as at August 1,
2001 of $768,500.
71
Volume 12, Issue 1
Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

2. Ernst & Young Inc. was appointed Trustee in

Bankruptcy of Vulcan Packaging Inc. on
May 15, 1997.
3. The Administrator has advised that they
filed a proof of claim for the asset shortfall
but is of the opinion that no recovery will
be realized of the proof of claim.
DATED at North York, Ontario, this 2nd day of
August, 2002.
K. David Gordon
Deputy Superintendent, Pension Division

72
Volume 12, Issue 1
 Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

IN THE MATTER OF the Pension Benefits Act, 5. All benefits and surplus assets were paid out
R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8, as amended (the “Act”); of the plan in 1992 with no assets remaining
AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal of the in the Plan; and
Superintendent of Financial Services to Make a 6. In the year 2000, a deferred vested member
Declaration under section 83 of the Act, relating of the Plan, Colin Holland, claimed he was
to the Retirement Plan for Employees omitted in error from the disbursement of
of Pigott Construction Limited and benefits on wind up, and provided evidence
Participating Companies, Registration that he was entitled to a benefit upon wind
Number C-4989; up; and
TO: Buck Consultants Limited 7. Buck Consultants was appointed administra-
Suite 1500 tor of the Plan by the Superintendent of
95 Wellington Street West Financial Services on July 6, 2000; and.
Toronto ON M5J 2N7 8. On July 15, 2002, the Deputy Superintendent,
Attention: Ms. Wafaa Babcock, F.S.A., F.C.I.A. Pensions, issued a Notice of Proposal, dated
Administrator July 12, 2002, to Make a Declaration that the
Guarantee Fund applies to the Plan; and
Pigott Construction Ltd.
P.O. Box 2309 9. No notice requiring a hearing by the
Hamilton ON L8N 3G7 Financial Services Tribunal, pursuant to sub-
section 89 (6) of the Act, has been received.
Attention: W. Grant Dickinson
Vice-President, Finance NOW THEREFORE TAKE NOTICE THAT I
DECLARE, pursuant to sections 83 and 89 of
Employer
the Act, that the Guarantee Fund applies to the
Plan for the following reasons:
DECLARATION
REASONS FOR THE PROPOSED
WHEREAS:
DECLARATION:
1. The Retirement Plan for Employees of Pigott
1. Colin Holland was entitled to a benefit from
Construction Limited and Participating
the Plan upon wind up but never received it;
Companies (the “Plan”), is registered under
and
the Act as Registration Number C-4989; and
2. A supplementary wind up report for the
2. The Plan provides defined benefits that
Plan as at April 30, 2002, reveals that to pro-
are not exempt from the application of
vide the benefit for Colin Holland and to
the Pension Benefits Guarantee Fund (the
meet the expenses and other allowances
“Guarantee Fund”) by the Act or the regu-
incurred in determining and distributing his
lations made thereunder; and
entitlement, would require an amount of
3. The Plan was wound up by the Employer
$18,040 as at April 30, 2002; and
effective December 31, 1991; and
3. There are currently no assets in the Plan to
4. A wind up report was filed by the Employer;
provide the benefit entitlement of Colin
and the Superintendent of Pensions approved
Holland and other expenses; and
the wind up report on September 17, 1992;
and

73
Volume 12, Issue 1
Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

4. There are reasonable and probable grounds

for concluding that the funding require-
ments of the Act and regulation cannot be
satisfied.
DATED at North York, Ontario, this 9th day of
September, 2002.
Tom Golfetto, Director
Pension Plans Branch
By Delegated Authority from the
Superintendent of Financial Services

74
Volume 12, Issue 1
 Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

Allocations of Money from the Pension Benefits Guarantee Fund

IN THE MATTER OF the Pension Benefits Act, “PBGF”) applies to the Retirement Benefit Plan
R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8, as amended by the Financial for the Employees of Forest City International
Services Commission of Ontario Act, 1997, S.O. Trucks Ltd. Non-Contributory Retirement Plan
1997, c.28; (for Salaried Non-Managerial Non-Unionized
AND IN THE MATTER OF a Declaration by Employees), Registration Number 597948
the Superintendent of Financial Services under (the “Plan”);
Section 83 of the Pension Benefits Act, as amend- NOW THEREFORE I shall allocate from the
ed by the Financial Services Commission of PBGF and pay to the Plan, pursuant to subsec-
Ontario Act, 1997, S. O. 1997, c.28, respecting tion 34(7) of R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 909, under the
the Forest City International Trucks Ltd. Act (the “Regulation”), an amount not to exceed
Non-Contributory Retirement Plan (for $271,900 determined as of December 31, 2001,
Salaried Non-Managerial Non-Unionized to provide, together with the Ontario assets for
Employees), Registration Number 597948; the benefits determined in accordance with sec-
TO: Ernst & Young Inc. tion 34 of the Regulation. Any money allocated
222 Bay Street from the PBGF but not required to provide such
P.O. Box 251 benefits shall be returned to the PBGF.
Toronto-Dominion Centre DATED at North York, Ontario this 17th day of
Toronto ON M5K 1J7 June, 2002.
Attention: Philip Kan, Manager K. David Gordon
Administrator of the Forest Deputy Superintendent, Pensions
City International Trucks Financial Services Commission of Ontario
Ltd. Non-Contributory
Retirement Plan (for Salaried
Non-Managerial Non-
Unionized Employees)
AND TO: Forest City International
Trucks Ltd.
3003 Page Street
London ON N5V 4J1
Attention: John Parliament, Controller
Employer

ALLOCATION
WHEREAS on the 23rd day of May, 2001, I
declared, pursuant to sections 83 and 89 of
the Pension Benefits Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8, as
amended by the Financial Services Commission of
Ontario Act, 1997, S. O. 1997, c.28 (the “Act”),
that the Pension Benefits Guarantee Fund (the

75
Volume 12, Issue 1
Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

IN THE MATTER OF the Pension Benefits Act, NOW THEREFORE I shall allocate from the
R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8, as amended by the Financial PBGF and pay to the Plan, pursuant to subsec-
Services Commission of Ontario Act, 1997, S.O. tion 34(7) of R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 909, under the
1997, c.28; Act (the “Regulation”), an amount not to
AND IN THE MATTER OF a Declaration by exceed $371,800 to provide, together with the
the Superintendent of Financial Services under Ontario assets for the benefits determined in
Section 83 of the Pension Benefits Act, as amend- accordance with section 34 of the Regulation.
ed by the Financial Services Commission of Any money allocated from the PBGF but not
Ontario Act, 1997, S. O. 1997, c.28, respecting required to provide such benefits shall be
the Retirement Benefit Plan for the returned to the PBGF.
Employees of Norman Wade Company DATED at North York, Ontario this 17th day of
Limited, Techniprint Services Limited June, 2002.
and Norman Wade Management Limited, K. David Gordon
Registration Number 315176; Deputy Superintendent, Pensions
TO: Arthur Andersen Inc. Financial Services Commission of Ontario
Suite 1050
4 King Street West
Toronto ON M5H 1B6
Attention: Mr. Lawrence A. Contant
Administrator
United Steelworkers of
America
1291 Matheson Boulevard East
Mississauga ON L4W 1R1
Attention: Ms. Peggy McComb
Union

ALLOCATION
WHEREAS on the 28th day of August, 2001, I
declared, pursuant to sections 83 and 89 of the
Pension Benefits Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8, as amend-
ed by the Financial Services Commission of Ontario
Act, 1997, S. O. 1997, c.28 (the “Act”), that the
Pension Benefits Guarantee Fund (the “PBGF”)
applies to the Retirement Benefit Plan for the
Employees of Norman Wade Company Limited,
Techniprint Services Limited and Norman Wade
Management Limited, Registration Number
315176 (the “Plan”);

76
Volume 12, Issue 1
 Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

IN THE MATTER OF the Pension Benefits Act, from the Guarantee Fund but not required to
R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8, as amended by the Financial provide such benefits shall be returned to the
Services Commission of Ontario Act, 1997, R.S.O. Guarantee Fund.
1997, c.28; DATED at North York, Ontario, this 2nd day of
AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal by the August, 2002.
Superintendent of Financial Services to Make a K. David Gordon
Declaration under Section 83 of the Pension Deputy Superintendent, Pension Division
Benefits Act, as amended by the Financial Services
Commission of Ontario Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c.28,
respecting the Retirement Plan for Salaried
Employees of Airvector Inc. (the “Pension
Plan”), Registration Number C-9339;
TO: Morneau Sobeco
Deloitte & Touche Inc.
1500 Don Mills Road
Toronto ON M3B 3K4
Attention: Mr. Al Kiel
Partner
Administrator of the
Retirement Plan for Salaried
Employees of Airvector Inc.

ALLOCATION
WHEREAS on July 2002, I declared, pursuant
to sections 83 and 89 of the Pension Benefits Act,
R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8, as amended by the Financial
Services Commission of Ontario Act, 1997, S.O.
1997, c.28 (the “Act”), that the Pension Benefits
Guarantee Fund (the “Guarantee Fund”) applies
to the Retirement Plan for Salaried Employees of
Airvector Inc., Registration Number C-9339 (the
“Pension Plan”);
NOW THEREFORE I shall allocate from the
Guarantee Fund and pay to the Pension Plan,
pursuant to subsection 34(7) of R.R.O. 1990,
Reg. 909, under the Act (the “Regulation”), an
amount not to exceed $258,900 which together
with the Ontario assets of the Pension Plan, for
the benefits determined in accordance with sec-
tion 34 of the Regulation. Any money allocated

77
Volume 12, Issue 1
Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

IN THE MATTER OF the Pension Benefits Act, fits determined in accordance with section 34 of
R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8, as amended by the Financial the Regulation. Any money allocated from the
Services Commission of Ontario Act, 1997, R.S.O. PBGF but not required to provide such benefits
1997, c.28; shall be returned to the PBGF.
AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal by the DATED at North York, Ontario, this 2nd day of
Superintendent of Financial Services to Make a August, 2002.
Declaration under Section 83 of the Pension K. David Gordon
Benefits Act, as amended by the Financial Services Deputy Superintendent, Pension Division
Commission of Ontario Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c.28,
respecting the Staff Pension Plan for Hourly
Paid Employees of Vulcan Packaging Inc.
(the “Pension Plan”), Registration
Number 0379214;
TO: Morneau Sobeco
Deloitte & Touche Inc.
1500 Don Mills Road
Toronto ON M3B 3K4
Attention: Mr. Al Kiel
Partner
Administrator of the Staff
Pension Plan for Hourly Paid
Employees of Vulcan
Packaging Inc.

ALLOCATION
WHEREAS on August 2nd, 2002, I declared,
pursuant to sections 83 and 89 of the Pension
Benefits Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8, as amended by
the Financial Services Commission of Ontario Act,
1997, S.O. 1997, c.28 (the “Act”), that the
Pension Benefits Guarantee Fund (the “PBGF”)
applies to the Staff Pension Plan for Hourly Paid
Employees of Vulcan Packaging Inc., Registration
Number 0379214 (the “Pension Plan”);
NOW THEREFORE I shall allocate from the
PBGF and pay to the Pension Plan, pursuant to
subsection 34(7) of R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 909, under
the Act (the “Regulation”), an amount not to
exceed $768,500 which together with the
Ontario assets of the Pension Plan, for the bene-

78
Volume 12, Issue 1
 Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

IN THE MATTER OF the Pension Benefits Act, NOW THEREFORE I shall allocate from the
R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8, as amended (the “Act”); Guarantee Fund and pay to the Plan, pursuant
AND IN THE MATTER OF a Declaration by the to subsection 34(7) of R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 909,
Superintendent of Financial Services under sec- under the Act (the “Regulation”), an amount
tion 83 of the Act relating to the Retirement not to exceed $18,040 to provide, together with
Plan for Employees of Pigott Construction the Ontario assets, if any, for the benefit entitle-
Limited and Participating Companies, ment of Colin Holland under the Plan, deter-
Registration Number C-4989; mined under subsections 34(5) and 34(6) of the
Regulation, and to pay the reasonable adminis-
TO: Buck Consultants Limited
tration costs of settling his entitlement. Any
Suite 1500
money allocated from the Guarantee Fund but
95 Wellington Street West
not required to provide such benefit or costs
Toronto ON M5J 2N7
shall be returned to the Guarantee Fund.
Attention: Ms. Wafaa Babcock, F.S.A., F.C.I.A.
DATED at North York, Ontario, this 9th day of
Administrator
September, 2002.
AND TO: Pigott Construction Ltd.
K. David Gordon
P.O. Box 2309
Deputy Superintendent, Pensions
Hamilton ON L8N 3G7
Financial Services Commission of Ontario
Attention: W. Grant Dickinson,
Vice-President, Finance
Employer

ALLOCATION
WHEREAS on the 12th day of July 2002, I
declared, pursuant to sections 83 and 89 of the
Pension Benefits Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8, as
amended by the Financial Services Commission of
Ontario Act, 1997, S. O. 1997, c.28 (the “Act”),
that the Pension Benefits Guarantee Fund (the
“Guarantee Fund”) applies to the Retirement
Plan for Employees of Pigott Construction
Limited and Participating Companies,
Registration Number C-4989 (the “Plan”);

79
Volume 12, Issue 1
Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

80
Volume 12, Issue 1
 Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

TRIBUNAL ACTIVITIES
Appointments of Tribunal Members
Name and O.C. Effective Expiry Date
Appointment Date
Milczynski, Martha (Chair)
O.C. 1622/2001 June 20, 2001 June 19, 2004
O.C. 1665/99 October 6, 1999 July 7, 2001
O.C. 1808/98 July 8, 1998 October 6, 1999
McNairn, Colin (Vice-Chair)
O.C. 1623/2001 June 20, 2001 June 19, 2004**
O.C. 1809/98 July 8, 1998 July 7, 2001
Corbett, Anne (Vice-Chair Acting)
O.C. 1438/2001 June 20, 2001 June 19, 2004**
Ashe, Kevin
O.C. 1510/2002 September 26, 2002 September 25, 2005
Bharmal, Shiraz Y.M.
O.C. 1511/2002 September 9, 2002 September 8, 2005
Erlichman, Louis
O.C. 439/2002 January 23, 2002 January 22, 2005**
O.C. 2527/98 December 9, 1998 December 8, 2001
O.C. 1592/98 June 17, 1998 December 16, 1998
Gavin, Heather
O.C. 440/2002 January 23, 2002 January 22, 2005**
O.C. 11/99 January 13, 1999 January 12, 2002
Litner, Paul W.
O.C. 1512/2002 September 9, 2002 September 8, 2005
Martin, Joseph P.
O.C. 1626/2001 June 20, 01 June 19, 2004**
O.C. 1810/98 July 8, 1998 July 7, 2001
Moore, C.S. (Kit)
O.C. 1625/2001 June 20, 2001 June 19, 2004**
O.C. 1591/98 July 1, 1998 June 30, 2001
Short, David A.
O.C. 2118/2001 October 24, 2001 October 23, 2004**
Vincent, J. David
O.C. 2119/2001 October 24, 2001 October 23, 2004**
Wires, David E.
O.C. 2166/99 February 26, 2000 February 25, 2003
O.C. 257/97 February 27, 1997 February 26, 2000
**Or on the day FSCO/OSC merges, if earlier
81
Volume 12, Issue 1
Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

Pension Hearings Before the Financial Services Tribunal

Imperial Oil Limited documents or reveal any communications to

Imperial Oil Limited Retirement Plan which the law of privilege applies. Written
(1988), Registration Number 347054 Reasons for Order dated September 10, 2001,
and the Imperial Oil Limited Retirement were published in Volume 11, Issue 1 of the
Plan for Former Employees of McColl- Pension Bulletin.
Frontenac Inc. Registration Number A continuation of the pre-hearing conference
344002, FST File Number P0130-2000; was held on December 20, 2001. The pre-hearing
On October 31, 2000, Imperial Oil Limited conference was adjourned to allow the parties to
requested a hearing with respect to the bring motions with respect to answers to inter-
Superintendent’s Notice of Proposal dated rogatories. On July 24, 2002, the Tribunal heard
October 3, 2000, proposing to refuse to approve two motions. The Applicant’s notice of motion
partial wind up reports in respect of two Plans dated June 7, 2002, asked for an order of the
of which Imperial Oil is the Administrator. Tribunal directing the Superintendent to provide
further and better answers to some of its inter-
The stated reasons for the proposed refusal
rogatories. The Tribunal made an order directing
include the failure of each wind up report to do
the Superintendent to respond to certain of the
the following: (a) reflect the liabilities associated
interrogatories but with some modifications.
with all of the members of the Plan whose
Reasons for Order dated September 11, 2002, are
employment was terminated by Imperial Oil
published in this bulletin on page 102. The time
during the wind up period; (b) apply the grow-
for the Superintendent’s response under this
in provisions of section 74 of the Pension
Order was extended by Consent Order dated
Benefits Act in a proper manner; (c) provide ben-
October 22, 2002.
efits in accordance with elections made, as
required under subsection 72(1) of the Pension The Superintendent’s notice of motion dated
Benefits Act, among various options including June 5, 2002, asked for an order of the Tribunal
those available as a result of partial wind up; directing the Applicant to answer those inter-
and (d) provide for the distribution of assets rogatories it had served on the Applicant on
related to the partial wind up group. October 11, 2001, that remained outstanding.
The Tribunal made an order directing the
A pre-hearing conference was held on June 19,
Applicant to respond to certain of the interroga-
2001. At the pre-hearing conference, the
tories but with some modifications. The
Superintendent agreed to amend the Notice
Reasons for Order dated September 20, 2002,
of Proposal in this matter to delete reference
are published in this bulletin on page 120.
to (d) above.
The pre-hearing conference is scheduled to
A hearing and preliminary motion with respect
resume on December 18, 2002.
to answers to interrogatories was held on July 25,
2001. The Tribunal ordered the Superintendent Marshall-Barwick (formerly Marshall
to respond to the first and second set of the Steel Limited), Registration Number
Applicant’s interrogatories within six weeks of 0968081, FST File Number P150-2001;
the date of the order subject to the qualification On January 16, 2001, Marshall-Barwick Inc. (for-
that the Superintendent need not produce any merly Marshall Steel Limited) requested a hear-

82
Volume 12, Issue 1
 Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

ing in respect of the Superintendent’s Notice of was not satisfied that the Plan had a surplus and
Proposal dated December 12, 2000. The provided for the payment of any surplus to the
Superintendent is proposing to refuse to approve employer on the wind up of the Plan.
a Partial Wind Up Report as at August 28, 1992, A pre-hearing conference was held on July 4,
respecting the Retirement Plan for Salaried 2001, at which Mr. Irvin Grainger was joined as
Employees of Marshall Steel Limited and a party to the proceeding. The pre-hearing con-
Associated Companies in relation to employees ference continued on July 27, 2001, at which
who ceased to be employed by Marshall Steel time it was agreed that a settlement conference
Limited as a result of the closure of its plant in would be held on November 13, 2001. A
Milton, Ontario. The Superintendent’s basis for motion by IOF for a determination of the
the Notice of Proposal is that the Report does appropriate manner and form of giving notice
not protect the interests of all those affected by of the hearing in this matter was heard on
the partial wind up, specifically Mr. Jeffrey G. December 7, 2001, by a panel of the Tribunal
Marshall, an employee who was terminated dur- and was followed by a further continuation of
ing the wind up period. On June 4, 2001, Jeffrey the pre-hearing conference. At the motion hear-
G. Marshall applied for party status. ing it was ordered that notice of hearing be by
A pre-hearing conference was held on August way of national newspaper publication, and
13, 2001, at which time Mr. Marshall was grant- that the notice also be provided by ordinary
ed full party status. The hearing scheduled for mail to all members and former members affect-
November 29 and 30, 2001, was adjourned as a ed by the wind up. Written reasons for Orders
result of a joint request made by the parties on made on December 7, 2001, were published in
November 6, 2001. The reason for the request Volume 11, Issue 2 of the Pension Bulletin. On
was due to the applicant providing Mr. Marshall June 12, 2001, the Superintendent and IOF
with actuarial data in respect of Mr. Marshall’s made a joint request that the hearing in this
benefit entitlements. Mr. Marshall required addi- matter proceed in respect of the issue of
tional time to obtain expert advice in respect of whether the Plan provided for the payment of
the information. The hearing was held on surplus to IOF, the employer, but that the hear-
September 9, 2002. The decision is reserved. ing in respect of the issue of whether there was
any surplus in the Plan be deferred. The request
Independent Order of Foresters
was granted and the panel held a hearing on
Fieldworkers, Registration Number
the first of the two issues on June 18, 2002. The
0354399, FST File Number P155-2001;
Tribunal concluded that the Plan did not pro-
On August 12, 2001, The Independent Order of
vide for the payment of surplus to IOF. As it was
Foresters (“IOF”) requested a hearing with
unnecessary, therefore, to decide whether the
respect to the Superintendent’s Notice of
Plan had a surplus, the Tribunal directed the
Proposal dated March 19, 2001, to refuse to
Superintendent to carry out the proposal in the
consent to an application for the payment of
Notice of Proposal to refuse to consent to the
the surplus of the IOF Fieldworkers Pension
payment of any surplus in the Plan to IOF. The
Plan to the employer. The Superintendent pro-
Reasons for Decision dated September 16, 2002,
posed to refuse consent on the basis that she
are published in this bulletin on page 110.

83
Volume 12, Issue 1
Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

Camco Inc. Pension Plan Number 4, Up Report in 1997. The Superintendent issued
Registration Number 0583302 to Camco two Notices of Proposal in 1999 ordering
Inc. Pension Plan Number 7, Registration Consumers Packaging Inc. to accept as members
Number 0583336, FST File Number of the Plan certain replacement call-in employees
P160-2001; and refusing to approve the 1997 Partial Wind
On May 14, 2001, Camco Inc. requested a hear- Up Report on the grounds that the replacement
ing with respect to the Superintendent’s Notice call-in employees were not included in the
of Proposal dated March 30, 2001, to refuse to Report and that “grow-in” to plant closure
consent to a transfer of assets from the Camco benefits was not provided to unionized hourly
Inc. Pension Plan 4, Registration Number employees affected by the partial wind up.
0583302 to the Camco Inc. Pension Plan No. 7, Consumers Packaging Inc. requested a hearing
Registration Number 0583336. before the Financial Services Tribunal with
respect to both Notices of Proposal. The hearing
The basis for the Notice of Proposal was that the
concerning the call-in employees was settled
asset transfer does not protect the pension ben-
by the parties and Consumers Packaging Inc.
efits and other benefits of the former members
accepted as members of the Plan those replace-
of Plan 4 under subsection 81 (5) of the Pension
ment call-in employees who met certain condi-
Benefits Act.
tions. The hearing request regarding the “grow-
A pre-hearing conference was held on in” benefits was withdrawn. Consumers
September 24, 2001. The settlement conference Packaging Inc. was ordered to file an amended
scheduled for December 17, 2001, was resched- Partial Wind Up Report. In addition, in 1997,
uled to February 7, 2002, after which settlement Consumers Packaging filed an application to reg-
discussions continued. On September 10, 2002, ister Amendment # 2 to the Plan which provided
the Tribunal was advised the parties have enhanced bridge benefits to some members.
reached a settlement.
On May 19, 2000, Consumers Packaging filed a
Consumers Packaging Inc., Pension Plan revised Partial Wind Up Report (the “revised
II, Registration Number 0998682, FST File Report”) and a revised application to register
Number P162-2001; Amendment #2 (the “revised Amendment”).
On May 17, 2001, Consumers Packaging Inc. The Superintendent issued the April 20, 2001
requested a hearing with respect to the Notice of Proposal stating reasons that the
Superintendent’s Notice of Proposal dated April revised Amendment is void pursuant to clause
20, 2001, to refuse to approve a Partial Wind Up 14(1)(c) of the Pension Benefits Act, and that the
Report filed by Consumers Packaging Inc. on revised Report does not meet the requirements
May 19, 2000, with respect to a partial wind up of the Pension Benefits Act pursuant to subsec-
of the Consumers Packaging Inc. Pension Plan II, tion 70(5), because the commuted value of
Registration Number 0998682, as at May 7, 1997, the pension benefits and ancillary benefits for
and to refuse to register an amendment to such the affected members is calculated based on
Pension Plan filed by Consumers Packaging Inc. the revised Amendment, which is void under
on May 19, 2000, titled Amendment # 2. the Act. The revised Report does not protect the
The basis for the Notice of Proposal was that interests of the members and former members
Consumers Packaging Inc. filed a Partial Wind of the Plan for the same reason.

84
Volume 12, Issue 1
 Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

The Superior Court of Justice, Commercial List, provide employer request early retirement bene-
issued an Order, dated May 23, 2001, stating fits and related bridge benefits, contemplated by
that any suit, action, enforcement process, each Plan, to all members of the partial wind up
extra-judicial proceeding, regulatory, adminis- group whose age plus years of service equaled
trative or other proceeding against or in respect at least 55 and because the Report failed to pro-
of Consumers Packaging Inc. already com- vide for the distribution of surplus relating to
menced be stayed and suspended until and the partial wind up group.
including June 22, 2001. A further Order was On June 19, 2001, CAW Canada, which repre-
issued on June 18, 2001, extending the stay sented the employees who were members of the
period until August 15, 2001 and again until Westinghouse Hourly Paid Employees Pension
October 1, 2001. On October 1, 2001, a Pension Plan, filed an application for party status in
Assumption Agreement was made. A pre-hear- these proceedings. At a pre-hearing conference
ing conference was held on February 19, 2002. on November 5, 2001, CAW Canada was grant-
A motion brought by Consumers Packaging for ed party status in the proceedings concerning
an order compelling the Superintendent to the Notices of Proposal relating to the Hourly
answer certain interrogatories was heard on Employees Pension Plan and was given limited
April 18, 2002, at which time the motion was rights to participate in the proceedings concern-
dismissed. The hearing was held on July 29 and ing the Notices of Proposal relating to the
31, 2002. The decision is reserved. Salaried Employees Pension Plan. The various
proceedings were directed to be heard together.
CBS Canada Co., Westinghouse Canada
Inc. Pension Plan, Registration Numbers At a continuation of the pre-hearing conference
348409 and 526632, FST File Number held on November 29, 2001, a hearing was
P164-2001; scheduled for February 4-5, 2002 to deal with
several jurisdictional issues to be brought on by
On June 8, 2001, CBS Canada Co., the successor
motion of CBS Canada Co. Those issues included
to Westinghouse Canada Inc., requested hear-
the following:
ings in connection with the Superintendent’s
Notices of Proposal dated May 9 and 15, 2001, 1. whether the Superintendent was entitled to
to refuse to approve various Partial Wind Up rescind the initial approvals that she had
Reports in respect of the Salaried Employees given with respect to several of the Partial
Pension Plan and the Hourly Paid Employees Wind Up Reports, for failure to adhere to
Pension Plan of Westinghouse Canada Inc. The the doctrine of fairness, and for which she
partial wind ups were triggered by the closure subsequently substituted Notices of Proposal
by ABB Canada Inc. of its plants in London, to refuse approval;
Ontario; St. Jean, Quebec; and Burlington, 2. whether the Tribunal could direct the
Ontario, at which it carried on businesses Superintendent to refuse approval of certain
acquired from Westinghouse Canada Inc., and of the Wind Up Reports on the basis of a
by the closure by Westinghouse Canada Inc. of ground that was not specifically recited in
its Motors Division plant in Hamilton, Ontario. the relevant Notices of Proposal;
The basis for each Notice of Proposal was that 3. whether the Tribunal could determine the
the relevant Partial Wind Up Report failed to responsibility for any special benefits

85
Volume 12, Issue 1
Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

payable to the former Westinghouse 2000, for the payment of surplus to the
employees at the facilities that were closed Employer under subsection 78(1) of the Pension
by ABB Inc. as between CBS Canada Co. and Benefits Act from the Samsonite Canadian
ABB Inc.; and Service Related Pension Plan, Registration
4. whether the Tribunal could order that ABB No. 398578.
Inc. be added as a party to the proceedings On November 2, 2001, Samsonite Canada Inc.
against its will. requested a hearing with respect to the
At the hearing on the jurisdictional motion, the Superintendent’s Notice of Proposal dated
Tribunal refused to order that ABB Inc. be added October 11, 2001, to refuse to consent to the
as a party, but otherwise reserved its determina- application of Samsonite Canada Inc. dated
tion of the issues raised by the motion. Reasons November 13, 2000, for the payment of surplus
for Decision on the jurisdictional motion dated to the Employer under subsection 78(1) of the
March 4, 2002, were published in Volume 11, Pension Benefits Act from the Samsonite
Issue 3 of the Pension Bulletin. Canadian Retirement Income Plan, Registration
No. 373225.
The Applicant filed a notice of appeal dated
April 3, 2002, with the Divisional Court of the At the pre-hearing conference held on November
Tribunal’s Order dated March 4, 2002. 9, 2001, the parties requested that these two mat-
ters be joined and heard together. The matters
A settlement conference was held on August
were joined and the hearing was held on June 3,
7-8, 2002. On October 4, 2002, a motion hear-
2002. At the hearing, the Tribunal gave the par-
ing was held with respect to the Applicant’s
ties 30 days to file any additional written submis-
notice of motion dated September 25, 2002,
sions. Final written submissions were filed June
asking for an order that the CAW respond to the
21 and July 2, 2002. In its decision, the Tribunal
Applicant’s interrogatories dated September 25,
affirmed each of the Superintendent’s Notice of
2002. At the motion hearing the parties agreed
Proposals and directed the Superintendent to
that the motion could be dealt with by way of
dismiss the Company’s applications for surplus
a consent order and such an order was subse-
withdrawal. The Reasons for Decision dated
quently issued.
October 21, 2002, are published in this bulletin
The hearing is scheduled for December 2-5 and
on page 126.
10-12, 2002.
Imperial Oil Limited Retirement Plan,
Samsonite Canada Inc. Registration Number 347054, FST File
Samsonite Canadian Service Related Number P0169-2001;
Pension Plan, Registration Number In this matter, the Superintendent alleges that,
398578, FST File Number P0166-2001 and effective April 28, 1995, Imperial Oil Limited
FST File Number P175-2001; (“IOL”) sold its credit card operations to
On July 3, 2001, Samsonite Canada Inc. request- General Electric Capital Canada Inc. (“GE
ed a hearing with respect to the Capital”), at which time 37 individuals, who
Superintendent’s Notice of Proposal dated June had been employed by IOL in that business and
1, 2001, to refuse to consent to the application were members of the IOL Retirement Plan,
of Samsonite Canada Inc., dated November 13, became employees of GE Capital and members

86
Volume 12, Issue 1
 Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

of its Pension Plan, while maintaining their Superintendent’s Notice of Proposal dated July
accrued benefits in the IOL Retirement Plan. 26, 2001, to refuse to consent to the application
On August 3, 2001, the Superintendent issued for payment of surplus to the Employer dated
Notices of Proposal to make Orders requiring: April 1999, pursuant to section 78(1) of the
Pension Benefits Act.
• that the IOL Retirement Plan be wound up in
relation to those members and former mem- An Application for Party Status was filed on
bers of the Plan who ceased to be employed November 20, 2001, by Mr. Blaine Mitton, a
by GE Capital, between March 2000 and July Member of the Plan.
2000, as a result of the closure of its The pre-hearing conference scheduled for
Markham, Ontario credit card facility; and November 28, 2001, was rescheduled to January
• that such members and former members of 10, 2002, at which time Mr. Mitton was granted
the IOL Retirement Plan be given credit for party status. On January 11, 2002, an
both age and service at the time they ceased Application for Party Status was filed by Mr.
to be employed by GE Capital when deter- Edward Holba, a Member of the Plan. The par-
mining their benefits, in accordance with sec- ties consented to Mr. Holba’s Application for
tion 80(1)(c) of the Pension Benefits Act, under Party Status and full party status was granted by
the IOL Retirement Plan. Order dated April 4, 2002. The May 2002 hear-
ing dates were adjourned at the request of the
On August 24, 2001, IOL requested a hearing in
parties for a motion to be brought by the
respect of these Notices of Proposal.
Superintendent concerning expert evidence.
A pre-hearing conference was held on January 9,
The motion was heard on May 22, 2002. The
2002. The evidence phase of the hearing was
hearing is scheduled for November 19, 2002.
held on June 13, 2002 and the submission phase
was held on August 1, 2002. In its decision, the Canadian Tack & Nail Ltd. Pension Plan
Tribunal made orders: for Salaried Employees, Registration
• directing the Superintendent to carry out the
Number 0581306, FST File Number
proposal to order the wind up of the IOL
P0171-2001;
Retirement Plan; and On September 14, 2001, Canadian Tack &
Nail Ltd. requested a hearing regarding the
• directing the Superintendent to refrain from
Superintendent’s Notice of Proposal dated
carrying out the remaining proposal as it
August 14, 2001, to make an Order under sec-
relates to determining benefits under section
tion 87 of the Pension Benefits Act, requiring
4.3 of the IOL Retirement Plan.
the Employer or Administrator of the Plan to
The Reasons for Decision dated October 21, 2002,
remit within 30 days of receiving the Notice of
are published in this bulletin on page 131.
Proposal, outstanding contributions in the
Stanley Canada Inc., Pension Plan for amount of $67,933 as of December 31, 1999,
Designated Employees of Stanley Canada owed to the Pension Fund, together with inter-
Inc., Registration Number 456897, FST est payable under section 24 of Regulation 909
File Number P0170-2001; under the Act.
On August 27, 2001, Stanley Canada Inc. The basis for the Notice of Proposal is that subsec-
requested a hearing with respect to the tion 87(2) of the Act allows the Superintendent to

87
Volume 12, Issue 1
Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

make an order if the Superintendent is of the of the Plan, requested a hearing regarding the
opinion, upon reasonable and probable grounds, Superintendent’s Notice of Proposal dated
that the pension plan or fund is not being October 3, 2001, to refuse to make an Order
administered in accordance with the Act, the under sections 69 and 87 of the Pension Benefits
Regulations or the pension plan or if the employ- Act. The Superintendent proposed:
er, administrator of a pension plan, or any other • to refuse to make an Order that the Plan be
person is contravening a requirement of the Act partially wound up with respect to former
or the Regulations. employees of Proctor & Redfern Limited
At a pre-hearing conference on February 7, whose employment was terminated between
2002, the parties agreed to a settlement confer- and including 1994 and 1998;
ence. At a settlement conference on June 27, • to refuse to make an Order that the former
2002, the parties reached agreement and agreed employees whose employment was terminat-
to adjourn the hearing sine die. Any breach in ed between and including 1994 and 1998, as
the terms of the settlement gives the parties the well as former employees who had their pen-
right to ask that the pre-hearing conference be sion benefits annuitized in 1998 and 1999, be
rescheduled. included in the surplus sharing group;
The Corporation of the City of Kitchener • to refuse to make an Order that those employ-
Pension Plan for Fire Department ees are entitled to share in the surplus distrib-
Employees, Registration Number 239475, ution on an equitable basis, and;
FST File Number P0172-2001; • to refuse to make an Order that Earth Tech
On September 20, 2001, The Corporation of the (Canada) Inc. refund to the Plan any funds
City of Kitchener requested a hearing regarding improperly withdrawn from the Plan to fund
the Superintendent’s Notice of Proposal dated its own legal and actuarial costs.
August 23, 2001, to refuse to consent to the The principal grounds for the proposals in the
application for payment of surplus to the Notice of Proposal were that the requested
employer, pursuant to section 78(1) of the Orders relating to the composition of the partial
Pension Benefits Act, from The City of Kitchener wind up group would expand that group
Pension Plan for Fire Department Employees, beyond those who were properly entitled to
Registration No. 239475. participation in the group and that there was
A pre-hearing conference was held on April 25, no evidence that Earth Tech (Canada) Inc. had
2002, at which time the parties agreed to a set- improperly withdrawn funds from the Plan.
tlement conference. The settlement conference On November 26, 2001, Earth Tech (Canada)
date of July 16, 2002 was rescheduled at the Inc., the successor to Proctor & Redfern Limited,
parties’ request and was held on September 4, applied for party status on the basis that it is the
2002. The matter is adjourned sine die. current administrator of the Plan and has a duty
Pension Plan for Employees of Proctor & to ensure that the Plan is properly wound-up.
Redfern Limited, Registration Number On February 21, 2002, Mr. Guy Boudaud
0289579, FST File Number P0173-2001; applied for party status. Mr. Boudaud was an
On November 5, 2001, certain former employ- employee of Proctor & Redfern Limited and
ees of Proctor & Redfern Limited and members contributed to the Plan.

88
Volume 12, Issue 1
 Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

The pre-hearing conference scheduled for May Ms. Feenan, Ms. Wiese and Ms. Fredricks. Party
1, 2002, was rescheduled to August 26, 2002 status was not granted to Ms. Edmunds.
and was further adjourned on consent to The parties agreed to a settlement conference
October 17, 2002. On October 16, 2002, the which was held on June 4, 2002. The parties
applicants withdrew the request for hearing. also agreed that a preliminary motion will be
Retirement Pension Plan for Employees brought to decide whether or not the Tribunal
of Twin Oak Credit Union Ltd., has the jurisdiction to deal with the proposed
Registration Number 284257, FST File issue of whether or not the employer is enti-
Number P0178-2002; tled to a credit for payments made in lieu of
benefits to part-time employees under collec-
On January 11, 2002, Twin Oak Credit Union
tive agreements during the period January 1,
Ltd. requested a hearing regarding the Super-
1978 to January 1, 1988 and whether the
intendent’s Notice of Proposal dated December
Limitations Act bars this proceeding. The
13, 2001, proposing to make an Order under sec-
Motion scheduled for November 6, 2002, did
tion 87 of the Pension Benefits Act, with respect to
not proceed at the request of the parties as set-
Carol Joseph and any other part-time employee
tlement discussions are ongoing. The hearing
eligible for membership in the Plan. The Super-
is scheduled for February 24, 26-28, 2003 and
intendent has proposed that the administrator of
March 26-28, 2003.
the Plan pay to Ms. Joseph her pension benefit
determined on the basis that Ms. Joseph was Marcel Brousseau, Electrical Industry
eligible for membership and should have been of Ottawa Pension Plan, Registration
enrolled in the Plan effective January 1, 1978. Number 0586396, FST File Number
The Superintendent also proposed to order the P0183-2002;
administrator to provide, to any other part-time On February 20, 2002, Marcel Brousseau, a
employee who was eligible to participate in the member of the Plan, requested a hearing regard-
Plan, the monthly pension benefit determined ing the Superintendent’s Notice of Proposal
on the basis that the part time employee was dated January 22, 2002, to refuse to make an
eligible for membership and should have been Order in respect of the Plan Administrator’s
enrolled in the Plan effective January 1, 1978 or determination pursuant to section 87 of the
later if employed at a later date. The Superin- Pension Benefits Act, of Mr. Brousseau’s pension-
tendent also proposed that any lump sum owing able service under the terms of the Plan.
to Ms. Joseph or any other eligible part-time
A pre-hearing conference was held on August
employee representing retroactive payments
27, 2002. At the pre-hearing conference, the
shall also be credited with interest payable pur-
Superintendent raised a jurisdictional issue. The
suant to subsection 21(11) of Regulation 909
parties agreed that the issue on the motion will
made under the Act. Applications for Party Status
be, “Given the November 19, 2001 decision of
were filed by Carol Lynne Joseph, Mary Lynn
the Superior Court of Justice in Court File No.
Feenan, Sharon Wiese, Donna Fredricks and
01-CV-18268, does the Tribunal have jurisdic-
Wendy Edmunds.
tion to proceed in the circumstances of this
At the pre-hearing conference on April 24, 2002, case?”. The motion is scheduled to be heard on
full party status was granted to Ms. Joseph, November 29, 2002.

89
Volume 12, Issue 1
Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

Molson Canada, Molson Breweries sent, pending settlement discussions between

Pension Plan for Operating Engineers, the parties.
Registration Number 0390666; Molson Bauer Nike Hockey Inc. Pension Plan for
Canada Pension Plan for Hourly Employees of Bauer Nike Hockey Inc.,
Employees in Ontario and Atlantic Registration Number 257337, FST File
Canada, Registration Number 0334094; Number P0189-2002;
and Molson Canada Pension Plan for
On April 3, 2002, Bauer Nike Hockey Inc.,
Salaried Employees, Registration Number
requested a hearing regarding the
0334086, FST File Number P0187-2002;
Superintendent’s Notice of Proposal dated
On June 7, 2002, Molson Canada requested a March 8, 2002, to refuse to approve the actuari-
hearing regarding the five Notices of Proposal al report prepared on December 23, 1998, in
issued by the Superintendent each dated May 5, respect of the partial wind up as at November 1,
2002, proposing to make Orders that the vari- 1998, submitted by Bauer Nike Hockey Inc., to
ous Molson Canada Pension Plans be wound the Superintendent under sections 70(5) and
up in part. 89(4) of the Pension Benefits Act, relating to the
The pre-hearing conference scheduled for Pension Plan for Employees of Bauer Nike
October 28, 2002, was adjourned sine die on Hockey Inc., Registration Number 257337.
consent of the parties. At the pre-hearing conference on October 28,
Donna Marie Sloan, Ontario Teachers’ 2002, the matter was adjourned sine die pending
Pension Plan, Registration Number the outcome of the Monsanto case.
0345785, FST File Number P0188-2002; Kerry (Canada) Inc., Pension Plan for
A survivor pre-retirement death benefit that was the Employees of Kerry (Canada) Inc.,
being paid to Donna Marie Sloan under the Plan Registration Number 238915, FST File
was discontinued when the Ontario Pension Number P0191-2002;
Plan Board, the Administrator of the Plan, con- On May 22, 2002, Kerry (Canada) Inc., request-
cluded that she was living separate and apart ed a hearing regarding the Superintendent’s
from her husband, the Plan member, at the time Notice of Proposal dated April 22, 2002, propos-
of his death, thereby disqualifying her from ing to make an order that Kerry (Canada) Inc.:
receiving the benefit. On March 4, 2002, the
• reimburse the pension fund (the “Fund”) of
Superintendent issued a Notice of Proposal
the Plan for all amounts paid out of the Fund
refusing to make an order, pursuant to section
from January 1, 1985 for expenses that were
87 of the Pension Benefits Act, requiring the
not incurred for the exclusive benefit of the
Administrator to take action in respect of the
members and retired members of the Plan;
Plan by reinstating the death benefit. On April
2, 2002, Donna Marie Sloan requested a hearing. • reimburse the Fund for all income that would
On April 23, 2002, the Ontario Teachers’ have been earned by the Fund if those
Pension Plan Board filed an Application for expenses had not been paid from the Fund;
Party Status. and
The pre-hearing conference scheduled for • amend the Plan and the trust (the “Trust”) in
August 20, 2002 was adjourned sine die on con- respect of the Fund so that the provisions of

90
Volume 12, Issue 1
 Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

the Plan and the Trust relating to the deduc- On June 5, 2002, an application for party status
tion of expenses from the Fund are consis- was filed by Kerry (Canada) Inc.
tent with the 1954 versions of the Plan and At the pre-hearing conference on October 15,
the Trust. 2002, full party status was granted to Kerry
On June 10, 2002, an application for party sta- (Canada) Inc. The pre-hearing conference was
tus was filed by William Fitz on behalf of the adjourned to allow the parties to bring certain
DCA Employees Pension Committee. motions with respect to disclosure. The motion
At the pre-hearing conference on October 15, hearing is scheduled for December 6, 2002.
2002, full party status was granted to the indi- Plumbers Local 463 Pension Plan,
viduals comprising the DCA Employees Pension Registration Number 0598532, FST File
Committee, representing the members and Number P0190-2002;
retired members of the Plan. The pre-hearing
On May 16, 2002, the Board of Trustees of the
conference was adjourned to allow the parties
Plumbers Local 463 Pension Plan Trust Fund
to bring certain motions with respect to disclo-
(the “Board of Trustees”), requested a hearing
sure. The motion hearing is scheduled for
regarding an Order, dated April 11, 2002, of the
December 6, 2002.
Deputy Superintendent, Pensions, made under
DCA Employees Pension Committee subsection 106(13) of the Pension Benefits Act.
and William Fitz, Pension Plan for the In his Order, the Deputy Superintendent
Employees of Kerry (Canada) Inc., ordered that the Board of Trustees pay the cost
Registration Number 238915, FST File of an examination, investigation or inquiry in
Number P0192-2002; respect of the Plan and pension fund for the
On May 27, 2002, William Fitz on behalf of the Plan; and the cost of any opinion, report or pro-
DCA Employees Pension Committee, requested fessional attestation prepared following the
a hearing regarding the Superintendent’s Notice examination, investigation or inquiry.
of Proposal, dated April 22, 2002, proposing to At the pre-hearing conference on October 7,
refuse to make an Order that: 2002, the parties requested a settlement confer-
• the Plan be wound up, effective December ence. At the settlement conference on November
31, 1994; 14, 2002, the parties settled the matter.
• Kerry (Canada) Inc. pay to the pension fund Robert Kerschbaumer
(the “Fund”) of the Plan all employer con- (AFG Industries Ltd. Salaried Pension
tributions for which a contribution holiday Plan, Registration Number 1070853),
was taken since January 1, 1985, together FST File Number P0197-2002;
with income that would have been earned
On September 4, 2002, Robert Kerschbaumer,
by the Fund if those contributions had been
requested a hearing regarding the Deputy
made; and
Superintendent, Pensions, Notice of Proposal
• registration of the Revised and Restated Plan dated August 2, 2002, to make an Order under
Text dated January 1, 2000, and all amend- subsection 78(1) of the Pension Benefits Act, con-
ments to the Plan included therein, be refused. senting to a payment out of AFG Industries Ltd.,
Salaried Pension Plan, Registration Number
1070853.
91
Volume 12, Issue 1
Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

The pre-hearing conference date is scheduled

for February 10, 2003.
Alan Bishop
(Contributory Pension Plan for Salaried
Employees of McMaster University
Including McMaster Divinity College
2000, Registration Number 1079920),
FST File Number P0198-2002;
On October 23, 2002, Alan Bishop, requested a
hearing regarding the Deputy Superintendent,
Pensions, Amended Notice of Proposal dated
September 27, 2002, to make an Order under
subsection 78(1) of the Pension Benefits Act, con-
senting to a payment out of the Contributory
Pension Plan for Salaried Employees of
McMaster University Including McMaster
Divinity College 2000, Registration Number
1079920.
The pre-hearing conference date is pending.
Slater Steel Inc. Pension Plan for
Corporate Employees and Salaried
Employees of the Hamilton Specialty Bar
Division, Registration Number 308338,
FST File Number P0203-2002
On October 31, 2002, Slater Steel Inc., requested
a hearing regarding the Deputy Superintendent,
Pensions, Notice of Proposal dated September
27, 2002, to make an Order under section
69(1)(d) of the Pension Benefits Act, that the Plan
be wound up in part in relation to those mem-
bers and former members of the Plan who
ceased to be employed by Slater Steel Inc. effec-
tive from March 13, 1998 to January 26, 2000 as
a result of the reorganization of the business of
Slater Steel.
The pre-hearing conference date is pending.

92
Volume 12, Issue 1
 Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

The following cases are Adjourned sine die

• Revised Retirement Plan for Employees • Eaton Yale Limited Pension Plan for
of the Allen-Bradley Division of Salaried Employees of Cutler-Hammer
Rockwell International of Canada Canada Operations, Registration
(now the Pension Plan for Employees Number 440396, FST File Number
of Rockwell Automation Canada Inc.), P0117-2000; At the request of the parties,
Registration Number 321554 and this matter was adjourned sine die pending
the Pension Plan for Salaried and the outcome of the Monsanto case.
Management Employees of Reliance • Cooper Industries (Canada) Inc.,
Electric Limited, Registration Number Registration Number 0240622, FST File
292946, FST File Number P0051-1999; Number P156-2001; The pre-hearing con-
At a pre-hearing conference on July 6, 1999, ference for May 27, 2002 was adjourned to a
the matter was adjourned sine die. date to be set at the request of the parties,
• The Retirement Plan for Salaried pending the outcome of the Monsanto case.
Employees (Consumers Foods) of • Pension Plan for the Employees of
General Mills Canada, Inc., Registration Dyment Limited, Registration Number
Number 342042, FST File Number 0242735, FST File Number P0157-2001;
P0058-1999; Matter continues to be The April 15 and 16, 2002 hearing dates were
adjourned sine die pending the outcome of adjourned at the parties’ request so that set-
the Monsanto case. tlement discussions may continue.
• Gerald Menard (Public Service Pension • Crown Cork & Seal Canada Inc.
Plan, Registration Number 208777 and Registration Numbers 474205, 595371
the Ontario Municipal Employees’ & 338491, FST File Number P0165-2001;
Retirement System “OMERS”, The parties agreed to adjourn this matter sine
Registration Number 345983), FST File die pending discussions between the parties.
Number P0071-1999; Matter adjourned
• James MacKinnon (Labourers’ Pension
sine die at a pre-hearing conference on
Fund of Central and Eastern Canada),
February 21, 2000.
Registration Number 573188, FST File
• Consumers’ Gas Ltd., Registration Number P0167-2001; On July 10, 2002, the
Number 242016, FST File Number P0076- hearing dates were adjourned sine die on con-
1999; At the pre-hearing conference on June sent of the parties.
27, 2000, the matter was adjourned sine die
pending the outcome of the Monsanto case.
• Schering-Plough Healthcare Products
Canada Inc. Salaried Employees’
Pension Plan, Registration Number
297903, FST File Number P0085-1999;
Matter was adjourned sine die pending the
outcome of the Monsanto case.

93
Volume 12, Issue 1
Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

Financial Hardship
Application to the Superintendent of Financial Services for Consent to Withdraw Money from a
Locked-in Retirement Account, Life Income Fund or Locked-in Retirement Income Fund based on
Financial Hardship.

FST File Number Superintendent of Financial Services’

Notice of Proposal Comments
U0193-2002 To Refuse to Consent, Reasons for Decision,
dated June 24, 2002 dated August 29, 2002
U0194-2002 To Refuse to Consent, Reasons for Decision,
dated July 8, 2002 dated August 29, 2002
U0196-2002 To Refuse to Consent, Withdrawn,
dated June 26, 2002 September 26, 2002
U0200-2002 To Refuse to Consent, Written Submissions
dated September 23, 2002 Being Exchanged
U0202-2002 To Refuse to Consent Written Submissions
dated October 7, 2002 Being exchanged

Decisions to be Published
LECO
Imperial Oil (1)
Imperial Oil (2)
Independent Order of Foresters
Samsonite Canada Inc.
U0193-2002 Reasons
U0194-2002 Reasons

94
Volume 12, Issue 1
 Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

Financial Services Tribunal Decisions with Reasons

INDEX NO.: FST File Number LECO

PLAN: Revised Pension Plan of Leco Inc.,

Registration Number 272849

DATE OF DECISION: June 17, 2002

PUBLISHED: Bulletin 12/1 and FSCO website

(Note: Only FST decisions pertaining to pensions are THE DECISION, BACKGROUND
included in this section.) AND REASONS
(Note: In this section, “Commission” refers to the THE DECISION
Financial Services Commission of Ontario.)
At its meeting of May 31, 2002, the Pension
IN THE MATTER OF the Pension Benefits Act, Commission of Ontario (the “PCO”) considered
R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8 and Regulation 909, R.R.O. an application by McColl-Frontenac Petroleum
1990; Inc. (the “Company”) for an amended consent
AND IN THE MATTER OF an application by pursuant to subsection 78(1) of the Pension
McColl-Frontenac Petroleum Inc. for an amend- Benefits Act, R.S.O. 1990 c.P.8 (the “Act”) and
ed consent of the Pension Commission of section 8(2) of Regulation 909, R.R.O. 1990, as
Ontario to payment of an amended amount of amended (the “Regulation”), to a payment of
surplus from the Revised Pension Plan of Leco surplus to the Company. The payment request-
Inc., Registration Number 272849 (the “Plan”); ed represents the surplus assets attributable to
AND IN THE MATTER OF a Hearing held by the Ontario portion of the Plan, based on a
the Pension Commission of Ontario; statement prepared by the Company’s actuary.
On May 31, 2002, the PCO consented, pursuant
BEFORE:
to subsection 78(1) of the Act and subsection
C.S. (Kit) Moore
8(2) of the Regulation, to a payment of surplus
Chair
to the Company, in the amended amount of
Don Collins $637,581.54 as at December 31, 2000, plus invest-
Member ment earnings thereon to the date of payment.
Judith Robinson The background and reasons for this decision
Member are set out below.
Joyce Stephenson
BACKGROUND
Member
At an earlier meeting held June 26, 1997, the
David Wires
PCO had approved the Company’s original
Member
application for payment of 100% of the Plan’s
HEARING DATE: surplus assets, in accordance with the procedur-
May 31, 2002 al framework in the Ontario Act and pursuant to
its powers as the “major authority” under the
HELD AT:
terms of the Memorandum of Reciprocal
Toronto, Ontario
Agreement entered into in 1968 by the PCO,
95
Volume 12, Issue 1
Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

the Régie des rentes du Québec (the “Régie”) REASONS

and other provincial pension authorities (the The Court’s quashing of the PCO’s decision of
“Reciprocal Agreement”). June 26, 1997, and the Court’s direction to the
The Plan included members with employment PCO, was only insofar as the decision affected
in Ontario and Québec, but the majority of Québec Plan members. We have not revisited
active members reported to work in Ontario. that decision as it related to Ontario Plan mem-
Therefore, under the terms of the Reciprocal bers, nor did we require further notice to be
Agreement, the Plan was registered solely with served on those members, as they had been
the PCO which, as the major authority under given notice of the Company’s original applica-
the terms of the Reciprocal Agreement, had tion for refund of surplus assets. Also, as the
authority to make all decisions in relation to Régie has exempted itself from the operation of
the Plan. the Reciprocal Agreement with respect to the
The Régie brought an application in the Plan, we no longer have authority to make deci-
Superior Court of Justice Divisional Court (the sions regarding the Québec portion of the Plan.
“Court”) for judicial review of the PCO deci- As a result, in reconsidering this matter, we
sion. In August of 2000, the Court quashed the directed our attention to the split of surplus
PCO’s decision insofar as it affected Québec assets between the Québec and Ontario portions
members, remitted the matter to the PCO for of the Plan.
reconsideration, and directed the PCO to pro- The Company’s actuary provided a letter dated
vide written reasons for any further decision. March 16, 2001, which included the following
On or about November 26, 1997, the Régie statement:
exempted itself from the operation of the Proportionately 64.74% of the value of the
Reciprocal Agreement in relation to the Plan. As benefit entitlements are attributable to
a result, the PCO no longer has authority to Quebec members or beneficiaries. This letter
make decisions about the Plan’s surplus relating can be used as the basis for
to Québec members, as the source of that apportioning the final Plan surplus to the Plan
authority was the Reciprocal Agreement. liabilities of Quebec members and beneficiaries.
In December of 2000, the PCO directed the The Régie subsequently notified the Company,
Company to prepare a new report and amended in a letter dated August 3, 2001, that the Régie
application to the PCO. The Company’s actuary would agree to supervise the windup process for
prepared and submitted an actuarial statement Québec members in accordance with the con-
identifying the liabilities and surplus assets tents of that letter. In a letter dated September
relating to the Québec members, for use in the 5, 2001, to the PCO, the Régie indicated they
PCO’s reconsideration of this matter. were satisfied with the proposed attribution, as
set out in the actuary’s March 16th letter. We are
satisfied with this proposal for apportioning the
Plan surplus, which will result in an attribution
of 35.26% of Plan surplus, or $637,581.54 as at
December 31, 2000, to the Ontario portion of
the Plan.

96
Volume 12, Issue 1
 Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

In making our decision, we noted that the inter-

ested parties or their representatives have been
informed that this hearing would be held, and
have been sent a copy of the PCO staff report
dated April 8, 2002, prepared by Ms. Lynda Ellis.
We are not aware of any objections raised to the
Company’s application for our amended consent.
In addition, all pension benefits for Ontario
members, former members and other beneficia-
ries of the Plan have been paid. The application
satisfies all other appropriate requirements of
the Act and Regulation and the PCO’s published
policies in respect of such applications.
For these reasons, we give our amended consent
to a payment of surplus to McColl-Frontenac
Petroleum Inc., in the amended amount of
$637,581.54 as at December 31, 2000, plus invest-
ment earnings thereon to the date of payment.
DATED at Toronto this 17th day of June, 2002.
C.S. (Kit) Moore
Chair
Judith Robinson
Member
Don Collins
Member
David Wires
Member
Joyce Stephenson
Member

97
Volume 12, Issue 1
Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

INDEX NO.: FST File Number U0193-2002

DATE OF DECISION: August 29, 2002

PUBLISHED: Bulletin 12/1 and FSCO website

(Note: Only FST decisions pertaining to pensions are the Superintendent is satisfied as to the exis-
included in this section.) tence of such circumstances of financial
(Note: In this section, “Commission” refers to the hardship as may be prescribed.
Financial Services Commission of Ontario.) 2. The Superintendent’s ground for denial was
IN THE MATTER OF the Pension Benefits Act, that the low income circumstance of finan-
R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8, as amended (the “Act”); cial hardship prescribed by s. 87(1)7 of
Regulation 909, R.R.O. 1990, as amended
AND IN THE MATTER OF a Notice of
(the “Regulation”) is not satisfied. The issue
Proposal to Refuse to Consent by the
to be determined by the Tribunal is whether
Superintendent of Financial Services (the
or not the Superintendent should have con-
“Superintendent”), dated June 24, 2002, with
sented to the application.
respect to an application for withdrawal of
money from a life income fund, locked-in 3. This application included information pro-
retirement account, or a locked-in retirement vided by the Applicant in Part 2A —
income fund (a “locked-in account”) based on Withdrawal Based on Low Income. An
financial hardship; application submitted on this basis is sub-
ject to the circumstances of financial hard-
AND IN THE MATTER OF a Hearing under
ship set out in paragraph 7 of subsection
subsection 89(8) of the Act;
87(1) of the Regulation as follows:
REASONS 87.-(1) The following circumstances of
financial hardship are prescribed for the
1. The Applicant in this matter requested a
purposes of subsection 67(5) of the Act:
hearing in respect of the Superintendent’s
Notice of Proposal to Refuse to Consent 7. The owner’s expected total income from
dated June 24, 2002, that denied the all sources before taxes for the 12-month
Applicant access to funds associated with period following the date of signing the
his Life Income Fund (the “locked-in application is 66 2⁄3 per cent or less of the
account”). The Applicant had applied to Year’s Maximum Pensionable Earnings
withdraw these funds, pursuant to subsec- [“YMPE”] for the year in which the applica-
tion 67(5) of the Act, which reads as follows: tion is signed.
67.-(5) Despite subsections 1 and 2, upon 4. This application was signed in the year
application, the Superintendent may con- 2002, for which the Canada Pension Plan’s
sent to the commutation or surrender, in YMPE was $39,100, in which case 66 2⁄3 per
whole or in part, of a prescribed retirement cent of the YMPE would be $26,066.67. The
savings arrangement of a type that is pre- Applicant has stated that his expected total
scribed for the purposes of this subsection if income from all sources before taxes for the

98
Volume 12, Issue 1
 Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

12-month period following the date of sign-

ing the application is $30,365.00, which
exceeds $26,066.67. In this case, the low
income circumstances of paragraph 87(1)7
of the Regulation are not satisfied, with the
result that the application does not meet the
requirements of subsection 67(5) of the Act.
5. The Applicant has requested that an excep-
tion be made in this case, given the circum-
stances of his indebtedness and the amount
of funds in his locked-in account. As noted
in the Superintendent’s submission, this
Tribunal does not have authority to direct
the Superintendent to allow an application
for withdrawal from a locked-in account
that does not meet the requirements of the
Regulation. In the circumstances, the
Tribunal must affirm the Superintendent’s
Notice dated June 24, 2002, in respect of
this application.

ORDER
The Superintendent’s Notice of Proposal
to Refuse to Consent, dated June 24,
2002, is affirmed and this application is
dismissed.
DATED at Toronto, this 29th day of August,
2002.
Mr. C.S. Moore
Member, Financial Services Tribunal

99
Volume 12, Issue 1
Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

INDEX NO.: FST File Number U0194-2002

DATE OF DECISION: August 29, 2002

PUBLISHED: Bulletin 12/1 and FSCO website

(Note: Only FST decisions pertaining to pensions are the Superintendent is satisfied as to the exis-
included in this section.) tence of such circumstances of financial
(Note: In this section, “Commission” refers to the hardship as may be prescribed.
Financial Services Commission of Ontario.) 2. The Superintendent’s ground for denial was
IN THE MATTER OF the Pension Benefits Act, that this application (the “Current
R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8, as amended (the “Act”); Application”), which was made on the basis
of low income, was made within 12 months
AND IN THE MATTER OF a Notice of
after the date of another successful applica-
Proposal to Refuse to Consent by the
tion (the “Previous Application”) made on
Superintendent of Financial Services (the
the basis of low income, contrary to the
“Superintendent”), dated July 8, 2002, with
conditions imposed by subsections 89(4)
respect to an application for withdrawal of
and 89(5) of Ontario Regulation 909 as
money from a life income fund, locked-in
amended (the “Regulation”), as follows:
retirement account, or a locked-in retirement
income fund (a “locked-in account”) based on 89.–(4) Only one application may be made
financial hardship; during each 12-month period.
AND IN THE MATTER OF a Hearing under (5) An unsuccessful application is not
subsection 89(8) of the Act; counted for the purposes of subsection (4).
3. The issue to be determined by the Tribunal
REASONS is whether or not the Superintendent should
1. The Applicant in this matter requested a have consented to the Current Application.
hearing in respect of the Superintendent’s 4. The Previous Application was signed by the
Notice of Proposal to Refuse to Consent, Applicant on December 18, 2001. On
dated July 8, 2002, that denied the January 2, 2002, the Superintendent con-
Applicant access to funds associated with a sented to withdrawal of funds from the
locked-in account. The Applicant had Applicant’s locked-in account, on the basis
applied to withdraw these funds, pursuant of the Applicant’s low income. Therefore,
to subsection 67(5) of the Act, which reads the Previous Application was a successful
as follows: application.
67.–(5) Despite subsections 1 and 2, upon 5. On June 12, 2002, the Applicant signed the
application, the Superintendent may con- Current Application, in which she applied
sent to the commutation or surrender, in to withdraw additional funds from her
whole or in part, of a prescribed retirement locked-in account on the basis of low
savings arrangement of a type that is pre- income. As this application was made with-
scribed for the purposes of this subsection if in 12 months after the successful Previous

100
Volume 12, Issue 1
 Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

Application, which was made on the basis of

low income, the Current Application does
not meet the conditions set out in subsec-
tions 89(4) and 89(5) of the Regulation.
6. Although the Applicant’s written submis-
sion provides compelling evidence of her
financial hardship, this Tribunal does not
have the authority to direct the Superin-
tendent to allow an application that
does not meet the requirements of the
Regulation. Once 12 months have passed
since the date of the successful Previous
Application, a further application for with-
drawal of locked-in funds may be submitted
for consideration by the Superintendent, if
the circumstances of the Applicant are such
that she wishes to do so.
7. In the circumstances, the Tribunal must
affirm the Superintendent’s Notice dated
July 8, 2002, in respect of the Current
Application.

ORDER
The Superintendent is hereby directed
to carry out the proposal contained in
the Notice of Proposal to Refuse to
Consent, dated July 8, 2002, directed to
the Applicant.
DATED at Toronto, this 29th day of August, 2002.
Mr. C. S. Moore
Member, Financial Services Tribunal

101
Volume 12, Issue 1
Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

INDEX NO.: FST File Number P0130-2000

PLAN: Imperial Oil Limited Retirement Plan (1988),

Registration Number 347054 (the “IOL Plan”) and the
Imperial Oil Limited Retirement Plan for Former
Employees of McColl-Frontenac,
Registration Number 344002 (the “MFI Plan”)

DATE OF DECISION: September 11, 2002

PUBLISHED: Bulletin 12/1 and FSCO website

(Note: Only FST decisions pertaining to pensions are Mr. Louis Erlichman
included in this section.) Member of the Tribunal and of the Panel
(Note: In this section, “Commission” refers to the Mr. William M. Forbes
Financial Services Commission of Ontario.) Member of the Tribunal and of the Panel
IN THE MATTER OF the Pension Benefits Act, APPEARANCES:
R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8, as amended (the “Act”);
For Imperial Oil Limited:
AND IN THE MATTER OF partial wind up Ms. Lindsay P. Hill
reports submitted by Imperial Oil Limited to
For the Superintendent of
the Superintendent of Financial Services
Financial Services:
respecting the Imperial Oil Limited Retirement
Ms. Deborah McPhail
Plan (1988), Registration Number 347054 (the
“IOL Plan”) and the Imperial Oil Limited HEARING DATE:
Retirement Plan for Former Employees of July 24, 2002
McColl-Frontenac, Registration Number 344002
(the “MFI Plan”); REASONS FOR ORDER
AND IN THE MATTER OF a Hearing in accor- The Background
dance with subsection 89(8) of the Act; This proceeding was initiated by the Applicant,
BETWEEN: Imperial Oil Limited, by filing a Notice of
Request for Hearing with the Tribunal. The
IMPERIAL OIL LIMITED
Request calls into question a Notice of
Applicant
Proposal by the Superintendent of Financial
-and-
Services (the “Superintendent”), dated October
SUPERINTENDENT OF FINANCIAL
3, 2000, to refuse to approve partial wind up
SERVICES
reports filed by the Applicant in connection
Respondent
with the partial wind up of two of its pension
BEFORE: plans, namely its IOL Plan and its MFI Plan
Mr. Colin H.H. McNairn (the “Plans”). Those wind ups had been
Vice Chair of the Tribunal and Chair of the Panel ordered by the Superintendent because of
the reorganization of the Applicant and the

102
Volume 12, Issue 1
 Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

closure of one its refineries. The Plans were to ported by written reasons of the Tribunal (see
be wound up in relation to those members and the Pension Bulletin, vol. 11, issue 1 (Jan., 2002),
former members of the Plans who ceased to be at pp. 155-160).
employed by the Applicant, as a result of these Following the order, the Superintendent provid-
actions, during the period beginning February ed responses to the interrogatories and requests
4, 1992 and ending on the later of June 30, for production by letters to counsel for the
1995 and the date the last member employed Applicant dated October 23, 2001 and
at the refinery ceased employment (the “Partial November 15, 2001, but the Applicant has
Wind Up Period”). We refer to this group of taken the position that the responses are defi-
members and former members as the “Partial cient. Accordingly, by further notice of motion,
Wind Up Group”. dated June 7, 2002, the Applicant moved for an
The stated grounds for the Notice of Proposal order of the Tribunal directing the
include the following; Superintendent to provide further and better
• the reports do not reflect the liabilities associ- answers to certain of its interrogatories and to
ated with all of the members of the Plans produce the documents referred to therein (the
whose employment with the Applicant was “Current Motion”).
terminated during the Partial Wind Up The Issues in the Proceeding
Period; and
For the purposes of both the Initial Motion and
• the reports fail to provide “grow-in benefits,” the Current Motion, the parties agreed that
pursuant to section 74 of the Act, in respect the issues in this proceeding that are relevant
of all members of the Plans affected by the to the motions should be framed and grouped
partial wind ups who earned benefits while as follows:
working in Ontario and whose combination
of age and years of service with the Applicant
Issue 1
is at least 55. (a) Did any members or former members of the
Plans who ceased to be employed by the
By a notice of motion dated June 29, 2001, the
Applicant during the Partial Wind Up Period
Applicant moved for an order of the Tribunal
as set out in the Notice of Proposal cease to
directing the Superintendent to answer certain
be employed as a result of the reorganiza-
interrogatories that it had posed and to produce
tion or discontinuance of all or part of the
the documents requested with those interroga-
Applicant’s business, if their circumstances
tories (the “Initial Motion”). That motion was
fell within one of the following:
heard on July 25, 2001. The Tribunal disposed
of the Initial Motion by order, dated September (i.) employees whose fixed term contract
10, 2001, directing the Superintendent to of employment was complete by its
respond to the interrogatories and requests terms (e.g. summer students, co-op
for production within six weeks of the order, students, and employees hired on a
subject only to the qualification that the contract basis for a specified period
Superintendent need not produce any docu- of time);
ments or reveal any communications to which (ii.) employees who became disabled and
the law of privilege applies. That order was sup- received disability benefits;

103
Volume 12, Issue 1
Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

(iii.) employees who allegedly voluntarily bers whose employment ceased in Ontario
resigned; or Nova Scotia?
(iv.) employees who were transferred to an (c) If the answer to issue (a.) is “yes”, do the
affiliated company that did not partic- doctrines of legitimate expectation, abuse
ipate in the Plans; or improper use of discretion or estoppel
(v.) employees who retired under the apply in the circumstances of this case with
terms of the Plans at normal retire- respect to the calculation of “grow-in bene-
ment age; fits” under section 74 of the Act and section
79 of the Pension Benefits Act (Nova Scotia)
(vi.) employees who retired under the dis-
for members who ceased to be employees in
ability retirement provisions of the
the circumstances set out in issue (a.)?
Plans;
There is a third issue that will have to be
(vii.) employees whose employment was
addressed at the main hearing in this proceed-
terminated as a result of death; and
ing, but none of the interrogatories or requests
(viii.) employees whose employment was
for production relate to that issue.
allegedly terminated for cause.
(b) Do the doctrines of legitimate expectation,
The Interrogatories and Requests
abuse or improper exercise of discretion or
for Production
estoppel apply in the circumstances of this Re: Issue 1
case with respect to the issue of which mem- The first set of interrogatories and requests for
bers or former members must be included in production to which the Applicant continues to
the Partial Wind Up Group? insist on responses or more complete responses
Issue 2 can be summarized as follows:
(a) Does the Act require the “grow-in benefits” • how many partial plan wind ups were
under section 74 be granted to members ordered by the Superintendent during the
and former members of the Partial Wind Up period January, 1988 to October, 2000 (the
Group who were employed in a province “sample period”) pursuant to,
other than Ontario or Nova Scotia on the • paragraph 69(1)(d) of the Act (significant
date that their employment ceased, in rela- number of members of a plan ceasing to be
tion to any prior periods of employment employed as a result of discontinuance or
with the Applicant in Ontario or Nova reorganization of business),
Scotia? If so, on what basis should such ben- • paragraph 69(1)(e) of the Act (discontinu-
efits be calculated? ance of a significant portion of the busi-
(b) If the answer to issue (a.) is “yes”, can peri- ness at a specific location)?
ods of employment in provinces other • how many situations were there in respect of
than Ontario or Nova Scotia be excluded such wind ups (ordered under each of the
when calculating the “grow-in benefits” noted paragraphs of the Act) where employ-
under section 74 of the Act and section 79 ees were terminated during the Partial Wind
of the Pension Benefits Act (Nova Scotia) Up Period for the following reasons:
payable to all members and former mem-

104
Volume 12, Issue 1
 Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

• the expiry of a fixed term contract of non-Nova Scotia service from their calcula-
employment; tion of “grow-in benefits”?
• disability; • how many of the partial wind up reports,
• voluntary resignation; filed with the Superintendent during the
sample period, included in the partial wind
• transfer to an affiliated company that did
up group employees who were employed in
not participate in the Plans;
Ontario or Nova Scotia when their employ-
• retirement at normal retirement age under
ment ceased but were employed elsewhere
the terms of the Plans;
during some period of their employment,
• death; and how many of these reports did not provide
• cause for dismissal? for “grow-in benefits” to such employees in
• how many wind up reports (in respect of respect of their non-Ontario and non-Nova
wind ups ordered under each of the noted Scotia service, and how many of these reports
paragraphs of the Act) included employees were approved and how many refused
in any such category in the partial wind approval (giving the name and date of the
up group? plans in respect of which there was a refusal)?
• did the Superintendent refuse to approve any • provide copies of all memoranda, meeting
partial wind up reports (in respect of wind notes and other documents prepared by the
ups ordered under each of the noted para- Superintendent and her staff and any prior
graphs of the Act) because the employees in practices regarding the provision of “grow-in
any such category were not included in the benefits” to employees in the circumstances
relevant partial wind up group? described in the first paragraph, including the
reduction of benefits for non-Ontario and
Re: Issue 2 non-Nova Scotia service, and with respect
The second set of interrogatories and requests to the reduction of “grow-in benefits” to
for production to which the Applicant contin- employees in the circumstances described in
ues to insist on responses or more complete the second paragraph.
responses can be summarized as follows;
The Purpose
• how many of the partial wind up reports filed
On the Initial Motion, the Applicant main-
with the Superintendent during the sample
tained that the responses to the interrogatories
period provided, and how many did not pro-
and the requests for production were relevant to
vide, for “grow-in benefits” for employees
the present case in the determination, particu-
who were employed in Ontario or Nova
larly, of issues 1(b) and 2(c) referred to above.
Scotia at some time but were employed else-
Among other things, they might reveal whether
where at the time their employment ceased
there was a practice on the part of the
and how many of the reports providing, and
Superintendent,
of the reports failing to provide, such benefits
were approved and how many refused • to permit the exclusion of any of the cate-
approval (giving the name and date of the gories of plan members described in issue 1(a)
plans in respect of which there was a refusal) from partial wind up groups,
and how many eliminated non-Ontario and

105
Volume 12, Issue 1
Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

• to treat final employment by a plan sponsor database of the Pension Plans Branch only
in Ontario or Nova Scotia, rather than reached back to the end of 1992 so that the fig-
employment by that plan sponsor at some ure of 1047 partial wind up cases included a
time in Ontario or Nova Scotia, as the criteri- “best guess” for that part of the sample period
on for inclusion in partial wind up groups, or that preceded the electronic database.
• to reduce “grow-in benefits” on account of To break down the partial wind up cases in
service outside Ontario or Nova Scotia. order to determine those that are relevant to the
The sample period of January, 1988 to October, interrogatories and to uncover any evidence of
2000, to which a number of the interrogatories the Superintendent’s practices that the
relate, was apparently chosen by the Applicant Applicant was after, it appears that all of the
on the basis that “grow-in benefits” on a wind estimated 1047 files would have to be exam-
up were first added to the Act at the beginning ined. Given the size of the files, ranging
of the period and the Notice of Proposal in this between a minimum of 75 pages and a maxi-
matter was issued at the end of the period. mum of several bankers’ boxes, Ms. Ellis esti-
mated that it would take an experienced and
Analysis trained employee of the Pension Plans Branch
The Superintendent filed an affidavit of Ms. approximately 13 weeks (523 hours) to 26
Lynda Ellis, Manager, Technical Consulting of weeks (1047 hours) of work to go through the
the Pension Plans Branch of the Financial files. She also noted that approximately 40% of
Services Commission of Ontario, in response to the files were stored offsite in various locations
the Current Motion, on which she was subject and that, for this and other reasons, it would
to cross-examination by the Applicant. In her take about three weeks to assemble the files
affidavit, Ms. Ellis attests to the fact that, fol- for review.
lowing the Tribunal’s decision on the Initial
Of course, the Superintendent should have
Motion, she went through the records of the
obtained all of the information that is now dis-
Pension Plans Branch to determine how many
closed by Ms. Ellis’ affidavit before the hearing
partial wind ups were processed during the sam-
on the Initial Motion and put it into evidence
ple period and the state of the records with
on that occasion. That was not done and the
respect to those partial wind ups. As a result of
only excuse that was offered at the hearing on
that exercise, she determined that the records
the Current Motion was that the
(which are partly paper and partly electronic)
Superintendent was confident that the Initial
do not differentiate between partial wind ups
Motion would not be successful. Had the infor-
that were ordered by the Superintendent and
mation in the affidavit been available on the
those that were not and do not disclose the
hearing of the Initial Motion, we might have
paragraph of the Act that may have provided
been persuaded to limit the number of files to
the basis for wind ups ordered by the
be reviewed for the purpose of answering the
Superintendent. She estimated that there were
interrogatories and even if we had not imposed
1047 partial wind up cases, including both vol-
such a limit, the interrogatories could have
untary and directed wind ups, that were
been answered by now on the basis of a full
processed during the sample period. On cross-
review of the files on Ms. Ellis’ estimate of the
examination, Ms. Ellis said that the electronic
time that would be involved in that review.

106
Volume 12, Issue 1
 Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

As we indicated in our reasons for decision on produce documents is sufficient and we are not
the Initial Motion, a threefold test is to be prepared to re-open the question of the rele-
applied in determining whether answers to vance of the information that is being sought
interrogatories and the disclosure of documents by the Applicant. In our reasons on the Initial
should be ordered, in particular: Motion, we concluded that the information
• is the information sought arguably relevant sought by the Applicant, through the interroga-
to an issue in the proceeding that is not a tories and requests for production, was arguably
frivolous issue, relevant. However, we are prepared to consider,
albeit it at this late stage of the process, the
• is the information sufficiently particularized
hardship involved in obtaining the information
to facilitate a response, and
sought by the Applicant when set against the
• is the information of a kind that does not
potential value of the information to the
enjoy the benefit of privilege?
Applicant for the purpose for which it may be
As this Tribunal said in its reasons for orders used in this proceeding. While that hardship
made in response to a motion to require the was considered on the Initial Motion, it was on
disclosure of documents and responses to the basis of a general allegation of hardship,
interrogatories in Monsanto Canada Inc, v. without the benefit of any precise evidence of
Superintendent of Financial Services (see Pension that hardship, which has now been brought for-
Bulletin, vol. 8, issue 2 (Sept. 1999), at p. 79), ward through Ms. Ellis’ affidavit.
the Tribunal “should, generally, be prepared to
We note that disclosure need not be “all or noth-
make a disclosure order against a party to a pro-
ing” and should there be particular hardship in
ceeding before it, requiring the production of
producing all the information that is arguably
documents or answers to interrogatories” if the
relevant, a practical solution may be to narrow
above noted test is satisfied (emphasis added).
the scope of the disclosure order (as in First
On the Current Motion, the Superintendent Choice Capital Fund Ltd. v. First Canadian Capital
maintained that there had been substantial dis- Corp., [2000] S.J. No. 574, at p. 5 (Sask. Q.B.)).
closure, particularly in response to the
Having regard to the detailed evidence that we
Applicant’s second set of interrogatories (relat-
have now received, through Ms. Ellis’ affidavit,
ing to issue 2), and that further disclosure was
as to what would likely be involved in respond-
unnecessary to assist the Applicant in its
ing to the interrogatories about partial wind ups
expected arguments at the main hearing in
during the sample period, we think that the
this proceeding, that the information still
Superintendent should be entitled to respond
being sought was irrelevant, and that any lim-
on the basis of a review of one-half of the files
ited value of such information was outweighed
on partial wind up cases that were processed
by the onerous nature of the requests. The
during the period from January 1, 1993, the
Applicant maintained that the Superintendent
approximate date from which the electronic
was, in effect, attempting to re-argue the Initial
database was implemented, to October, 2000.
Motion which, it said, should not be permitted
The files to be reviewed should be selected on
at this stage.
an arbitrary basis — in essence, every second
We do not think that substantial compliance file in the chronological, alphabetical or other
with an order to respond to interrogatories or to neutral order in which the files are recorded on

107
Volume 12, Issue 1
Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

the database so that the files reviewed will be a mentation indicating the approach taken by the
representative sample. If there is any dispute Superintendent on two particular partial wind
between the parties as to the appropriate up cases, provided that the confidentiality of
method of selecting the files for review, the this material is maintained. We think that a
matter may be spoken to before the chair of the reasonable assurance of confidentiality can be
panel that has heard the Current Motion. We secured through an undertaking of confidential-
believe that this modified direction will provide ity by the Applicant. Failing agreement on the
information about the practices of the terms of such an undertaking, the chair of this
Superintendent with a sufficient degree of preci- panel is prepared to entertain a motion for an
sion to enable the Applicant to use the informa- order of confidentiality that is brought forward
tion, depending on what it reveals, for the by either of the parties. Subject to the disclosure
intended purpose. of this additional material, the Superintendent
Given the delays in this proceeding that have appears to have responded to our order on the
already occurred as a result of disputes by the Initial Motion as it relates to the disclosure of
Superintendent over the interrogatories and memoranda, meeting notes and other docu-
productions that are the subject of the Current ments. However, the Applicant is entitled to
Motion, we believe that the time for response to persist in its request for the disclosure of this
any new order that we make on this Motion material so that the Superintendent continues
should not extend beyond six weeks, which was the search for any additional material of this
the time for response to our order on the Initial nature with a view to its disclosure before the
Motion, even though this may impose some deadline for responding to interrogatories and
hardship on the Superintendent by requiring making productions that we impose in our
the diversion of considerable resources to pro- order on the Current Motion.
viding a response in a timely manner. Finally, the Applicant requested an order for the
We have yet to consider the third outstanding recovery of its costs on the Current Motion. We
interrogatory with respect to Issue 2 — more will deal with that request at the conclusion of
accurately a request for production of docu- the main hearing in this proceeding.
ments, specifically memoranda, meeting notes Disposition
and other documents relating to the
We order the Superintendent to respond to the
Superintendent’s position on the provision of
interrogatories and requests for production to
“grow-in benefits” to employees who worked in
which the Applicant continues to insist on
Ontario or Nova Scotia at some time and out-
responses, as more particularly set out in
side those provinces at another time. The
Appendix “A” to the Applicant’s notice of
Superintendent has provided some material to
motion, within six weeks of the date of this
the Applicant in response to this request, as
order, subject only to the qualifications that the
enclosures with letters to counsel for the
Superintendent need not produce any docu-
Applicant dated April 18, 2001 and October 23,
ments or reveal any communications to which
2001. In the second of these letters, the
the law of privilege applies and that the
Superintendent’s counsel has expressed a will-
responses to the interrogatories may be based
ingness to provide additional material in
on a review of one half of the files on partial
response to this request that consists of docu-

108
Volume 12, Issue 1
 Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

wind ups that were processed during the period

January 1993 to October 2000.
DATED at Toronto, Ontario, this 11th day of
September, 2002.
Colin H.H. McNairn,
Vice Chair of the Tribunal and Chair of the Panel
Louis Erlichman,
Member of the Tribunal and of the Panel
William M. Forbes,
Member of the Tribunal and of the Panel

109
Volume 12, Issue 1
Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

INDEX NO.: FST File Number P0155-2001

PLAN: The Independent Order of Foresters Fieldworkers’

Pension Plan,
Registration No. 0354399 (the “Plan”)

DATE OF DECISION: September 16, 2002

PUBLISHED: Bulletin 12/1 and FSCO website

(Note: Only FST decisions pertaining to pensions are Mr. Louis Erlichman
included in this section.) Member of the Tribunal and of the Panel
(Note: In this section, “Commission” refers to the Ms. Heather Gavin
Financial Services Commission of Ontario.) Member of the Tribunal and of the Panel
IN THE MATTER OF the Pension Benefits Act, APPEARANCES:
R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8, as amended (the “Act”);
For The Independent Order of Foresters:
AND IN THE MATTER OF a proposal by the Ms. Lisa J. Mills
Superintendent of Financial Services (the Ms. Elizabeth Brown
“Superintendent”), pursuant to the Act, to
For the Superintendent of
refuse to consent to the payment of surplus out
Financial Services:
of The Independent Order of Foresters
Mr. Mark Bailey
Fieldworkers’ Pension Plan, Registration No.
Ms. Deborah McPhail
0354399 (the “Plan”);
HEARING DATE:
AND IN THE MATTER OF a proposal by the
June 18, 2002
Superintendent, pursuant to the Act, to refuse
to approve a wind up report in respect of the
Pension Plan;
REASONS FOR DECISION OF
MR. MCNAIRN
AND IN THE MATTER OF a hearing in accor-
dance with subsection 89(8) of the Act; Background
This proceeding was commenced as a result
BETWEEN:
of a request for hearing filed on April 12, 2001
THE INDEPENDENT ORDER OF
by The Independent Order of Foresters (the
FORESTERS
“IOF”) challenging a notice of proposal of
Applicant
the Superintendent of Financial Services (the
-and-
“Superintendent “) dated March 19, 2001
SUPERINTENDENT OF FINANCIAL
(the “Notice of Proposal”). In that Notice, the
SERVICES and
Superintendent proposes to refuse consent to an
IRVIN GRAINGER
application by the IOF for the payment of sur-
Respondents
plus from the Independent Order of Foresters
BEFORE: Fieldworkers’ Pension Plan (the “Plan”), on its
Mr. Colin H.H. McNairn wind up effective December 31, 1997, and to
Vice Chair of the Tribunal and Chair of the Panel refuse approval of the wind up report in respect
110
Volume 12, Issue 1
 Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

of the Plan filed by the IOF. The stated basis for Analysis
the proposed refusals is two-fold; 1. The Nature of the Pension Fund at the
• the IOF had not demonstrated that the assets Inception of the Plan in 1953
in the pension fund, representing the excess In his written representations, Mr. Grainger, a
over and above the basic benefit entitlements former member of the Plan who was granted
of members and former members of the Plan party status in this proceeding, submitted that
and the anticipated expenses of wind up, con- the amounts contributed by the IOF and the
stituted surplus for the purposes of the Pension Plan members from time to time, pursuant to
Benefits Act, as amended (the “Act”), and the Plan, and the income generated from those
• the assets held in the pension fund, including contributions (together comprising the
those excess assets, were subject to a trust for “Pension Fund”) constituted trust funds for the
the benefit of the members, in which case the benefit of the members, who were, therefore,
Plan could not be said to provide for the pay- entitled to any surplus. This submission was
ment of surplus to the IOF. based on a provision of the Plan to the effect
The excess assets were estimated to have a value that the Pension Fund was to be used only for
of $1,433,760 as at December 31, 1999. the purpose of the payment of the benefits pro-
The IOF’s application for the payment of sur- vided under the Plan. This exclusive benefit
plus was made to the Superintendent on the provision is found in subsection 7(2) of the
basis that at least two-thirds of the Plan mem- original Plan and was carried forward in subse-
bers had consented to a surplus distribution quent versions of the Plan. However, the Plan
proposal under which the IOF would share in does not say specifically that the Pension Fund
the surplus on a 50-50 basis with the members is to be held in trust nor does it make reference
and former members of the Plan. Subsection to a trustee in respect of that Fund. Indeed, the
79(3) of the Act requires, among other things, evidence in this case was that until 1995 the
that before an application for the payment of assets comprising the Pension Fund, although
surplus on the wind up of a pension plan can be accounted for separately, were held as part of
approved, the Superintendent must be satisfied the assets of the IOF, in accordance with the
that the pension plan has a surplus and the Constitution and Laws of the IOF. One of the
pension plan must provide for the payment of elements essential to the creation of a valid
surplus to the employer on wind up. trust is an intention to create a trust. There was
no evident intention, on the part of the IOF, to
The issue that was the subject of the hearing
create a trust in respect of the Pension Fund
before the Tribunal is whether the Plan provides
upon the establishment of the Plan. An exclu-
for the payment of surplus to the IOF. The
sive benefit provision similar to that contained
Tribunal was invited by the parties to determine
in the Plan has been held to be insufficient, of
this issue on the assumption that the excess
itself, to establish such an intention; see Schmidt
assets in the pension fund for the Plan represent
v. Air Products Canada Ltd., [1994] 2 S.C.R. 611,
surplus. The determination of whether the latter
at p. 666, and Howitt v. Howden Group Canada
assumption is correct was left for a subsequent
Ltd. (1999), 179 D.L.R. (4th) 423, at pp. 429-430
hearing as necessary.
(Ont. C.A.).

111
Volume 12, Issue 1
Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

I have concluded, therefore, that the Pension amendment to the Plan that was adopted in
Fund was not subject to a trust at the inception 1990.
of the Plan. Moreover, there were no changes to 3. The Validity of the Plan Amendment Pro-
the Plan or to the funding of the Plan before viding for the Payment of Surplus to the IOF
1995 that were alleged, by any of the parties, to
The Plan was amended in 1990 with effect from
have the effect of imposing a trust on the
January 1, 1988 (the “1988 Plan Amendment”)
Pension Fund.
to provide, among other things, for the pay-
2. Entitlement to Surplus under the Original ment of any surplus in the Pension Fund to the
Plan IOF. I refer to this particular provision of the
Section 9 of the original Plan provided as follows: 1988 Plan Amendment as the “1988 Surplus
In the event of the discontinuance of the Amendment”. The Superintendent challenged
[P]lan, the [Pension] Fund shall immediately the 1988 Surplus Amendment as unauthorized,
vest in the members and shall be distributed and therefore without effect, on two grounds.
or otherwise dealt with for their benefit in First, the Superintendent maintained that the
such equitable manner as the Supreme Plan was part of the Constitution and Laws of
Court [of the IOF] may with the advice of the IOF and, as such, could only be amended by
the actuary by resolution decide. the Supreme Court (now called the International
This provision remained in place without Assembly) of the IOF. The 1988 Plan Amendment
change until 1990, when the Plan was amended was apparently adopted by the Executive Council
with effect from January 1, 1988. The validity of (now called the Board of Directors) of the IOF
that amendment, as it purports to affect the pursuant to a general delegation of authority by
above noted provision, is considered below (see the Supreme Court to the Executive Council.
section 3). Although there was some confusion in the evi-
dence on this point, I have concluded that the
The authority of the Supreme Court of the IOF
Plan was not part of the Constitution and Laws of
to decide, on the advice of the actuary, upon an
the IOF, although the Pension Fund was referred
equitable manner by which the distribution or
to therein as one of the IOF’s funds. Accordingly,
other disposition of the Pension Fund should
the Executive Council had the authority to
occur cannot reasonably be construed as giving
amend the Plan under the general delegation of
the Supreme Court the power to direct any sur-
authority from the Supreme Court.
plus in the Pension Fund to be applied for the
benefit of the IOF. Rather, the Supreme Court’s Second, the Superintendent maintained that
authority should logically be interpreted as sim- there was no authority under the terms of the
ply allowing it to adopt a plan for the distribu- Plan to make amendments and the IOF could
tion or other disposition of the Pension Fund not, therefore, effect the 1988 Surplus
that provides in an equitable way for the deter- Amendment unilaterally given that the Plan
mination of the extent of participation of the constituted a contract between IOF, as an
various members. employer, and its employees. In Crownx Inc. v.
Edwards (1994), 120 D.L.R. (4th) 270, the
I have concluded that the Plan did not provide
Ontario Court of Appeal described the right to
for the payment of surplus to the IOF and that
amend a pension plan as follows:
this remained the position at the time of the

112
Volume 12, Issue 1
 Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

Whether one applies the law of trusts or the Plan — say, to comply with income tax or pen-
law of contract to pension plans, the right sion legislation, to enhance benefits or to imple-
to later unilaterally amend the pension plan ment a collective agreement with a labour union
to provide for payment of surplus monies — could not be implied or that the consent of
on termination must be found in the provi- the employees to some or all of those kinds of
sions of the original plan. It is trite to say amendment could not be inferred. Given the
that if the plan constitutes a contract effect on their entitlement to surplus on termina-
between the employer and employees, the tion, the employees who were members of the
right of one party to make significant Plan cannot, in my view, be presumed to have
amendments to the contract at a later stage consented to the 1988 Surplus Amendment.
must be found expressly or by implication While the original Plan contemplates the dis-
in the original contract. (At pp 280-281.) continuance of the Plan (subsection 10(5)), that
In the present case, it is appropriate to apply does not carry an implication that the IOF may
contract principles in determining the authority also amend the Plan so as to reserve any surplus
of the IOF to make the 1988 Surplus to itself. Indeed, as noted above, any discontin-
Amendment since, as the Supreme Court of uance of the Plan was to be on the basis that
Canada stated in the Schmidt decision; the Pension Fund should immediately vest in
[I]f the pension fund, or any part of it is not the members and be distributed or otherwise
subject to a trust, then any issues relating to dealt with for their benefit. If, as I have con-
outstanding pension benefits or to surplus cluded, the 1988 Surplus Amendment was not
entitlement must be resolved by applying the within the scope of an amending power implicit
principles which pertain to the interpretation in the Plan, that amendment is without effect
of contracts to the pension plan. (At p. 655.) and the treatment of surplus on the discontinu-
ance of the Plan must be in accordance with the
In Schmidt, the Supreme Court examined the
pre-Amendment provisions of the Plan. In par-
amending power in a pension plan the fund of
ticular, the surplus must be distributed or other-
which was not subject to a trust (the Stearns
wise dealt with, as part of the Pension Fund, for
plan) to determine whether an amendment to
the benefit of the members upon the wind up
the plan providing for a reversion of surplus to
of the Plan that has now occurred.
the employer was valid (see [1994] 2 S.C.R. 611,
at pp. 671-674). In that case, the amendment I assume that the 1988 Plan Amendment was
was found to fit within the express amending accepted for registration by the Superintendent,
power and, therefore, to be effective. pursuant to the terms of the Act, although there
was no evidence before us on this point. Such
In the present case, there was no amending
registration does not mean that the
power set out expressly in the Plan prior to 1990,
Amendment must, therefore, be treated as valid
when the 1988 Plan Amendment was adopted,
in its entirety. There is nothing in the Act, or
nor can I find any basis for implying any such
the regulations under the Act to the effect that
power that would be broad enough to authorize
registration of an amendment cures any invalid-
an amendment in the terms of the 1988 Surplus
ity (see sections 12-17 of the Act and section 3
Amendment. This is not to say that the power to
of Regulation 909, R.R.0. 1990, as to the regis-
make some other kinds of amendments to the
tration of plan amendments).

113
Volume 12, Issue 1
Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

My conclusion that the original provision of the respect of the Pension Fund. Upon the resigna-
Plan dealing with the treatment of the Pension tion of the original trust company as trustee,
Fund on discontinuance remained in effect at the IOF entered into a similar agreement with
the wind up of the Plan disposes of the IOF’s CIBC Mellon Trust Company made as of
challenge to the Superintendent’s Notice of October 1, 1999 (the “1999 Trust Agreement”).
Proposal. That provision requires that the The Superintendent argued that, even if the
Pension Fund, including any surplus, is to be 1988 Surplus Amendment was valid, its provi-
applied for the benefit of the members of the sion for the payment of surplus to the IOF was
Plan, with the result that the Plan cannot be subservient to the trust in respect of the
said to provide for the payment of surplus to Pension Fund established, successively, by the
the employer, the IOF, on the wind up of the 1995 and 1999 Trust Agreements. Since those
Plan. Therefore, the Superintendent is obliged, Agreements did not expressly designate the IOF
under subsection 79(3) of the Act, to refuse as a beneficiary of the trust, the IOF was no
IOF’s application for consent to the payment of longer entitled, in the Superintendent’s view, to
surplus from the Plan. It follows, as well, that the payment of surplus under the Plan. The IOF
the Superintendent is entitled, under subsection responded by saying that each of the Trust
70(5) of the Act, to refuse to approve the report Agreements must be read in conjunction with
filed by the IOF in respect of the wind up of the the terms of the Plan, in which case it is clear
Plan, for failure to protect the interests of the that the IOF is identified as a person to which
members of the Plan, in particular their inter- payments from the Pension Fund may be made
ests in the surplus on wind up. Such refusals and is, consequently, a beneficiary of the trust
are, therefore, properly proposed by the in respect of that Fund. The IOF argued, in the
Superintendent in the Notice of Proposal. alternative, that each of the Trust Agreements
The other members of the Panel who heard this expressly reserved to the IOF the power to
case would support the proposed refusals of the revoke the trust, in which case it was within its
Superintendent on a different basis, as their sep- power to bring the trust to an end, thereby
arate reasons indicate, namely what they see as effectively restoring the provision for the pay-
the overriding effect, upon the terms of the ment of surplus to the IOF under the 1988
Plan, of the two successive trust agreements that Surplus Amendment.
the IOF entered into with respect to the Pension The other members of the Panel, in their separate
Fund. As I disagree with their reasons in that reasons rely on a passage from the majority deci-
respect, I will go on to set out my views as to sion of Mr. Justice Cory in Schmidt to the effect
the impact of those agreements. that the transfer of property by the settlor of a
4. The Effect of the Trust Agreements Entered trust to the trustee is generally absolute and that
into by the IOF as of 1995 and 1999 any control of that property will be lost unless
The IOF entered into a Trust and Master the transfer is expressly subject to it. However,
Custodial Services Agreement with the Trust the issue in the present case is not whether the
Company of Bank of Montreal effective as of IOF effectively reserved the power, under the
June 21, 1995 (the “1995 Trust Agreement”) terms of the Trust Agreements, to designate itself
engaging the trust company to serve as trustee as a beneficiary of the trust when it transferred
and to provide certain custodial services, all in the Pension Fund to the trustee but whether

114
Volume 12, Issue 1
 Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

those terms indicate that the IOF was a beneficia- The Trust Agreements make it clear that the role
ry of the trust from the time of its creation. of the trust company as trustee does not extend
The Superintendent was unable to provide us to determining entitlements under the Plan.
with any authority for the proposition that the When it comes to the payment of amounts
settlor of a trust may not be a beneficiary of the from the Pension Fund, the role of the trust
trust unless expressly named as such or that a company may be characterized as that of a
plan sponsor may not be a beneficiary of a trust “bare trustee” who must simply respond to the
in respect of a pension plan unless expressly directions of the IOF. Therefore, with respect to
named as such. I believe that the proper inquiry distributions from the Pension Fund, the trustee
in the present case should be whether the IOF acts, essentially, as an agent for the IOF, the sett-
can be taken to be a beneficiary of the trust cre- lor of the trust. In that kind of situation, the
ated by the Trust Agreements having regard to agency relationship with the settlor predomi-
the express terms of those Agreements and any nates over the trust aspect of the arrangement
implications that can be reasonably drawn from (see Trident Holdings Ltd. v. Danand Investments
those terms. Certainly, the absence of the word Ltd. (1988), 64 O.R. (2d) 65, at pp. 73-79 (Ont.
“beneficiary” in the Trust Agreements, to C.A.)). Therefore, in the present case, the trust
describe any interest the IOF may have in the should not be taken to inhibit the right of the
Pension Fund, should not be determinative. IOF to call for the payment to it of any surplus,
in accordance with the Plan and, in particular,
The Trust Agreements leave it to the IOF to pro-
the 1988 Surplus Amendment, if valid.
vide instructions to the trust company as to the
payments that are to be made from the Pension The Superintendent relied on a statement of
Fund. Any such instructions are deemed to con- Mr. Justice Cory, giving the majority judgment
stitute a “certification … that such payments of the Supreme Court in Schmidt, to the follow-
are in accordance with the … Plan” (section ing effect;
4(h) of the 1995 Trust Agreement and section …when a trust is created [in respect of a
5.1 of the 1999 Trust Agreement). The Trust pension fund], the funds which form the
Agreements also provide that upon termination corpus are subjected to the requirements of
of the trust fund that comprises the Pension trust law. The terms of the pension plan are
Fund, payments shall be made therefrom in relevant to distribution issues only to the
accordance with the directions of the IOF (sec- extent that those terms are incorporated by
tion 8 of the 1955 Trust Agreement and section reference in the instrument which creates
16.3 of the 1999 Trust Agreement), although in the trust. The contract or pension plan may
the case of the 1999 Trust Agreement those influence the payment of trust funds but
directions are to be in accordance with the its terms cannot compel a result which is at
terms of the Plan. To me, all of this means quite odds with the existence of the trust. (At
simply that the IOF is a beneficiary of the trust pp. 639-640.)
to the extent that the Plan provides for the pay- For the reasons set out above, I do not regard
ment of some part of the Pension Fund to the the Plan as compelling a result that is at odds
IOF. The 1988 Plan Amendment, which if valid with the trust established by the 1995 or 1999
is part of the Plan, makes such provision in Trust Agreement, but rather as having the
respect of any surplus in that Fund. capacity to influence payments from the

115
Volume 12, Issue 1
Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

Pension Fund in a way that is not inconsistent fellow Panel members, I can find nothing in
with the trust. While neither Agreement may, Schmidt that suggests that an express power on
technically, incorporate the terms of the Plan, the part of the settlor of a trust to terminate the
I do not believe that this should preclude the trust fund does not amount to an express power
operation of those terms in the circumstances of to revoke the trust.
the present case, given the limited scope of the 5. The Remaining Significance of the Issue of
trust. Each of the Agreements certainly refer- Whether the Excess Assets in the Pension
ences the terms of the Plan, leaving them to Fund Constitute Surplus
govern the ultimate disposition of the assets in
I agree with the other members of the Panel
the Pension Fund. It seems to me that this
that it is not necessary for the Tribunal to hear
comes to the same thing as incorporating the
argument on the issue of whether the excess
terms of the Plan by reference into the trust
assets in the Pension Fund represent surplus. If
instrument.
they do not, the Superintendent would have
Finally, I am of the opinion that each of the two proper grounds for refusing approval of
Trust Agreements provides expressly for the the application for the payment of surplus and
revocation of the trust that it creates and, there- of the wind up report in respect of the Plan.
fore, that the IOF could exercise the power of If the excess assets do constitute surplus, the
revocation so as to leave the provisions of the Superintendent’s proposals to refuse those
Plan to operate unaffected by the existence of a approvals are, nonetheless, supportable on the
trust in respect of the Pension Fund. Each of the basis that the Plan does not provide for the pay-
Agreements provides specifically for the termi- ment of such surplus to the IOF. We are, there-
nation by the IOF of the trust fund comprising fore, in a position to dispose of the matter that
the assets of the Pension Fund (section 8 of the is before us without the need for a further hear-
1995 Trust Agreement and section 16.3 of the ing on the issue of whether there is any surplus
1999 Trust Agreement). In either case, the rele- in the Pension Fund.
vant provision has a broad scope and is not lim-
ited to situations where the trust company has
Disposition
resigned or been removed and is to be replaced Although I disagree with the other Panel mem-
by a new trustee. It seems to me that a termina- bers in their conclusion as to the effect of the
tion of a trust fund by the settlor amounts to Trust Agreements, I concur in their ultimate dis-
the revocation of the trust and that there is no position of this case. I reach that common
particular magic in the use of language of revo- result because of my conclusion that the 1988
cation as opposed to termination or cancella- Plan Amendment is invalid.
tion. Indeed. The Supreme Court in Schmidt DATED at Toronto, Ontario, this 16th day of
said that the word “revocation” connotes can- September, 2002.
cellation (at p. 646) and “termination” is cer- Colin H.H. McNairn,
tainly very close, in its ordinary meaning, to Vice Chair of the Tribunal and Chair of the Panel
“cancellation”. The revocation of something is
simply the termination or cancellation of that
thing where it was originally created by the per-
son exercising a power of revocation. Unlike my

116
Volume 12, Issue 1
 Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

REASONS FOR DECISION OF the IOF entered into a similar agreement with
MR. ERLICHMAN AND MS. GAVIN CIBC Mellon Trust Company as of October 1,
1999 (the “1999 Trust Agreement”).
Background
It was not disputed by the parties that the pen-
We adopt the Background as set out in the sepa-
sion plan was a pension trust from the time of
rate Reasons of Mr. McNairn.
1995 Trust Agreement. In Schmidt, the Supreme
Analysis Court said (at p. 643):
The Superintendent and IOF asked the Tribunal When a pension fund is impressed with a
to rule on the issue of whether the Plan provides trust, that trust is subject to all applicable
for the payment of surplus to IOF. Since this is a trust law principles. The significance of this
necessary, though not sufficient, condition under for the present appeals is twofold. Firstly,
subsection 79(3) of the Act, for any payment of the employer will not be able to claim enti-
surplus to the employer, a negative ruling on this tlement to funds subject to a trust unless the
issue would be determinative with respect to the terms of the trust make the employer a ben-
Superintendent’s Notice of Proposal, and no eficiary, or unless the employer reserved a
further hearing on the other issues would be power of revocation of the trust at the time
required. In effect, if the Plan did not provide for the trust was originally created. Secondly, if
the payment of surplus to IOF, the existence of a the objects of the trust have been satisfied
surplus and other possible issues arising in this but assets remain in the trust, those funds
case would be moot. A positive ruling could may be subject to a resulting trust.
require a hearing of other issues. The settlor of a trust can reserve any power
Accordingly, the representations at this hearing to itself that it wishes provided the reserva-
focused quite narrowly on the language of the tion is made at the time the trust is created.
Plan text, trust agreements and other documents A settlor may choose to maintain the right
related to the pension plan. Counsel for both to appoint trustees, to change the beneficia-
IOF and the Superintendent relied heavily on ries of the trust, or to withdraw the trust
the leading Supreme Court of Canada case on property. Generally, however, the transfer of
pension plan surpluses, Schmidt v. Air Products the trust property to the trustee is absolute.
Canada Ltd. [1994] 2 S.C.R. 611(Schmidt). Any power of control of that property will
In Schmidt, the Supreme Court said: “the first be lost unless transfer is expressly made sub-
question to be decided in a pension surplus case ject to it.
is whether or not a trust exists”(p. 639). IOF argued that, as the 1995 Trust Agreement
In 1995, the IOF entered into a Trust and Master names no specific beneficiaries and does not
Custodial Services Agreement with the Trust explicitly prohibit IOF from being a beneficiary,
Company of the Bank of Montreal, effective as IOF was not precluded from being a beneficiary
of June 21, 1995 (the “1995 Trust Agreement”) of the fund. Further, IOF cited the language
engaging the trust company to serve as trustee of the trust agreement, which allowed it to
and to provide certain custodial services with instruct the trust company with respect to pay-
respect to the Pension Fund. Upon the resigna- ments from the trust in accordance with the
tion of the original trust company as trustee, provisions of the pension plan, and to designate

117
Volume 12, Issue 1
Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

the direction of trust property if the trust agree- for the creation of the trust. In the case of
ment were terminated, to argue that 1995 Trust pension plans, employees not only con-
Agreement gave IOF the power to designate tribute to the fund, in addition they almost
itself a beneficiary of the trust. invariably agree to accept lower wages and
The 1995 Trust Agreement defines the “Trust fewer employment benefits in exchange for
Fund” as “the securities or other properties deliv- the employer’s agreeing to set up the pen-
ered to or held by Trustco [Trust Company of the sion trust in their favour. The wording of
Bank of Montreal] from time to time and consti- the pension plan and trust instrument are
tuting the pension fund of the Pension Plan to usually drawn up by the employer. The
be held as trust properties pursuant to the terms employees as a rule must rely upon the good
of this Agreement including the proceeds and faith of the employer to ensure that the
income therefrom” (Paragraph 1(m)). The 1995 terms of the specific trust arrangement will
Trust Agreement also authorizes the Trust be fair. It would, I think, be inequitable to
Company “to make payments … in accordance accept the proposition that a broad amend-
with the provisions of the Pension Plan” ing power inserted unilaterally by the
(Paragraph 4(h)). Members of the pension plan employer carries with it the right to revoke
are obviously beneficiaries of a pension trust set the trust. The employer who wishes to
up to provide pension benefits to plan members. undertake a restricted transfer of assets must
make those restrictions explicit. Moreover,
On the other hand, it cannot be assumed that
amendment means change not cancellation
the employer, IOF, is a beneficiary of the trust.
which the word revocation connotes.
This would require a clear statement in the
1995 Trust Agreement, and not the general In fact, the Supreme Court specifically ruled, in
powers given to IOF as plan administrator. As Schmidt, that the power in the original trust doc-
there was no such clear statement, IOF is not a ument of the Catalytic pension plan to direct
beneficiary of the trust. the distribution of trust funds on plan termina-
tion did not constitute a right of revocation.
IOF argued that Section 22 of the 1995 Trust
Agreement, which allowed IOF to direct the dis- IOF also argued that the pension plan text,
tribution of trust property on the termination of which was amended in 1990 to provide for sur-
the trust agreement, had the effect of reserving plus to revert to IOF on plan wind-up, was
for IOF the power to revoke the trust. This propo- implicitly incorporated into the 1995 Trust
sition does not accord with the Schmidt decision, Agreement. As a result, it was argued, IOF was a
in which the Supreme Court said (at p. 646) that beneficiary of the Plan, particularly with respect
the power to revoke cannot be read into a trust to surplus on wind up, at the time of the first
agreement without “extremely clear and explicit trust agreement.
language.” The Supreme Court continued: Here again, the Supreme Court set a high stan-
A general amending power should not dard for the incorporation of pension plan lan-
endow a settlor with the ability to revoke guage into the terms of a trust. To quote the
the trust. This is especially so when it is Schmidt decision once more (at pp. 639-640):
remembered that consideration was given The terms of a pension plan are relevant to
by the employee beneficiaries in exchange distribution issues only to the extent that

118
Volume 12, Issue 1
 Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

those terms are incorporated by reference in the payment of surplus from the Plan on its
the instrument which creates the trust. The windup and to approve the wind up report in
contract or pension plan may influence the respect of the Plan.
payment of trust funds but its terms cannot DATED at Toronto, Ontario, this 16th day of
compel a result which is at odds with the September, 2002.
existence of the trust.
Louis Erlichman
In this case, the references within the 1995 Member of the Tribunal and the Panel
Trust Agreement to the provisions of the
Heather Gavin
Pension Plan can influence payments from the
Member of the Tribunal and the Panel
Pension Fund, but, in the absence of an explicit
incorporation by reference, the terms of the
Plan Text cannot be used to read either IOF’s
rights as a beneficiary or the right of revocation
into the 1995 Trust Agreement.
The one other avenue by which IOF might
claim entitlement to pension plan surplus is
through the creation of a resulting trust, if the
objects of the trust have been fully satisfied and
money still remains in the trust fund. The clear
object of this trust was to provide pension bene-
fits to plan members. In a defined contribution
plan, such as the IOF Plan, the object is to pro-
vide whatever benefits can be generated from
contributions and investment earnings, and
there is no reasonable basis for arguing that the
object of the trust has been met, while assets
remain in the trust. There is therefore no result-
ing trust created in this case.
We therefore conclude that, as IOF is not a ben-
eficiary of the trust, nor does it have the power
to revoke the trust, nor has a resulting trust
been created, consequently the Plan does not
provide for the payment of surplus to IOF.
In light of these conclusions, we see no need to
deal with the other arguments raised by the par-
ties concerning IOF’s entitlement to surplus.
Disposition
We direct the Superintendent to carry out the
Notice of Proposal dated March 19, 2001, refus-
ing to consent to an application by the IOF for

119
Volume 12, Issue 1
Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

INDEX NO.: FST File Number P0130-2000

PLAN: Imperial Oil Limited Retirement Plan (1988),

Registration Number 347054 (the “IOL Plan”) and the
Imperial Oil Limited Retirement Plan for Former
Employees of McColl-Frontenac,
Registration Number 344002 (the “MFI Plan”)

DATE OF DECISION: September 20, 2002

PUBLISHED: Bulletin 12/1 and FSCO website

(Note: Only FST decisions pertaining to pensions are Mr. Louis Erlichman
included in this section.) Member of the Tribunal and of the Panel
(Note: In this section, “Commission” refers to the Mr. William M. Forbes
Financial Services Commission of Ontario.) Member of the Tribunal and of the Panel
IN THE MATTER OF the Pension Benefits Act, APPEARANCES:
R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8, as amended (the “Act”);
For Imperial Oil Limited:
AND IN THE MATTER OF partial wind up Ms. Lindsay P. Hill
reports submitted by Imperial Oil Limited to
For the Superintendent of
the Superintendent of Financial Services
Financial Services:
respecting the Imperial Oil Limited Retirement
Ms. Deborah McPhail
Plan (1988), Registration Number 347054 (the
“IOL Plan”) and the Imperial Oil Limited HEARING DATE:
Retirement Plan for Former Employees of July 24, 2002
McColl-Frontenac, Registration Number 344002
(the “MFI Plan”); REASONS FOR ORDER
AND IN THE MATTER OF a Hearing in accor- The Background
dance with subsection 89(8) of the Act; This proceeding was initiated by the Applicant,
BETWEEN: Imperial Oil Limited, by filing a Notice of
Request for Hearing with the Tribunal. The
IMPERIAL OIL LIMITED
Request calls into question a Notice of Proposal
Applicant
by the Superintendent of Financial Services (the
-and-
“Superintendent”), dated October 3, 2000, to
SUPERINTENDENT OF FINANCIAL
refuse to approve partial wind up reports (the
SERVICES
“Partial Wind Up Reports” or the “Reports”)
Respondent
filed by the Applicant in connection with the
BEFORE: partial wind up of two of its pension plans,
Mr. Colin H.H. McNairn namely its IOL Plan and its MFI Plan (the
Vice Chair of the Tribunal and Chair of the Panel “Plans”). The partial wind ups had been ordered
by the Superintendent because of a reorganiza-

120
Volume 12, Issue 1
 Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

tion of the Applicant and the discontinuance of Applicant’s business, if their circumstances
one of its businesses brought about by the clo- fell within one of the following:
sure of a refinery. The Plans were to be wound (i.) employees whose fixed term contract
up in relation to those members and former of employment was complete by its
members who ceased to be employed by the terms (e.g. summer students, co-op
Applicant, as a result of the reorganization or students, and employees hired on a
discontinuance, during the period beginning contract basis for a specified period
February 4, 1992 and ending on the later of of time);
June 30, 1995 and the date the last member
(ii.) employees who became disabled and
employed at the refinery ceased employment
received disability benefits;
(the “Partial Wind Up Period”). We refer to this
(iii.) employees who allegedly voluntarily
group of members and former members as the
resigned;
“Partial Wind Up Group”.
(iv.) employees who were transferred to an
The stated grounds for the Superintendent’s
affiliated company that did not partic-
proposal in the Notice of Proposal include the
ipate in the Plans;
failure of the Reports to reflect the liabilities
associated with all those who were part of the (v.) employees who retired under the
Partial Wind Up Group. Specifically, the Notice terms of the Plans at normal retire-
of Proposal states that the Reports do not reflect ment age;
the liabilities associated with 2311 members of (vi.) employees who retired under the dis-
the Plans (2213 members of the IOL Plan and ability retirement provisions of the
98 members of the MFI Plan). Plans;
By a notice of motion dated June 5, 2002, the (vii.) employees whose employment was
Superintendent moved for an order of the terminated as a result of death; and
Tribunal directing the Applicant to answer cer- (viii.) employees whose employment was
tain of the interrogatories that it had served allegedly terminated for cause.
on the Applicant on October 11, 2001. The
There are other issues that will have to be
Applicant has responded to some but not all of
addressed at the main hearing in this proceed-
the original interrogatories.
ing, but none of the interrogatories to which
The Issues in the Proceeding this motion relates concern those other issues.
For the purposes of this motion, the parties The Interrogatories
agreed that the issues in this proceeding that are
The interrogatories to which the
relevant to the motion should be framed as fol-
Superintendent insists on responses can be sum-
lows (the “statement of issues”):
marized as follows:
Did any members or former members of the
(a) did the positions filled by any members of
Plans who ceased to be employed by the
the either of the Plans whose contracts
Applicant during the Partial Wind Up Period
of employment expired during the Partial
as set out in the Notice of Proposal cease to
Wind Up Period cease to exist as a result of
be employed as a result of the reorganiza-
the reorganization or discontinuance of the
tion or discontinuance of all or part of the
Applicant’s business?

121
Volume 12, Issue 1
Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

(b) was any member of either of the Plans ter- for the purposes of calculating the liabilities to
minated for cause during the Partial Wind members in the Partial Wind Up Reports, and to
Up Period (if so, provide the name and last- simplify and narrow the issues in this proceed-
known address of the member, the date and ing. The Superintendent indicated that his posi-
reason for termination and any supporting tion at the main hearing in this proceeding
documentation)? would be that all those members of the Plans
(c) in the case of any member of either of the who ceased to be employed by the Applicant
Plans who, during the Partial Wind Up during the Partial Wind Up Period should be
Period, included in the Partial Wind Up Group unless
the Applicant can show cogent reasons why
(i.) was on leave or other interruption of
they should not be included.
employment due to disability,
(ii.) retired under a disability retirement Analysis
under the terms of either of the Plans, The test that this Tribunal has consistently
(iii.) voluntarily terminated his or her applied for deciding whether pre-hearing disclo-
employment, sure should be ordered is set out in Monsanto
Canada Inc, v, Superintendent of Financial Services
(iv.) retired at early retirement under the
(see the Pension Bulletin, vol. 8, issue 2 (Sept.,
terms of either of the Plans, or termi-
1999), at pp. 77-82). In that case, the Tribunal
nated for cause, was that member’s
said (at p. 79):
job function or title eliminated during
the reorganization or discontinuance We believe that the Tribunal should, general-
of the Applicant’s business? ly, be prepared to make a disclosure order
against a party to a proceeding before it,
(d) did the Applicant ever re-hire, to permanent
requiring the production of documents or
or contract positions, students who had
answers to interrogatories, in the following
worked with the Applicant on a co-op or
circumstances (if not in other circumstances):
summer placement; if so, how many were
hired in the five year period prior to the • the information sought is arguably rele-
wind up and how many of these assumed vant to an issue in the proceeding and
newly-created or entry-level positions; were that issue is not a frivolous one;
any of the latter positions eliminated as a • the information sought is sufficiently par-
result of the reorganization or discontinu- ticularized that the party from whom the
ance of the Applicant’s business; and in all information is requested should be able to
of these situations what were the details? respond efficiently and with a reasonable
degree of precision; and
The Purpose
• the information is not privileged.
The Superintendent maintained that the pur-
pose of the outstanding interrogatories was to For the purpose of applying the first limb of this
elicit information that would be responsive to test, relevance to an issue in the proceeding
any argument of the Applicant that specific means relevance to an issue in the proceeding
members or generic groups of members should before the Tribunal, not the larger proceeding
be excluded from the Partial Wind Up Group, that includes the process that takes place before

122
Volume 12, Issue 1
 Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

the Superintendent, acting through one or would reveal the dimensions of the potential
other of the branches of the Financial Services sub-category.
Commission of Ontario. All of this is not to suggest that the Superin-
Rule 19.01 of the Interim Rules of Practice and tendent has conceded that those employees
Procedure for Proceedings before the Financial whose circumstances fall within any of cate-
Services Tribunal describes the purpose of inter- gories (i.) to (viii.) should, generally, be exclud-
rogatories as follows; ed from the Partial Wind Up Group, subject
19.01 The Tribunal may issue procedural only to inclusion if their positions, job titles or
directions providing for interrogatories that functions were eliminated during the reorgani-
are necessary to: zation or discontinuance of the Applicant’s
business. In fact, there has been no such conces-
(a) clarify evidence filed by a party;
sion. Nonetheless, we think that the answers to
(b) simplify the issues;
the interrogatories are arguably relevant to the
(c) permit a full and satisfactory under- issues in this proceeding, although we think
standing of the matters to be considered; that it is sufficient if the Applicant were to
or respond by providing general or statistical,
(d) expedite the proceeding. rather than employee-specific, information
Once again, the proceeding means the proceed- about the positions, job titles or functions of
ing before the Tribunal. employees whose circumstances fall within each
of categories (i.) to (viii.). That information
The statement of issues that the parties have
would contribute to permitting a full and satis-
agreed to for the purposes of this motion pre-
factory understanding of the matters that may
supposes that categorical answers can be provid-
be considered in this proceeding and it could
ed as to whether all employees whose circum-
expedite the proceeding by avoiding the need
stances fall within any of categories (i.) to (viii.)
for obtaining supplementary information at a
can be said to have ceased to be employed as a
later stage in the proceeding. The promotion of
result of the reorganization or discontinuance
that understanding and the expedition of the
of all or part of the Applicant’s business. But
proceeding are among the purposes of inter-
that may not be the case. For instance, this
rogatories set out in Rule 19.01 of the Interim
Tribunal might be inclined to the view that
Rules of Practice and Procedure for Proceedings
while the employees whose circumstances fall
before the Financial Services Tribunal.
within a particular category should be excluded
from the Partial Wind Up Group, there is a sub- We now address the particular interrogatories
category or sub-categories of those employees posed by the Superintendent in light of the
that should be included. One such sub-category approach set out above. We deal with interroga-
might be employees whose positions, job titles tory (a.) in our discussion of interrogatory (c.)
or functions were eliminated during the reorga- below. Interrogatory (b.) asks, among other
nization or discontinuance of the Applicant’s things, whether any member of either of the
business. The answers to many of the Superin- Plans was terminated for cause during the
tendent’s interrogatories might inform the case Partial Wind Up Period. The Applicant has
for recognizing such a sub-category, or the case already answered “yes” to this question, in a let-
for not recognizing such a sub-category, as they ter dated February 28, 2002 to counsel for the

123
Volume 12, Issue 1
Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

Superintendent, and has provided some particu- • what proportion of the members in catego-
lars about the situations where members of the ry (i.) had their positions eliminated at or
Plans were terminated for cause during the following the cessation of their employ-
Partial Wind Up Period. We decline to order the ment with the Applicant but during the
Applicant to provide any further particulars of reorganization or discontinuance of the
this kind as that information is member-specific Applicant’s business and what proportion
and is not, in our view, arguably relevant to the of the members in each of categories (ii.) to
issues in this proceeding. (vi.) had their job titles or functions elimi-
Interrogatory (c.) would seem to call for infor- nated at or following the cessation of their
mation relating to each and every member employment with the Applicant but during
falling within any of categories (i.) to (v.) whose the reorganization or discontinuance of
job function or title was eliminated during the Applicant’s business?
the reorganization or discontinuance of the We recognize that the Superintendent may
Applicant’s business. The disclosure of such already have been advised, in respect of some or
member-specific information is not, in our all of categories (i.) to (vi.), of the number of
view, relevant to the issues in this proceeding. members whose circumstances fall within a par-
However, we would order the Applicant to ticular category.
respond to more general questions, by way of a Interrogatory (d.) asks, among other things,
revised interrogatory in place of interrogatories whether the Applicant ever re-hired, to perma-
(a.) and (c.), as follows: nent or contract positions, students who had
• how many of the 2311 members of the worked with the Applicant on a co-op or summer
Plans who ceased to be employed by IOL placement. The Applicant has already answered
during the Partial Wind Up Period but were “yes” to this question, in a letter dated February
excluded from the Partial Wind Up Group 28, 2002 to counsel for the Superintendent. We
were in the circumstances described in decline to order the Applicant to provide a
each of the following categories: response to the balance of interrogatory (d.) as it
(i.) on fixed term contracts of employment does not seem to us to be arguably relevant to the
that were complete by their terms (e.g. issues in this proceeding.
summer students, co-op students, and Disposition
employees hired on a contract basis for
Therefore, we make the order against the
a specified period of time);
Applicant set out in Appendix A, directing it to
(ii.) on leave or other interruption of respond to the Superintendent in respect of the
employment due to disability; interrogatories posed in that Appendix. The
(iii.) retired under a disability retirement Superintendent requested that the time for the
under the terms of either of the Plans; Applicant’s response to the interrogatories be
(iv.) voluntarily terminated employment; thirty days from the date of our order. However,
we have set a time limit of six weeks from that
(v.) retired at early retirement under the
date for response. This coincides with the time
terms of either of the Plans; or
limit that we have imposed on the Superin-
(vi.) terminated for cause?
tendent, by order dated September 11, 2002, for

124
Volume 12, Issue 1
 Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

responses to outstanding interrogatories of the • what proportion of the members in category

Applicant in this same proceeding. (i) had their positions eliminated at or fol-
DATED at Toronto, Ontario, this 20th day of lowing the cessation of their employment
September, 2002. with the Applicant but during the reorgani-
zation or discontinuance of the Applicant’s
Colin H.H. McNairn,
business and what proportion of the mem-
Vice Chair of the Tribunal and Chair of the Panel
bers in each of categories (ii) to (vi) had their
Louis Erlichman,
job titles or functions eliminated at or fol-
Member of the Tribunal and of the Panel
lowing the cessation of their employment
William M. Forbes, with the Applicant but during the reorgani-
Member of the Tribunal and of the Panel zation or discontinuance of the Applicant’s
Appendix A business?
Imperial Oil Limited (the “Applicant”) is hereby The capitalized terms in this order have the same
ordered to provide answers to the Superin- meaning as those terms as used in the Reasons
tendent of Financial Services in respect of the for Order of the Financial Services Tribunal that
interrogatories set out below within six weeks of accompany, and provide the basis for, this order.
the date of this order: DATED this 20th day of September, 2002.
• how many of the 2311 members of the
Plans who ceased to be employed by IOL
during the Partial Wind Up Period but were
excluded from the Partial Wind Up Group
were in the circumstances described in
each of the following categories:
(i.) on fixed term contracts of employ-
ment that were complete by their
terms (e.g. summer students, co-op
students, and employees hired on a
contract basis for a specified period
of time);
(ii.) on leave or other interruption of
employment due to disability;
(iii.) retired under a disability retirement
under the terms of either of the Plans;
(iv.) voluntarily terminated employment;
(v.) retired at early retirement under the
terms of either of the Plans; or
(vi.) terminated for cause?

125
Volume 12, Issue 1
Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

INDEX NO.: FST File Numbers P0166-2001& P0175-2001

PLAN: Samsonite Canadian Service Related Plan,

Registration No. 398578 and
Samsonite Canadian Retirement Income Plan,
Registration No. 373225

DATE OF DECISION: October 21, 2002

PUBLISHED: Bulletin 12/1 and FSCO website

(Note: Only FST decisions pertaining to pensions are BEFORE:

included in this section.) Ms. Martha Milczynski
(Note: In this section, “Commission” refers to the Chair of the Tribunal and of the Panel
Financial Services Commission of Ontario.) Mr. David Short
IN THE MATTER OF the Pension Benefits Act, Member of the Tribunal and of the Panel
R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8, as amended (the “Act”); Mr. William Forbes
AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal by Member of the Tribunal and of the Panel
the Superintendent of Financial Services (the
APPEARANCES:
‘Superintendent”) to Refuse to Consent to an
For Samsonite Canada Inc.:
application by Samsonite Canada Inc. for the
Mr. Greg Winfield
payment of surplus to the employer from
the Samsonite Canadian Service Related Plan, For the Superintendent of
Registration No. 398578 and a proposal by Financial Services:
the Superintendent to Refuse to Consent to Mr. Mark Bailey
an application by Samsonite Canada Inc. for HEARING DATES:
the payment of surplus to the employer from June 3, 2002
the Samsonite Canadian Retirement Income
Plan, Registration No. 373225; REASONS
AND IN THE MATTER OF a Hearing in accor-
INTRODUCTION
dance with subsection 89(8) of the Act;
Samsonite Canada Inc. (the “Company”) has
BETWEEN: requested a hearing before the Financial Services
SAMSONITE CANADA INC. Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) with respect to two
Applicant Notices of Proposal (together the “NOPs” and
-and- each the “NOP”) issued by the Superintendent
SUPERINTENDENT OF FINANCIAL of Financial Services (the “Superintendent”).
SERVICES
The NOP dated June 1, 2001 relates to the
Respondent
Company’s application to the Superintendent
to withdraw surplus from the Samsonite
Canadian Service Related Plan, registration

126
Volume 12, Issue 1
 Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

No. 398578 (the “Hourly Plan”). As at the wind- contrary to the terms of the original (1969)
up date, the Hourly Plan had surplus assets of Hourly and Salaried Plans and Trust documents.
approximately $727,200. The Company pro- The original Plan documents expressly and
posed to distribute $360,800 to Hourly Plan irrevocably restricted the scope of the
members and former members as benefit Company’s authority or ability to amend the
improvements, and $366,400 was to be paid to terms of the Hourly and Salaried Plans and/or
the Company. The Company’s proposal to receive payment of surplus upon the Plans’
received consent from 88% of active members termination.
and 72% of inactive members.
PBA REQUIREMENTS FOR SURPLUS
The NOP dated October 11, 2001 relates to the
WITHDRAWALS
Company’s application to the Superintendent
The PBA and regulations establish a comprehen-
to withdraw surplus from the Samsonite
sive regulatory regime for the withdrawal of sur-
Canadian Retirement Income Plan, registration
plus monies by employers from ongoing pen-
No. 373225 (the “Salaried Plan”). As at the wind
sion plans and from terminated pension plans.
up date, the Salaried Plan had surplus assets of
The regulatory requirements include provisions
approximately $747,400. The Company pro-
addressing notice to plan members and former
posed to distribute $396,900 to Salaried Plan
members, the preparation and filing of valua-
members and former members as benefit
tion reports, and obtaining the requisite level of
improvements, and $350,500 was to be paid to
member/former member consent and, where
the Company. The Company’s proposal
applicable, the consent of any bargaining agent.
received consent from 93% of the active mem-
bers and 79% of inactive members. The only issue concerning the Company’s appli-
cations for surplus withdrawal from each of the
The Hourly and Salaried Plans were terminated
Hourly and Salaried Plans, however, is whether or
by the Company effective January 31, 1998.
not the following PBA requirement was satisfied:
Each of the Superintendent’s NOPs proposed to
ss. 79(3) Subject to subsection 89 (hearing
dismiss the Company’s application to withdraw
and appeal), the Superintendent shall not
surplus on the grounds that the terms of the
consent to an application by an employer in
Hourly Plan and Salaried Plan do not provide
respect of surplus in a pension plan that is
for “payment of surplus to the employer on the
being wound up in whole or in part unless, …
wind-up of the pension plan”, and that conse-
quently, the applications’ compliance with (b) the pension plan provides for payment
subsection 79(3)(b) of the Pensions Benefits Act of surplus to the employer on the wind up
(the “PBA”) was not established. of the pension plan, …
For the reasons set out below, the Tribunal HOURLY AND SALARIED PLAN AND
affirms the Superintendent’s NOPs. Although TRUST PROVISIONS
each of the current versions of the Hourly and The Hourly and Salaried Plans were originally
Salaried Plans contain provisions that provide for established in 1969 and in addition to pension
the Company’s entitlement to surplus on plan plan documentation, included a trust agree-
termination, such provisions are the product of ment for each of the plans with The Canada
amendments made to the Plans in 1980 that are Trust Company.

127
Volume 12, Issue 1
Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

The relevant provisions of the text of the origi- ARTICLE VII: AMENDMENT —
nal plan documents for the Hourly Plan and for TERMINATION — LIMITATION
the Salaried Plan are, in all material respects, 7.1 The Company hopes and expects to con-
identical. Subsections 5.1, 7.1 and 7.2 of the tinue the Plan indefinitely but necessarily
original Hourly and Salaried Plans provide as reserves the right to amend or terminate the
follows: Plan at any time or from time to time for any
ARTICLE V: CONTRIBUTIONS reason.
AND FINANCING No such action by the Company shall operate
5.1 The Company shall make annual contribu- to recapture for the Company any contributions
tions to the Trustee, on the basis of qualified previously made under the Plan by the
actuarial advice, in the amount necessary to Company prior to the satisfaction of all liabili-
provide benefits earned under the Plan during ties for Plan benefits.
the year, and shall pay administrative expenses Except to the extent required to permit the Plan
incident to the operation and management of to meet the requirements of the Ontario Pension
the Plan. Any unfunded liability, or experience Benefits Act of 1965, as amended, the Canadian
deficiency arising from the funding of benefits Income Tax Act, or the requirements of any gov-
herein provided shall be liquidated in the man- ernmental authority, no such action by the
ner prescribed by the Ontario Pension Benefits Act Company shall affect adversely in any way any
of 1965 (including any amendments thereto) rights previously acquired under the Plan by
and related regulations, or other provisions of retired Participants.
law applicable to the Plan. 7.2 In the event of the termination of this Plan,
The Company shall have no right, title, or inter- the assets then in the possession of the Trustee
est in the contributions made by it to the shall be allocated, subject to provision for expens-
Trustee, and no part of Plan assets shall revert to es incident to said termination, to the extent that
the Company except that any excess contribu- they shall be sufficient, for the exclusive benefit
tions as may have been made by the Company of the then retired Participants and all other
as a result of errors may revert to the Company. Participants or former Participants and their ben-
The benefits of the Plan shall be only such ben- eficiaries having an interest in this Plan. Such
efits as can be provided by Plan assets, and there assets shall, subject to approval of the Ontario
shall be no liability or obligation on the part of Pension Commission, be allocated to such per-
the Company to make any further contribu- sons in the following order of precedence:
tions to the Trustee in the event of termination (a) To provide for the continuance of Pensions
of the Plan except as otherwise provided under to retired Participants and their beneficia-
the Ontario Pension Benefits Act of 1965 (includ- ries, if any;
ing any amendments thereto) and related regu- (b) If any assets remain after complete alloca-
lations or other provisions of law applicable to tions for the purposes of (a) above, they
the Plan. No liability for the payment of bene- shall be allocated toward the potential rights
fits under the Plan shall be imposed upon the of non-retired Participants or former
Company or any officer, director, or stock-holder Participants eligible for a normal, deferred,
of the Company. early, or disability pension on an equitable

128
Volume 12, Issue 1
 Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

and nondiscriminatory basis according to ANALYSIS

accepted actuarial principles; The Company made submissions to the
(c) If any assets remain after complete alloca- Tribunal that since inception and consistent
tions for the purposes of (a), and (b) above, with the original Hourly and Salaried Plan doc-
they shall be allocated toward the potential umentation, the Company was a “beneficiary”
rights of non-retired Participants not includ- or “contingent beneficiary” under the terms of
ed in the allocations under (a), and (b) above, the Plans and Trust Funds and that therefore,
on an equitable and nondiscriminatory basis the amendments made subsequently in 1980 to
according to accepted actuarial principles; expressly provide for payment of surplus to the
(d) If any assets remain after complete alloca- employer on plan termination were valid. The
tions for the purposes of (a), (b), and (c) Company also made submissions that the 1980
above, they shall be used to increase the amendments were consistent with the amend-
benefits provided pursuant to the alloca- ing authority the Company reserved to itself in
tions made under (a), (b) and (c) above, on the original Plan and trust documentation. Such
an equitable and nondiscriminatory basis pension plan and trust provisions must, howev-
according to accepted actuarial principles. er, be express, unambiguous and clear to satisfy
If the Ontario Pension Commission does not the “high bar” enunciated in Schmidt v Air
approve the foregoing method of allocation Products Canada Limited [1994] 2SCR611. As the
then the method shall be modified, where nec- excerpts from Schmidt that are set out in Kent v
essary, so that such approval can be received. Tecsysn International Inc.(2000), 133 O.A.C. 312
(Ont. Div. Ct.) indicate:
The above allocations shall be distributed by the
Trustee in annuities or in such other manner as Cory J. (for the majority) said:
may be agreed upon by the Company and the Page 643: The Settlor of a trust can reserve
Trustee. No Participant or other Employee or any power to itself that it wishes provided
person shall have any rights or claims under the that the reservation is made at the time the
Plan beyond the capacity of the assets held by trust is created. The Settlor may choose to
the Trustee to provide benefits in accordance maintain the right to appoint trustees, to
with the above provisions. change the beneficiaries of the trust, or to
The Hourly and Salaried Plans’ Trust withdraw the trust property. Generally, how-
Agreements were made as at April 1, 1969. Each ever, the transfer of the trust property to the
agreement provided that assets in the trust fund trustee is absolute. Any power of control of
were to be used for “the exclusive benefit of that property will be lost unless the transfer
such persons or their estates as may from time is expressly made subject to it.
to time be designated in or pursuant to the Page 647: As a result I find that, at least in
Plan”. Each agreement also contained a provi- the context of pension trusts, the reserva-
sion that their terms could not be amended so tion by the Settlor of an unlimited power of
as to “authorize or permit any part of the Fund amendment does not include a power to
to be used for or diverted to purposes other revoke the trust. A revocation power must
than for the exclusive benefit of such persons be explicitly reserved in order to be valid.
and their estates as from time to time may be Page 656: The employer, as a Settlor of the
designated in or pursuant to the Plan”. trust, may reserve the power to revoke the
129
Volume 12, Issue 1
Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

trust. In order to be effective, that power ORDER

must be clearly reserved at the time the trust Accordingly, the Tribunal affirms each of the
is created. The power to revoke the trust or Superintendent’s NOPs and directs the
any part of it cannot be implied from the Superintendent to dismiss the Company’s appli-
general unlimited power of amendment. cations for surplus withdrawal.
Page 659: In my opinion, the purposes of The Tribunal will remain seized for the purposes
the trust were not fully satisfied by the pay- of considering either party’s request for costs,
ment of all defined benefits. One of the such request and submissions to be made in
objects of the trust was to use any money writing within 30 days of this order.
contained in the fund for the benefit of the
DATED at Toronto, Ontario, this 21st day of
employees.
October, 2002.
In the case at hand, the Company did not satis-
Martha Milczynski,
fy the Tribunal that there was the clear and
Chair of the Tribunal and of the Panel
unambiguous language in either the Hourly or
the Salaried Plan documentation that would William Forbes,
permit the Company to participate in any dis- Member of the Tribunal and of the Panel
tribution of surplus assets on Plan termination David Short,
or that would permit an amendment to the Member of the Tribunal and of the Panel
Plans to be made subsequently, to give effect to
such distribution. The requirements of
Subsection 79(3)(b) of the PBA have not been
met to the high standard required to establish
employer entitlement to surplus.

130
Volume 12, Issue 1
 Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

INDEX NO.: FST File Number P0169-2001

PLAN: Imperial Oil Limited Retirement Plan,

Registration Number 347054

DATE OF DECISION: October 21, 2002

PUBLISHED: Bulletin 12/1 and FSCO website

(Note: Only FST decisions pertaining to pensions are Mr. William Forbes
included in this section.) Member of the Tribunal and of the Panel
(Note: In this section, “Commission” refers to the Ms. Heather Gavin
Financial Services Commission of Ontario.) Member of the Tribunal and of the Panel
IN THE MATTER OF the Pension Benefits Act, APPEARANCES:
R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8, as amended (the “Act”);
For Imperial Oil Limited:
AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal by the Mr. J. Brett Ledger
Superintendent of Financial Services (the Mr. Evan S. Howard
‘Superintendent”) to Make an Order Requiring
For the Superintendent of
the Wind Up in Part of the Imperial Oil Limited
Financial Services:
Retirement Plan, Registration Number 347054
Ms. Deborah McPhail
(the “IOL Plan”);
HEARING DATES:
AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal by the
June 13 and August 1, 2002
Superintendent to Make an Order with respect
to the Calculation of Pension Benefits pursuant
to section 87 of the Act, relating to the IOL
REASONS FOR DECISION OF
Plan;
MR. MCNAIRN AND MR. FORBES
AND IN THE MATTER OF a Hearing in accor- Statement of Facts
dance with subsection 89(8) of the Act; Imperial Oil Limited (“IOL”) sold its “Esso”
branded consumer and small commercial credit
BETWEEN:
card receivables to General Electric Capital
IMPERIAL OIL LIMITED
Canada Inc. (“GE Capital”) effective April 28,
Applicant
1995. The purchase and sale agreement provid-
-and-
ed that GE Capital would establish a credit card
SUPERINTENDENT OF FINANCIAL
program pursuant to which it would issue cred-
SERVICES
it cards bearing the service mark “Esso”. In
Respondent
November of 1995, in connection with the
BEFORE: sale, 37 employees of IOL (the “Transferred
Mr. Colin H.H. McNairn Employees”) became employees of GE Capital.
The Transferred Employees were members of
Vice Chair of the Tribunal and Chair of the Panel
the Imperial Oil Limited Retirement Plan,

131
Volume 12, Issue 1
Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

Registration Number 347054 (the “IOL Plan”) Employees doing work in relation to the Petro-
and, upon their transfer, became members of Canada card, as well as the Esso card, and some
a pension plan sponsored by GE Capital (the of the other employees doing work in relation to
“GE Capital Plan”). The pension benefits the Esso card, as well as the Petro-Canada card.
accrued by the Transferred Employees prior to At the same time as it operated its Toronto
their transfer to GE Capital remained payable Business Centre, GE Capital maintained a
from the IOL Plan. billing and embossing unit for its credit card
Upon assuming their new employment, the operations on Alden Road in Markham at a dif-
Transferred Employees changed their place of ferent municipal address from the Toronto
work from IOL’s office building at 90 Wynford Business Centre but in a building that, accord-
Drive in Don Mills, Ontario (the “Wynford ing to the evidence, “may have been across the
Facility”) to GE Capital’s building at 600 Alden parking lot” from that Centre. This facility pro-
Road in Markham, Ontario, known as the vided services for the credit card business at the
“Toronto Business Centre”. The Wynford Toronto Business Centre, as well as for other
Facility also housed other business operations of credit card businesses of GE Capital.
IOL and continued to do so following the sale Upon the conclusion of its credit card contracts
of the credit card business to GE Capital. with IOL and Petro-Canada, GE Capital discon-
Some of the employees of IOL who worked in tinued the credit card business that it carried on
the credit card business at the Wynford Facility at the Toronto Business Centre in July of 2000,
and were members of the IOL Plan did not resulting in the termination of the employees
become Transferred Employees but lost their who worked at that location. The terminated
jobs as a result of the sale of the business. They employees included 32 remaining Transferred
were given severance packages by IOL, but there Employees from IOL. Of these, three employees
was no partial wind up of the IOL Plan in were re-hired by IOL and their service with GE
respect of those employees. Capital was recognized for eligibility purposes
Around the end of 1997, the credit card busi- under the IOL Plan. GE Capital then wound up
ness of GE Capital that was carried on at the the GE Capital Plan effective September 7, 2000.
Toronto Business Centre was transferred to GE On August 3, 2001, the Superintendent of
Capital Canada Retailer Financial Services Financial Services (the “Superintendent”) issued
Company, an affiliate of GE Capital, and the a notice of proposal to make an order to wind
employees engaged in the business, including up the IOL Plan in part — in relation to those
the Transferred Employees who continued in members and former members who were
the service of GE Capital, became employees of employed by GE Capital at the Toronto Business
that affiliate. Centre and who ceased employment with GE
The business carried on at the Toronto Business Capital between March 2000 and July 2000 as a
Centre related to both Esso and Petro-Canada result of the closure of that Centre (the “First
credit cards. Commencing about the end of Notice of Proposal”). The Superintendent issued
1998, there was some integration of the business a further notice of proposal, on the same date,
activities relating to the two credit card lines, proposing to make an order that the administra-
which involved some of the Transferred tor of the IOL Plan give credit for both age and

132
Volume 12, Issue 1
 Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

years of service, as at the time of the closure of While the Superintendent relied initially on
the Toronto Business Centre, to those members both of these clauses, as indicated in the First
and former members of the IOL Plan who Notice of Proposal, reliance was limited to clause
ceased employment with GE Capital between (e) at the hearing before this Tribunal. The
March 2000 and July 2000 as a result of the Superintendent maintained that in this case the
closure of the Toronto Business Centre, when discontinuance of the credit card business at GE
determining entitlement to benefits under the Capital’s Toronto Business Centre could be
IOL Plan (the “Second Notice of Proposal”). attributed to IOL, as well as to GE Capital, with
IOL filed Requests for Hearing by the Tribunal the result that the Superintendent was entitled
in respect of both Notices of Proposal on August to order the partial wind up of the IOL Plan
24, 2001. The hearings before the Tribunal in relation to those members who lost their
relating to the two Notices of Proposal were employment due to that discontinuance of busi-
heard together. ness and who were not re-employed by IOL.
The stated basis for the Superintendent’s posi-
Consideration of the Issues
tion in this case is the decision of the Pension
There are two principal issues that the Tribunal
Commission of Ontario (the “PCO”) in GenCorp
must address in this case, the first relating to
Canada Inc. v. Ontario (Superintendent of Pensions)
the First Notice of Proposal and the second
(1994), PCO Bulletin 5/3 (Fall 1994) (Index No.
relating to the Second Notice of Proposal.
XDEC-25), a case involving the application of
1. Whether the Superintendent is clause (d) of subsection 69(1) of the Act. In
entitled in the circumstances of GenCorp, a company was ordered to wind up its
this case to make an order, under pension plan in part — in relation to those of
clause (e) of subsection 69(1) of the its former employees whose employment was
Pension Benefits Act, as amended transferred in connection with the sale of the
(the “Act”), requiring the partial business in which they were engaged — when
wind up of the IOL Plan. the successor company discontinued the busi-
Subsection 69(1) of the Act describes the ness by closing the plant it had acquired on the
various situations in which the sale, thus terminating the employment of the
Superintendent may order a wind up, in transferred employees. In that case, as in the
whole or in part, of a pension plan. They present case, the transferred employees ceased
include the following; to accrue benefits under the plan in question
(d) a significant number of members of the upon the sale but remained entitled to pension
pension plan cease to be employed by the benefits under it that had accrued to the date of
employer as a result of the discontinuance sale. The PCO concluded that the company that
of all or part of the business of the employer sold the business was deemed to continue as
or as a result of the reorganization of the the employer of the transferred employees after
business of the employer; the sale by virtue of what was then section 29
of the Act, a conclusion that was consistent
(e) all or a significant portion of the busi-
with the broad definition of “employer” in sec-
ness carried on by the employer at a specific
tion 1 of the Act. Therefore, the discontinuance
location is discontinued;
of the business by the successor company, on

133
Volume 12, Issue 1
Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

the closure of the plant, resulted in the termina- poses of all or part of the employer’s busi-
tion of their deemed employment with the ness or all or part of the assets of the
predecessor company (as well as their actual employer’s business, a member of the pen-
employment with the successor company), sion plan who, in conjunction with the sale,
enabling the Superintendent to order the wind assignment or disposition becomes an
up of the predecessor company’s pension plan, employee of the successor employer and
in relation to the transferred employees, under becomes a member of the pension plan pro-
clause (d) of subsection 69(1) of the Act. vided by the successor employer,
Appeals from the decision of the PCO were dis- (a) continues to be entitled to the benefits
missed by the Divisional Court and the Court of provided under the employer’s pension
Appeal, both of which found that the PCO’s plan in respect of employment in
interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Ontario or a designated province to the
Act was reasonable and, therefore, should not effective date of the sale, assignment or
be disturbed on review (see (1995), 26 O.R. (3d) disposition without further accrual;
696 (Div. Ct.), and (1998), 39 O.R. (3d) 38 (b) is entitled to credit in the pension plan
(C.A.)). The Court of Appeal also concluded that of the successor employer for the period
if the standard of review were correctness, of membership in the employer’s pen-
rather than reasonableness, the PCO’s interpre- sion plan, for the purpose of determin-
tation was indeed correct. ing eligibility for membership in or enti-
Section 29 of the Act provided, among other tlement to benefits under the pension
things, that an employee is deemed not to have plan of the successor employer; and
been terminated by reason of a sale of a busi- (c) is entitled to credit in the employer’s pen-
ness by the employer that is accompanied by a sion plan for the period of employment
transfer of the employee to the acquiror of the with the successor employer for the pur-
business, who then becomes a successor pose of determining entitlement to bene-
employer (the “deemed continuation-of- fits under the employer’s pension plan.
employment provision”). This provision has
(2) Clause (1) (a) does not apply if the succes-
been carried forward (with some modifications
sor employer assumes responsibility for the
that are not material for present purposes) in
accrued pension benefits of the employer’s
section 80 of the Act. The latter section current-
pension plan and the pension plan of the
ly provides, in subsection (3), as follows;
successor employer shall be deemed to be a
(3) Where a transaction described in subsec- continuation of the employer’s plan with
tion (1) takes place, the employment of the respect to any benefits or assets transferred.
employee shall be deemed, for the purposes
The term “employer”, which is used in both
of this Act, not to be terminated by reason
clause (d) and (e) of subsection 69(1) of the Act,
of the transaction.
is defined in section 1 of the Act as follows;
Subsections (1) and (2) of section 80 are to the
“employer”, in relation to a member or former
following effect;
member of a pension plan, means the person or
(1) Where an employer who contributes to a persons from whom or the organization from
pension plan sells, assigns or otherwise dis- which the member or former member receives

134
Volume 12, Issue 1
 Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

or received remuneration to which the pension since there would have been no basis for a par-
plan is related, and “employed” and “employ- tial wind up had IOL simply discontinued the
ment” have a corresponding meaning; credit card business carried on at its Wynford
The term is, thus, capable of covering a former Facility. Thus, any partial wind up of the IOL
employer of an individual as well as the current Plan upon GE Capital’s discontinuance of the
employer of the individual where that individ- business was not, in any sense, a “deferred wind
ual was and is a member of a pension plan in up” of the IOL Plan that simply preserved the
connection with his or her employment. opportunity for the Transferred Employees to
participate in the benefits of a partial wind up
All but one of the arguments on the first issue
(such as “grow in benefits”) that they would
in the present case related, essentially, to
have had if the business had been discontinued
whether GenCorp should be taken to govern the
by IOL.
outcome of this case or whether there are dis-
tinguishing features in this case that justify a IOL also argued that the Superintendent’s pro-
different conclusion. posed partial wind up order in the present case
was not only unnecessary to achieve an equi-
IOL maintained that the GenCorp decision
table result, but would create an inequity — as
should not dictate the result of the present case
between those employees who lost their jobs on
for a number of reasons, the first being a policy
the sale of the business and their fellow employ-
reason. IOL portrayed the policy objective
ees who were transferred with the business. The
underlying the decision in GenCorp — to order a
former were never entitled to participate in a
partial wind up — as being the preservation of
partial wind up of the IOL Plan while the latter
benefits (such as the “grow in benefits” mandat-
would be so entitled under the Superintendent’s
ed on a wind up) that the employees at the
order. But the same inequity may well have
plant would have received had the plant simply
arisen in GenCorp for the statement of facts in
been closed and not been transferred as a going
the PCO decision in that case suggests that, as in
concern along with those employees (indeed,
this case, something short of all the employees
the PCO placed some emphasis on this element
were transferred with the business (see (1994),
of the case, see (1994), PCO Bulletin 5/3 (Fall
PCO Bulletin 5/3 (Fall 1994), p. 58), although it
1994), at pp. 60 and 62). In that event, the
does not say whether any non-transferred
employer could have been ordered to wind up
employees simply lost their jobs or were offered
the plan in relation to those employees, pur-
alternative employment at another location.
suant to clause (e) of subsection 69(1) of the
Act, since it would have discontinued the busi- We do not believe that clause (d) or (e) of sub-
ness carried on by it at a particular location, section 69(1) of the Act, as read with subsection
namely the plant site. The partial wind up that 80(3), can be taken to have the effect of autho-
was in fact ordered in GenCorp could, therefore, rizing a wind up of a pension plan that amounts
be said to be a “deferred wind up” that com- to a “deferred wind up,” as in GenCorp, but as
mended itself because it afforded an equitable failing to authorize a wind up that could not be
result for the transferred employees. The same characterized as such, as in the present case.
thing could not be said about any partial wind There is nothing in the language of those statu-
up that might be ordered in the present case tory provisions that suggests such a distinction.
The determining circumstances that justify the

135
Volume 12, Issue 1
Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

wind up of a pension plan in relation to former deemed continuation-of-employment provision

employees are essentially post-sale-of-business in subsection 80(3) of the Act is capable of
circumstances; they have nothing to do with the applying more than once to a transferred
hypothetical benefits that a terminated employ- employee so that his or her employment is con-
ee might have had in the absence of continuing tinued through sequential sales of the business
employment with a successor employer. More- in which the employee is engaged. In any
over, any inequity that might result from a wind event, we think that clause (e) of subsection
up order — as between those employees who 69(1), as read with subsection 80(3), should be
were out of work on the sale of a business and taken to trigger the right of the Superintendent
those employees who had the opportunity for to order the wind up, in whole or in part, of an
continuing employment with a successor — employer’s pension plan when a successor cor-
does not have any bearing, under the relevant porate organization or group, to which employ-
statutory provisions, on the question of whether ees are transferred, terminates those employees
the Superintendent is authorized to make such by discontinuing the acquired business as it is
an order. Of course, the Superintendent does carried on at a particular location. We do not
not have to make a wind up order whenever the think that it should make any difference if a
circumstances set out in clause (d), (e), or any corporate reorganization happens to have
other clause of subsection 69(1) are present occurred, before the business is discontinued,
since the authority in that subsection is discre- with a resulting change in the entity within the
tionary. The Superintendent can properly weigh organization or group that is the actual employ-
the equities in the balance in the exercise of er of the transferred employee. Such an event
that discretion. ought not to affect the potential statutory bene-
Second, IOL argued that the present case is dis- fits that the transferred employees might have
tinguishable from GenCorp because the entity as a result of their membership in the pension
that was the immediate successor employer, plan of the predecessor employer.
namely GE Capital, did not cause the IOL’s third argument for distinguishing the pre-
Transferred Employees to lose their jobs. Rather sent case from GenCorp is that the business that
that was the result of the action of another enti- was sold in GenCorp was carried on at the same
ty, GE Capital Canada Retailer Financial Services location both before and after the sale whereas
Company (“GE Retailer”), an affiliate of GE the location of the business changed with the
Capital that acquired the business carried on by sale in the present case. However, the location
GE Capital at the Toronto Business Centre of the business did not assume any particular
around the end of 1997 and assumed the posi- importance in GenCorp. That is not surprising as
tion of employer of the Transferred Employees, business location is not a factor in the deemed
and of the other employees at the Centre, at continuation-of-employment provision of the
that time. Act (now in subsection 80(3)) and discontinu-
After taking on the Transferred Employees, GE ance of business at a specific location was not
Retailer became their “employer” (along with the trigger for the wind up in that case since the
IOL and GE Capital) in the sense of the Act and, PCO ordered it to proceed on the basis of clause
therefore, for the purposes of clause (e) of sub- (d), rather than clause (e), of subsection 69(1) of
section 69(1). It seems clear to us that the the Act. Nonetheless, the approach in GenCorp

136
Volume 12, Issue 1
 Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

lends itself to application in the present case. If functions thereafter in relation to the Petro-
a successor employer’s termination of trans- Canada, as well as the IOL, credit card program
ferred employees as a result of a discontinuance and other employees were integrated into the
of an acquired business constitutes deemed ter- credit card operations with the Transferred
mination by the predecessor employer, as in Employees. But we do not know whether there
GenCorp, so too should a successor employer’s were comparable changes in the roles of the
discontinuance of an acquired business, as car- transferred employees in GenCorp following the
ried at a particular location, constitute a sale of the business as the reasons for decision,
deemed discontinuance by the predecessor at the various levels in that case, are silent on
employer if it results in loss of employment by this point. In fact, the only important business-
the transferred employees, as in the present case related consideration under clause (d) or (e)
(the PCO said as much in obiter comments in of subsection 69(1) of the Act, as read with sub-
GenCorp, (1994), PCO Bulletin 5/3 (Fall 1994), at section 80(3), would seem to be whether the
p. 62). It should make no difference that the business that was discontinued, or closed at a
predecessor employer never carried on business specific location, by a successor employer was
at that location just as it made no difference in a business in which the transferred employees
GenCorp that the predecessor employer had no were working.
hand in the discontinuance of business. There Finally, IOL submitted that all or a significant
is a similar relationship between the action of portion of the business carried on by GE
the successor employer and the predecessor Capital (or GE Retailer) at a specific location
employer in the two situations — that is the was not discontinued with the closure of the
employees originally employed by the predeces- Toronto Business Centre because GE Capital
sor employer lost their jobs as a result of the had another Alden Road facility across the
action of the successor employer. While clause parking lot that provided card embossing and
(e) of subsection 69(1) of the Act does not refer billing services for the credit card business car-
explicitly to cessation of employment (although ried on at the Toronto Business Centre as well
clause (d) does), this must be the necessary as for other credit card businesses of GE
result of the discontinuance of business at a spe- Capital. We are not persuaded, on the basis of
cific location before the Superintendent can the evidence we have heard, that there was suf-
order a wind up under clause (e). If there is a ficient physical and operational integration of
discontinuance of business without any loss of the two Alden Road facilities that they should
employment, say where all the employees are be treated as part of a single specific business
transferred to a new location, it seems self- location for the purposes of clause (e) of subsec-
evident that the Superintendent would not be tion 69(1) of the Act nor was there any clear
authorized to order a wind up of the pension evidence that the credit card embossing facility
plan in relation to those employees. continued in operation after the closure of
The fourth argument that IOL made for distin- the Toronto Business Centre. Therefore, we are
guishing the present case from GenCorp is that not persuaded that the closure of that Centre
the roles of the Transferred Employees changed involved something short of the discontinu-
in the present case upon the sale of the busi- ance of business at a specific location.
ness. In particular, some of them performed

137
Volume 12, Issue 1
Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

Conclusion ing entitlement to benefits under the IOL Plan.

We conclude, therefore, that the Superinten- IOL concedes that where clause (c) of subsection
dent is authorized to order the partial wind up 80(1) of the Act applies, it generally requires a
of the IOL Plan as proposed in the First Notice pension plan to take account of a member’s ser-
of Proposal. The Superintendent’s exercise, in vice with a successor employer and, conse-
the circumstances of the present case, of the dis- quently, any increase in age during that service.
cretion involved in carrying out that authority However, IOL disputes that this or any other
was not challenged before us. IOL simply took provision of the Act would enable a member of
the position that the Superintendent did not the IOL Plan to “grow into” the particular age
have the authority to make the proposed order, requirements under section 4.3 of that Plan or
a position that we have rejected for the reasons otherwise satisfy the conditions for the opera-
set out above. Therefore, we order the Supe- tion of that section.
rintendent to carry out the proposal contained Section 4.3 of the IOL Plan provides for an
in the First Notice of Proposal, subject to the enhanced early retirement pension in the cir-
qualification that the order of the Superin- cumstances that it prescribes, as follows:
tendent requiring the partial wind up of the 4.3 Pension in Lieu of Termination Annuity
IOL Plan should exclude from the partial wind A Member with 10 years or more of Service
up group the three Transferred Employees whose employment is terminated by the
who were re-employed by IOL upon the cessa- Company and who is eligible for a termina-
tion of their employment with GE Capital (or tion annuity … and who will be eligible to
GE Retailer). retire … within five years of terminating
2. Are the former members of the employment [i.e. who is terminated when
IOL Plan who ceased employment between the ages of 50 and 55] may retire …
with GE Capital between March, and receive a pension … in lieu of a termi-
2000 and July, 2000 entitled to nation annuity … if the Member’s employ-
credit in that Plan for any increase ment is terminated for reasons deemed by
in age during their period of the Company to be for maintaining or
employment with GE Capital for improving the efficiency of its operations;
the purpose of determining enti- provided, however, that the date of retire-
tlement to benefits under the IOL ment for the purpose of receiving payment
Plan pursuant to clause (c) of sub- of such pension shall not be effective until
section 80(1) of the Act? the last day of the month in which the
In the Second Notice of Proposal, the Superin- Member attains age 55 …
tendent proposes to make an order that the For ease of reference, we set out, once again,
administrator of the IOL Plan give credit for some of the provisions of section 80 of the Act,
both age and years of service, as at the closure a section which also figured into the determina-
of GE Capital’s Toronto Business Centre, to tion of the first issue in this case:
those members who ceased employment with 80. (1) Where an employer who contributes
GE Capital between March, 2000 and July, to a pension plan sells, assigns or otherwise
2000, as a result of that closure, when determin- disposes of all or part of the employer’s busi-

138
Volume 12, Issue 1
 Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

ness or all or part of the assets of the explained by the fact that it coincided with
employer’s business, a member of the pen- the introduction into the Act of a requirement
sion plan who, in conjunction with the sale, that the administrator of a pension plan must
assignment or disposition becomes an ensure, under subsection 19(1), that a pension
employee of the successor employer and plan is administered in accordance with the
becomes a member of the pension plan of Act and of authority on the part of the
the successor employer, Superintendent, under subsection 87(2), to
… make an order against the administrator requir-
ing it to take action or refrain from taking
(c) is entitled to credit in the employer’s
action in respect of a pension plan if of the
pension plan for the period of employment
opinion that the plan is not being administered
with the successor employer for the purpose
“in accordance with [the] Act, the regulations
of determining entitlement to benefits
or the plan” (emphasis added). The Superin-
under the employer’s pension plan.
tendent suggested that “for the purposes of the
…
Act”, therefore, now embraces “for the purposes
(3) Where a transaction described in subsec- of the pension plan” since the Act requires, in
tion (1) takes place, the employment of the effect, that every plan be administered in accor-
employee shall be deemed, for the purposes dance with the plan. Consequently, it was possi-
of this Act, not to be terminated by reason ble, in the Superintendent’s view, to move to
of the transaction. the new statement of purposes in subsection
The Superintendent relied on clause (c) of sub- 80(3) without losing the effect of the original
section 80(1) as requiring, for the purposes of statement of purposes in the predecessor subsec-
section 4.3 of the IOL Plan, that IOL give credit tion 29(2).
for any age progression of the Transferred We do not think that the use of a particular
Employees while they were employed by GE principle set out in the Act (as in subsection
Capital (or GE Retailer), and subsection 80(3) as 80(3)), in order to interpret a provision of a
deeming the circumstances of the termination pension plan (such as section 4.3 of the IOL
of those Employees to be circumstances of their Plan), can be said to be “for the purposes of the
termination, at the same time, by IOL, their Act”. It might be so if the Act stated expressly
original employer. that the principle applied for the purposes of
However, the deemed continuation-of-employ- any pension plan, so that use of the principle to
ment provision of subsection 80(3) operates interpret the plan was, arguably, a purpose of
“for the purposes of [the] Act” and not for the the Act. But that is not the situation in the pre-
purposes of a pension plan subject to the Act. sent case. We do not think that subsection 87(2)
By contrast, the predecessor provision, in what of the Act provides such an express statement
was then subsection 29(2) of the Act, deemed for all it says is that the Superintendent has the
employment to continue “for the purposes of authority to take enforcement action if there is
the employer’s plan”. The change in wording a breach by the plan administrator of a provi-
should be taken to be purposeful and to have sion of a pension plan. That does not make the
some practical effect. The Superintendent interpretation of any such provision a purpose
argued that the change in wording can be of the Act. What the Superintendent can

139
Volume 12, Issue 1
Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

enforce is the plan, properly interpreted. by GE Capital (or GE Retailer). Consequently,

Subsection 87(2) does not purport to dictate their entitlement to receive the benefit provided
how the plan should be interpreted by superim- by section 4.3 must depend on their age at the
posing principles of the Act that do not apply, time of that termination, assuming it to have
of their own force, to the plan. been “for efficiency reasons”. If they were age
The interpretation of section 4.3 of the IOL 50 to 55 at that time, they would qualify for
Plan, as it applies in the circumstances of this the benefit.
case, is not governed by the GenCorp decision We are then left with the question of whether
nor by the same principles that led us to apply the latter conclusion is altered by clause (c) of
GenCorp in resolving the first issue in the pre- subsection 80(1) of the Act, which says that
sent case. GenCorp and its application in this employees in the position of the Transferred
case concern the effect of subsection 80(3) of Employees are entitled to credit in their employ-
the Act upon the operation of subsection 69(1) er’s pension plan for the period of their employ-
of the Act. The latter subsection refers, in claus- ment with the successor employer for the pur-
es (d) and (e), to the action of an “employer”, pose of determining entitlement to benefits
in the form of a business discontinuance or under the employer’s plan. Clearly, this provi-
reorganization, as triggering the right of the sion does not attribute the actions of a successor
Superintendent to order the wind up of a pen- employer, in relation to any transferred employ-
sion plan. The term “employer” is defined in ees, to the original employer. It cannot, there-
the Act, as noted in GenCorp, to include both fore, overcome the requirement of section 4.3 of
the original employer and a successor employer, the IOL Plan that there must have been a termi-
so that it would cover IOL and GE Capital (or nation “by the Company” [i.e. IOL] for efficien-
GE Retailer) in the present case. By comparison, cy purposes before one gets to the question of
section 4.3 of the IOL Plan refers to the action whether an employee falls within the qualifying
of the “Company” and the rationale of the age range for a section 4.3 benefit. The only
“Company” for that action. In particular, the such termination that may have occurred, on
section takes effect where there is a termination the facts we have before us, was in 1995 when
of employment by the Company and such the Transferred Employees moved to GE Capital.
termination is for reasons deemed by the
Conclusion
Company to be for maintaining or improving
We conclude, therefore, that none of the
the efficiency of its operations. The term
Transferred Employees could become entitled to
“Company” is defined, for the purposes of the
the benefit under section 4.3 of the IOL Plan by
IOL Plan, as meaning IOL and any affiliate
virtue of the achievement of the age qualifica-
designated by IOL for participation in the
tion for that benefit while in the employment
IOL Plan; the definition does not include a suc-
of GE Capital (or GE Retailer). Accordingly, we
cessor employer. Therefore, the termination of
order the Superintendent to refrain from carry-
employment that is addressed by section 4.3
ing out the proposal contained in the Second
of the IOL Plan must mean, in the case of the
Notice of Proposal as it relates to determining
Transferred Employees, their termination by
entitlement to the benefit under section 4.3 of
IOL upon the sale of IOL’s credit card business
the IOL Plan.
to GE Capital, not their subsequent termination

140
Volume 12, Issue 1
 Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

DATED at Toronto, Ontario, this 21st day of benefit of section 80 of the Act. They became,
October, 2002. in effect, a distinct group within the IOL Plan.
Colin H.H. McNairn, They continued their membership in that Plan
Vice Chair of the Tribunal and Chair of the Panel and their subsequent service with GE Capital
(and GE Retailer) would be used to determine
William Forbes,
entitlement to benefits under the Plan, in accor-
Member of the Tribunal and of the Panel
dance with subsection 80(1) of the Act, and
REASONS FOR DECISION OF their subsequent termination by GE Retailer
MS. GAVIN would be deemed to be termination by IOL,
For the purposes of these Reasons, I adopt the principally as a result of the operation of sub-
Statement of Facts set out in the separate section 80(3) of the Act.
Reasons for Decision of the other members of My colleagues conclude that subsection 80(3)
the panel that heard this case. The defined cannot influence the resolution of the second
terms in those Reasons for Decision are used in issue because it operates “for the purposes of
the same sense in these Reasons. [the] Act” and not for the purposes of a pension
The panel was asked to consider two principal plan subject to the Act. They rely on the fact
issues. The first issue is whether the Superin- that the Act was amended to substitute the for-
tendent was entitled in the circumstances of this mer phrase for the phrase “for the purposes of
case to make an order, under clause (e) of sub- the employer’s plan”, which appeared in a pre-
section 69(1) of the Act, requiring a partial wind decessor provision to subsection 80(3) of the
up of the IOL Plan. On this issue, I agree with Act. As a result, they believe that the Transferred
my colleagues that a partial plan wind up was Employees have not had their employment con-
appropriate in the circumstances and I concur in tinued for the purposes of determining entitle-
the order that they make as a result of their con- ment to the benefit of any of the provisions of
clusion on this issue. the IOL Plan. I disagree.
The second issue is whether the former mem- The Superintendent’s position is that the Act
bers of the IOL Plan who ceased employment must be read in its entirety, in which case this
with GE Capital between March 2, 2000 and amendment does not represent a significant
July, 2000 are entitled to credit in that Plan change since it was accompanied by further
for any increase in age during their period of amendments requiring, in subsection 19(1), that
employment with GE Capital for the purpose a pension plan be administered in accordance
of determining entitlement to benefits under with the Act and conferring authority on the
the IOL Plan pursuant to clause (c) of subsec- Superintendent, under subsection 87(2), to order
tion 80(1) of the Act. On this issue, I disagree the administrator of a plan to take or refrain
with the reasoning of my colleagues. from taking any action when he or she believes
IOL and the Superintendent agree that in that the plan is not being administered in accor-
November of 1995, as a result of IOL selling its dance with the Act, the regulations or the pension
“Esso” branded consumer and small commercial plan. I believe this to be the correct approach.
credit card receivables to GE Capital, the However, in order to determine if an employee
Transferred Employees became entitled to the or former employee is entitled to the benefit of

141
Volume 12, Issue 1
Pension Bulletin
UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS

Ontario

a particular section of a pension plan, one must

look at the plan for the determination of eligi-
bility. Under section 4.3 of the IOL Plan, a
member must have 10 or more years of service,
have their employment terminated by the
Company for reasons deemed by the Company
to be for maintaining or improving the efficien-
cy of its operations, be eligible for a termination
annuity, and be eligible to retire within five
years of terminating employment.
For the purposes of the IOL Plan, the term
“Company” is defined as being IOL. Therefore, a
member of the Plan must have their employment
terminated by IOL to be eligible for a benefit
under section 4.3 of the Plan since that provision
relates to situations where there is a termination
by the “Company”. Therefore, I agree with my
colleagues that section 4.3 of the IOL Plan does
not entitle the Transferred Employees to its bene-
fit upon their termination by GE Retailer.
Since the order that my colleagues make in
respect of the second issue is limited to entitle-
ment to the benefit under section 4.3 of the IOL
Plan, I agree with that order even though I do
not agree with all of the reasoning that led to it.
DATED at Toronto, Ontario, this 21st day of
October, 2002.
Heather Gavin,
Member of the Tribunal and of the Panel

142
Volume 12, Issue 1
Pension Bulletin Pension Bulletin

UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

FIDELIS FIDELIS

Ontario Ontario

All publications provided by the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) in written or electronic
formats have been prepared by FSCO to provide general information about pension matters to the public.

Information in this Bulletin or any FSCO publication is provided by FSCO upon the express understanding
that neither FSCO nor any member of the staff of FSCO is providing legal, actuarial, accounting or other
professional advice or services whatsoever with respect to the material contained in this Bulletin or any
FSCO publication. FSCO and staff of FSCO are not responsible for any action, costs, damages or liability
arising from the use of any information contained in FSCO publications nor in respect of the consequences of
anything done or omitted to be done by any person in reliance upon the whole or any part of the contents
of this Bulletin or any FSCO product.

The Financial Services Commission of Ontario Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 28 as amended, the Pension
Benefits Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8 as amended, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 909 as amended, the terms of the pension
plan and trust, if any, and the policies, procedures and practices of FSCO should be considered in
determining specific legal requirements, and professional advice should be sought.

This material is owned by the Government of Ontario and protected by copyright law. It may not
be reproduced or redistributed for commercial purposes without the prior written permission of the
Queen’s Printer for Ontario.

If it is reproduced or redistributed for non-commercial purposes, Crown copyright is to be

acknowledged.

PERMISSION PLACE
To request permission to reproduce all or part of this material for commercial purposes, please STAMP
HERE
contact the Queen’s Printer’s representative:
Senior Copyright Analyst
Publications Ontario
(416) 326-5153
E-mail: [email protected]
The Editor, Pension Bulletin

© Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2003

Financial Services Commission of Ontario
5160 Yonge Street, 17th Floor
ISBN 1481- 6156 Box 85
Ce document est disponible en français North York, ON
M2N 6L9

Volume 12, Issue 1

 THE FINANCIAL SERVICES COMMISSION OF ONTARIO

JANUARY 2003 • VOLUME 12, ISSUE 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

General Announcements Consents to Payments of Surplus out of

Important Notice to Administrators .................1 Wound Up Pension Plans..........................60
Introduction of Bill 198 ....................................2 Declaration that the Pension Benefits
Guarantee Fund Applies to
Pension Division Staff Changes ........................3
Pension Plans — Subsection 83(1)
Contacts for Plan Specific Enquiries .................3 of the PBA ..................................................67
Pension Advisory Committees — Membership Allocations of Money from the
as at November 2002...................................4 Pension Benefits Guarantee Fund .............75

Hearings/Court Matters Tribunal Activities

Enforcement Matters .........................................5 Appointments of Tribunal Members...............81
Court Matters ....................................................6 Pension Hearings Before the Financial
Services Tribunal........................................82
Superintendent of Financial Services Financial Services Tribunal Decisions

✁ Appointment of Administrators —
with Reasons..............................................95
Section 71 of the PBA..................................7
Please complete and return this form if you no longer wish to receive the Notices of Proposal to Make an Order..............9
Pension Bulletin or if your address label is incorrect, or if you wish to Notices of Proposal to
receive the Pension Bulletin in French: Make a Declaration....................................37
Notices of Proposal to Refuse to
I do not wish to continue receiving the Pension Bulletin.
Make an Order...........................................47
My label is incorrect. Please revise as follows: Orders that Pension Plans be
Wound Up .................................................50
Name

Title

Organization

Address

City Province

Country Postal Code

Please send copies of the Pension Bulletin in French.

UT INCEPIT SIC PERMANET

Thank you for your assistance with the Mailing List Review. FIDELIS

Ontario