table of contents - financial services commission of ... · the financial services commission of...

TABLE OF CONTENTS

THE FINANCIAL SERVICES COMMISSION OF ONTARIO

JANUARY, 2002 • VOLUME 11, ISSUE 1

General Announcements

Pension Division - Staff Changes .................... 1

Contacts for Plan Specific Enquiries................ 1

FSCO Pension Advisory Committees .............. 2

Hearings/Court Matters

Enforcement Matters ....................................... 3

Court Matters ................................................... 4

Legislative Changes/RegulatoryPolicies

Joint and Survivor Pension Waived

– B100-851.................................................... 7

2002 LIF Maximum Withdrawal

Amount Table – L050-658............................ 8

Superintendent of Financial Services

Notices of Proposal to Make an Order .......... 11

Orders that Pension Plans be Wound Up.... 103

Orders that a Registration be Revoked ........ 111

Consents to Payments of Surplus

out of Wound Up Pension Plans ............. 117

Declaration that the Pension Benefits

Guarantee Fund Applies to

Pension Plans – Subsection 83(1)

of the PBA ................................................ 123

Allocations of Money from the Pension

Benefits Guarantee Fund –

Subsection 34(7) of Regulation 909......... 137

Tribunal Activities

Appointments of Tribunal Members ........... 139

Pension Hearings Before the Financial

Services Tribunal ...................................... 140

Financial Services Tribunal Decisions

with Reasons ............................................ 149

Volume 11, Issue 1

Pension Bulletin

All publications provided by the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) in written or electronicformats 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 understandingthat neither FSCO nor any member of the staff of FSCO is providing legal, actuarial, accounting or otherprofessional advice or services whatsoever with respect to the material contained in this Bulletin or anyFSCO publication. FSCO and staff of FSCO are not responsible for any action, costs, damages or liabilityarising from the use of any information contained in FSCO publications nor in respect of the consequencesof anything done or omitted to be done by any person in reliance upon the whole or any part of the contentsof this Bulletin or any FSCO product.

The Financial Services Commission of Ontario Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 28 as amended, the PensionBenefits Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8 as amended, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 909 as amended, the terms of the pensionplan 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 notbe reproduced or redistributed for commercial purposes without the prior written permission of theQueen’s Printer for Ontario.

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

PERMISSION

To request permission to reproduce all or part of this material for commercial purposes, pleasecontact the Queen’s Printer’s representative:

Senior Copyright Analyst

Publications Ontario

(416) 326-5153

E-mail: [email protected]

© Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2002

ISBN 1481- 6148

Ce document est disponible en français

Volume 11, Issue 1

Pension Bulletin

1

GENERAL ANNOUNCEMENTS

Pension Division – Staff Changes

Bradley Mockford is the Executive Assistant to K. David Gordon, the newly appointed DeputySuperintendent, Pensions. Dean Therrien assumes the role of Co-ordinator, Administrative andSupport Services. Marco Ciavatta assumes the role of Compliance and Enforcement Officer,Filings. Jason Gartshore was appointed to the position of Compliance Assistant. John KhingShan, Marilyn Johnson and Pauline Stevens assume the role of Assistant Pension Officers.Carol Nitkin has assumed the role of Pension Analyst. Dorothy Cottrell joins the PensionPolicy Unit.

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

Tim Thomson Pension Officer 416-226-7829 Bull - Cem

Irene Mook-Sang Pension Officer 416-226-7824 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

Jeff Chuchman Pension Officer 416-226-7807 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

Chantal Laurin Pension Officer 416-226-7808 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

Leonard Peter Pension Officer 416-226-7855 Unicorp - Z

Accounting and Assurance Advisory Committee

Besler, Jason

Cassidy, Jim

Eigl, Charlie (Vice Chair)

Finn, Mary Ann

Holland, Marie

Hunter, Don

Koehli, Ron

Racanelli, Nick

Turner, Eric

Wade, Jack

Walker, Albert

Wilkinson, Don (Chair)

Actuarial Advisory Committee

Bicknell, Arthur

Chang, Paul

Cohen, Lorne (Vice Chair)

DiRisio, Wendy

Figueiredo, Karen (Chair)

Hart, David

Hutchinson, Laurie

Levy, Thomas

Pitcher, Clare

Robertson, Marcus

Rosenblat, Rob

Investment Advisory Committee

Bertram, Bob

Franks, Jim

Grantier, Bruce

Kyle, Claire

Marks, Josephine

Mercier, Eileen

Phelps, Tom (Vice Chair)

Rafos, Bob

Schaefer, Klaus

Wirth, Alf (Chair)

Legal Advisory Committee

Bastein, Leigh Ann (Chair)

Forgie, Jeremy

Gold, Murray (Vice Chair)

Hanson, Bernie

Healy, Priscilla

Lokan, Andrew

Mark, Rose

Nachshen, Gary

O’Reilly, Hugh

Picard, Mary

Rienzo, Doug

2

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

FSCO Pension Advisory Committees - Membership as at November 2001

Enforcement MattersCharges laid under the Pension Benefits Act.

The information set out below is current toNovember 26, 2001.

i. Canadian Corporation Creation Center(CCCC)

Charges under the Pension Benefits Act were laidagainst the CCCC Pension Plan administrator,the individual trustees, CCCC and related com-panies on September 12, 2001. The chargesrelate to a scheme whereby locked in accountswere assigned to the defendant companies inreturn for the promise to extend a loan to thelocked in account holder. A first appearanceoccurred on October 9, 2001. The matter hasbeen put over to December 6, 2001.

ii. Daybar Industries Limited

Charges were laid in respect of two pensionplans administered by Daybar. In one pensionplan, Daybar was charged for failing to file theannual information returns and PensionBenefits Guarantee Fund (PBGF) assessmentsfor two separate years and for failing to pay thefiling fee associated with another annual infor-mation return. In respect of the other plan,Daybar was charged for failing to file an annualinformation return. On August 21, 2001,Daybar pleaded guilty to the charges. A totalfine of $3000 in respect of all charges waslevied.

iii. Forum Corporation of Canada Ltd.

Charges were laid for failing to remit the filingfee in respect of an annual information return.On August 21, 2001, Forum pleaded guilty tothe charges. A total fine of $1000 in respect ofall charges was levied.

iv. Student Federation of the Universityof Ottawa

Charges were laid for failing to file a financialstatement. The first appearance on the chargesoccurred on August 21, 2001. The matter wasput over until November 13, 2001. OnNovember 13, 2001, the Student Federation ofthe University of Ottawa pleaded guilty to allcharges and a total fine of $500 was levied onall charges.

v. National Press Club of Canada

Charges were laid for failing to file financialstatements. The first appearance for the chargesoccurred on August 21, 2001. The matter wasput over until November 13, 2001. OnNovember 13, 2001, the National Press Club ofCanada pleaded guilty to all charges and a totalfine of $3000 was levied on all charges.

vi. Visentin Steel Fabricators Ltd.

Charges were laid for failing to file annualinformation returns. The first appearance forthe charges occurred on August 21, 2001. Thematter was put over until November 13, 2001.On November 13, 2001, the matter was putover for a third appearance now scheduled forJanuary 15, 2002.

vii. 9007-7876 Quebec Ltd.

Charges were laid for failing to file annualinformation returns, PBGF assessments, finan-cial statements, and an actuarial report. Thefirst appearance for the charges occurred onAugust 21, 2001. The matter was put over untilNovember 13, 2001. On November 13, 2001,9007-7876 Quebec Ltd. pleaded guilty to allcharges and a total fine of $5000 was levied onall charges.

HEARINGS/COURT MATTERS

3

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

viii. Kendan Manufacturing Limited

Charges were laid for failing to file an annualinformation return and to pay the PBGF assess-ments for two consecutive years. The firstappearance for the charges occurred on August21, 2001. The matter was put over untilNovember 13, 2001. On November 13, 2001,the matter was put over for a third appearancenow scheduled for January 15, 2002.

Court MattersThe information set out below is current toNovember 26, 2001.

i. Régime de Retraite des Employés etMembres de Canadian CorporationCreation Center, Registration Number1062363 (the “CCCC Plan”)

FSCO is intervening in a proceeding before theQuébec Superior Court for a judgement regard-ing the ownership of funds contained in cer-tain bank accounts held at a Montreal branchof the National Bank of Greece (Canada). Thebasis for FSCO’s intervention is that theaccounts contain funds that are attributable tothe CCCC Pension Plan. Effective August 3,2001, the Deputy Superintendent, Pensions, isacting as administrator of the CCCC PensionPlan. On October 19, 2001, the Court grantedFSCO’s request for intervener status. In addi-tion, the Court granted FSCO’s separate motionfor seizure before judgement freezing the fundsin the accounts.

ii. Retirement Income Plan SalariedEmployees of Weavexx Corp.,Registration Number 264663 (the“Weavexx Plan”)

On May 30, 2000, the Superior Court of Justice,Ontario Divisional Court, granted an applica-tion for judicial review brought by a group offormer members of the Weavexx Plan to setaside the Superintendent of Pensions’ August1997 consent to a transfer of assets from theWeavexx Plan to the BTR Pension Plan forCanadian Employees. The decision of the Courtwas based on the conclusion that theSuperintendent had exceeded his jurisdiction infailing to consider the issues of surplus, trustand a requested partial wind up of the Weavexx Plan.

4

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

An addendum issued by the Court onNovember 16, 2000, stated that the return ofassets to the Weavexx Plan was not to be the subject of a Financial Services Tribunalhearing and that any decision made by theSuperintendent of Financial Services in respectof the requested partial wind up was to bereferred to the Tribunal for a hearing. The Courtalso awarded the applicants $54,294.06 in costs.

The Ontario Court of Appeal granted both theSuperintendent and BTR Inc. leave to appealthese decisions on February 26, 2001. Bothappeals were heard on November 19, 2001. TheCourt reserved its decision in both appeals.

iii. Colgate-Palmolive Canada Inc.Pension Plan for Salaried and Non-Union Hourly Employees

On November 29, 2000, the Superior Court ofJustice, Ontario Divisional Court, dismissed anapplication for judicial review brought by agroup of former members of the Colgate-Palmolive Canada Inc. Pension Plan for Salariedand Non-Union Hourly Employees, who wantedto set aside the Superintendent of Pensions’December 1995 consent to a transfer of assetsfrom the Bristol-Myers Canada Inc. RetirementIncome Plan to the Colgate Plan. The appli-cants also wanted the Superintendent’s August1994 approval of a partial wind up report filedby the Colgate Plan set aside.

The Court found that the applicants, as mem-bers of the importing pension plan, had noright to object to the transfer; any right toobject would have been exercised when theamendment to the Colgate Plan respecting thetransfer was filed. The Court also found thatthere was no evidence to support a partial windup involving additional former members of theColgate Plan.

On February 26, 2001, the Ontario Court ofAppeal granted leave to appeal to the appli-cants. The Court ordered that this appeal beheard together with the Weavexx appeal. Bothappeals were heard on November 19, 2001. TheCourt reserved its decision in both appeals.

iv. Pension Plan for Employees ofMonsanto Canada Inc., RegistrationNumber 341230, FST File P0013-1998

On November 30, 1998, the Superintendentissued a Notice of Proposal to Refuse toApprove a Partial Wind Up Report filed byMonsanto in respect of a 1997 plant closure.The grounds for the refusal were: (a) the windup report did not deal with the surplus distrib-ution on partial wind up; (b) the payment ofbenefit enhancements on wind up to certainmembers constituted an inequitable distribu-tion of surplus, and an indirect payment of sur-plus to the employer without following thestatutory requirements for the payment of sur-plus to the employer; and (c) the wind upreport provided that the funds relating to bene-fits of those in the partial wind up group wereto remain in the pension plan’s fund ratherthan being distributed by way of a purchase ofannuities.

On December 31, 1998, Monsanto Canada Inc.(“Monsanto”) requested a hearing before theFinancial Services Tribunal in respect of theNotice of Proposal.

The hearing was held on January 10 - 12 andFebruary 7 - 11, 2000. The Tribunal issuedmajority and minority Reasons dated April 14,2000, which were published in Volume 9, Issue 2 of the Pension Bulletin. In the result,the Tribunal directed the Superintendent toapprove the Partial Wind Up Report.

5

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

The decision of the Tribunal was appealed tothe Superior Court of Justice, OntarioDivisional Court. On March 19, 2001, theCourt allowed the appeal on the basis of itsconclusion that the first ground set out in theNotice of Proposal ((a) above) was a properbasis for the Superintendent to refuse toapprove the Partial Wind Up Report and thatthe Superintendent was entitled to rely on thatground. In this respect, it adopted the minorityReasons of the Tribunal and directed theSuperintendent to carry out the Notice ofProposal to Refuse to Approve.

The Court found that the Financial ServicesTribunal majority’s interpretation of subsection70(6) of the Pension Benefits Act was unreason-able. The Court also found that the FinancialServices Tribunal majority’s finding on legiti-mate expectation misinterpreted the legislationand was an error in law.

Monsanto, the Association of CanadianPension Management, and the National TrustCompany each sought leave to appeal this decision. On June 28, 2001, the Ontario Courtof Appeal granted leave. The appeal has beenscheduled for April 29 and 30, 2002.

6

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

This policy replaces B100-850 (“SurvivorBenefit Waived - PBA, R.S.O. 1990, s. 44”) as ofthe effective date of this policy.

Note: Where this policy conflicts with the FinancialServices Commission of Ontario Act, 1997 Act,1997, S.O. 1997, c. 28 (“FSCO Act”), PensionBenefits Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8 (“PBA”) orRegulation 909, R.R.O. 1990 (“Regulation”), theFSCO Act, PBA or Regulation govern.

If a joint and survivor pension is waived,how should the pension amount payableto the former member be determined?

Under section 44 of the PBA, a pension paid toa former member who has a spouse or same-sexpartner on the date that payment of the firstinstalment of the pension is due must providea survivor benefit upon the death of the formermember or the spouse or same-sex partner,whichever occurs first, which is not less than60% of the pension amount payable duringtheir joint lives. This entitlement to receive a

pension in the form of a joint and survivorpension may be waived in accordance with section 46 of the PBA.

Where a joint and survivor pension is waived,the pension amount payable to the formermember should not be less than the single lifepension determined as if the former memberdoes not have a spouse or same-sex partner.Where a pension plan wishes to provide agreater amount, it must specifically provide forsuch in the plan text.

LEGISLATIVE CHANGES/REGULATORY POLICIES

7

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

Financial Services Commission of Ontario

Commission des services financiers de l’Ontario

SECTION: Benefits

INDEX NO.: B100-851

TITLE: Joint and Survivor Pension Waived- PBA s. 44

APPROVED BY: Superintendent of Financial Services

PUBLISHED: FSCO website (December 2001)

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 2002

REPLACES: B100-850

Note: Where this policy conflicts with the FinancialServices Commission of Ontario Act, 1997, S.O.1997, c. 28 (“FSCO Act”), Pension Benefits Act,R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8 (“PBA”) or Regulation 909,R.R.O. 1990 (“Regulation”), the FSCO Act, PBA orRegulation govern.

The attached table has been prepared by theFinancial Services Commission of Ontario(“FSCO”). Additional copies of this table andcopies of articles published by FSCO about theOntario LIF are available on FSCO’s website atwww.fsco.gov.on.ca, or may be picked up inperson at the reception desk, 4th Floor, 5160 Yonge Street, North York, Ontario.

Interest assumptions used in the tableon next page:

(1) 6.00%, which represents the greater of theCANSIM B14013 rate for November 2001(5.66%) and 6.00% for the first 15 years,and

(2) 6.00% for the years remaining to the end ofthe year in which the LIF owner attains 90years of age. (Assumption to age 90 is forthe purpose of maximum withdrawal calcu-lation only. The balance of a LIF must beused to purchase a life annuity by the endof the year in which the LIF owner attains80 years of age.)

Percentages shown must be prorated for theinitial fiscal year if less than twelve months.Part of a month is treated as a full month.

8

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1


Commission des services financiers de l’Ontario

SECTION: Life Income Fund/Locked-In Retirement Account

INDEX NO.: L050-658

TITLE: 2002 LIF Maximum Withdrawal Amount Table

APPROVED BY: Superintendent of Financial Services

PUBLISHED: FSCO website (December 2001)

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 2002

9

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

Age at New Age Years to End of Maximum WithdrawalJanuary 12, 2002 During 2002 Year Age 90 is as a Percentage of the

Attained LIF Balance as at January 1, 2002*

48 49 42 6.19655%49 50 41 6.23197%50 51 40 6.26996%51 52 39 6.31073%52 53 38 6.35454%53 54 37 6.40164%54 55 36 6.45234%55 56 35 6.50697%56 57 34 6.56589%57 58 33 6.62952%58 59 32 6.69833%59 60 31 6.77285%60 61 30 6.85367%61 62 29 6.94147%62 63 28 7.03703%63 64 27 7.14124%64 65 26 7.25513%65 66 25 7.37988%66 67 24 7.51689%67 68 23 7.66778%68 69 22 7.83449%69 70 21 8.01930%70 71 20 8.22496%71 72 19 8.45480%72 73 18 8.71288%73 74 17 9.00423%74 75 16 9.33511%75 76 15 9.71347%76 77 14 10.14952%77 78 13 10.65661%78 79 12 11.25255%79 80 11 11.96160%

* The maximum annual withdrawal amount percentage is calculated on the basis of a twelve-month fiscal year to December 31, 2002, using the interest assumptions above.

2002 Maximum Annual Withdrawal Amount Table for an Ontario LifeIncome Fund (LIF)

10

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

IN THE MATTER OF the Pension Benefits Act,R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8, as amended, c. 28 (the“Act”);

AND IN THE MATTER OF a Refusal by theSuperintendent of Financial Services to makean Order under section 87 of the Act respectinga request by Jim MacKinnon relating to theLabourers’ Pension Fund of Central andEastern Canada, Registration Number573188 (the “Plan”);

TO: Jim MacKinnonP.O. Box 354Thamesford, OntarioN0M 2M0

Notice of Proposal to Refuse to Makean OrderI PROPOSE TO REFUSE TO MAKE ANORDER under section 87 of the Act, withrespect to Mr. MacKinnon’s claim that he isentitled to receive a “Thirty and Out” pensionbenefit from the Plan.

I PROPOSE TO REFUSE TO MAKE THISORDER FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:

1. The Plan is a multi-employer defined bene-fit plan. It was established by way of a trustagreement dated February 23, 1972.

2. Mr. MacKinnon became a member of thePlan in November 1974. At that time, hewas employed by the Electrical Power SectorContractors’ Association (“EPSCA”), whichcontributed to the Plan under the terms ofa collective agreement between it and theLabourers’ International Union of NorthAmerica (“L.I.U.N.A.”), Local 1059 (“Local1059”).

3. Mr. MacKinnon left his employment atEPSCA in July 1982. From August 1982until the present, he has been employed asthe Business Manager of Local 1059 ofL.I.U.N.A. Local 1059 made pension contri-butions to the Plan on Mr. MacKinnon’sbehalf, until March 1, 1996.

4. After March 1, 1996, due to changes in theIncome Tax Act and the fact that he was amember of another pension plan sponsoredby the L.I.U.N.A., Local 1059 stopped con-tributing to the Plan on Mr. MacKinnon’sbehalf. As of March 1,1996, Mr. MacKinnonhad accumulated 30.25 years of creditedservice in the Plan.

5. Prior to 1997, the Plan had a “Thirty andOut” pension benefit. This benefit alloweda member to retire on a full pension after30 years of credited service in the Plan,regardless of the member’s age.

6. On March 12, 1997, Mr. MacKinnonapplied for the “Thirty and Out” pension.He claims that he was entitled to receivethe pension at that time, notwithstandingthe fact that he continued, without inter-ruption, in his employment as BusinessManager of Local 1059.

7. Mr. MacKinnon claims he is entitled to the“Thirty and Out “pension from the Planbecause, as of March 1, 1996, under theterms of the Plan, he is no longer an“employee” of Local 1059. He also claimshe can no longer be considered “employed”(i.e. receiving “remuneration to which thepension plan is related”) within the mean-ing of the Act.

SUPERINTENDENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES

11

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

Notices of Proposal to Make an Order

8. The Plan has taken the position that Mr.MacKinnon is not entitled to a retirementpension because section 2.04(b) of the Planprovides that an employee in Mr.MacKinnon’s situation can only cease par-ticipation in the Plan “on the day he termi-nates employment with an Employer”.Since Mr. MacKinnon had not terminatedhis employment with his employer as ofMarch 1, 1996, he remained a participant inthe Plan and was not eligible to retire andreceive a pension.

9. Section 38 of the Act provides that a personwho is a member of a multi-employer pen-sion plan is entitled to terminate his or hermembership in the plan if no contributionsare paid to the pension fund on his or herbehalf for twenty-four consecutive months,or such shorter period of time as is specifiedin the pension plan.

10. Since no shorter time period is specified inthe Plan, Mr. MacKinnon was entitled toterminate his membership in the Plan afterthe expiry of twenty-four months with nocontributions paid on his behalf. Mr.MacKinnon’s earliest termination datewould thus be March 1, 1998.

11. Accordingly, under subsection 38(2) of theAct, Mr. MacKinnon would be deemed tohave terminated his employment on March1, 1998. He would be entitled to any pen-sion or portability options available underthe Plan or the Act at that time.

12. On July 1, 1997, the Plan was amended soas to eliminate the “Thirty and Out” retire-ment option. A further amendment provid-ed for early retirement upon a member’sattaining 55 years of age and having 30years credited service. Mr. MacKinnonclaims these amendments are not valid

because of an alleged failure to comply withthe notice requirements for adverse amend-ments set out in section 26 of the Act.

13. Subsection 26(4) of the Act provides, atparagraph (c), that the Superintendent neednot require the transmittal of notices if theamendment is in respect of a multi-employerpension plan established pursuant to a col-lective agreement or trust agreement.Accordingly, the Plan’s failure to transmitnotice of the amendment does not consti-tute a contravention of the Act and doesnot invalidate the amendment in question.

14. Similarly, the amendment is not void undersubsection 14(1) of the Act (for purportingto reduce the amount or commuted valueof a pension benefit, deferred pension orancillary benefit accrued prior to the date ofthe amendment) because the amendmentin question is in respect of a multi-employerpension plan and subsection 14(2) of theAct provides that subsection (1) does notapply in respect of a multi-employer pen-sion plan established pursuant to a collec-tive agreement or trust agreement.

15. In March 1998, when Mr. MacKinnon maybe deemed to have terminated his employ-ment, the “Thirty and Out” retirementoption was no longer available to him, as ithad been validly eliminated by the Planamendment of July 1, 1997.

16. In refusing to grant Mr. MacKinnon a“Thirty and Out” pension, the Plan admin-istrators have administered the Plan incompliance with requirements of the Act,the Regulations, and the filed documents inrespect of which the Superintendent ofFinancial Services (the “Superintendent”)has issued a certificate of registration.

12

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

17. Subsection 87(2) of the Act allows theSuperintendent to make an order only if theSuperintendent is of the opinion, upon reasonable and probable grounds, that thepension plan or fund is not being adminis-tered in accordance with the Act, the regulations or the pension plan.

18. Such further and other grounds as maycome to my attention.

YOU ARE ENTITLED TO A HEARING bythe Financial Services Tribunal (the “Tribunal”),pursuant to subsection 89(6) of the Act, if with-in thirty (30) days after this Notice of Proposalto Refuse to Make an Order is served on you,you deliver to the Tribunal a written noticethat you require a hearing.1

Any written notice requiring a hearing shall bedelivered to:

Financial Services Tribunal 5160 Yonge Street, 14th FloorNorth York, OntarioM2N 6L9

Attention: The Registrar

IF YOU DO NOT DELIVER TO THE TRIBUNAL, WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYSFROM THE DATE THIS NOTICE OF PROPOSAL TO REFUSE TO MAKE ANORDER IS SERVED ON YOU, A WRITTENNOTICE THAT YOU REQUIRE A HEARING, I MAY MAKE THE ORDERPROPOSED HEREIN.

DATED at North York, Ontario, this 20th day ofJune, 2001.Dina PalozziChief Executive Officer andSuperintendent of Financial Services

cc: Labourers’ Pension Fund of Central andEastern Canada

Labourers’ International Union of NorthAmerica, Local 1059

13

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

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

IN THE MATTER OF the Pension Benefits Act,R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8, as amended by the FinancialServices Commission of Ontario Act, 1997, R.S.O.1997, c. 28 (the “Act”);

AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal by the Superintendent of Financial Services tomake a Declaration under Section 83 of thePension Benefits Act, as amended by theFinancial Services Commission of Ontario Act,1997, S.O. 1997, c. 28, respecting the RoyalOak Mines Inc. Pension Plan forTimmins Salaried Employees,Registration Number 0937458(the “Pension Plan”);

TO: Morneau Sobeco1500 Don Mills RoadSuite 500Toronto, OntarioM3B 3K4

Attention: Mr. Al KielPartnerAgent for Deloitte & ToucheInc. in its capacity asAdministrator of the RoyalOak Mines Inc. Pension Planfor Timmins SalariedEmployees;

AND TO: Royal Oak Mines Inc.P.O. Box 2010Timmins, OntarioP4N 7X7

Attention: Mrs. Rachel A. PineaultCorporate Manager, Pensions and BenefitsEmployer

AND TO: PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc.145 King Street WestToronto, OntarioM5H 1V8

Attention: Ms. Louisa BlundaInterim Receiver andManager, Van Dresser Limited

Notice of Proposal to Make aDeclarationWHEREAS:

1. The Royal Oak Mines Inc. Pension Plan forTimmins Salaried Employees, RegistrationNo. 0937458 (the “Pension Plan”), is regis-tered under the Pension Benefits Act, R.S.O.1990, c. P.8 as amended by the FinancialServices Commission of Ontario Act, 1997, c. 28, (the “Act”); and

2. The Pension Plan provides defined benefitsthat are not exempt from the application ofthe Pension Benefits Guarantee Fund (the“Guarantee Fund”) by the Act or the regula-tions made thereunder; and

3. The Pension Plan Administrator has filed arequest with the Superintendent ofFinancial Services for the Superintendent toissue an order under Section 69 of thePension Benefits Act to wind up the PensionPlan effective February 14, 2000.

4. The Superintendent of Pensions appointedDeloitte & Touche Inc. as the administrator(the “Administrator”) of the Pension Planon October 13, 1999.

I PROPOSE TO CONSIDER TO MAKE ADECLARATION, pursuant to section 83 of theAct, that the Guarantee Fund applies to thePension Plan for the following reasons:

1. The actuarial report prepared as of March31, 1999, indicated that the Pension Planwas underfunded on a solvency basis as atthat date in that the total value of its assetswas not sufficient to pay the total actuarial

14

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

value of benefits to that date. Furthermore,the March 31, 2001 cost certificate filed bythe Administrator confirms that there havenot been any events that would lead to theelimination of the deficit reported by theMarch 31, 1999 actuarial valuation.

2. PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc. was appointedInterim Receiver and Manager of Royal OakMines Inc. on April 16, 1999.

3. The Interim Receiver and Manager of RoyalOak Mines Inc. has advised the Administratorthat there are no assets available from the estate of Royal Oak Mines Inc. for the Pension Plan.

YOU ARE ENTITLED TO A HEARING bythe Financial Services Tribunal (the “Tribunal”),pursuant to subsection 89(6) of the Act, if with-in thirty (30) days after this Notice of Proposalis served on you, you deliver to the Tribunal awritten notice that you require a hearing.1


Financial Services Tribunal5160 Yonge Street, 14th FloorNorth York, OntarioM2N 6L9


IF YOU DO NOT DELIVER TO THE TRIBUNAL, WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYSFROM THE DATE THIS NOTICE OF PROPOSAL IS SERVED ON YOU, A WRITTEN NOTICE THAT YOU REQUIREA HEARING, I MAY MAKE THE ORDERPROPOSED HEREIN.


15

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1


IN THE MATTER OF the Pension Benefits Act,R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8, as amended by the FinancialServices Commission of Ontario Act, 1997, R.S.O.1997, c. 28;

AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal by theSuperintendent of Financial Services to make aDeclaration under Section 83 of the PensionBenefits Act, as amended by the FinancialServices Commission of Ontario Act, 1997, S.O.1997, c. 28, respecting the Royal Oak MinesInc. Pension Plan for Timmins HourlyEmployees, Registration Number0937466 (the “Pension Plan”);


Attention: Mr. Al KielPartnerAgent for Deloitte & ToucheInc. in its capacity asAdministrator of the RoyalOak Mines Inc. Pension Planfor Timmins SalariedEmployees;


Attention: Mrs. Rachel A. PineaultCorporate Manager, Pensions and BenefitsEmployer


Attention: Ms. Louisa BlundaInterim Receiver andManager, Van Dresser Limited

AND TO: United Steelworkers ofAmericaLocal 444057 Mountjoy Street SouthTimmins, OntarioP4N 1S7

Attention: Mr. Rick ChoppPresidentUnion


1. The Royal Oak Mines Inc. Pension Plan forTimmins Hourly Employees, RegistrationNo. 0937466 (the “Pension Plan”), is regis-tered under the Pension Benefits Act, R.S.O.1990, c. P.8 as amended by the FinancialServices Commission of Ontario Act, 1997, c. 28, (the “Act”); and


3. The Pension Plan Administrator has filed arequest with the Superintendent ofFinancial Services for the Superintendent toissue an order under Section 69 of thePension Benefits Act to wind up the PensionPlan effective December 31, 1999.


16

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

I PROPOSE TO CONSIDER TO MAKE ADECLARATION pursuant to section 83 of the Act, that the Guarantee Fund applies to the Pension Plan FOR THE FOLLOWINGREASONS:

1. The actuarial report prepared as of March31, 1999, indicated that the Pension Planwas underfunded on a solvency basis as atthat date in that the total value of its assetswas not sufficient to pay the total actuarialvalue of benefits to that date. Furthermore,the February 28, 2001 cost certificate filedby the Administrator confirms that therehave not been any events that would leadto the elimination of the deficit reported bythe March 31, 1999 actuarial valuation.


3. The Interim Receiver and Manager of RoyalOak Mines Inc. has advised the Administratorthat there are no assets available from the estate of Royal Oak Mines Inc. for the Pension Plan.

YOU ARE ENTITLED TO A HEARING bythe Financial Services Tribunal (the “Tribunal”),pursuant to subsection 89(6) of the Act, if within thirty (30) days after this Notice ofProposal is served on you, you deliver to theTribunal a written notice that you require ahearing.1




IF YOU DO NOT DELIVER TO THE TRIBUNAL, WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYSFROM THE DATE THIS NOTICE OF PROPOSAL IS SERVED ON YOU, A WRITTEN NOTICE THAT YOU REQUIREA HEARING, I MAY MAKE THE DECLARATION PROPOSED HEREIN.


17

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1


IN THE MATTER OF the Pension Benefits Act,R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8, as amended by the FinancialServices Commission of Ontario Act, 1997, S.O.1997, c. 28 (the “Act”);

AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal by theSuperintendent of Financial Services to makean Order under subsection 78(1) of the Act con-senting to a payment out of the Pension Planfor Locally Engaged Employees of theNew Zealand Government in Canada,Registration Number 338970;

TO: Her Majesty The Queen inRight of New ZealandNew Zealand High CommissionSuite 727, 99 Bank StreetOttawa, OntarioK1P 6G3

Attention: Wade ArmstrongHigh CommissionerApplicant and Employer

Notice of Proposal I PROPOSE TO MAKE AN ORDER under s. 78(1) of the Act, consenting to the payment,out of the Pension Plan for Locally EngagedEmployees of the New Zealand Government inCanada, Registration No. 338970 (the “Plan”),to Her Majesty the Queen in Right of NewZealand in the amount of $544,701 as atMay 1, 2000, adjusted for investment earningsthereon to the date of payment and adjustedfor legal, actuarial and administrative expenses.

I PROPOSE TO MAKE THE ORDER effec-tive only after the Applicant satisfies me thatall benefits and other payments (includingthose pursuant to the Surplus DistributionAgreement defined in paragraph 5 below) towhich the members, former members and anyother persons so entitled to such payments

have been paid, purchased or otherwise provided for.

I PROPOSE TO MAKE THIS ORDER FORTHE FOLLOWING REASONS:

1. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of NewZealand is the employer as defined in thePlan (the “Employer”).

2. The Plan was wound up, effective May 1, 2000.

3. As at May 1, 2000, the surplus in the Planwas estimated at $864,606.

4. The Plan provides for payment of surplus tothe Employer on the wind up of the Plan.

5. The application discloses that by writtenagreement made by the Employer, and100% of the members and 100% of the for-mer members and other persons entitled topayments, the surplus in the Plan at thedate of payment, after deduction of windup expenses, is to be distributed:

a) 63.00015% to the Employer; andb) 36.99985% to the beneficiaries of the

Plan as defined in the SurplusDistribution Agreement.

6. The Employer has applied, pursuant to section 78 of the Act, and clause 8(1)(b) of the Regulation, for consent of theSuperintendent of Financial Services to thepayment of 63.00015% of the surplus in thePlan (after adding investment earnings anddeducting of the expenses related to thewind up of the Plan.)

7. The application appears to comply with section 78 and subsection 79(3)(a) and (b)of the Act and with clause 8(1)(b) and subsections 28(5), 28(5.1) and 28(6) of theRegulation.

8. Such further and other reasons as come tomy attention.

18

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1







cc: Dany Mathieu, Hicks Morley HamiltonStewart Storie LLP

Rosemary Patterson, New Zealand HighCommission

19

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1


IN THE MATTER OF the Pension Benefits Act,R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8, as amended by the FinancialServices Commission of Ontario Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 28 (the “Act”);

AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal by theSuperintendent of Financial Services to makean Order under subsection 78(4) of the Act con-senting to a payment out of the RetirementBenefit Pension Plan for Members ofLocal 1804-I.A.M. of the WeatherheadPlant of Dana Canada Inc., RegistrationNumber 0311845;

TO: Dana Canada Inc.P.O. Box 3029St. Catharines, OntarioL2R 7K9

Attention: William A. JocsakDirector, Benefits AdministrationApplicant and Employer

Notice of Proposal I PROPOSE TO MAKE AN ORDER under s. 78(4) of the Act, consenting to the paymentout of The Retirement Benefit Pension Plan forMembers of Local 1804-I.A.M. of theWeatherhead Plant of Dana Canada Inc.,Registration No. 0311845 (the “Plan”), to DanaCanada Inc. in the amount of $13,193.78.


1. Dana Canada is the employer as defined inthe Plan (the “Employer”).

2. The Employer made contributions to thefund of $13,193.78 in the month of January2001, from its general revenue instead offrom the Plan’s surplus assets.

3. The Plan is in a surplus position. The mostrecent Actuarial Valuation Report, whichincludes the period under question,

stipulates that payments should be madefrom the Plan’s surplus assets.

4. The Plan provides that the Company mayapply any excess assets of the pension fundtowards the Company’s obligations to contribute into the Plan.

5. The pension fund carrier has attested thatthe contributions were made from theEmployer’s general assets and should havebeen made from the Plan’s surplus assets.

6. The Employer has applied, pursuant to subsection 78(4) of the Act, for consent ofthe Superintendent of Financial Services tothe payment of $13,193.78.

7. The application appears to comply withsubsection 78(4) of the Act.







20

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1


cc: Waheda Alli, The Standard Life AssuranceCompany

21

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1


IN THE MATTER OF the Pension Benefits Act,R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8, as amended by the

Financial Services Commission of Ontario Act,1997, R.S.O. 1997, c. 28;

AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal by theSuperintendent of Financial Services to make aDeclaration under Section 83 of the PensionBenefits Act, as amended by the FinancialServices Commission of Ontario Act, 1997, R.S.O.1997, c. 28, respecting the RetirementBenefit Plan for the Employees ofNorman Wade Company Limited,Techniprint Services Limited andNorman Wade Management Limited,Registration Number 0315176(the “Pension Plan”);

TO: Arthur Andersen Inc.Suite 1050 4 King Street West Toronto, OntarioM5H 1B6

Attention: Lawrence A. Contant Administrator of the Pension Plan

AND TO: Norman Wade CompanyLimited, TechniprintServices Limited and NormanWade Management Limited75 Milner AvenueScarborough, OntarioM1S 3R7

Attention: T. A. RonaldsonEmployer


1. The Retirement Benefit Plan for theEmployees of Norman Wade Company

Limited, Techniprint Services Limited andNorman Wade Management Limited (the“Pension Plan”), Registration No. 0315176,is registered under the Pension Benefits Act,R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8 as amended by theFinancial Services Commission of Ontario Act,1997, c. 28, (the “Act”); and


3. Pension Plan was wound up effective May 1, 1998; and

4. The Superintendent of Pensions appointedArthur Andersen Inc. as the administrator(the “Administrator”) of the Pension Planon June 15, 1998;

I PROPOSE TO CONSIDER TO MAKE ADECLARATION, pursuant to section 83 of theAct, that the Guarantee Fund applies to thePension Plan FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:

1. The Wind Up Report filed by theAdministrator indicates an estimated fund-ing deficiency of $199,252 as at April 1,2000, with respect to Ontario members,before deduction of wind up costs.

2. On May 1, 1998, Norman Wade CompanyLimited was assigned into bankruptcy, andthe affiliates it operated, namelyTechniprint Services Limited and NormanWade Management Limited, ceased operations on the same day.

3. The trustee in bankruptcy of Norman WadeCompany Limited has advised theAdministrator that there are no funds avail-able from the estate of the Company to payto the Pension Plan.

22

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1






DATED at North York, Ontario, this 6th day ofJuly, 2001.Dina PalozziChief Executive Officer andSuperintendent of Financial Services

23

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1


IN THE MATTER OF the Pension Benefits Act,R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8, as amended by the FinancialServices Commission of Ontario Act, 1997, S.O.1997, c. 28;

AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal by theSuperintendent of Financial Services to make aDeclaration under Section 83 of the PensionBenefits Act, as amended by the FinancialServices Commission of Ontario Act, 1997, S.O.1997, c. 28, respecting the Hudson BayDiecasting Limited Salaried EmployeesRetirement Income Plan, RegistrationNumber 0380170;

TO: Arthur Andersen Inc.Suite 10504 King Street WestToronto, OntarioM5H 1B6

Attention: Mr. David R. KearneyAdministrator

AND TO: Hudson Bay DiecastingLimited230 Orenda RoadBrampton, OntarioL6T 1E9

Attention: Mr. Dwight W. RollinsEmployer

AND TO: PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc.Suite 1100One Robert Speck ParkwayMississauga, OntarioL4Z 3M3

Attention: Mr. Andrew WilczynskiTrustee in Bankruptcy forHudson Bay DiecastingLimited


1. The Hudson Bay Diecasting Limited SalariedEmployees Retirement Income Plan,Registration No. 380170 (the “Plan”), is reg-istered under the Pension Benefits Act, R.S.O.1990, c. P.8, as amended by the FinancialServices Commission of Ontario Act, 1997,S.O. 1997, c. 28 (the “Act”); and

2. The Plan provides defined benefits that arenot exempt from the application of thePension Benefits Guarantee Fund (the“Guarantee Fund”) by the Act or the regula-tions made thereunder; and

3. The Superintendent of Pensions appointedArthur Andersen Inc. as the administrator(the “Administrator”) of the Plan onJanuary 17, 1996; and

4. The Superintendent of Pensions issued anOrder that the Plan be wound up effectiveSeptember 7, 1995; and

5. The Administrator filed a wind up reportfor approval by the Superintendent ofFinancial Services; and

6. The Superintendent of Financial Servicesapproved, on July 11, 2001, the distributionof the assets of the Plan as proposed underthe wind up report, subject to any addition-al funding that may be required from theGuarantee Fund;

I PROPOSE TO CONSIDER TO MAKE ADECLARATION, pursuant to section 83 of theAct, that the Guarantee Fund applies to thePlan FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:

1. The funded ratio of the Plan has been esti-mated to be 67.7% with an estimated claimagainst the Guarantee Fund at wind up of$118,028.00.

24

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

2. The employer, Hudson Bay DiecastingLimited, was assigned into bankruptcy onSeptember 7, 1995.

3. The trustee in bankruptcy for Hudson BayDiecasting Limited has advised theAdministrator that there are no funds avail-able from the estate of Hudson BayDiecasting Limited to make payment to thePlan.

4. The Administrator advised that it is of theopinion that there are reasonable and prob-able grounds for concluding that the fund-ing requirements of the Act and regulationcannot be satisfied.

YOU ARE ENTITLED TO A HEARINGbefore the Financial Services Tribunal (the“Tribunal”), pursuant to subsection 89(6) of theAct, if within thirty (30) days after this Noticeof Proposal is served on you, you deliver to theTribunal a written notice that you require ahearing.1





DATED at North York, Ontario, this 23rd day ofJuly, 2001.

K. David GordonDeputy Superintendent, Pension Divisionby delegated authority fromSuperintendent of Financial Services

25

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1



AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal by theSuperintendent of Financial Services to make aDeclaration under Section 83 of the PensionBenefits Act, as amended by the FinancialServices Commission of Ontario Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 28, respecting the Hudson BayDiecasting Limited Hourly EmployeesRetirement Income Plan, RegistrationNumber 362178;







AND TO: National Automobile,Aerospace, Transportationand General Workers Unionof Canada (CAW - Canada),Local 1285205 Placer CourtToronto, OntarioM2H 3H9

Attention: Jeff Wareham, NationalRepresentative, Pension andBenefits DepartmentUnion


1. The Hudson Bay Diecasting Limited HourlyEmployees Retirement Income Plan,Registration No. 362178 (the “Plan”), is reg-istered under the Pension Benefits Act, R.S.O.1990, c. P.8, as amended by the FinancialServices Commission of Ontario Act, 1997,S.O. 1997, c. 28 (the “Act”); and

2. The Plan provides defined benefits that are not exempt from the application of the Pension Benefits Guarantee Fund (the“Guarantee Fund”) by the Act or the regula-tions made thereunder; and

3. The Superintendent of Pensions appointedArthur Andersen Inc. as the administrator(the “Administrator”) of the Plan onJanuary 17, 1996.

4. The Superintendent of Pensions issued anOrder that the Plan be wound up effectiveSeptember 7, 1995; and

5. The Administrator filed a wind up reportfor approval by the Superintendent ofFinancial Services; and

6. The Superintendent of Financial Services

26

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

approved, on July 11, 2001, the distributionof the assets of the Plan as proposed underthe wind up report, subject to any addition-al funding that may be required from theGuarantee Fund;


1. The funded ratio of the Plan at wind up isestimated to be 78.9%, with an estimatedclaim against the Guarantee Fund at windup of $472,444.00.


3. The trustee in bankruptcy for Hudson BayDiecasting Limited has advised theAdministrator that there are no funds available from the estate of Hudson BayDiecasting Limited to make payment to thePlan.

4. The Administrator is of the opinion thatthere are reasonable and probable groundsfor concluding that the funding require-ments of the Act and regulation cannot besatisfied.






DATED at North York, Ontario, this 23rd day ofJuly, 2001.


27

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1



AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal by theSuperintendent of Financial Services to make aDeclaration under Section 83 of the PensionBenefits Act, as amended by the FinancialServices Commission of Ontario Act, 1997, S.O.1997, c. 28, respecting the Pension Plan forHourly Employees of AlumiprimeWindows Limited, Registration Number1021005 (the “Pension Plan”);


Attention: Mr. Lawrence ContantAdministrator of the PensionPlan for Hourly Employees ofAlumiprime Windows Limited

AND TO: Alumiprime WindowsLimited40 St. Regis Crescent North Downsview, OntarioM3J 1Z2

Attention: Martin CashEmployer

AND TO: Shiner & Associates Inc.30 Wertheim CourtSuite 22Richmond Hill, OntarioL4B 1B9

Attention: Debbie GellerTrustee in Bankruptcy,Alumiprime WindowsLimited

AND TO: United Steelworkers ofAmerica25 Cecil StreetToronto, OntarioM5T 1N1

Attention: Mohamed BakshUnion


1. The Pension Plan for Hourly Employees ofAlumiprime Windows Limited, RegistrationNo. 1021005 (the “Pension Plan”), is regis-tered under the Pension Benefits Act, R.S.O.1990, c. P.8 as amended by the FinancialServices Commission of Ontario Act, 1997, c. 28, (the “Act”); and


3. The Pension Plan was wound up effectiveNovember 24, 1998; and

4. The Superintendent of Pensions appointedArthur Andersen Inc. as the administrator(the “Administrator”) of the Pension Planon July 9, 1999.

I PROPOSE TO CONSIDER TO MAKE ADECLARATION, pursuant to section 83 of the Act, that the Guarantee Fund applies to the Pension Plan FOR THE FOLLOWINGREASONS:

1. The Extracts of the Actuarial ValuationReport filed by the Administrator indicatean estimated funding deficiency of$177,100.00 as at November 24, 1998.

28

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

2. Shiner & Associates Inc. was appointedTrustee in Bankruptcy of AlumiprimeWindows Limited on November 24, 1998.

3. The trustee in bankruptcy of AlumiprimeWindows Limited has advised theAdministrator that there are no funds available from the estate of AlumiprimeWindows Limited for the Pension Plan.






DATED at North York, Ontario, this 26th day ofJuly, 2001.


29

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1


IN THE MATTER OF the Pension Benefits Act,R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8, as amended (the “Act”);

AND IN THE MATTER OF an applicationpursuant to s. 78(1) of the Act submitted byStanley Canada Inc. in respect of the PensionPlan for Designated Employees ofStanley Canada Inc., RegistrationNumber 456897;

TO: William M. Mercer Limited161 Bay StreetP.O. Box 501Toronto, OntarioM5J 2S5

Attention: Ms. Melissa MerkerAgent for Applicant,Employer and Administratorof the Plan

Notice of Proposal to Refuse toConsent To Application I PROPOSE TO REFUSE TO CONSENT tothe Application for payment of surplus to the Employer dated April 1999, pursuant to s. 78(1) of the Act.

I PROPOSE TO REFUSE TO CONSENT TO THE APPLICATION FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:

1. In 1964, the corporate predecessor to theEmployer established a defined contribu-tion pension plan that required employerand employee contributions, named thePension Plan, for Employees of AcmetrackLimited and a deferred profit sharing planthat only allowed employer contributions,named the Deferred Profit Sharing Plan, forEmployees of Acmetrack Limited (“the PriorPlans”). Both employer and employee con-tributions were, under the provisions of thePrior Plans, paid into a trust fund. The trust

agreement relating to the trust fund did notreserve any power on behalf of theEmployer or its predecessors to revoke thetrust. In addition, the texts of the PriorPlans provided that the contributions to thePrior Plans were irrevocable and were to beused for the exclusive benefit of the members of the Prior Plans. Hence the contributions in the Prior Plans from theinception of the Prior Plan were subject toan irrevocable trust (express or implied) for the benefit of the members.

2. Effective January 1, 1982, the Pension Planfor Designated Employees of StanleyCanada Inc. (“the Plan”), that is the subjectof this Notice of Proposal, was established.At all material times, the Plan was a non-contributory defined benefits pension plan.As a condition of becoming a member ofthe Plan, each member who joined the Planwas required to terminate his/her member-ship in the Prior Plans. The Plan providedthat from the date on which the employeebecame a member of the Plan his/her enti-tlements under the Prior Plans would be transferred to and governed under theterms of the Plan. The three members ofthe Plan who were entitled to benefitsunder the Plan on the date of the wind up of the Plan, December 31, 1993, weremembers of the Prior Plans.

3. While the employee contributions made to the Pension Plan for Employees ofAcmetrack Limited have remained segregat-ed from the fund for the Plan, the employercontributions to the Prior Plans have beencommingled with the monies in the fundfor the Plan. However, these contributionshave remained impressed with a trust infavour of these members.

30

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

4. The provisions of the Plan by which theEmployer reserved to itself the power toamend and terminate the trust associatedwith the Plan and by which the Employerwas given power to direct the distributionof the assets and which provide in effectthat the Employer is entitled to the surpluson the wind up of the Plan, do not permitthe Employer to revoke the trust associatedwith the employer contributions in thePrior Plans because they are the subject toan irrevocable trust set up in respect of thecontributions to the prior Plans which trustwas never legally and properly terminatedin accordance with the requirements of the trust.

5. The trust agreement relating to the PriorPlans prevails over any inconsistent provi-sions in the text of the Plan which purportto give the Employer a right to all of the surplus that might exist on wind up of the Plan.

6. The Employer has not demonstrated thatthe Plan provides for the payment of surplus to the Employer on the wind up of the Plan.

7. Therefore the Employer has not demon-strated that it has complied with s. 79(3)(b)of the Act, which requires that the Plan provide for payment of surplus to theEmployer on the wind up of the Plan.

8. Section 78(2) of the Act requires that anemployer who applies to the Superintendentfor consent to payment of surplus to theemployer, must transmit notice of theapplication containing the prescribed infor-mation to, inter alia, each member and eachformer member of the plan and to anyother individual who is receiving paymentsout of the pension fund. Section 28(5)(f) of

Regulation 909, R.R.O. 1990, as amended(“the Regulation”), requires that noticeunder section 78(2) of the Act include “thecontractual authority for surplus reversion.”The Financial Services Commission ofOntario (“FSCO”) policy S900-508 entitled“Application by an Employer for Paymentof Surplus from a Wound-Up Plan” andapplying to applications filed between July 1, 1998 and December 31, 2000, statesthat section 28(5)(f) of the Regulationrequires a “full and complete disclosure of all provisions of the plan and trust docu-mentation from inception that may be relevant in determining entitlement to thepayment of surplus on wind up, includingprovisions in all current and prior plantexts, trust agreements... and other documents that may be relevant.”

9. The notice of application provided by theEmployer to the members, former membersand other persons entitled to benefits underthe Plan does not contain any reference tothe provisions of the Prior Plans.

10. Therefore, the Employer has not demon-strated that it has complied with section78(2) of the Act.

11. The consents filed from the members of thePlan who were members on the date ofwind up are, therefore, invalid owing to thefact that the information provided in theEmployer’s notice of application did notmeet the requirements of the Regulation.

12. Therefore the Employer has not demonstrat-ed that it has complied with s. 8(1)(b)(ii) ofthe Regulation, which requires the agree-ment of at least two-thirds of the membersof the Plan, if there is no collective bargain-ing agent representing the members, to thepayment of surplus to the members.

31

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

13. Such further and other reasons as maycome to my attention.

YOU ARE ENTITLED TO A HEARING bythe Financial Services Tribunal (the “Tribunal”),pursuant to subsection 89(6) of the Act, if with-in thirty (30) days after the Notice of Proposalis served on you, you deliver to the Tribunal awritten notice that you require a hearing.1







32

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1


IN THE MATTER OF the Pension Benefits Act,R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8, as amended;

AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal of theSuperintendent of Financial Services, under s. 89(5)of the Pension Benefits Act, R.S.O. 1990,c. P.8, as amended (the “Act”), to Refuse toMake an Order pursuant to section 69 of theAct, respecting the Philip Services Inc.Pension Plan for Intermetco SeniorManagement Employees, RegistrationNumber 0687608 (the “Plan”);

TO: Doris M. Mair27 Concession 5 EastWaterdown, OntarioL0R 2H1Former Member

AND TO: Philip Services Inc.100 King Street WestP.O. Box 2440, LCD 1Hamilton, OntarioL8N 4J6

Attention: James O’LearySenior Vice President, HumanResources

Notice of Proposal to Refuse to Makean OrderI PROPOSE TO REFUSE TO MAKE ANORDER, pursuant to s. 89(5), that the PhilipServices Inc. Pension Plan for Intermetco SeniorManagement Employees, Registration No.0687608, be wound up in part pursuant to s. 69(1) of the Act.

I PROPOSE TO REFUSE TO MAKE THISORDER FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:

1. The predecessor to the Plan was establishedfor certain senior management employeesof Intermetco Limited (“Intermetco”). In1997, Philip Services Corp. acquired

Intermetco. Subsequently, Philip ServicesCorp. was purchased by Philip Services Inc.Prior to the acquisition by Philip ServicesCorp., Intermetco had commenced a reor-ganization within the meaning of that termin subsection 69 (1)(d) of the Act. The reor-ganization continued after the PhilipServices Corp.’s acquisition of Intermetco.

2. As of December 31, 1997, there were fiveactive members in the Plan. One member,Ms. Doris Mair, was terminated as a resultof the reorganization undertaken prior tothe sale. Ms. Mair was provided notice ofher termination on or about March 6, 1997.At that time, she was advised that her salaryand her pensionable service accrual wouldcontinue until August 31, 1999.

3. Three other members of the Plan ceasedemployment during the period of the reor-ganization, however, their employment wasnot terminated as a result of the reorganiza-tion. These other members of the Planceased employment as a result of attainingthe normal or early retirement age underthe Plan, voluntarily leaving employmentand/or the expiration of the applicableemployment contract.

4. Subsection 69 (1)(d) of the Act states thatthe Superintendent may require the windup of a pension plan in whole or in part, if“a significant number of the members ofthe pension plan cease to be employed bythe employer as a result of the discontinu-ance of all or part of the business of theemployer or as a result of the reorganizationof the business of the employer.” Only onemember of the Plan ceased employment asa result of the reorganization. Therefore, asignificant number of employees have notceased employment as a result of the

33

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

reorganization of the business of theEmployer.

5. Therefore, it has not been demonstratedthat the criteria in subsection 69(1)(d) ofthe Act have been met, and there is no basisunder that provision for the Superintendentto order a partial wind up of the Plan.








cc: Stikeman ElliottBarristers & Solicitors5300 Commerce Court West199 Bay Street Toronto, OntarioM5L 1B9

Attention: Gary NachshenSolicitors for theAdministrator and Employer

John Lychy1819 Barsuda DriveMississauga, OntarioL5J 1V3

Tom Parker82 Lakeshore RoadSt. Catharines, OntarioL2N 2T4

Edmund Fraser2455 Butternut Cres.Burlington, OntarioL7M 3L8

Former Members

34

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1


IN THE MATTER OF the Pension Benefits Act,R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8, as amended by the FinancialServices Commission of Ontario Act, 1997,S.O. 1997, c. 28 (the “Act”);

AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal by theSuperintendent of Financial Services to makean Order under subsection 78(1) of the Act consenting to a payment out of The PensionPlan for Non-Unionized SalariedEmployees of Libbey Canada Inc.,Registration Number 1001130;

TO: Mr. Frederick J. Thompson,F.S.A., F.C.I.A.Thompson Actuarial Limited87 Wolverleigh Blvd.Toronto, OntarioM4J 1R8Actuary for the Applicantand Employer

Notice of ProposalI PROPOSE TO MAKE AN ORDER, under s. 78(1) of the Act, consenting to the paymentout of the The Pension Plan for Non-UnionizedSalaried Employees of Libbey Canada Inc.,Registration No. 1001130, to Libbey CanadaInc., in the amount of approximately $358,429as at December 31, 2000, plus investment earnings thereon to the date of payment.

I PROPOSE TO MAKE THE ORDER effec-tive only after the Applicant satisfies me thatthe administrator of the pension plan has paidout all benefits and other payments, includingany enhancements arising from the surplussharing agreement, to which members, formermembers and any other persons are entitled onthe partial termination of the pension planeffective May 31, 1999.


1. Libbey Canada Inc. is the employer asdefined in the Plan.

2. The Plan was partially wound up, effectiveMay 31, 1999.

3. As at May 31, 1999, the surplus in the Planattributable to the members affected by thepartial wind up and former members wasestimated at $380,890, which has grown to$543,075, as at December 31, 2000.


5. The Application discloses that by writtenagreement made by the Employer, and 83%of the members affected by the partial windup, and 69% of the former members andother persons entitled to payments, the sur-plus in the Plan at the date of payment,after deduction of wind up expenses, is tobe distributed:

a) 66% to the Employer; and

b) 34% to the beneficiaries of the Plan asdefined in the Surplus DistributionAgreement.

6. The Employer has applied, pursuant to section 78 of the Act, and clause 8(1)(b) of the Regulation, for consent of theSuperintendent of Financial Services to thepayment of 66% of the surplus in the Plan(after adding 66% of investment earningsand deducting 66% of the expenses relatedto the partial wind up of the Plan).

7. The application appears to comply with section 78 and subsection 79(3) of the Actand with clause 8(1)(b) and subsections28(5), 28(5.1) and 28(6) of the Regulation.


35

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1






DATED at North York, Ontario, this 31st day ofJuly, 2001.


cc: Nazim Virani, Libbey Canada Inc.

36

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1


IN THE MATTER OF the Pension Benefits Act,R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8 (the “Act”), as amended;

AND IN THE MATTER OF an Amendmenteffective January 1, 2000, to the Pension Planfor Employees of Engel Canada Inc.,Registration Number 446393 (the “Plan”);

TO: Engel Canada Inc.545 Elmira RoadGuelph, OntarioN1K 1C2

Attention: Mr. Bill RoweHuman Resources ManagerAdministrator and Employer

Notice of Proposal to Refuse toRegister an AmendmentI PROPOSE TO REFUSE TO REGISTER ANAMENDMENT, effective January 1, 2000, tothe Pension Plan for Employees of EngelCanada Inc., Registration No. 446393 (the“Plan”).

I PROPOSE TO REFUSE TO MAKE THIS REFUSAL FOR THE FOLLOWINGREASONS:

1. The Plan is a defined contribution pensionplan. On or about September 29, 1999, theBoard of Directors for the Employer passed aresolution approving Amendment Number 4to the Plan (the “Amendment”) effectiveJanuary 1, 2000. The Amendment modifiesthe Plan to eliminate required employeecontributions and institutes employer con-tributions calculated on the basis of theamount of employee contributions to a sep-arate Group Registered Retirement SavingsPlan. In addition, the Amendment purportsto reclassify all required member contribu-tions made prior to January 1, 2000, as voluntary contributions.

2. Subsection 18(1)(d) of the Act permits theSuperintendent to refuse to register anamendment “if the amendment is void or ifthe pension plan with the amendmentwould cease to comply with this Act andthe regulations.”

3. Subsection 63(1) of the Act states that nomember or former member is entitled to arefund of contributions from a pensionplan. However, subsection 63(2) specificallypermits the refund of additional voluntarycontributions. Notwithstanding subsection63(1), subsection 63(7) states that contribu-tions may be refunded with the consent ofthe Superintendent. Subsection 63(8) statesthat such consent may be provided if thepension plan provides for the refund “andthe employer has assumed responsibility forfunding all pension benefits associated withthe contributions.”

4. The Financial Services Commission ofOntario (“FSCO”) policy R400 - 101, entitled “Application for Refund to PlanMembers or Former Members,” states thatwhere a plan has been amended to deemrequired contributions to be additional voluntary contributions, the requirementsof subsection 63(8) will apply.

5. Required contributions that are subsequent-ly deemed to be additional voluntary contributions through an amendment tothe plan, are not additional voluntary contributions within the meaning of theAct. Section 1 defines additional voluntarycontributions as contribution to the pension plan beyond any amount that themember is required to contribute and doesnot include a contribution in relation towhich the employer is required to make aconcurrent additional contribution to the

37

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

pension fund. The contributions that arethe subject of the Amendment wererequired contributions under section 4 ofthe Plan at the time that they were made.In addition, the employer’s contribution,under section 4 of the Plan, was calculatedas a prescribed percentage of the employee’scontribution and therefore is a contributionin relation to which the employer wasrequired to make a concurrent additionalcontribution. As such, subsection 63(2) ofthe Act does not apply to the Amendmentand the provisions of subsection 63(8) areapplicable.

6. The Employer takes the position that it willnot assume responsibility for funding allpension benefits associated with thedeemed additional voluntary contributions.The Amendment, therefore, does not com-ply with subsection 63(8) of the Act. I there-fore propose to refuse to register theAmendment under subsection 18(1)(d) ofthe Act because the Plan with theAmendment would cease to comply withthe Act, specifically section 63 of the Act.







DATED at North York, Ontario, this 3rd day ofAugust, 2001.


cc: Ian Bedford, Wayne Cavasin,Joe Kuzel, John Ness and Bill Rowe545 Elmira Road Guelph, OntarioN1K 1C2Engel Canada PensionCommittee Members

Robertson Eadie & Associates407 Speers Road, Suite 211Oakville, OntarioL6K 3T5

Attention: Mr. Stephen EadieActuary for theAdministrator and Employer

38

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1



AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal of theSuperintendent of Financial Services to Makean Order pursuant to section 69 of the PensionBenefits Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8, as amended,respecting the Revised Pension Plan forHourly Rated Employees of MarshEngineering Ltd., Registration Number384313;

TO: Arthur Andersen Inc.Suite 1050 4 King Street WestToronto, OntarioM5H 1B6

Attention: Lawrence A. Contant ManagerAdministrator

AND TO: Marsh Engineering Ltd.118 West StreetPort Colborne, OntarioL3K 4C9

Attention: Charlotte WatsonPayroll AdministratorEmployer

AND TO: Marsh Instrumentation Inc.1016-C Sutton DriveBurlington, OntarioLTL 6B8Employer

Notice of Proposal to Make an OrderI PROPOSE TO ORDER that the RevisedPension Plan for Hourly Rated Employees ofMarsh Engineering Ltd., Registration No.384313 (the “Plan”), be wound up in wholeeffective March 16, 2000.

I PROPOSE TO MAKE THIS ORDER pur-suant to subsection 69(1) of the Pension BenefitsAct, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8, as amended (the “Act”).


1. There was a cessation or suspension ofemployer contributions to the pensionfund, within the meaning of clause 69(1)(a)of the Act.

2. The employer failed to make contributionsto the pension fund as required by the Actor the regulations within the meaning ofclause 69(1)(b) of the Act.

3. A significant number of members of thepension plan ceased to be employed by theemployer as a result of the discontinuanceof all or part of the business of the employeror as a result of the reorganization of thebusiness of the employer, within the meaning of clause 69(1)(d) of the Act.

4. All or a significant portion of the businesscarried on by the employer at a specificlocation was discontinued, within themeaning of clause 69(1)(e) of the Act.





39

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1


THE ADMINISTRATOR IS REQUIRED, pursuant to subsection 89(5) of the Act, totransmit a copy of this Notice of Proposal toMake an Order to the following persons:

United Steelworkers ofAmerica 1031 Barton Street EastHamilton, OntarioL8L 3E3

Attention: Dave MacIntoshLocal PresidentThe Union

Deloitte & Touche Inc. 181 Bay StreetSuite 1400, BCE PlaceToronto, OntarioM5J 2V1

Attention: Robert Paul PartnerTrustee in Bankruptcy forMarsh Engineering Ltd. and Marsh Instrumentation Inc.



40

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1


IN THE MATTER OF the Pension Benefits Act,R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8, as amended by the FinancialServices Commission of Ontario Act, S.O. 1997, c. 28 (the “Act”);

AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal of theSuperintendent of Financial Services to Makean Order Requiring the Wind Up in Part of theImperial Oil Limited Retirement Plan,Registration Number 347054;

TO: Imperial Oil Limited111 St. Clair Avenue WestToronto, OntarioM5W 1K3

Attention: J.B. MacIntyre, Senior Benefits Advisor John F. Kyle, Vice President andTreasurerMorris G. Dunko, Senior Counsel, Law DepartmentEmployer and Administratorof the Imperial Oil LimitedRetirement Plan

Notice of Proposal to Make an OrderI PROPOSE TO ORDER that the Imperial OilLimited Retirement Plan, Registration No.347054 (the “Plan”), be wound up in part inrelation to those members and former membersof the Plan who were employed by GeneralElectric Capital Canada Inc. (“GE Capital”), atits Markham, Ontario facility and who ceasedemployment with GE Capital between March2000 and July 2000, as a result of the closure ofthe Markham facility.

I PROPOSE TO MAKE THIS ORDER, pur-suant to subsection 69(1) of the Pension BenefitsAct, R.S,O. 1990, c. P.8 as amended (the “Act”).


1. Imperial Oil Limited (“IOL”) is the employerand the administrator of the Plan.

2. IOL sold its credit card operations to GECapital effective April 28, 1995. In conjunc-tion with the sale, thirty-seven (37) formerIOL employees became employees of GECapital and became members of GECapital’s pension plan.

3. The pension benefits accrued by the trans-ferred employees prior to the date of thesale remained in the Plan.

4 GE Capital closed its Markham, Ontariocredit card facility effective May 5, 2000. In connection with this closure, it terminat-ed thirty-two (32) of the thirty-seven (37)transferred employees, and filed a partialwind up report with the Pension PlansBranch of the Financial ServicesCommission.

5 Under paragraph 69(1)(d) of the Act, theSuperintendent of Financial Services (the“Superintendent”) may require the wind upof a pension plan, in whole or in part, if asignificant number of the members of thepension plan cease to be employed by theemployer as a result of the discontinuanceof all or part of the business of the employ-er or as a result of the reorganization of thebusiness of the employer.

6. Under paragraph 69(1)(e) of the Act, theSuperintendent may require the wind up of a pension plan where all or a significantportion of the business carried on by an employer at a specific location is discontinued.

7. For the purposes of the Act, the word“employer,” as it is used in subsection 69,

41

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

in respect of an employee with benefits inmore than one plan, refers to both the pre-decessor and successor employer, as held bythe Pension Commission of Ontario inGencorp Canada Inc. and affirmed by theDivisional Court and the Court of Appeal.1

8. Paragraph 80(1)(a) of the Act provides thatwhen an employer who contributes to apension plan sells, assigns or otherwise dis-poses of all or part of the assets of its busi-ness, a member of the pension plan who inconjunction with the sale, assignment ordisposition becomes an employee of thesuccessor employer and a member of thesuccessor employer’s pension plan, contin-ues to be entitled, without further accrual,to the benefits provided under the predeces-sor employer’s pension plan, to the effectivedate of the sale, assignment or disposition.

9. Subsection 80(3) of the Act provides thatwhere a transaction, as described in subsec-tion 80(1) above, takes place the employ-ment of the employee shall be deemed, forthe purposes of the Act, not to be termi-nated by reason of the transaction.

10. As held in Gencorp, subsection 80(3) deemsthe non-termination for the purpose ofensuring continuity of membership for thetransferred employees and to prevent themfrom losing their previous years of servicein the calculation of future benefits.

11. The effect of subsection 80(3), for the trans-ferred employees, is that IOL continues to betheir employer for the purpose of the Plan.

12. Accordingly, IOL is an employer who may be ordered to partially wind up a pension plan under section 69 of the Act,

due to the discontinuance of the businessby GE Capital at the Markham facility of GE Capital.

13. A significant number of the members of theplan at the Markham facility ceased to beemployed as a result of the discontinuanceor reorganization of the business of GECapital at its Markham facility, within themeaning of paragraph 69(1)(d) of the Act.

14. All or a significant portion of the businesscarried on by GE Capital at its Markhamfacility was discontinued, within the mean-ing of paragraph 69(1)(e) of the Act.


YOU ARE ENTITLED TO A HEARING bythe Financial Services Tribunal (the “Tribunal”),pursuant to s. 89(6) of the Act, if within thirty(30) days after the Notice of Proposal is servedon you, you deliver to the Tribunal a writtennotice that you require a hearing.2




IF YOU DO NOT DELIVER TO THE TRIBUNAL, WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYSFROM THE DATE THIS NOTICE OF PROPOSAL IS SERVED ON YOU, A WRITTEN NOTICE THAT YOU REQUIREA HEARING, I WILL MAKE THE ORDERPROPOSED HEREIN.

42

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

1Consolidated Gencorp Canada, P.C.O. Decision Aug. 31, 1994, confirmed Divisional Court, [1995 O.J. No. 3768], Dec. 7, 1995, confirmed Ontario Ct. of Appeal [1998 O.J. No. 961] March 11, 1998.

THE ADMINISTRATOR IS REQUIRED, pursuant to subsection 89(5) of the Act, totransmit a copy of this Notice of Proposal tomembers and former members of the Plan whowere employed by General Electric CapitalCanada Inc. (“GE Capital”) at its Markham,Ontario facility, and who ceased employmentwith GE Capital between March 2000 and July2000, as a result of the closure of the Markhamfacility.



43

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1


IN THE MATTER OF the Pension Benefits Act,R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8, as amended by the FinancialServices Commission of Ontario Act, S.O. 1997, c. 28 (the “Act”);

AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal of theSuperintendent of Financial Services to Makean Order with respect to the Calculation ofPension Benefits, pursuant to section 87 of theAct, relating to the Imperial Oil LimitedRetirement Plan, Registration Number 347054;

TO: Imperial Oil Limited111 St. Clair Avenue WestToronto, OntarioM5W 1K3

Attention: J.B. MacIntyre, Senior Benefits Advisor John F. Kyle, Vice President and TreasurerMorris G. Dunko, Senior Counsel, Law DepartmentEmployer and Administratorof the Imperial Oil LimitedRetirement Plan

Notice of Proposal to Make an OrderI PROPOSE TO ORDER that the administra-tor of the Imperial Oil Limited Retirement Plan,Registration No. 347054 (the “Plan”), give credit for both age and years of service at thetime they ceased employment with GE Capitalto those members and former members of thePlan who were employed by General ElectricCapital Canada Inc. (“GE Capital”), at itsMarkham, Ontario facility and who ceasedemployment with GE Capital between March2000 and July 2000, as a result of the closure ofthe Markham facility, when determining enti-tlement to benefits under the Plan, pursuant to

article 80(1)(c) of the Act.

I PROPOSE TO MAKE THIS ORDERpursuant to subsection 87(1) of the Act.


1. Imperial Oil Limited (“IOL”) is the employerand the administrator of the Plan.

2. IOL sold its credit card operations to GECapital effective April 28, 1995. In conjunc-tion with the sale, thirty-seven (37) formerIOL employees who were members of the Plan became employees of GE Capitaland became members of GE Capital’s pension plan.

3. The pension benefits accrued in the Plan bythe transferred employees, prior to the dateof the sale, remained in the Plan.

4. GE Capital closed its Markham, Ontariocredit card facility effective May 5, 2000. Inconnection with this closure, it terminatedthirty-two (32) of the thirty-seven (37)transferred employees (“the affectedemployees”) and filed a partial wind upreport with the Pension Plans Branch of theFinancial Services Commission.

5. Upon their termination with GE Capital,the affected employees received from IOL aStatement of Entitlement and option formconcerning their benefits and options underthe Plan. In the Statement of Entitlementthe termination date used for the determi-nation of the affected employees’ benefitoptions with respect to their age was thedate of their transfer to GE Capital, not thedate of their termination from GE Capital.

6. The Statement of Entitlement included theaffected employees’ years of service with GECapital. In correspondence dated March 23,2001, IOL’s senior counsel indicated that

44

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

IOL took the view that under section 80 ofthe Act, years of service only are to be credited for the purpose of determiningentitlement to benefits.

7. Subsection 80(3) of the Act provides thatwhere a transaction, as described in subsec-tion 80(1) above, takes place the employ-ment of the employee shall be deemed, for the purposes of the Act, not to be terminated by reason of the transaction.

8. As held in Gencorp, and affirmed by theDivisional Court and the Court of Appeal,1

subsection 80(3) deems the non-termina-tion for the purpose of ensuring continuityof membership for the transferred employees and to prevent them from losingtheir previous years of service in the calculation of future benefits.

9. The effect of subsection 80(3), for the affected employees, is that IOL continues tobe their employer for the purpose of thedetermining entitlement to the benefits ofthe Plan, up to the date of their termina-tion with GE Capital. The affected employees are accordingly entitled to havetheir entitlement to benefits from the Plandetermined as of their termination datewith GE Capital.

10. Paragraph 80(1)(c) of the Act provides thatwhen an employer who contributes to apension plan sells, assigns or otherwise disposes of all or part of the assets of itsbusiness, a member of the pension planwho, in conjunction with the sale, assign-ment or disposition, becomes an employeeof the successor employer and a member of the successor employer’s pension plan,

is entitled to credit in the (predecessor)employer’s pension plan for the period ofemployment with the successor employerfor the purpose of determining benefits inthe (predecessor) employer’s pension plan.

11. For the purposes of the Act, I consider thatthe term “credit in the employer’s pensionplan” as it is used in paragraph 80(1)(c),refers to both age and years of service accumulated while in the employ of thesuccessor employer.

12. Accordingly, I consider that the affectedemployees are entitled to credit for boththeir age and years of service as of their termination date with GE Capital, in thedetermination of their entitlement to benefits under the Plan.


YOU ARE ENTITLED TO A HEARING bythe Financial Services Tribunal (the “Tribunal”),pursuant to s. 89(6) of the Act, if within thirty(30) days after the Notice of Proposal is servedon you, you deliver to the Tribunal a writtennotice that you require a hearing.2

45

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

1Consolidated Gencorp Canada, P.C.O. Decision Aug. 31, 1994, confirmed Divisional Court, [1995 O.J. No. 3768], Dec. 7, 1995, confirmed Ontario Ct. of Appeal [1998 O.J. No. 961] March 11, 1998.




IF YOU DO NOT DELIVER TO THE TRIBUNAL, WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYSFROM THE DATE THIS NOTICE OF PROPOSAL IS SERVED ON YOU, A WRITTEN NOTICE THAT YOU REQUIREA HEARING, I WILL MAKE THE ORDERPROPOSED HEREIN.



46

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1



AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal of theSuperintendent of Financial Services to Makean Order pursuant to section 69 of the PensionBenefits Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8, as amended,respecting the Revised Pension Plan forSalaried Employees of MarshEngineering Ltd., Registration Number 276030;

TO: Arthur Andersen Inc.Suite 1050 4 King Street WestToronto, OntarioM5H 1B6

Attention: Lawrence A. Contant ManagerAdministrator

AND TO: Marsh Engineering Ltd.118 West StreetPort Colborne, OntarioL3K 4C9

Attention: Charlotte WatsonPayroll AdministratorEmployer

AND TO: Marsh Instrumentation Inc.1016-C Sutton DriveBurlington, OntarioLTL 6B8Employer

Notice of Proposal to Make an OrderI PROPOSE TO ORDER that the RevisedPension Plan for Salaried Employees of MarshEngineering Ltd., Registration No. 276030 (the “Plan”), be wound up in whole effectiveMarch 16, 2000.

I PROPOSE TO MAKE THIS ORDER pur-suant to subsection 69(1) of the Pension BenefitsAct, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8, as amended (the “Act”).




3. A significant number of members of thepension plan ceased to be employed by theemployer as a result of the discontinuanceof all or part of the business of the employ-er or as a result of the reorganization of thebusiness of the employer, within the meaning of clause 69(1)(d) of the Act.

4. All or a significant portion of the businesscarried on by the employer at a specificlocation was discontinued, within themeaning of clause 69(1)(e) of the Act.





47

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1


THE ADMINISTRATOR IS REQUIRED, pursuant to subsection 89(5) of the Act, totransmit a copy of this Notice of Proposal toMake an Order to the following persons:

Deloitte & Touche Inc. 181 Bay Street Suite 1400, BCE Place Toronto, Ontario M5J 2V1

Attention: Robert Paul PartnerTrustee in Bankruptcy forMarsh Engineering Ltd. and Marsh Instrumentation Inc.



48

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1



AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal by theDeputy Superintendent, Pension Division tomake an Order under subsection 78(1) of theAct consenting to a payment out of the SwiftAdhesives Salaried Employees PensionPlan, Registration Number 956219;

TO: Reichhold Limitedc/o Reichhold Inc.P.O. Box 13582Research Triangle ParkRaleigh Durham, North Carolina 27709-3582U.S.A.

Attention: Trent RhyneCompensation and BenefitsDirectorApplicant and Employer

Notice of ProposalI PROPOSE TO MAKE AN ORDER under s. 78(1) of the Act, consenting to the payment,in accordance with the Order of Mr. JusticeCumming of the Ontario Superior Court ofJustice in the matter of Reichhold Limited andMichel Boyer and Gerard Boucher et al, datedFebruary 2, 2000, including the Surplus SharingSettlement Agreement attached thereto andmade a part thereof (the “Court Order”), out ofthe Swift Adhesives Salaried Employees PensionPlan, Registration No. 956219 (the “Plan”), toReichhold Limited, as follows:

(a) An amount shall be paid or allocated to theApplicant equal to:

(i) $541,305, the value of the liabilities asdetermined by the Plan Actuary in consul-tation with the actuary for the Plan mem-bers for early retirement benefits as negoti-ated and grow-in benefits required to beprovided under the Pension Benefits Act,R.S.O. 1990, for Ontario members, whichpursuant to the Surplus Sharing SettlementAgreement, shall be provided to all eligibleemployees of the Applicant accruing bene-fits under the Plan at any time in the periodfrom November 13, 1998, through the Planwind up date (April 30, 2000), regardless ofjurisdiction of residence or employmentand grow-in benefits as negotiated togetherwith interest thereon from the date as atwhich each value is determined to the dateof payment or allocation to the Applicant atthe rates of interest used to determine theliability, as follows:

Interest Rate Value of Liabilities6.5% per annum $355,3445.0% per annum $105,8095.75% per annum $ 80,152Total $541,305plus

(ii) $2.1 million as at April 30, 2000, togetherwith interest thereon at the rate of 6.5%,being the rate of return used to determinethe Plan’s liability for transfer values asdetermined by the Actuary from April 30,2000, to the date of payment; plus

(iii)50% of the surplus remaining after makingprovision for the payments contemplated in(i) and (ii) above together with net earningsor losses thereon (estimated to be, as atApril 30, 2000, $3,278,154).

I PROPOSE TO MAKE THE ORDEReffective only after the Applicant satisfies methat the entitlements of all members and former

49

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

members are being settled from the assets of thePlan in accordance with the Court Order.


1. Reichhold Limited is the employer asdefined in the Plan (the “Employer”).

2. The Plan was wound up, effective April 30, 2000.

3. As at April 30, 2000, the surplus in the Plan was estimated at $9,197,614.

4. The court has ordered that the Plan provides for payment of surplus to theEmployer on the wind up of the Plan inrespect of subsection 79(3)(b) of the Act.

5. The application discloses that by writtenagreement made by the Employer, and94.1% of the active members and othermembers (as defined in the application)and 79.2% of the former members andother persons entitled to payments, the surplus in the Plan at the date of payment,after deduction of wind up expenses is to be distributed:

a) 64.4% to the Employer; and

b) 35.6% to the beneficiaries of the Plan as defined in the Surplus DistributionAgreement.

6. The Employer has applied, pursuant to section 78 of the Act, and clause 8(1)(b) of the Regulation, for consent of theSuperintendent of Financial Services to thepayment of $541,305 as at April 30, 2000,plus $2.1 million together with interest atthe rate of 6.5% from April 30, 2000, to thedate of payment plus 50% of the surplusremaining after making provision for the

aforementioned payments together withnet earnings or losses.










cc: Kim OzubkoBlake, Cassels & Graydon LLP

50

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1



AND IN THE MATTER OF an applicationpursuant to section 78(1) of the Act by ValcomLimited in respect of the Pension Plan forEmployees of Valcom Limited,Registration Number 589796 (formerlyPCO Number C-101842) (the “Plan”);

TO: Valcom Limitedc/o Cowan Wright Limited100 Regina Street South, Suite 270P.O. Box 96Waterloo, OntarioN2J 3Z8

Attention: Moira GrahamActuaryApplicant and Employer

Notice of Proposal Refuse ConsentI PROPOSE TO REFUSE TO CONSENT tothe application for payment of surplus to theEmployer made pursuant to s. 78(1) of the Actand dated July 1998.

I PROPOSE TO REFUSE TO CONSENT TO THE APPLICATION FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:

1. The Plan is a defined benefit pension plan.Valcom Limited is the employer as definedin the Plan (the “Employer”).

2. On or about July 3, 1997, the Employer provided notice to members that the Planwould be wound up. The Employer statedthat the effective date of the wind up wasAugust 31, 1997. In letters dated July 18,1997, sent to the only two active members,the Employer indicated an intention toshare surplus assets with the two active

members. In a letter dated August 25, 1997,to the former Pension Commission ofOntario, the Employer stated that all mem-bers and former members were providednotice of the wind up and that the effectivedate of the wind up was changed fromAugust 31, 1997, to September 25, 1997.

3. On or about September 5, 1997, deferredand immediate annuities were purchased in respect of the pension benefits owing tonine former employees who were formermembers at the time (the “Annuitants”).

4. As at September 25, 1997, the surplus in the Plan was estimated at $496,429.

5. The Employer proposes in the Applicationthat 87.9% of the surplus in the Plan, subject to adjustment for investment earn-ings to the date of payment and subject toadjustment for any difference between theactual and expected costs of obtaining theconditional benefit upgrades referred to in the Surplus Distribution Agreement, be distributed to the Employer. The Employerproposes that the other 12.1% be distrib-uted to the two active members. Theseactive members have signed consents indicating their agreement with the surplusdistribution proposed in the Application.

6. The Annuitants are not included in the surplus distribution group nor did theEmployer produce agreements signed bythese members consenting to the proposedsurplus distribution.

7. At the time that notice to wind up the Planwas provided by the Employer to membersand former members, the Annuitants wereformer members within the meaning of s.1of the Act. As such, the Annuitants, at thetime that the wind up notice was provided,were entitled to be included in the surplus

51

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

consent group pursuant to subsection8(1)(b) of Regulation 909, R.R.O. 1990, asamended (the “Regulation”).

8. As the applicant in the surplus distributionapplication, the Employer has the onus ofdemonstrating that the application com-plies with the Act and regulations. TheEmployer has not provided any evidence todemonstrate that the purchase of annuitieson behalf of the Annuitants was consistentwith the past practice in the Plan. TheEmployer has not provided any evidence todemonstrate that the purchase of annuitiesfor the Annuitants just 20 days before theeventual effective date for the wind up andthe decision to move the effective date ofthe wind up from August 31, 1997, toSeptember 25, 1997, were not for theimproper purpose of limiting the number offormer members entitled to be included inthe surplus group set out in subsection8(1)(b) of the Regulation.

9. The Application, therefore, does not complywith section 79(3)(d) of the Act.









52

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1



AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal of theSuperintendent of Financial Services to revokethe registration of Régime de Retraite desEmployés et Membres de CanadianCorporation Creation Center,Registration Number 1062363 (the “Plan”)pursuant to section 18 of the Act;

TO: Fiducie du Régime deRetraite des Employés etMembres de CanadianCorporation Creation Center

Attention: Michel RollandDesignated Trust Administrator40 Place du CommerceP.O. Box 63029Verdun (Nuns Island), QuébecH3E 1V6

Éric FerronTrustee3485 des ÉrablesMontreal, QuébecH2K 3V6

Michel DionTrustee450 Laurier AvenueQuébec City, QuébecG1R 2L2

Guy Patrick LéveilléTrustee1009 Émile NelliganBoucherville, QuébecJ4B 5J1

Named Administrator

Notice of ProposalI PROPOSE, PURSUANT TO SECTION18(1) OF THE ACT, TO REVOKE THE REGISTRATION of the Régime de Retraite desEmployés et Membres de CanadianCorporation Creation Center, Registration No.1062363 (the “Plan”).

I PROPOSE TO REVOKE THE REGISTRA-TION FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:

Named Administrator

1. The application for registration of the Planindicates that the Canadian CorporationCreation Center (“CCCC”) is the employerfor the Plan. The text for the Plan statesthat the administrator for the Plan is theFiducie du Régime de Retraite des Employéset Membres de Canadian CorporationCreation Center (Pension Trust Fund of theEmployees and Members of CanadianCorporation Creation Center (the “PensionTrust Fund”)). The Trust Agreement for thePlan dated June 21, 2000, states that MichelDion, Éric Ferron and Guy Patrick Léveilléare trustees. Michel Rolland is theDesignated Trust Administrator.

2. Section 8 of the Act provides an exhaustivelist of those entities who are eligible to actas administrators of a pension plan underthe Act. Section 8 does not permit a pen-sion trust fund to act as an administrator ofa single employer pension plan. The Planpurports to be a single employer plan.Therefore, the Pension Trust Fund is not eli-gible to act as the administrator of the Plan.

Missing Information in the PlanDocuments

3. Subsection 10(1) of the Act requires that thepension plan set out certain prescribedinformation. The Plan does not set out the

53

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

following information in contravention ofthe following subclauses of section 10(1):

a. The requirements for entitlement to anypension benefit or ancillary benefit (subclause 5);

b. The mechanism for establishing andmaintaining the pension fund (subclause 10);

c. The treatment of surplus during the con-tinuation of the Plan and on windup ofthe Plan (subclause 11); and

d. The method of allocation of the assets ofthe Plan on windup (subclause 13).

Declaration

4. Clause 9(2)(e.1) of the Act states that anapplication for registration of a pensionplan shall be made by filing, inter alia, a “certification in a form approved by the Superintendent and signed by the applicant in which the applicant atteststhat the pension plan complies with [the]Act and regulations.” In the application for registration of the Plan, the namedadministrator attested that:

a. the documents that create and supportthe Plan complied with the Act and regulations; and

b. that the named administrator was awarethat the obligation to ensure that thedocuments filed comply with the Act and regulations is the responsibility of the administrator and that this obligation was fulfiled.

5. The named administrator has contravenedclause 9(2)(e.1) of the Act in that the declaration provided in the application forregistration was false because the documentsthat create and support the Plan do notcomply with the Act as set out above.

Members of the Pension Plan

6. Sections 27 and 28 of the Plan state thatonly employees of an employer thatbelongs to the Plan are eligible to partici-pate in the Plan. Section 1 of the Actdefines an employer as a “the person fromwhom or the organization from which themember or former member receives orreceived remuneration to which the pension plan is related.”

7. The Superintendent has information whichindicates that the Plan is accepting transfersof funds from locked-in retirement accountsor other similar prescribed retirement sav-ings arrangements from individuals who donot receive remuneration from an employerthat belongs to the Plan. Therefore, suchpersons are not employees, within themeaning of section 1 of the Act, of anemployer that belongs to the Plan. ThePlan’s acceptance of such transfers contra-venes the terms of the Plan.

8. Clause 19(3)(a) of the Act states that theadministrator of a pension plan shall ensurethat the pension plan and pension fund areadministrated in accordance with the “fileddocuments in respect of which theSuperintendent has issued an acknowledge-ment of application for registration or a cer-tificate of registration”. The acceptance offund transfers in respect of individuals whoare not employees of an employer thatbelongs to the Plan is a contravention ofsection 27 and 28 of the Plan and, there-fore, constitutes a contravention of clause19(3)(a) of the Act.

9. The transfer of funds from locked-in retire-ment accounts or other similar prescribedretirement savings arrangements in respectof account holders who are not members of

54

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

the Plan constitutes a commutation or sur-render of a prescribed savings arrangementcontrary to section 67 of the Act becausesuch funds are not capable of being com-muted or surrendered (subject to certainexceptions which do not apply in this case).

Transfer of Funds from the Plan

10. Subsection 22(1) of the Act states that “theadministrator of a pension plan shall exer-cise the care, diligence and skill required inthe administration and investment of thepension fund that a person of ordinary pru-dence would exercise in dealing with theproperty of another person.” Subsection22(4) states that an administrator “shall notknowingly permit the administrator’s inter-est to conflict with the administrator’sduties and powers in respect of the pensionfund.”

11. The Superintendent has information thatindicates that funds from the pension fundin respect of the Plan have been transferredfrom the pension fund to bank accountsheld by companies named NationalBusiness Investment In Trust Inc. (“NBI InTrust”), National Business InvestmentCanada Inc. (“NBI Canada”) and/or CCCC(the employer under the application for reg-istration). In filings with the CompaniesBranch of the Ontario Ministry ofConsumer and Commercial Relations,Michel Rolland, Designated TrustAdministrator for the Pension Trust Fund, islisted as the administrator for NBI In Trust.In banking records, Michel Rolland is listedas the “owner/signing officer” for NBI InTrust and Michel Rolland and Michel Dionare listed as authorized representatives forNBI Canada.

12. In transferring or allowing the transfer offunds from the pension fund to the NBI In Trust, NBI Canada and/or CCCC bankaccounts, the Pension Trust Fund as thenamed administrator has permitted the useor diversion of funds for purposes otherthan the purpose of the Plan in contraven-tion of the trust agreement and subsection22(1) of the Act.

13. In addition, the Pension Trust Fund hascontravened subsection 22(4) of the Actbecause it has knowingly permitted its owninterest to conflict with its duties and pow-ers in respect of the pension fund in thatMichel Rolland is an officer of NBI In Trustand Michel Rolland and Michel Dion areauthorized representatives of NBI Canada.Lastly, funds have been transferred from thepension fund to accounts held by CCCC,which contravenes subsection 78(1) of theAct. Subsection 78(1) of the Act states thatno money may be paid out of a pensionfund to the employer without the priorconsent of the Superintendent.

Investments

14. Section 62 of the Act states that the invest-ments to be made with the assets of thepension fund shall be selected in accor-dance with the criteria set out in the Actand regulations. Section 79 of theRegulation states that assets of a pensionplan shall be invested in accordance withthe federal investment regulations. Clause6(1)(b)(i) of the Pension Benefits StandardsRegulations, 1985, SOR/87-19 to the PensionBenefits Standards Act, 1985, R.S.C. 1985, c. 32 as amended, states that the moneys ofthe pension fund are to be invested in aname that clearly indicates that the invest-ment is held in trust for the plan or in the

55

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

name of a financial institution or TheCanadian Depository for Securities Limitedin accordance with a trust or custodialagreement that clearly indicates that theinvestment is held for the plan.

15. The moneys of the pension fund are notbeing invested in trust for the Plan nor arethey being held in the name of a financialinstitution and/or The Canadian Depositoryfor Securities Limited in accordance with atrust or custodial agreement that clearlyindicates that the investment is held for thePlan. The named administrator has, there-fore, failed to select the investments for thepension fund in accordance with the criteriaset out in the Act and regulations in contra-vention of section 62 and subsection 22(1)of the Act and section 79 of the Regulation.

Assignments of Locked In Accounts

16. Section 65 of the Act states that every trans-action that purports to assign, charge, antic-ipate or give as security, money payableunder a pension plan or transferred from apension fund is void. The Superintendenthas information that indicates that thefunds transferred to the pension fund inrespect of the Plan from locked in retire-ment accounts or other prescribed retire-ment arrangements have been assigned,charged, anticipated or given as security infavour of NBI In Trust in return for theextension of a loan from NBI In Trust to theholder of the prescribed retirement arrange-ment. Such transactions are unlawful andvoid pursuant to section 65 of the Act. Thenamed administrator has accepted thetransfer of funds from locked in retirementaccounts or other prescribed retirementarrangements which funds have beenassigned, charged, anticipated or given as

security in contravention of section 65 ofthe Act.

Annual Filings

17. Subsection 20(1) of the Act states that theadministrator “shall file each year an annu-al information return in respect of the pen-sion plan ... and shall pay the filing feeestablished by the Minister.” Subsection20(2) of the Act states that the administra-tor “shall file additional reports at the timesand containing the information prescribedby the regulations.”

18. Subsection 18(1) of Regulation 909, R.R.O.1990, as amended (the “Regulation”) statesthat the administrator shall file the annualinformation return not later than sixmonths after the end of the fiscal year ofthe plan in the case of a defined contribu-tion plan. Subsections 76(1) and (2) of theRegulation state that the administrator shallfile financial statements for the pensionplan or fund as at the plan’s fiscal year endand if at the fiscal year end the plan has$3,000,000 or more in assets, the adminis-trator shall file an auditor’s report respect-ing the financial statements. Subsection76(4) of the Regulation states that thefinancial statement and auditor’s reportshall be filed within six months after eachfiscal year end for the plan.

19. The Plan is a defined contribution pensionplan. The fiscal year end for the Plan isDecember 31. No annual informationreturn, financial statements or auditor’sreport (if required) have been filed by thePension Trust Fund to date in contraven-tion of section 20 of the Act and subsec-tions 18(1), 76(1), 76(2) and 76(4) of theRegulation.

56

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

Information Requested by theSuperintendent

20. Subsection 98(1) of the Act states that “[t]heSuperintendent may require an employer, anadministrator or any other person to supplythe Superintendent such information ... forthe purpose of ascertaining whether or not[the] Act and the regulations are being com-plied with”. The Superintendent has request-ed certain information regarding the Planpursuant to section 98 of the Act. Subsection98(2) of the Act stipulates that the person towhom a request is made under subsection98(1) of the Act must comply with therequest within the time specified by theSuperintendent. To date, the informationrequested has not been filed with theSuperintendent by the named administrator.The named administrator, in failing torespond to a request for information pur-suant to section 98 of the Act, has failed to administer the plan in accordance withthe Act.

Conclusion

21. Clause 18(1)(b) of the Act states that theSuperintendent may “revoke the registra-tion of a pension plan that does not com-ply with [the] Act and the regulations”. The Superintendent proposes to revoke the registration of the Plan pursuant to clause 18(1)(b) of the Act for the followingreasons:

a. The named administrator of the Plan, thePension Trust Fund, is not eligible to actas the administrator of the Plan undersection 8 of the Act; and

b. The documents that create and supportthe Plan do not set out the informationspecified in paragraph 3 above in contra-

vention of section 10 of the Act.

22. Clause 18(1)(c) of the Act states that theSuperintendent may “revoke the registra-tion of a pension plan that is not beingadministered in accordance with [the] Actand the regulations”. The Superintendentproposes to revoke the registration of thePlan pursuant to clause 18(1)(c) of the Act,for the following reasons:

a. The named administrator has provided afalse declaration that the plan complieswith the Act and regulations in contraven-tion of clause 9(2)(e.1) of the Act;

b. The named administrator is accepting transfers of funds from persons who are noteligible to participate in the Plan in contra-vention of the Plan and, hence, in contra-vention of the clause 19(3)(a) of the Act;

c. The named administrator is accepting trans-fers from locked in retirement accounts orother prescribed retirement arrangementswhich transfers constitute a commutationor surrender of a prescribed retirementarrangement in contravention of section 67of the Act;

d. The named administrator has not exercisedthe care, diligence and skill that a person ofordinary prudence would exercise in deal-ing with the property of another personbecause it transferred or permitted the trans-fer of funds from the pension fund to NBIIn Trust, NBI Canada and/or CCCC in con-travention of subsection 22(1) of the Act;

e. The named administrator has knowinglypermitted its own interest to conflict withits duties and powers in respect of the pen-sion fund by transferring or permitting thetransfer of funds from the pension fund toNBI In Trust, NBI Canada and/or CCCC in

57

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

contravention of subsection 22(4) of the Act;

f. The named administrator has failed to selectthe investments for the pension fund inaccordance with the Act and regulations incontravention of section 62 and subsection22(1) of the Act and section 79 of theRegulation;

g. The named administrator has accepted thetransfer of funds from locked in retirementaccounts or other prescribed retirementarrangements which funds have beenassigned, charged, anticipated or given assecurity in contravention of section 65 ofthe Act;

h. The named administrator has failed to filethe annual information return, financialstatements and auditor’s report (if required)within the prescribed time limits in contra-vention of section 20 of the Act and subsec-tions 18(1), 76(1), 76(2) and 76(4) of theRegulation; and

i. The named administrator failed to provideinformation requested by the Superintendentin contravention of section 98 of the Act.


YOU ARE ENTITLED TO A HEARING bythe Financial Services Tribunal (the “Tribunal”)pursuant to subsection 89(6) of the Act, if with-in thirty (30) days after this Notice of Proposalis served on you, you deliver to the Tribunal awritten notice that you require a hearing.1





DATED at North York, Ontario, this 10th day ofAugust, 2001.

Philip HowellChief Executive Officer and Superintendent of Financial Services (Acting)

58

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1



AND IN THE MATTER OF a proposal by theSuperintendent of Financial Services to makean Order under section 87 of the Act in respectof the Pension Plan for SalariedEmployees of Canadian Tack & Nail Ltd.,Registration Number 0581306 (the “Plan”);

TO: Canadian Tack & Nail Ltd.431 Dundas St.,Cambridge, OntarioN1R 5W6

Attention: Gary AyersVice President/General ManagerAdministrator of the Plan

Notice of Proposal to Make An OrderI PROPOSE TO MAKE AN ORDER undersection 87 of the Act, requiring the Employer orAdministrator of the Plan to remit within thirty days of receiving this Notice outstandingcontributions in the amount $67,933, as ofDecember 31, 1999, owed to the Pension Fund,together with interest payable under section 24of Regulation 909 under the Act.


1. An actuarial valuation received by theSuperintendent filed effective December 31,1999, shows outstanding employer contri-butions to the Pension Fund of $67,933.

2. The Plan Administrator has failed to remitthe outstanding contributions.

3. Section 55(2) of the Act requires contribu-tions to be made to the pension plan in theprescribed manner and in accordance withthe prescribed requirements for funding.

4. Section 56(1) of the Act requires the admin-istrator of a pension plan to ensure that allcontributions are paid when due.

5. Regulation 909 under the Act prescribesfunding requirements for pension plans.Subsection 4(2) requires an employer oranother person required to make contribu-tions to the fund, to pay amounts that arenot less than all contributions required topay the normal cost and all special pay-ments determined in accordance with therequirements of the regulation.

6. Subsection 4(4) of Regulation 909 requirescontributions in respect of the normal costof a plan to be made in monthly instal-ments payable within thirty days of themonth for which contributions are due.

7. Subsection 4(4) of Regulation 909 requirescontributions in respect of special paymentsin respect of any fiscal year to be madewithin thirty days after the end of the fiscalyear, and to be made in equal monthlyinstalments in accordance with the require-ments of the regulation.

8. Section 2.3 of the Plan provides that thefunding of the Plan shall be in accordancewith the Act to meet funding and solvencyrequirements. Section 4.4 of the Planrequires contributions to be made in accor-dance with the Act, and to be depositedwithin 30 days after the end of the monthin which service was rendered.

9. In failing to remit in full the required con-tributions to the fund as prescribed pur-suant to Regulation 909, and as requiredunder the Plan, the employer is failing toadminister the Plan and the Fund in accor-dance with the Act, the regulations and thepension plan.

59

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

10. In failing to remit in full the required contributions to the fund as prescribed pursuant to Regulation 909, and as requiredunder the Plan, the employer is contraven-ing the requirements of section 55 of theAct, and section 4 of the Regulation.

11. Subsection 87(2) of the Act allows theSuperintendent to make an order if theSuperintendent is of the opinion, upon rea-sonable and probable grounds, that thepension plan or fund is not being adminis-tered in accordance with the Act, the regulations or the pension plan.

12. Subsection 87(2) of the Act allows theSuperintendent to make an order if theSuperintendent is of the opinion, upon rea-sonable and probable grounds, that theemployer, the administrator of a pensionplan, or any other person is contravening arequirement of the Act or the regulations.

13. Such further and other grounds as maycome to my attention.








60

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1



AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal of theSuperintendent of Financial Services to revokethe registration of Régime de Retraite desEmployés et Membres de CanadianCorporation Creation Center,Registration Number 1062363 (the “Plan”)pursuant to section 87 of the Act;

TO: TD Canada TrustCorporate BankingTD Centre27th Floor Toronto, OntarioM5K 1A2

Attention: Mr. Ed ClarkChief Executive Officer

Fiducie du Régime deRetraite des Employés etMembres de CanadianCorporation Creation Center





Named Administrator

Notice of ProposalI PROPOSE, pursuant to section 87 of the Act,TO ORDER, effective the date of the order,that TD Canada Trust refrain from paying out,transferring, releasing or otherwise removingany moneys relating to the Régime de Retraitedes Employés et Membres de CanadianCorporation Creation Center, Registration No.1062363 (the “Plan”), from all accounts held atTD Canada Trust, including but not limited tothe accounts corresponding to the followingaccount numbers: 345-597827; 345-597806;and 345-597541; and that TD Canada Trusthold the moneys relating to the Plan in a namethat clearly indicates that the moneys areinvested in trust for the Plan or in the name ofTD Canada Trust in accordance with a trust orcustodial agreement that clearly indicates thatthe moneys are invested in an investment thatis held for the Plan.

I PROPOSE TO MAKE THE ORDER FORTHE FOLLOWING REASONS:

Deputy Superintendent’s Direction

1. On or about August 3, 2001, the DeputySuperintendent, Pension Division (the“Deputy Superintendent”), issued a Noticeindicating that he was acting as administra-tor for the Plan pursuant to subsection71(1) of the Act. Subsection 71(1) of the Actstates that “if a pension plan that is to bewound up in whole or in part does nothave an administrator or the administrator

61

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

fails to act, the Superintendent may act asor may appoint an administrator.”

2. Subsection 18(5) of the Act states that“where the registration of a pension plan isrefused or revoked, the administrator shallwind up the pension plan in accordancewith [the] Act and the regulations”. OnAugust 10, 2001, the Superintendent ofFinancial Services (the “Superintendent”)issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke theregistration of the Plan pursuant to subsec-tion 18(1) of the Act. A copy of the August10, 2001 Notice of Proposal is attachedhereto as Schedule “A”. The reasons for the August 10, 2001 Notice of Proposal are,inter alia, that the Plan does not complywith the Act and that the Plan is not beingadministered in accordance with the Act.The reasons set out in the August 10, 2001Notice of Proposal are adopted and reliedupon as reasons to support this Notice ofProposal. By virtue of the August 10, 2001Notice of Proposal and subsection 18(5) ofthe Act the Plan is to be wound up.

3. The application for registration of the Planstates that Canadian Corporation CreationCenter (“CCCC”) is the employer for thePlan. The text for the Plan states that theadministrator for the Plan is the Fiducie duRégime de Retraite des Employés etMembres de Canadian CorporationCreation Center (Pension Trust Fund of theEmployees and Members of CanadianCorporation Creation Center (the “PensionTrust Fund”). The Trust Agreement for thePlan dated June 21, 2000, states that MichelDion, Éric Ferron and Guy Patrick Léveilléare trustees. Michel Rolland is theDesignated Trust Administrator.

4. Section 8 of the Act provides an exhaustivelist of those entities who are eligible to actas administrators of a pension plan underthe Act. Section 8 does not permit a pen-sion trust fund to act as an administrator ofa single employer pension plan. The Planpurports to be a single employer plan.

5. Therefore, the Pension Trust Fund is not eli-gible to act as the administrator of the Planand the Plan does not have a valid adminis-trator. The Deputy Superintendent, byauthority delegated from the Superintendentand pursuant to subsection 71(1) of the Act,is eligible to act as the administrator. Asadministrator, the Deputy Superintendent isrequired under subsection 19(1) of the Actto “ensure that the pension plan and pen-sion fund are administered in accordancewith [the] Act and regulations.”

6. The Deputy Superintendent has reason tobelieve that some or all of the assets of thePlan are or may be held in a number ofaccounts with TD Canada Trust under thenames CCCC, Canadian CorporationCreation Center (pension plan), NationalBusiness Investment In Trust Inc., NBI InTrust Inc. (“NBI In Trust”) and NationalBusiness Investment Canada Inc. (“NBICanada”) including but not limited to theaccounts corresponding to the followingaccount numbers: 354-597827, 345-597806and 345-597541(the “identified accounts”).

7. In a letter dated August 3, 2001, the DeputySuperintendent, in his capacity as adminis-trator, directed TD Canada Trust to ensurethat no moneys in the identified accountsare paid out, transferred or otherwiseremoved from these accounts.

8. TD Canada Trust has not complied with theDeputy Superintendent’s August 3, 2001,

62

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

direction and funds have been removedfrom the identified accounts both prior andsubsequent to August 3, 2001.

Investment and Deposit of the Assets ofthe Plan

9. Subsection 22(1) of the Act states that “theadministrator of a pension plan shall exer-cise the care, diligence and skill required inthe administration and investment of thepension fund that a person of ordinary pru-dence would exercise in dealing with theproperty of another person.” Subsection22(4) states that an administrator “shall notknowingly permit the administrator’s inter-est to conflict with the administrator’s dutiesand powers in respect of the pension fund.”

10. The Deputy Superintendent has informa-tion that indicates that assets of the pen-sion fund in respect of the Plan have beendeposited in the identified accounts by NBIIn Trust, NBI Canada, National BusinessInvestment In Trust Inc. and/or CCCC (theemployer under the application for registra-tion). In filings with the Companies Branchof the Ontario Ministry of Consumer andCommercial Relations, Michel Rolland,Designated Trust Administrator for thePension Trust Fund, is listed as the adminis-trator for NBI In Trust. In banking records,Michel Rolland is listed as the “owner/sign-ing officer” for NBI In Trust, and MichelRolland and Michel Dion are listed asauthorized representatives for NBI Canada.

11. In depositing or allowing the deposit ofassets of the pension fund in the NBI InTrust, NBI Canada and/or CCCC bankaccounts and in permitting the furtherwithdrawal of pension assets from the iden-tified accounts, the Pension Trust Fund asthe named administrator has permitted the

use or diversion of funds for purposes otherthan the purpose of the Plan in contraven-tion of the trust agreement and subsection22(1) of the Act.

12. In addition, the Pension Trust Fund hascontravened subsection 22(4) of the Actbecause it has knowingly permitted its owninterest to conflict with its duties and pow-ers in respect of the pension fund in thatMichel Rolland is an officer of NBI In Trustand Michel Rolland and Michel Dion areauthorized representatives of NBI Canada.Lastly, pension funds have been depositedin accounts held by CCCC, which contra-venes subsection 78(1) of the Act.Subsection 78(1) of the Act states that nomoney may be paid out of a pension fundto the employer without the prior consentof the Superintendent.

13. Section 62 of the Act states that the invest-ments to be made with the assets of thepension fund shall be selected in accor-dance with the criteria set out in the Actand regulations. Section 79 of Regulation909, R.R.O. 1990, as amended (the“Regulation”) states that the assets of a pen-sion plan shall be invested in accordancewith the federal investment regulations.Clause 6(1)(b)(i) of the Pension BenefitsStandards Regulations, 1985, SOR/87-19 tothe Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985,R.S.C. 1985, c. 32 as amended, states thatthe moneys of the pension fund are to beinvested in a name that clearly indicatesthat the investment is held in trust for theplan or in the name of a financial institu-tion or The Canadian Depository forSecurities Limited in accordance with a trustor custodial agreement that clearly indicatesthat the investment is held for the plan.

63

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

14. The moneys of the pension fund are notbeing invested in trust for the Plan nor arethey being held in the name of a financialinstitution and/or The Canadian Depositoryfor Securities Limited in accordance with atrust or custodial agreement that clearlyindicates that the investment is held for thePlan. The named administrator has, there-fore, failed to select the investments for thepension fund in accordance with the crite-ria set out in the Act and regulations in con-travention of section 62 and subsection22(1) of the Act and section 79 of theRegulation.

Conclusion

15. Subsection 87(1) of the Act states that the“Superintendent, in the circumstances men-tioned in subsection [87](2) and subject tosection 89 (hearing and appeal), by a writ-ten order may require an administrator orany other person to take or to refrain fromtaking any action in respect of a pensionplan or a pension fund.”

16. Subsection 87(2) of the Act states that theSuperintendent may make an order undersection 87 “if the Superintendent is of theopinion, upon reasonable and probablegrounds,

a. That the pension plan or pension fund isnot being administered in accordance with[the] Act, the regulations or the pensionplan;

b. That the pension plan does not complywith [the] Act and the regulations; or

c. That the administrator of the pension plan, the employer or other person is contravening a requirement of [the] Act or the regulations.”

17. The Superintendent proposes to issue theproposed order pursuant to clause 87(2)(a)of the Act on the following basis:

a. The named administrator has not exer-cised the care, diligence and skill that aperson of ordinary prudence would exer-cise in dealing with the property ofanother person because it deposited orpermitted the deposit of pension fundsinto the identified accounts held byNational Business Investment In TrustInc., NBI In Trust Inc., National BusinessInvestment Canada Inc. and/or CCCCand further it permitted the withdrawalof pension assets from the identifiedaccounts in contravention of subsections22(1) and 78(1) of the Act;

b. The named administrator has knowinglypermitted its own interest to conflictwith its duties and powers in respect ofthe pension fund by depositing or per-mitting the deposit of pension funds intothe identified accounts held by CCCC,National Business Investment In TrustInc., NBI In Trust Inc. and/or NationalBusiness Investment Canada Inc. in contravention of subsection 22(4) of the Act; and

c. The pension fund has not been investedin accordance with the Act and regula-tions in contravention of section 62 andsubsection 22(1) of the Act and section 79of the Regulation.


64

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1








65

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1



AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal of theSuperintendent of Financial Services to Makean Order, pursuant to section 69 of the Act,respecting the Pension Plan for Executivesof William H. Kaufman Inc.,Registration Number 999631 (the “Plan”);

TO: The Standard Life AssuranceCompany1245 Sherbrooke Street West,Montreal, QuébecH3G 1G3

Attention: Jean-Claude LebelPension ActuaryAdministrator

AND TO: William H. Kaufman Inc. P.O. Box 9005, Kitchener Stn. C,410 King St. West,Kitchener, OntarioN2G 4J8

Attention: Stuart SnyderSecretary TreasurerEmployer

Notice of Proposal to Make an OrderI PROPOSE TO ORDER that the PensionPlan for Executives of William H. Kaufman Inc.,Registration No. 999631 (the “Plan”), be whollywound up effective July 21, 2000.

I PROPOSE to make this order pursuant tosubsection 69(1) of the Act.




3. The employer is bankrupt within the mean-ing of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act(Canada), R. S. C. 1985, c. B-3, as amended,pursuant to clause 69(1)(c) of the Act.

4. A significant number of members of thepension plan ceased to be employed by theemployer as a result of the discontinuanceof all or part of the business of the employ-er or as a result of the reorganization of thebusiness of the employer within the mean-ing of clause 69(1)(d) of the Act.

5. All or a significant portion of the businesscarried on by the employer at a specificlocation was discontinued within the mean-ing of clause 69(1)(e) of the Act.


Any notice requiring a hearing shall be delivered to:




66

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

THE ADMINISTRATOR IS REQUIRED, pur-suant to subsection 89(5) of the Act, to transmita copy of this Notice of Proposal to Make anOrder to the following persons:

Ernst & Young Inc. Toronto-Dominion Centre,P.O. Box 251, 222 Bay Street,Toronto, OntarioM5K 1J7

Attention: Philip KanInterim Receiver andReceiver and Trustee inBankruptcy for William H.Kaufman Inc.



67

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1



AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal by theSuperintendent of Financial Services to makean Order under subsection 78(1) of the Act consenting to a payment out of the EbascoServices of Canada Limited SalariedEmployees Retirement Plan, RegistrationNumber 0546093;

TO: Ebasco Services of Canada Limitedc/o TXU Gas Company1601 Bryan StreetDallas, Texas75201-3411U.S.A.

Attention: John F. Stephens, Jr.Assistant Secretary of TXU GasCompanyApplicant and Employer

Notice of ProposalI PROPOSE TO MAKE AN ORDER under s. 78(1) of the Act, consenting to the paymentout of the Ebasco Services of Canada LimitedSalaried Employees Retirement Plan,Registration No. 0546093 (the “Plan”), toEbasco Services of Canada in the amount of$161,090, plus investment earnings minusexpenses incurred thereon to the date of payment.

I PROPOSE TO MAKE THE ORDEReffective only after the Applicant satisfies methat all benefits, benefit enhancements (includ-ing benefits and benefit enhancements pur-suant to the Surplus Distribution Agreementdefined in paragraph 5 below) and any other

payments to which the members, former mem-bers, and any other persons entitled to suchpayments have been paid, purchased, or other-wise provided for.


1. Ebasco Services of Canada is the employeras defined in the Plan (the “Employer”).

2. The Plan was wound up, effective April 1,1987.

3. As at April 1, 1987, the surplus in the Planwas estimated at $208,810.


5. The application discloses that by writtenagreement made by the Employer, and 662/3% of the former members and otherpersons entitled to payments, the surplusin the Plan at the date of payment, afterdeduction of wind up expenses, is to bedistributed:



6. The Employer has applied, pursuant to section 78 of the Act, and clause 8(1)(b) of the Regulation, for consent of theSuperintendent of Financial Services to the payment of 50% of the net surplus in the Plan.

7. The application appears to comply with section 78 and subsection 79(3)(a) and (b) of the Act and with clause 8(1)(b) andsubsections 28(5), 28(5.1) and 28(6) of the Regulation.


68

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1







cc: Mr. Jeff Chuchman Financial ServicesCommission of Ontario

Mr. Duncan B. RichardsonWilliam M. Mercer Ltd.

Mr. Frank Peterson 32 Tara AvenueScarborough, OntarioM1K 4B1

Mr. Bharat Mohan Kukreti88 Harvest Moon DriveMarkham, OntarioL3R 4L6

Mr. Naso S. Janovsky1233 Scottsburg Cres.Mississauga, OntarioL4W 2Z9

Mr. C.W. So23 Kerbar RoadScarborough, OntarioM1V 1G2

Mr. Ronald C. Chambers6 Willowgate DriveMarkham, Ontario L3P 1G2

Mr. John W. Staines121 Trayburn DriveRichmond Hill, OntarioL4C 4K6

Mr. Ronaldo V. Olay1492 Islington AvenueEtobicoke, OntarioM9A 3L5

Mr. W. Milczyn513-2313 Lake Shore Blvd. W.Toronto, Ontario M8V 1A8

Mr. Patrick Kam69 Canlish RoadScarborough, OntarioM1P 1S6

Mr. R. Mitchell4044 Powderhorn CourtMississauga, Ontario L5L 3C4

Mr. Basil W. PearceUnit 180055 Kingsbridge Garden CircleMississauga, Ontario L5R 1Y1

69

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

Mr. B. Ivsins395 Martha StreetSuite 607Burlington, OntarioL7R 4A9

Mr. Robert Cudden43 Tremont CrescentDon Mills, OntarioM3B 2R9

Mr. Pinaki Ranjan Roy77 Howard StreetApartment 905Toronto, Ontario M4X 1J9

Mr. George Poulos369 Ellis Park RoadToronto, OntarioM6S 2V7

Mr. Michael M. Salamon256 Armour Blvd.North York, OntarioM3H 1N3

Mr. Miguel Hortiguela331 Trudelle StreetUnit 53Scarborough, OntarioM1J 3J9

Mr. Maurice Titmuss6233 191A StreetSurrey, British Columbia V3S 8C6

Mr. Gerald P. Barron67 Dewlane DriveWillowdale, OntarioM2R 2P9

Mr. Robert Rollinson-Lorimer566 Hawthorne Cres.Milton, OntarioL9T 4N8

70

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1



AND IN THE MATTER OF an applicationpursuant to s. 78(1) of the Act submitted byCity Of Kitchener in respect of TheCorporation of the City of KitchenerPension Plan for Fire DepartmentEmployees, Registration Number 239475(the “Plan”);

TO: City of KitchenerCity Hall, P.O. Box 1118200 King Street WestKitchener, OntarioN2G 4G7

Attention: Ms. Rosemary Upfold, Director ofAccountingApplicant and Employer

Notice of Proposal to Refuse toConsent To ApplicationI PROPOSE TO REFUSE TO CONSENT tothe application for payment of surplus to theemployer dated July 17, 2000, pursuant to s. 78(1) of the Act.

I PROPOSE TO REFUSE TO CONSENT TOTHE APPLICATION FOR THE FOLLOW-ING REASONS:

1. In 1946, the documents which created thePlan (including the Employee Booklet)required that the member and employercontributions would be applied to effect agroup life and pension policy with theStandard Life Assurance Company (the“Policy”). The documents which created thePlan also provided that the employer wouldhold in trust for the benefit of members thePolicy and all the benefits payable thereun-der. Those documents, although amendedon January 1, 1958, continued until 1973 to

provide that the employer would hold thePolicy in trust for the benefit of members.Hence the Plan provided that the Policywould be held in trust for the benefit of themembers from its inception.

2. Since the member and employer contribu-tions were to be used to purchase the Policyand since the Policy and all benefitspayable thereunder were to be held in trustfor the members, any excess amounts avail-able under the Policy, after the payment ofbenefits, would be subject to the trust forthe benefit of the members and not theemployer.

3. Any policy purchased using member andemployer contributions made pursuant tothe Plan would also be subject to the sametrust provisions as the Policy.

4. In 1978, for the first time, the Plan docu-ments were amended to provide that thesurplus belonged to the employer, the Cityof Kitchener. However since the Plan wassubject to a trust prior to 1978, that amend-ment would have been void, unless theemployer reserved the power to revoke thetrust.

5. The provisions in the Plan documents priorto 1978 which reserved a right to theemployer to amend or discontinue the Plan,did not give the employer the power torevoke the trust.

6. Therefore the employer has not demonstrat-ed that it has complied with s. 79(3)(b) ofthe Act, which requires that the Plan pro-vide for payment of surplus to the employeron the wind up of the Plan.

7. The employer has not demonstrated thatthe required level of consent required byclause 8(1)(b) of Regulation 909 madeunder the Pension Benefits Act, R.S.O. 1990

71

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

Ch P.8, as amended, for the 76 formermembers shown in the wind up report asentitled to payments under the pensionplan on the date of wind up, has beenachieved.









72

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1



AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal of theSuperintendent of Financial Services to Makean Order pursuant to section 69 of the Act inrespect of The Retirement Plan for HourlyEmployees of Superior Machine and Tool(Chatham) Limited, RegistrationNumber 327601 (the “Plan”);

TO: Morneau Sobeco Deloitte & Touche Inc. by itsagent1500 Don Mills Road, Suite 500Toronto, OntarioM3B 3K4

Attention: Al KielPartnerAdministrator

AND TO: Superior Machine & Tool(Chatham) Limited227 William Street SouthChatham, OntarioN7M 4T3

Attention: Mike FifeManager, Administrative ServicesEmployer

Notice of ProposalI PROPOSE TO MAKE AN ORDER inrespect of the Plan under subsection 69(1) ofthe Act.

PROPOSED ORDER:

The Retirement Plan for Hourly Employees ofSuperior Machine and Tool (Chatham) Limited,Registration No. 327601, be wound up inwhole for those members of the Plan whoceased to be employed effective between July 7,1999, and July 8, 1999.

REASONS FOR THE ORDER:

1. The employer is bankrupt within the mean-ing of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act(Canada), R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3, as amended,pursuant to clause 69(1)(c) of the Act.



4. Such further reasons as may come to myattention.





IF YOU DO NOT DELIVER TO THE TRIBUNAL, WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYSFROM THE DATE THIS NOTICE OF PROPOSAL FAIL TO REQUEST A HEARING WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS, I MAY MAKE THE ORDER PROPOSED IN THIS NOTICE.

73

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

THE ADMINISTRATOR IS REQUIRED, pursuant to subsection 89(5) of the Act, totransmit a copy of this Notice of Proposal tothe following persons:

Zwaig Associates Inc.Suite 1470, Exchange TowersP.O. Box 17130 King Street WestToronto, OntarioM5X 1A9

Attention: Sean HinksonConsultantInterim Receiver and Trusteein Bankruptcy for SuperiorMachine & Tool (Chatham)Limited



74

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1



AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal of theSuperintendent of Financial Services to Makean Order pursuant to section 69 of the Act inrespect of the Superior Machine and Tool(Chatham) Limited Retirement Plan forSalaried Employees, RegistrationNumber 691642 (the “Plan”);

TO: Deloitte & Touche Inc. by its agentMorneau Sobeco1500 Don Mills Road, Suite 500Toronto, OntarioM3B 3K4

Attention: Al KielPartnerAdministrator

AND TO: Superior Machine & Tool(Chatham) Limited227 William Street SouthChatham, OntarioN7M 4T3

Attention: Mike FifeManager, Administrative ServicesEmployer


PROPOSED ORDER:

The Superior Machine and Tool (Chatham)Limited Retirement Plan for SalariedEmployees, Registration No. 691642, be woundup in whole for those members of the Planwho ceased to be employed effective betweenJuly 7, 1999, and July 8, 1999.


1. The employer is bankrupt within the mean-ing of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act(Canada), R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3, as amended,pursuant to clause 69(1)(c) of the Act.









75

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1


Zwaig Associates Inc.Suite 1470, Exchange TowersP.O. Box 17130 King Street WestToronto, OntarioM5X 1A9

Attention: Sean HinksonConsultantInterim Receiver and Trusteein Bankruptcy for SuperiorMachine & Tool (Chatham)Limited



76

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1



AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal by theSuperintendent of Financial Services to make aDeclaration under Section 83 of the PensionBenefits Act, as amended by the FinancialServices Commission of Ontario Act, 1997, S.O.1997, c. 28, respecting the Retirement Planfor the Hourly Employees of SuperiorMachine and Tool (Chatham) Limited,Registration Number 0327601;

TO: Morneau SobecoSuite 5001500 Don Mills Road Toronto, OntarioM3B 3K4

Attention: Mr. Al Kiel Administrator

AND TO: Superior Machine and Tool(Chatham) Limited 277 William Street South Chatham, OntarioN7M 4T3

Attention: Mr. Mike Fife Employer

AND TO: Zwaig Consulting Inc.Suite 1560, Exchange TowerP.O. Box 17, 130 King Street West Toronto, OntarioM5X 1J5

Attention: Mr. Jeffrey D. KerbelTrustee in Bankruptcy andInterim Receiver andManager


1. The Retirement Plan for Hourly Employeesof Superior Machine and Tool (Chatham)Limited, Registration No. 327601 (the“Plan”), is registered under the PensionBenefits Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8, as amendedby the Financial Services Commission ofOntario Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 28 (the“Act”); and


3. The Superintendent of Pensions appointedDeloitte & Touche Inc. as the administratorof the Plan on December 22, 1999, andMorneau Sobeco (the “Administrator”) isthe agent acting for Deloitte & Touche Inc.;and

4. The Administrator had requested from theSuperintendent of Financial Services onSeptember 27, 2000, that an Order be issuedto wind up the Plan effective July 7, 1999;and

5. A Notice of Proposal to make an Order towind up the Plan, dated August 29, 2001,effective from July 7, 1999, to July 8, 1999,was served on the administrator onSeptember 6, 2001; and

6. The Administrator filed on August 10, 2001,an application for a declaration that theGuarantee Fund applies to the Plan inanticipation of making an application foran interim allocation of the GuaranteeFund; and

77

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

7. The said application for the declarationindicates that the Administration wasforced to impose financial hardship on current retirees by reducing their pensionpayments to the level that the Plan can support;


1. The funded ratio of the Plan has beenestimated to be 62% with an estimated deficiency in wind up assets compared towind up liabilities of $3,128,000 as of July 7, 1999.

2. The employer, Superior Machine and Tool(Chatham) Limited, was assigned into bank-ruptcy on July 8, 1999.

3. The trustee in bankruptcy has advised theAdministrator that there are no assets available to the trustee from the estate ofSuperior Machine and Tool (Chatham)Limited for realization.

4. The Administrator advised that it is of theopinion that there are reasonable and prob-able grounds for concluding that the fund-ing requirements of the Act and regulationcannot be satisfied.






DATED at North York, Ontario, this 12th day ofSeptember, 2001.


78

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

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


AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal by theSuperintendent of Financial Services to make aDeclaration under Section 83 of the PensionBenefits Act, as amended by the FinancialServices Commission of Ontario Act, 1997, S.O.1997, c. 28, respecting the Retirement Planfor the Salaried Employees of SuperiorMachine and Tool (Chatham) Limited,Registration Number 0691642;

TO: Morneau SobecoSuite 5001500 Don Mills Road Toronto, OntarioM3B 3K4

Attention: Mr. Al Kiel Administrator

AND TO: Superior Machine and Tool(Chatham) Limited 277 William Street South Chatham, OntarioN7M 4T3

Attention: Mr. Mike Fife Employer

AND TO: Zwaig Consulting Inc.Suite 1560, Exchange TowerP.O. Box 17, 130 King Street West Toronto, OntarioM5X 1J5

Attention: Mr. Jeffrey D. KerbelTrustee in Bankruptcy andInterim Receiver andManager


1. The Retirement Plan for the SalariedEmployees of Superior Machine and Tool(Chatham) Limited, Registration No.0691642 (the “Plan”), is registered underthe Pension Benefits Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8,as amended by the Financial ServicesCommission of Ontario Act, 1997, S.O. 1997,c. 28 (the “Act”); and

2. The Plan provides defined benefits that are not exempt from the application of the Pension Benefits Guarantee Fund (the “Guarantee Fund”) by the Act or theregulations made thereunder; and

3. The Superintendent of Pensions appointedDeloitte & Touche Inc. as the administratorof the Plan on December 22, 1999, andMorneau Sobeco (the “Administrator”) isthe agent acting for Deloitte & Touche Inc.;and

4. The Administrator had requested from theSuperintendent of Financial Services, onSeptember 27, 2000, that an Order be issuedto wind up the Plan effective July 7, 1999;and

5. A Notice of Proposal to make an Order towind up the plan, dated August 29, 2001,effective July 7, 1999, to July 8, 1999, was served on the Administrator onSeptember 6, 2001; and

6. The Administrator filed on July 6, 2001, anapplication for a declaration that theGuarantee Fund applies to the Plan, inanticipation of making an application foran interim allocation of the GuaranteeFund; and

79

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

7. The said application for the declarationindicates that the Administrator was forcedto impose financial hardship on currentretirees by reducing their pension paymentsto the level that the Plan can support.

I PROPOSE TO CONSIDER TO MAKE ADECLARATION pursuant to section 83 of theAct, that the Guarantee Fund applies to thePlan FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:

1. The funded ratio of the Plan has been estimated to be 55% with an estimated deficiency in wind up assets compared towind up liabilities of $3,000,000 as of July 7, 1999.

2. The employer, Superior Machine and Tool(Chatham) Limited, was assigned into bankruptcy on July 8, 1999.

3. The trustee in bankruptcy has advised theAdministrator that there are no assets avail-able to the trustee from the estate ofSuperior Machine and Tool (Chatham)Limited for realization.

4. The Administrator advised that it is of theopinion that there are reasonable and probable grounds for concluding that thefunding requirements of the Act and regulation cannot be satisfied.








80

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1



AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal of theSuperintendent of Financial Services to Makean Order pursuant to section 69 of the Act inrespect of The Registered Pension Plan forEmployees of Med-Chem LaboratoriesLimited and Participating Affiliates,Registration Number 372896 (the “Plan”);

TO: Clarica Life InsuranceCompany227 King Street SouthP.O. Box 1601Waterloo, OntarioN2J 4C5

Attention: Ms. Audrey Humphrey, Finals AssociateAdministrator

AND TO: Med-Chem Health CareLimited (previously Med-Chem Laboratories Limitedand Associated Companies)8150 Sheppard Avenue EastScarborough, OntarioM1B 5K2

Attention: Ms. Anita Halverson, Director, Human ResourcesEmployer

AND TO: Scarborough MedicalLaboratory Services Limited8150 Sheppard Avenue EastScarborough, OntarioM1B 5K2



PROPOSED ORDER:

The Registered Pension Plan for Employees ofMed-Chem Laboratories Limited andParticipating Affiliates, Registration No.372896, be wound up in part effective February1, 1999, in respect of members and formermembers who were employed by Med-ChemHealth Care Limited (previously Med-ChemLaboratories Limited and AssociatedCompanies) and Scarborough MedicalLaboratory Services Limited.


1. The participating employers in the Plan areMed-Chem Health Care Limited, MCTUDiagnostics Ltd. and Scarborough MedicalLaboratory Services Limited.

2. There was a cessation or suspension ofemployer contributions to the pension fundof the Plan by Med-Chem Health CareLimited and Scarborough MedicalLaboratory Services Limited, pursuant toclause 69(1)(a) of the Act.

3. Med-Chem Health Care Limited is bankruptwithin the meaning of the Bankruptcy andInsolvency Act (Canada), R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3,as amended, pursuant to clause 69(1)(c) ofthe Act.


81

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1







Brewery, General andProfessional Workers’ Union238 Jane StreetToronto, OntarioM6S 3Z1

Attention: Mr. Cam Nelson, PresidentUnion

PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc.145 King Street WestToronto, OntarioM5H 1V8

Attention: Mr. Robert M.C. HolmesSenior Vice-PresidentTrustee in Bankruptcy forMed-Chem Health CareLimited

Goodman Phillips & VinebergBarristers & Solicitors250 Yonge StreetSuite 2400Toronto, OntarioM5B 2M6

Attention: Ms. Michéle S. AltarasSolicitors forPricewaterhouseCoopers Inc.,Trustee in Bankruptcy



82

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1



AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal of theSuperintendent of Financial Services to Makean Order pursuant to section 69 of the Act inrespect of The Registered Pension Plan forEmployees of Med-Chem LaboratoriesLimited and Participating Affiliates,Registration Number 372896 (the “Plan”);

TO: Clarica Life InsuranceCompany227 King Street SouthP.O. Box 1601 Waterloo, Ontario N2J 4C5

Attention: Ms. Audrey Humphrey, Finals AssociateAdministrator

AND TO: Med-Chem Health CareLimited (previously Med-ChemLaboratories Limited andAssociated Companies)8150 Sheppard Avenue EastScarborough, OntarioM1B 5K2


AND TO: MCTU Diagnostics Ltd. 8150 Sheppard Avenue EastScarborough, OntarioM1B 5K2


AND TO: Scarborough MedicalLaboratory Services Limited8150 Sheppard Avenue EastScarborough, OntarioM1B 5K2



PROPOSED ORDER:

The Registered Pension Plan for Employees ofMed-Chem Laboratories Limited andParticipating Affiliates, Registration No.372896, be wound up in whole effective June 30, 1999.


1. The participating employers in the Plan areMed-Chem Health Care Limited, MCTUDiagnostics Ltd. and Scarborough MedicalLaboratory Services Limited.

2. There was a cessation or suspension ofemployer contributions to the pensionfund, pursuant to clause 69(1)(a) of the Act.

3. Med-Chem Health Care Limited is bankruptwithin the meaning of the Bankruptcy andInsolvency Act (Canada), R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3,as amended, pursuant to clause 69(1)(c) ofthe Act.


83

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1







Brewery, General andProfessional Workers’ Union238 Jane StreetToronto, OntarioM6S 3Z1

Attention: Mr. Cam Nelson, PresidentUnion

PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc.145 King Street WestToronto, OntarioM5H 1V8

Attention: Mr. Robert M.C. HolmesSenior Vice-PresidentTrustee in Bankruptcy forMed-Chem Health CareLimited

Goodman Phillips & VinebergBarristers & Solicitors250 Yonge StreetSuite 2400Toronto, OntarioM5B 2M6

Attention: Ms. Michéle S. AltarasSolicitors forPricewaterhouseCoopers Inc.,Trustee in Bankruptcy



84

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1



AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal of theSuperintendent of Financial Services to Refuseto Make an Order under sections 69 and 87ofthe Act relating to the Pension Plan forEmployees of Proctor & Redfern Limited,Registration Number 0289579 (the “Plan”);

TO: Earth Tech (Canada) Inc.45 Green Belt DriveDon Mills, OntarioM3C 3K3

Attention: Stuart AngusPresidentAdministrator and Employer

Notice of ProposalI PROPOSE TO REFUSE TO MAKE ANORDER in respect of the Plan under sections69 and 87 of the Act the terms of which are setout below.

PROPOSED REFUSAL:

1. A refusal to order that the Plan be partiallywound up under section 69 of the Act withrespect to former employees of Proctor &Redfern Limited whose employment wasterminated between and including 1994and 1998;

2. A refusal to order that the former employ-ees whose employment was terminatedbetween and including 1994 and 1998 aswell as former employees who had theirpension benefits annuitized in 1998 and1999 be included in the surplus sharinggroup identified in the Revised Wind UpReport dated December 2000 and a refusalto order that they be entitled to share inthe surplus distribution on an equitablebasis; and

3. A refusal to order under section 87 of theAct that Earth Tech (Canada) Inc. refund tothe Plan any funds improperly withdrawnfrom the Plan to fund its own legal andactuarial costs.

REASONS FOR THE REFUSAL:

1. The Plan was established by Proctor &Redfern Limited (“Proctor & Redfern”) in1962. By agreement dated June 18, 1999,Proctor & Redfern was sold to a companycalled Earth Tech (Canada) Inc. (“EarthTech”). Proctor & Redfern was amalgamatedwith and continued operations as EarthTech. As a condition of sale, it was requiredthat the Plan be wound up in full effectiveJune 18, 1999.

2. The Proctor & Redfern Board of Directorspassed a motion on June 16, 1999, windingup the Plan in full effective June 18, 1999,and the Plan was amended December 1,1999, to require that all surplus in existenceat the date of wind up be distributed to persons who were members of the Plan inthe period March 25, 1999 through June 18,1999, inclusive (the “full wind up group”).A wind up report was submitted on orabout December 1999, proposing to distrib-ute surplus to members of the full wind upgroup only.

3. Subsequently, Proctor & Redfern discontin-ued all or a significant portion of the busi-ness carried on by Proctor & Redfern at itsKingston, Sault Ste. Marie and Thunder Baylocations in 1995 and 1996. On or aboutOctober 30, 2000, the Superintendent ofFinancial Services issued a Notice ofProposal under clause 69(1)(e) of the Act toorder that the Plan “be wound up in part inrespect of those members of the Plan whowere employed by Proctor & Redfern ... and

85

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

who ceased to be employed by theEmployer [Proctor & Redfern] effectivebetween June 9, 1995 and August 1, 1996 asa result of the discontinuance of all or a significant portion of the business carriedon by the Employer at its Kingston, SaultSte. Marie and Thunder Bay Locations” (the“partial wind up group”). During the 30days following the issuance of the October30, 2000 Notice of Proposal, and to date, noparty has requested a hearing under section89 of the Act in respect of the October 30,2000 Notice of Proposal.

4. A revised Wind Up Report was filed inDecember 2000 (the “Revised Wind UpReport”) which included the persons in thepartial wind up group in a single surplussharing group with the members of the fullwind up group. On or about February 22,2001, the Superintendent approved the distribution of assets, with the exception ofsurplus, in accordance with the originalwind up report.

5. Certain former employees of Proctor &Redfern (“certain former employees”) haverequested that the Superintendent issue anorder requiring, inter alia, the partial windup of the Plan with respect to formeremployees whose employment was termi-nated between and including 1994 and1998 and that those former employees beincluded in the proposed surplus sharinggroup identified in the Revised Wind UpReport and be entitled to share in the distri-bution of surplus in the same manner as allother members of that surplus sharinggroup. In support of their request for suchan order, these certain former employeesallege that the termination of their employ-ment with Proctor & Redfern was the result

of a reorganization within the meaning ofclause 69(1)(d) of the Act that affected all ofProctor & Redfern’s locations. Similarly,other former employees (other than thesecertain former employees) (referred to here-in as the “other former employees”) havealso requested that they be added to thepartial wind up and surplus sharing groupon the same grounds although their requestis not limited to the dates stipulated in therequest of the certain former employees.

6 The certain former employees and otherformer employees requesting the order werenot employed at the locations that were thesubject of the proposed partial wind up inthe October 30, 2000 Notice of Proposal. Inaddition, some of the certain formeremployees and other former employeeswere terminated outside the partial wind upperiod (June 9, 1995 to August 1, 1996) setout in the October 30, 2000 Notice ofProposal. Therefore, none of these certainformer employees or other former employees are entitled to be included in thesurplus sharing group identified in theRevised Wind Up Report under the terms ofthe October 30, 2000 Notice of Proposal.

7. There is no evidence to indicate that duringthe period 1994 to 1998 and prior, Proctor &Redfern was engaged in a reorganization ordiscontinuance of its business within themeaning of clause 69(1)(d) of the Act. Nor isthere any evidence that significant numbersof Plan members ceased employment with-in the meaning of clause 69(1)(d) of the Actduring the period 1994 to 1998 and prior.Therefore, there is no basis to conclude thatduring the period 1994 to 1998 and priorthat a significant number of Plan membersceased to be employed as a result of a

86

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

discontinuance of all or part of the business or as a result of the reorganization of thebusiness within the meaning of clause69(1)(d) of the Act.

8. Therefore, there is no reason under clause69(1)(d) of the Act to order that the partialwind up previously proposed be extendedto any former employees other than the for-mer employees encompassed by the termsof the October 30, 2000 Notice of Proposal.Nor is there any reason to order an addi-tional wind up covering employees termi-nated during the period 1994 to 1998 andprior. Nor is there any basis to order thatany former employees other than the for-mer employees encompassed by the termsof the October 30, 2000 Notice of Proposalbe added to the surplus sharing group identified in the Revised Wind Up Report.

9. The certain former employees also request-ed that those former employees who hadtheir benefits under the Plan annuitized in1998 and 1999 be included in the proposedsurplus sharing group identified in theRevised Wind up Report and be eligible toshare in the surplus funds on the same basisas the members of that group.

10. The Plan documents, from the inception ofthe Plan, indicate that benefits under thePlan are normally to be provided by thepurchase of an annuity. Actuarial reportsfiled indicate that annuitization was used topay the benefits of former members fromtime to time during the history of the Plan.Earth Tech has indicated that the purchaseof annuities was for the purpose of reducingexposure to indexed benefits and that thepurchase was contemplated in advance ofthe discussions regarding the sale of Proctor& Redfern to Earth Tech and in advance of

the contemplation of any wind up of thePlan. The affected former employees weregiven notice of the intention to purchaseannuities in respect of their pension entitle-ments in May 1998 and the actual purchaseof annuities did not occur immediatelyprior to the sale of Proctor & Redfern or thewind up of the Plan.

11. Therefore, those former employees who hadtheir benefits under the Plan annuitized in 1998 and 1999 should not be included in the proposed surplus sharing group identified in the Revised Wind Up Report.

12. The certain former employees have alsorequested that the Superintendent issue anorder requiring Earth Tech to refund to thePlan any funds improperly withdrawn fromthe Plan to fund Earth Tech’s own legal andactuarial costs. Article 15.04 of the Planstates that “[a]ll reasonable fees and expens-es, both internal and external for adminis-trative services, accounting and auditingservices, investment and actuarial services,custodial and legal fees under the Plan maybe paid or reimbursed (if first paid by theCompany) from the Pension Fund.” Inaddition, Article 16.04 (a) specificallyempowers the administrator to “consultwith and obtain opinions, advice and information from any lawyer, auditor,accountant, Actuary or other expert”.

13. There is no evidence that Earth Tech hasimproperly withdrawn funds from the Planto pay its own legal and actuarial costs orthat the provisions of the Plan in respect oflegal and actuarial costs have been contra-vened. Therefore, there is no reason toorder Earth Tech to refund to the Plan anyfunds improperly withdrawn from the Plan.

87

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1


YOU ARE ENTITLED TO A HEARING bythe Financial Services Tribunal (the “Tribunal”),pursuant to s. 89(6) of the Act, if within thirty(30) days after this Notice of Proposal is servedon you, you deliver to the Tribunal a writtennotice that you require a hearing.1





DATED at North York, Ontario, this 3rd day ofOctober, 2001.


cc: Koskie MinskyBarristers & Solicitors20 Queen St. WestSuite 900, Box 52Toronto, OntarioM5H 3R3

Attention: Michael MazzucaSolicitors for Certain Former Employees

Blake, Cassels, Graydon LLPBarristers & SolicitorsBox 25, Commerce Court West199 Bay StreetToronto, OntarioM5L 1A9Solicitors for theAdministrator and EmployerRon E. Train1235 Huntingwood Drive, Unit 13Scarborough, OntarioM1S 1K7D.W. Scott436 Ambrose StreetThunder Bay, OntarioP7B 1M6Don Boissoneault662 O’Brien StreetNorth Bay, OntarioP1B 5W6Ted Goddard 50 Bryant RoadMarkham, OntarioL3P 5Z2Delores Forster1774 Shady Brook DrivePickering, OntarioL1V 3A5Other Former Employees

88

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1



AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal by theSuperintendent of Financial Services to makean Order under subsection 78(1) of the Actconsenting to a payment out of The TarmacCanada Inc. Pension Plan for Employeesof Tarmac Minerals Canada Who WereMembers of the Former Harnden & KingConstruction (Ontario) Limited PensionPlan, Registration Number 255091;

TO: Tarmac Canada Inc.80 North Queen St.Toronto, OntarioM8Z 5Z6

Attention: Mr. Randy RoeVice-President, FinanceApplicant and Employer

Notice of ProposalI PROPOSE TO MAKE AN ORDER under s. 78(1) of the Act, consenting to the payment,out of The Tarmac Canada Inc. Pension Planfor Employees of Tarmac Minerals Who WereMembers of the Former Harnden & KingConstruction (Ontario) Limited Pension Plan,Registration No. 255091 (the “Plan”), to TarmacCanada Inc. in the amount of $70,957, as atDecember 15, 1997, less 50% of the expenses,plus 50% of the investment earnings to thedate of payment.

I PROPOSE TO MAKE THE ORDER effective only after the Applicant satisfies methat the entitlements of all members, formermembers and other sharing persons have beensettled.


1. Tarmac Canada Inc. is the employer asdefined in the Plan (the “Employer”).

2. The Plan was wound up, effective December 15, 1997.

3. As at December 15, 1997, the surplus in thePlan was estimated at $141,914.


5. The application discloses that by writtenagreement made by the Employer, and73.33% of the active members and othermembers (as defined in the application),and 66.67% of the former members andother persons entitled to payments, the sur-plus in the Plan at the date of payment,after deduction of wind up expenses is to bedistributed:



6. The Employer has applied, pursuant to section 78 of the Act, and clause 8(1)(b) ofthe Regulation, for consent of theSuperintendent of Financial Services to thepayment of 50% of the surplus in the Plan,less 50% of the expenses related to the windup of the Plan plus 50% of investmentearnings.

7. The application appears to comply with section 78 and subsections 79(3)(a) and (b)of the Act and with clause 8(1)(b) and subsections 28(5), 28(5.1) and 28(6) of theRegulation.


89

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

YOU ARE ENTITLED TO A HEARING bythe Financial Services Tribunal (the “Tribunal”),pursuant to subsection 89(6) of the Act if, with-in thirty (30) days after this Notice of Proposalis served on you, you deliver to the Tribunal awritten notice that you require a hearing.1





DATED at North York, Ontario, this 5th day ofOctober, 2001.


cc: Doug AndrewsAon Consulting Inc.

90

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1



AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal by theSuperintendent of Financial Services to make aDeclaration under Section 83 of the PensionBenefits Act, as amended by the FinancialServices Commission of Ontario Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 28, respecting the Pension Planfor the Employees of John T. Hepburn,Limited, Registration Number 260356;


Attention: Mr. Lawrence A. ContantAdministrator

AND TO: John T. Hepburn Limited7450 Torbram Road Mississauga, OntarioL4T 1G9

Attention: Mr. Robert G. Hepburn, Secretary Employer

AND TO: Doane Raymond Limited 19th Floor, South TowerRoyal Bank Plaza200 Bay Street, Box 55 Toronto, OntarioM5J 2P9

Attention: Ms. Julie Savage, Manager Trustee in Bankruptcy

AND TO: United Steelworkers ofAmerica 1291 Matheson Boulevard East Mississauga, OntarioL4W 1R1

Attention: Ms. Peggy McCombUnion


1. The Pension Plan for the Employees of John T. Hepburn, Limited, Registration No.260356 (the “Plan”), is registered under thePension Benefits Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8, asamended by the Financial ServicesCommission of Ontario Act, 1997, S.O. 1997,c. 28 (the “Act”); and


3. The Superintendent of Pensions appointedArthur Andersen Inc. as the administrator(the “Administrator”) of the Plan on August19, 1994; and

4. The Plan was wound up effective July 6,1994, by order of the Superintendent ofPensions;


1. The funded ratio of the Plan at the wind update of the Plan, July 6, 1994, was estimatedto be 100%.

2. At September 30, 2000, there were netassets of $1,536,700.00, available in thePlan to discharge the remaining liability forbenefits amounting to $1,749,900.00.

3. The estimated claim against the GuaranteeFund at September 30, 2000, was$213,200.00.

4. The employer, John T. Hepburn Limited,was placed into bankruptcy effective July 6, 1994.

91

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

5. The trustee in bankruptcy for John T.Hepburn Limited has advised theAdministrator that there are no funds avail-able from the estate of John T. HepburnLimited to make payment to the Plan.







DATED at North York, Ontario this 10th day ofOctober, 2001.


92

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1



AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal by theDeputy Superintendent, Pension Division tomake an Order under subsection 78(1) of theAct consenting to a payment out of the SwiftAdhesives Salaried Employees PensionPlan, Registration Number 956219;


Attention: Trent RhyneCompensation and BenefitsDirectorApplicant and Employer

Notice of ProposalI PROPOSE TO MAKE AN ORDER under s. 78(1) of the Act, consenting to the paymentout of the Swift Adhesives Salaried EmployeesPension Plan, Registration No. 956219 (the“Plan”), to Reichhold Limited, as follows:


(i) $541,305, the value of the liabilities asdetermined by the Plan Actuary in consul-tation with the actuary for the Plan mem-bers for early retirement benefits as negoti-ated and grow-in benefits required to beprovided under the Pension Benefits Act,R.S.O. 1990, for Ontario members, whichpursuant to the Surplus Sharing SettlementAgreement shall be provided to all eligible

employees of the Applicant accruing bene-fits under the Plan at any time in the periodfrom November 13, 1998 through the Planwind up date (April 30, 2000), regardless ofjurisdiction of residence or employmentand grow-in benefits as negotiated togetherwith interest thereon from the date as atwhich each value is determined to the dateof payment or allocation to the Applicationat the rates of interest used to determinethe liability as follows:Interest Rate Value of Liabilities6.5% per annum $355,3445.0% per annum $105,8095.75% per annum $ 80,152Total $541,305plus



I PROPOSE TO MAKE THE ORDEReffective only after the Applicant satisfies methat the entitlements of all members and former members have been settled.


1. Reichhold Limited is the employer asdefined in the Plan (the “Employer”).

2. The Plan was wound up, effective April 30, 2000.

93

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

3. As at April 30, 2000, the surplus in the Planwas estimated at $9,197,614.

4. The court has ordered that the Plan pro-vides for payment of surplus to theEmployer on the wind up of the Plan inrespect of subsection 79(3)(b) of the Act.

5. The application discloses that by writtenagreement made by the Employer, and94.1% of the active members and othermembers (as defined in the application)and 79.2% of the former members andother persons entitled to payments, the surplus in the Plan at the date of payment,after deduction of wind up expenses is to be distributed:

a) 64.4% to the Employer; and

b) 35.6% to the beneficiaries of the Plan asdefined in the Surplus DistributionAgreement.

6. The Employer has applied, pursuant to section 78 of the Act, and clause 8(1)(b) ofthe Regulation, for consent of theSuperintendent of Financial Services to thepayment of $541,305 as at April 30, 2000,plus $2.1 million together with interest atthe rate of 6.5% from April 30, 2000, to thedate of payment plus 50% of the surplusremaining after making provision for theaforementioned payments together withnet earnings or losses.




Your written notice requiring a hearing shall bedelivered to:







94

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1



AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal by theSuperintendent of Financial Services to makean Order under subsection 78(1) of the Actconsenting to a payment out of the StaffPension Plan for the Employees of733907 Ontario Ltd., RegistrationNumber 597245;

TO: 733907 Ontario Ltd.14 Westwin CourtBrampton, OntarioL6T 4T5

Attention: Mr. Morris Leider733907 Ontario Ltd.,President

Notice of ProposalI PROPOSE TO MAKE AN ORDER under s. 78(1) of the Act, consenting to the paymentout of the Staff Pension Plan for Employees of733907 Ontario Ltd., Registration No. 597245(the “Plan”), to 733907 Ontario Ltd., in theamount of $25,405.78, as at July 31, 2000,adjusted for expenses plus investment earningsthereon to the date of the payment.

I PROPOSE TO MAKE THE ORDEReffective only after the Applicant satisfies methat the sole member’s entitlement from theplan surplus has been transferred out of thepension plan and paid to the member.


1. 733907 Ontario Ltd. is the employer asdefined in the Plan.

2. The Plan was wound up, effective January 1, 1997.

3. As at January 1, 1997, the surplus in thePlan was estimated at $35,811.56.


5. The application discloses that by writtenagreement made by the Employer and thesole member, the surplus in the Plan at thedate of payment, after deduction of windup expenses is to be distributed:


b) 50% to the member.

6. The Employer has applied, pursuant to section 78 of the Act, and clause 8(1)(b) ofthe Regulation, for consent of theSuperintendent of Financial Services to thepayment of 50% of the surplus in the Planafter adding investment earnings anddeducting the expenses related to the windup of the Plan.

7. The application appears to comply with section 78 and subsection 79 (3)(a) and (b)of the Act and with clause 8(1)(b) and subsections 28(5), 28(5.1) and 28(6) of theRegulation.






95

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1




cc: Timothy B. Lawrence, F.S.A., F.C.I.A., Wright, Mogg & Associates Ltd.

96

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1



AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal by theSuperintendent of Financial Services to makean Order under subsection 78(1) of the Act con-senting to a payment out of the Getty MinesLimited Retirement Plan, RegistrationNumber 0915538;

TO: Getty Mines International, Inc.c/o Stikeman, ElliotBarristers & Solicitors5300 Commerce Court West53rd Floor, P.O. Box 85Toronto, OntarioM5L 1B9

Attention: Mr. Sean F. DunphyMs. Jasmine T. AkbaraliSolicitors for the ApplicantApplicant and Employer

Notice of ProposalI PROPOSE TO MAKE AN ORDER under s. 78(1) of the Act, consenting to the paymentout of the Getty Mines Limited RetirementPlan, Registration No. 0915538 (the “Plan”), toGetty Mines International Inc. in the amountof approximately $141,000 as at May 29, 2001,adjusted for expenses and investment earningson the fund to the date of payment.

I PROPOSE TO MAKE THE ORDER effec-tive only after the Applicant satisfies me thatsurplus entitlements of the 15 former membersof the Mines Plan have been paid or otherwisesettled in accordance with the SettlementAgreement.


1. Getty Mines International Inc. is theemployer as defined in the Plan (the“Employer”).

2. The Plan was wound up, effective July 7,1986.

3. As at May 29, 2001, the surplus in the Planwas estimated at approximately $165,000.


5. The application discloses that, by CourtOrder obtained on consent by theEmployer, the surplus in the Plan at thedate of payment, is to be distributed:

a) approximately $141,000 to the Employer;and

b) $24,000, less any necessary deductions,to the beneficiaries of the Plan as definedin the Settlement Agreement attachedthereto.

6. The Employer has applied, pursuant to section 78 of the Act, and clause 8(2) of the Regulation, for consent of theSuperintendent of Financial Services to thepayment of approximately $141,000 of thesurplus in the Plan as at May 29, 2001.

7. The application appears to comply with section 78 and subsection 79(3) (a) and (b)of the Act and with clause 8(2) and subsec-tions 28(5), and 28(6) of the Regulation.



97

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1







cc: Ms. Elizabeth Pillon, Stikeman Elliot

98

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1


IN THE MATTER OF The Pension Benefits Act,R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8, as amended by the FinancialServices Commission of Ontario Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 28 (the “Act”);

AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal by theSuperintendent of Financial Services to makean Order under subsection 78(1) of the Act con-senting to a payment out of the Procter &Gamble Core Pension Plan, RegistrationNumber 681163;

TO: Mr. Peter Beca, F.C.I.A.Senior Vice PresidentAon Consulting Inc.145 Wellington Street West, Suite 500Toronto, OntarioM5J 1H8

for Procter & Gamble Inc.,Applicant and Employer

Notice of Proposal

I PROPOSE TO MAKE AN ORDER under s. 78(1) of the Act, consenting to the paymentout of the Procter & Gamble Core PensionPlan, Registration No. 681163 (the “Plan”), toProcter & Gamble Inc. in the amount ofapproximately $836,800, as at January 31,1999, adjusted for all fees and expenses attrib-utable to the partial wind up effective January29, 1999, resulting from the closure of theHamilton plant, plus investment earnings todate of payment on all of the surplus attribut-able to said partial wind up.

I PROPOSE TO MAKE THE ORDEReffective only after the Applicant satisfies methat the administrator of the pension plan hasprovided for the payment of all liabilities of thepension plan, including any enhancementsarising from the surplus sharing agreement, to

which members, former members and anyother persons are entitled on the terminationof the pension plan.


1. Procter & Gamble Inc. is the employer asdefined in the Plan (the “Employer”).

2. The Plan was partially wound up, effectiveJanuary 29, 1999.

3. As at January 31, 1999, the surplus in thePlan was estimated at $1,510,100.

4. The Plan provides for payment of surplus tothe Employer on the wind up of the Plan inwhole or in part.

5. The application discloses that by writtenagreement made by the Employer, 96.85%of the active members and 100% of the former members and other persons entitledto payments, the surplus in the Plan atJanuary 31, 1999, is to be distributed:

a) 44.6% to the beneficiaries of the Plan asdefined in the Surplus DistributionAgreement, and

b) the remaining surplus (55.4%), adjustedfor all fees and expenses, plus investmentearnings on all of the surplus attributableto attributable to the partial wind up todate of payment, to the Employer.

6. The Employer has applied, pursuant to section 78 of the Act, and clause 8(1)(b) ofthe Regulation, for consent of theSuperintendent of Financial Services to thepayment of 55.4% of the surplus in thePlan (after adding 100% of investmentearnings and deducting 100% of theexpenses related to the partial wind up ofthe Plan.)

7. The application appears to comply with section 78 and subsections 79(3)(a) and (b)

99

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

of the Act and with clause 8(1)(b) and subsections 28(5), 28(5.1) and 28(6) of theRegulation.









cc: Mr. David J. McKenzie, Procter & Gamble Inc.

Mr. Paul W. Litner, Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP

100

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1



AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal of theSuperintendent of Financial Services to (Refuseto) Make an Order under section 87 of the Actrelating to the AFG Industries Ltd.Retirement Plan, Registration Number290700 (the “Plan”);

TO: AFG Industries Inc.Corporate Headquarters P.O. Box 292Kingsport, Tennessee37662U.S.A.

Attention: Rick StapletonDirector, Human ResourcesEmployer and Administratorof the Plan

Notice of Proposal

I PROPOSE TO MAKE AN ORDER inrespect of the Plan under section 87 of the Act.

PROPOSED ORDER:

An order that the Plan administrator includecredited service under the Glaverbel Plan (asdefined herein) in the calculation of Ms. JoanJay’s pension benefit under the Plan.


1. Ms. Jay was an employee of Crystal Glassand Plastics Ltd. (“Crystal Glass”).

2. On or about January 10, 1974, Crystal Glasswas acquired by Glaverbel Canada Limitedor a related company (the “GlaverbelGroup”). As a result of this acquisition, Ms. Jay became an employee of theGlaverbel Group.

3. The Glaverbel Group provided a contributory pension plan for its regular

salaried employees (the “Glaverbel Plan”).

4. Membership in the Glaverbel Plan wasmandatory for all employees hired after1969. Employees became eligible to partici-pate in the Glaverbel Plan on the first dayof January following completion of oneyear of service.

5. There is no exception in the Glaverbel Planor in any amendment to the Plan for indi-viduals who became employees as the resultof the acquisition of Crystal Glass. Whilethe Glaverbel Plan contained a provisionwhich permitted the administrator to waivethe eligibility requirements referred to inparagraph 4 (i.e., the waiting period), thisprovision did not operate to permit theadministrator to except an employee frommembership in the Glaverbel Plan once heor she became eligible. It is therefore rea-sonable to conclude that Ms. Jay became amember of the Glaverbel Plan upon meeting the eligibility requirements.

6. The Glaverbel Group was subsequentlyacquired by Ford Glass Limited. In 1983,the assets of the Glaverbel Plan were trans-ferred into the pension plan sponsored byFord Glass Limited (the “Ford Plan”) andthe Glaverbel Plan was discontinued. TheFord Plan became the Plan.

7. The benefit formula in the Ford Plan andthe Plan recognizes years of credited serviceunder the Glaverbel Plan for purposes ofdetermining the pension benefits of formerGlaverbel Group of employees. Accordingly,Ms. Jay is entitled to have her years of credited service under the Glaverbel Planincluded in the calculation of her pensionbenefit.

8. The Plan administrator has failed to includeher years of credited service under the

101

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

Glaverbel Plan in the calculation of Ms. Jay’s pension benefit.

9. Subsection 87(2) of the Act allows theSuperintendent to make an order if theSuperintendent is of the opinion, upon rea-sonable and probable grounds, that thepension plan or fund is not being adminis-tered in accordance with the Act, the regu-lations or the pension plan.

10. Section 19(2) of the Act requires the admin-istrator of a pension plan to ensure that thepension plan and the pension fund areadministered in accordance with the fileddocuments in respect of which theSuperintendent has issued a certificate ofregistration.

11. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that infailing to include credited service under theGlaverbel Plan in the calculation of Ms.Jay’s pension benefit, the Plan administra-tor is not administering the Plan in compli-ance with the requirements of the Act andthe filed Plan documents.









102

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1


Volume 10, Issue 3

IN THE MATTER OF the Pension Benefits ActR.S.O. 1990, c. P.8, as amended (the “Act”);

AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal of theSuperintendent of Financial Services to Makean Order pursuant to section 69 of the PensionBenefits Act, respecting The Pension Plan forthe Employees of Tee-Comm ElectronicsInc., Registration Number 0905075;

TO: The Manufacturers’ LifeInsurance Company500 King Street North,Waterloo, OntarioN2J 4C6

Attention: Ms. Karen Osborne Discontinuance Underwriter Administrator of ThePension Plan for theEmployees of Tee-CommElectronics Inc.

AND TO: Tee-Comm Electronics Inc.775 Main Street East,Milton, OntarioL9T 3Z3

Attention: Reg Tiessen,Director of FinanceEmployer

Order

ON the 9th day of May 2001, formerSuperintendent of Financial Services issued aNotice of Proposal to make an Order (the“Notice of Proposal”) to the Employer and tothe Administrator of the Plan, pursuant to sub-section 69(1) of the Act, that The Pension Planfor the Employees of Tee-Comm ElectronicsInc., Registration No. 0905075, be whollywound up effective June 30, 1997.

NO REQUEST for a hearing has been receivedby the Financial Services Tribunal in connec-tion with this matter.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that ThePension Plan for the Employees of Tee-CommElectronics Inc., Registration No. 0905075 (the “Plan”), be wholly wound up effectiveJune 30, 1997.

THE REASONS FOR THIS ORDER:

1. There has been a cessation or suspension ofemployer contributions to the pensionfund;

2. The employer is bankrupt within the mean-ing of the Bankruptcy Act;

3. A significant number of members haveceased to be employed by the employer asthe result of the discontinuance of the busi-ness of the employer.

4. All of the business of the employer hasbeen discontinued.

THE ADMINISTRATOR IS REQUIRED, pursuant to subsection 69(2) of the Act, to givenotice of this Order to the all the members andformer members of the Plan and to the follow-ing persons:

Ernst & Young Inc.,P.O. Box 251222 Bay Street, Toronto, OntarioM5K 1J7

Attention: Sharon Hamilton Receiver for Tee-CommElectronics Inc.

Volume 10, Issue 3103

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

Orders that Pension Plans be Wound Up

104

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

KPMG Inc.Suite 3300, Commerce Court West P.O. Box 31, Stn. Commerce CourtToronto, OntarioM5L 1B2

Attention: Jack Richards, Vice President Trustee In Bankruptcy forTee-Comm Electronics



105

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

IN THE MATTER OF the Pension Benefits ActR.S.O. 1990, c. P.8, as amended;

AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal of theSuperintendent of Financial Services to Makean Order pursuant to section 69 of the PensionBenefits Act, respecting the EmployeeRetirement Plan for the Employees ofMurphy Distributing Ltd., RegistrationNumber 512137;

TO: London Life InsuranceCompany255 Dufferin AvenueLondon, OntarioN6A 4K1

Attention: Nancy GalpinCustomer Service Specialist Administrator of theEmployee Retirement Planfor the Employees of MurphyDistributing Ltd., Registration Number 512137(the “Administrator”)

AND TO: Murphy Distributing Ltd.P.O. Box 42737 Woodyatt DriveBrantford, OntarioN3T 5M3

Attention: Cameron ManningChief Financial OfficerEmployer

OrderON the 29th day of May 2001, theSuperintendent of Financial Services issued aNotice of Proposal to make an Order (the“Notice of Proposal”) to the Employer and tothe Administrator pursuant to subsection 69(1)of the Act, that the Employee Retirement Planfor the Employees of Murphy Distributing Ltd.,

Registration No. 512137 be wholly wound upeffective November 26, 1999.

NO REQUEST for a hearing has been receivedby the Financial Services Tribunal in connec-tion with this matter.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that theEmployee Retirement Plan for the Employees ofMurphy Distributing Ltd., Registration No.512137 (the “Plan”), be wholly wound up effec-tive November 26, 1997.


1. There has been a cessation or suspension ofemployer contributions to the pensionfund;

2. The employer failed to make contributionsto the pension fund as required by the Actor the regulations made under the Act;

3. A significant number of members of thePlan ceased to be employed by the employ-er as a result of the discontinuance of all orpart of the business of the employer or as aresult of the reorganization of the businessof the employer.

THE ADMINISTRATOR IS REQUIRED, pursuant to subsection 69(2) of the Act, to givenotice of this Order to the following persons:

Cavalluzzo Hayes ShiltonMcIntyre & Cornish43 Madison Avenue Toronto, OntarioM5R 2S2

Attention: Elizabeth ShiltonCounselLegal Representative for theRetail Wholesale CanadaDivision of the C.A.W., Local 414

106

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

Schonfeld Inc.390 Bay Street, Suite 2400Toronto, OntarioM5H 2Y2

Attention: S. Harland Schonfeld, CA, CIPTrustee in Bankruptcy forMurphy Distributing Ltd.


Tom Golfetto, Director (Acting)Pension Plans Branch,by delegated authority from

K. David Gordon,Deputy Superintendent, Pension Divisionby delegated authority fromSuperintendent of Financial Services

107

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1


AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal of theSuperintendent of Financial Services to Makean Order, pursuant to section 69 of the Act,respecting the Royal Oak Mines Inc.Pension Plan for Timmins SalariedEmployees, Registration Number 937458(the “Plan”);


Attention: Julie SeewaldSenior AnalystAdministrator


Attention: Rachel A. PineaultPension AdministratorEmployer

OrderON the 18th day of June 2001, theSuperintendent of Financial Services issued tothe Employer and to the Administrator of thePlan, pursuant to subsection 69(1) of the Act, aNotice of Proposal to make an Order (the“Notice of Proposal”), that the Plan be whollywound up effective between September 1, 1999and February 14, 2000.

NO REQUEST for a hearing from theEmployer or from the Administrator has beenreceived by the Financial Services Tribunal inconnection with this matter.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Royal Oak Mines Inc. Pension Plan for TimminsSalaried Employees, Registration No. 937458, be wholly wound up effective betweenSeptember 1, 1999 and February 14, 2000.







PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc. 145 King Street West18th Floor, Toronto, OntarioM5H 1V8

Attention: Jim Reive Sr. Associate, Financial AdvisoryServicesInterim Receiver for RoyalOak Mines Inc.

108

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1


K. David Gordon Deputy Superintendent, Pension Divisionby delegated authority fromSuperintendent of Financial Services

109

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1


AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal of theSuperintendent of Financial Services to Makean Order, pursuant to section 69 of the Act,respecting the Royal Oak Mines Inc.Pension Plan for Timmins HourlyEmployees, Registration Number 937466(the “Plan”);


Attention: Julie SeewaldSenior AnalystAdministrator


Attention: Rachel A. PineaultPension AdministratorEmployer

OrderON the 18th day of June 2001, theSuperintendent of Financial Services issued tothe Employer and to the Administrator of thePlan, pursuant to subsection 69(1) of the Act, aNotice of Proposal to make an Order (the“Notice of Proposal”) that the Plan be whollywound up effective between September 20,1999 and December 23, 1999.

NO REQUEST for a hearing from theEmployer or the Administrator has beenreceived by the Financial Services Tribunal inconnection with this matter.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the RoyalOak Mines Inc. Pension Plan for TimminsHourly Employees, Registration No. 937466, bewholly wound up effective between September20, 1999 and December 23, 1999.







Sack Goldblatt MitchellBarristers & Solicitors 20 Dundas Street WestSuite 1130, P.O. Box 180Toronto, OntarioM5G 2G8

Attention: Michael KainerLegal Representative for theUnion, the UnitedSteelworkers of America

PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc. 145 King Street West18th Floor, Toronto, OntarioM5H 1V8

Attention: Jim Reive Sr. Associate, Financial Advisory ServicesInterim Receiver for RoyalOak Mines Inc.



110

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1


AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal of theSuperintendent of Financial Services to revokethe registration of Régime de Retraite desEmployés et Membres de CanadianCorporation Creation Center,Registration Number 1062363 (the “Plan”),pursuant to section 18 of the Act;

TO: Fiducie du Régime deRetraite des Employés etMembres de CanadianCorporation Creation Center





Named Administrator

OrderON August 10, 2001, the Superintendent ofFinancial Services issued a Notice of Proposalpursuant to subsection 18(1) of the Act to thenamed administrator to revoke the registrationof the Régime de Retraite des Employés etMembres de Canadian Corporation CreationCenter, Registration No. 1062363 (the “Plan”).

NO REQUEST for a hearing has been deliveredto the Financial Services Tribunal within thetime prescribed by subsection 89(6) of the Act.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the regis-tration of the Régime de Retraite des Employéset Membres de Canadian Corporation CreationCenter, Registration No. 1062363 (the “Plan”)be revoked for the following reasons:

Named Administrator

1. The application for registration of the Planindicates that the Canadian CorporationCreation Center (“CCCC”) is the employerfor the Plan. The text for the Plan statesthat the administrator for the Plan is theFiducie du Régime de Retraite des Employéset Membres de Canadian CorporationCreation Center (Pension Trust Fund of theEmployees and Members of CanadianCorporation Creation Center (the “PensionTrust Fund”). The Trust Agreement for thePlan dated June 21, 2000, states that MichelDion, Éric Ferron and Guy Patrick Léveilléare trustees. Michel Rolland is theDesignated Trust Administrator.

2. Section 8 of the Act provides an exhaustivelist of those entities who are eligible to actas administrators of a pension plan underthe Act. Section 8 does not permit a pen-sion trust fund to act as an administrator of

111

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

Orders that a Registration be Revoked

a single employer pension plan. The Planpurports to be a single employer plan.Therefore, the Pension Trust Fund is not eli-gible to act as the administrator of the Plan.

Missing Information in the PlanDocuments

3. Subsection 10(1) of the Act requires that thepension plan set out certain prescribedinformation. The Plan does not set out thefollowing information in contravention ofthe following subclauses of section 10(1):

a. The requirements for entitlement to anypension benefit or ancillary benefit (subclause 5);

b. The mechanism for establishing andmaintaining the pension fund (subclause 10);

c. The treatment of surplus during the continuation of the Plan and on windupof the Plan (subclause 11); and

d. The method of allocation of the assets ofthe Plan on windup (subclause 13).

Declaration

4. Clause 9(2)(e.1) of the Act states that anapplication for registration of a pensionplan shall be made by filing, inter alia, a“certification in a form approved by theSuperintendent and signed by the applicantin which the applicant attests that the pension plan complies with [the] Act andregulations.” In the application for registra-tion of the Plan, the named administratorattested that:

a. the documents that create and supportthe Plan complied with the Act and regu-lations; and

b. that the named administrator was awarethat the obligation to ensure that thedocuments filed comply with the Act and

regulations is the responsibility of theadministrator and that this obligationwas fulfiled.

5. The named administrator has contravenedclause 9(2)(e.1) of the Act in that the attes-tation provided in the application for regis-tration was false because the documentsthat create and support the Plan do notcomply with the Act as set out above.

Members of the Pension Plan

6. Sections 27 and 28 of the Plan state thatonly employees of an employer thatbelongs to the Plan are eligible to partici-pate in the Plan. Section 1 of the Actdefines an employer as a “the person or persons from whom or the organizationfrom which the member or former memberreceives or received remuneration to whichthe pension plan is related.”

7. The Superintendent has information whichindicates that the Plan is accepting transfersof funds from locked-in retirement accountsor other similar prescribed retirement sav-ings arrangements from individuals who donot receive remuneration from an employerthat belongs to the Plan. Therefore, suchpersons are not employees, within themeaning of section 1 of the Act, of anemployer that belongs to the Plan. ThePlan’s acceptance of such transfers contra-venes the terms of the Plan.

8. Clause 19(3)(a) of the Act states that theadministrator of a pension plan shall ensurethat the pension plan and pension fund areadministered in accordance with the “fileddocuments in respect of which theSuperintendent has issued an acknowledge-ment of application for registration or a certificate of registration”. The acceptanceof fund transfers in respect of individuals

112

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

who are not employees of an employer thatbelongs to the Plan is a contravention ofsection 27 and 28 of the Plan and, there-fore, constitutes a contravention of clause19(3)(a) of the Act.

9. The transfer of funds from locked-in retire-ment accounts or other similar prescribedretirement savings arrangements in respectof account holders who are not members ofthe Plan constitutes a commutation or sur-render of a prescribed savings arrangementcontrary to section 67 of the Act becausesuch funds are not capable of being com-muted or surrendered (subject to certainexceptions which do not apply in this case).

Transfer of Funds from the Plan

10. Subsection 22(1) of the Act states that “theadministrator of a pension plan shall exer-cise the care, diligence and skill required inthe administration and investment of thepension fund that a person of ordinary pru-dence would exercise in dealing with theproperty of another person.” Subsection22(4) states that an administrator “shall notknowingly permit the administrator’s inter-est to conflict with the administrator’sduties and powers in respect of the pension fund.”

11. The Superintendent has information thatindicates that funds from the pension fundin respect of the Plan have been transferredfrom the pension fund to bank accountsheld by companies named NationalBusiness Investment In Trust Inc. (“NBI InTrust”), National Business InvestmentCanada Inc. (“NBI Canada”) and/or CCCC(the employer under the application for registration). In filings with the CompaniesBranch of the Ontario Ministry ofConsumer and Commercial Relations,

Michel Rolland, Designated TrustAdministrator for the Pension Trust Fund, islisted as the administrator for NBI In Trust.In banking records, Michel Rolland is listedas the “owner/signing officer” for NBI InTrust and Michel Rolland and Michel Dionare listed as authorized representatives forNBI Canada.

12. In transferring or allowing the transfer offunds from the pension fund to NBI InTrust, NBI Canada and/or CCCC bankaccounts, the Pension Trust Fund as thenamed administrator has permitted the useor diversion of funds for purposes otherthan the purpose of the Plan in contraven-tion of the trust agreement and subsection22(1) of the Act.

13. In addition, the Pension Trust Fund hascontravened subsection 22(4) of the Actbecause it has knowingly permitted its owninterest to conflict with its duties and pow-ers in respect of the pension fund in thatMichel Rolland is an officer of NBI In Trustand Michel Rolland and Michel Dion areauthorized representatives of NBI Canada.Lastly, funds have been transferred from thepension fund to accounts held by CCCC,which contravenes subsection 78(1) of theAct. Subsection 78(1) of the Act states thatno money may be paid out of a pensionfund to the employer without the priorconsent of the Superintendent.

Investments

14. Section 62 of the Act states that the invest-ments to be made with the assets of thepension fund shall be selected in accor-dance with the criteria set out in the Actand regulations. Section 79 of theRegulation states that assets of a pensionplan shall be invested in accordance with

113

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

the federal investment regulations. Clause6(1)(b)(i) of the Pension Benefits StandardsRegulations, 1985, SOR/87-19 to the PensionBenefits Standards Act, 1985, R.S.C. 1985, c. 32 as amended, states that the moneys ofthe pension fund are to be invested in aname that clearly indicates that the invest-ment is held in trust for the plan or in thename of a financial institution or TheCanadian Depository for Securities Limitedin accordance with a trust or custodialagreement that clearly indicates that theinvestment is held for the plan.

15. The moneys of the pension fund are notbeing invested in trust for the Plan nor arethey being held in the name of a financialinstitution and/or The Canadian Depositoryfor Securities Limited in accordance with atrust or custodial agreement that clearlyindicates that the investment is held for thePlan. The named administrator has, there-fore, failed to select the investments for thepension fund in accordance with the crite-ria set out in the Act and regulations in contravention of section 62 and subsection22(1) of the Act and section 79 of theRegulation.

Assignments of Locked In Accounts

16. Section 65 of the Act states that every transaction that purports to assign, charge,anticipate or give as security money payableunder a pension plan or transferred from apension fund is void. The Superintendenthas information that indicates that thefunds transferred to the pension fund inrespect of the Plan from locked in retire-ment accounts or other prescribed retire-ment arrangements have been assigned,charged, anticipated or given as security infavour of NBI In Trust in return for the

extension of a loan from NBI In Trust to theholder of the prescribed retirement arrange-ment. Such transactions are unlawful andvoid pursuant to section 65 of the Act. Thenamed administrator has accepted thetransfer of funds from locked in retirementaccounts or other prescribed retirementarrangements which funds have beenassigned, charged, anticipated or given assecurity in contravention of section 65 ofthe Act.

Annual Filings

17. Subsection 20(1) of the Act states that theadministrator “shall file each year an annu-al information return in respect of the pension plan ... and shall pay the filing feeestablished by the Minister.” Subsection20(2) of the Act states that the administra-tor “shall file additional reports at the timesand containing the information prescribedby the regulations.”

18. Subsection 18(1) of Regulation 909, R.R.O.1990, as amended (the “Regulation”) statesthat the administrator shall file the annualinformation return not later than sixmonths after the end of the fiscal year ofthe plan in the case of a defined contribu-tion plan. Subsections 76(1) and (2) of theRegulation state that the administrator shallfile financial statements for the pensionplan or fund as at the plan’s fiscal year endand if at the fiscal year end the plan has$3,000,000 or more in assets, the adminis-trator shall file an auditor’s report respect-ing the financial statements. Subsection76(4) of the Regulation states that thefinancial statement and auditor’s reportshall be filed within six months after eachfiscal year end for the plan.

19. The Plan is a defined contribution pension

114

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

plan. The fiscal year end for the Plan isDecember 31. No annual informationreturn, financial statements or auditor’sreport (if required) have been filed by thePension Trust Fund to date in contraven-tion of section 20 of the Act and subsec-tions 18(1), 76(1), 76(2) and 76(4) of theRegulation.

Information Requested by theSuperintendent

20. Subsection 98(1) of the Act states that “[t]heSuperintendent may require an employer,an administrator or any other person tosupply the Superintendent such informa-tion ... for the purpose of ascertainingwhether or not [the] Act and the regulationsare being complied with”. The Superintendenthas requested certain information regardingthe Plan pursuant to section 98 of the Act.Subsection 98(2) of the Act stipulates thatthe person to whom a request is madeunder subsection 98(1) of the Act mustcomply with the request within the timespecified by the Superintendent. To date,the named administrator or other partieshave not adequately responded to theSuperintendent’s request. The namedadministrator, in failing to respond adequately to a request for information pursuant to section 98 of the Act, has failed to administer the plan in accordancewith the Act.

Conclusion

21. Clause 18(1)(b) of the Act states that theSuperintendent may “revoke the registra-tion of a pension plan that does not comply with [the] Act and the regulations”.The Superintendent proposes to revoke theregistration of the Plan pursuant to clause18(1)(b) of the Act for the following reasons:

a. The named administrator of the Plan, thePension Trust Fund, is not eligible to actas the administrator of the Plan undersection 8 of the Act; and

b. The documents that create and supportthe Plan do not set out the informationspecified in paragraph 3 above in contra-vention of section 10 of the Act.

22. Clause 18(1)(c) of the Act states that theSuperintendent may “revoke the registra-tion of a pension plan that is not beingadministered in accordance with [the] Actand the regulations”. The Superintendentproposes to revoke the registration of thePlan pursuant to clause 18(1)(c) of the Actfor the following reasons:

a. The named administrator has provided afalse attestation that the plan complieswith the Act and regulations in contra-vention of clause 9(2)(e.1) of the Act;

b. The named administrator is acceptingtransfers of funds from persons who arenot eligible to participate in the Plan in contravention of the Plan and, hence,in contravention of clause 19(3)(a) of the Act;

c. The named administrator is acceptingtransfers from locked in retirementaccounts or other prescribed retirementarrangements which transfers constitute acommutation or surrender of a prescribedretirement arrangement in contraventionof section 67 of the Act;

d. The named administrator has not exercised the care, diligence and skill thata person of ordinary prudence wouldexercise in dealing with the property ofanother person because it transferred orpermitted the transfer of funds from thepension fund to NBI In Trust, NBI

115

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

Canada and/or CCCC in contraventionof subsection 22(1) of the Act;

e. The named administrator has knowinglypermitted its own interest to conflictwith its duties and powers in respect ofthe pension fund by transferring or permitting the transfer of funds from the pension fund to NBI In Trust, NBICanada and/or CCCC in contraventionof subsection 22(4) of the Act;

f. The named administrator has failed toselect the investments for the pensionfund in accordance with the Act and regulations in contravention of section 62and subsection 22(1) of the Act and section 79 of the Regulation;

g. The named administrator has acceptedthe transfer of funds from locked inretirement accounts or other prescribedretirement arrangements which fundshave been assigned, charged, anticipatedor given as security in contravention ofsection 65 of the Act;

h. The named administrator has failed tofile the annual information return, financial statements and auditor’s report (if required) within the prescribed timelimits in contravention of section 20 ofthe Act and subsections 18(1), 76(1),76(2) and 76(4) of the Regulation; and

i. The named administrator failed to ade-quately respond to the request by theSuperintendent to provide information in contravention of section 98 of the Act.



Tom Golfetto, Director (Acting) Pension Plans Branch, by delegated authority from K. David Gordon, Deputy Superintendent, Pension Division by delegated authority from Superintendent of Financial Services

116

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1


AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal by theSuperintendent of Financial Services to makean Order under subsection 78(4) of the Act con-senting to a payment out of The RetirementBenefit Pension Plan for Members ofLocal 1804-I.A.M. of the WeatherheadPlant of Dana Canada Inc., RegistrationNumber 0311845;

TO: Dana Canada Inc.P.O. Box 3029St. Catharines, OntarioL2R 7K9

Attention: William A. JocsakDirector, Benefits AdministrationApplicant and Employer

ConsentON or about July 4, 2001, the Superintendentof Financial Services caused to be served onDana Canada Inc. a Notice of Proposal datedJune 28, 2001, to consent, pursuant to subsec-tion 78(4) of the Act, to payment out of TheRetirement Benefit Pension Plan for Membersof Local 1804-I.A.M. of the Weatherhead Plantof Dana Canada Inc., Registration No. 0311845,to Dana Canada Inc., in the amount of$13,193.78.

NO Notice requiring a hearing was delivered tothe Financial Services Tribunal by the Applicantor any other party within the time prescribedby subsection 89(6) of the Act.

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF FINANCIALSERVICES THEREFORE CONSENTS to thepayment out of The Retirement Benefit PensionPlan for Members of Local 1804-I.A.M. of theWeatherhead Plant of Dana Canada Inc.,Registration No. 0311845, of $13,193.78 toDana Canada Inc.



cc: Waheda Alli, The Standard Life Assurance Company

117

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

Consents to Payments of Surplus out of Wound Up Pension Plans


AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal by theSuperintendent of Financial Services to makean Order under subsection 78(1) of the Actconsenting to a payment out of the PensionPlan for Employees of C.J. DuguidFlooring (Ontario) Limited, RegistrationNumber 0481457;

TO: C.J. Duguid Flooring(Ontario) Limited 317 Don Park RoadMarkham, OntarioL3R 1C2

Attention: John DuguidPresidentApplicant and Employer

ConsentON or about May 23, 2001, the Superintendentof Financial Services caused to be served on C.J. Duguid Flooring (Ontario) Limited a Noticeof Proposal dated May 22, 2001, to consent,pursuant to subsection 78(1) of the Act, to pay-ment out of the Pension Plan for Employees ofC.J. Duguid Flooring (Ontario) Limited,Registration No. 0481457 (the “Plan”), to C.J. Duguid Flooring (Ontario) Limited in theamount of $247,451 as at December 31, 1999,adjusted for investment earnings and lossesthereon and expenses to the date of payment.


THE SUPERINTENDENT OF FINANCIALSERVICES THEREFORE CONSENTS to thepayment out of the Pension Plan for Employeesof C.J. Duguid Flooring (Ontario) Limited,Registration No. 0481457, of $247,451 as atDecember 31, 1999, adjusted for investmentearnings and losses thereon and expenses tothe date of payment to C.J. Duguid Flooring(Ontario) Limited.



cc: Donna Wolfe, Cowan Wright LimitedTimothy B. Lawrence, Cowan WrightLimited

118

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

IN THE MATTER OF The Pension Benefits Act,R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8, as amended by the FinancialServices Commission of Ontario Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 28 (the “Act”);

AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal by theSuperintendent of Financial Services to makean Order under subsection 78(1) of the Actconsenting to a payment out of the PensionPlan for Locally Engaged Employees ofthe New Zealand Government in Canada,Registration Number 338970;

TO: Her Majesty The Queen inRight of New ZealandNew Zealand High CommissionSuite 727, 99 Bank StreetOttawa, OntarioK1P 6G3

Attention: Wade ArmstrongHigh CommissionerApplicant and Employer

ConsentON or about July 6, 2001, the Superintendentof Financial Services caused to be served on HerMajesty The Queen in Right of New Zealand aNotice of Proposal dated June 26, 2001, to consent, pursuant to subsection 78(1) of theAct, to payment out of the Pension Plan forLocally Engaged Employees of the New ZealandGovernment in Canada, RegistrationNo. 338970, to Her Majesty the Queen in Rightof New Zealand in the amount of $544,701, as at May 1, 2000, adjusted for investmentearnings thereon to the date of payment andadjusted for legal, actuarial and administrativeexpenses.


THE SUPERINTENDENT OF FINANCIALSERVICES THEREFORE CONSENTS to the payment out of the Pension Plan for theLocally Engaged Employees of the New ZealandGovernment in Canada, Registration No.338970, of $544,701 as at May 1, 2000, adjust-ed for investment earnings thereon to the dateof payment and adjusted for legal, actuarial andadministrative expenses to Her Majesty theQueen in Right of New Zealand.

THIS CONSENT IS EFFECTIVE ONLYAFTER the Applicant satisfies me that all benefits, benefit enhancements (including benefit enhancements pursuant to the SurplusDistribution Agreement defined in paragraph 5)and any other payment to which the members,former members and any other persons entitledto such payments have been paid, purchased,or otherwise provided for.



cc: Dany Mathieu, Hicks Morley HamiltonStewart Sorie LLPRosemary Patterson, New Zealand HighCommission

119

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1


AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal by theSuperintendent of Financial Services to makean Order under subsection 78(1) of the Act con-senting to a payment out of The PensionPlan for Non-Unionized SalariedEmployees of Libbey Canada Inc.,Registration Number 1001130;

TO: Mr. Frederick J. Thompson,F.S.A., F.C.I.A.Thompson Actuarial Limited87 Wolverleigh Blvd.Toronto, OntarioM4J 1R8

Actuary for the Applicantand Employer

ConsentON or about July 31, 2001, the Superintendentof Financial Services caused to be served onLibbey Canada Inc. a Notice of Proposal datedJuly 31, 2001, to consent, pursuant to subsec-tion 78(1) of the Act, to payment out of ThePension Plan for Non-Unionized SalariedEmployees of Libbey Canada Inc., RegistrationNo. 1001130 (the “Plan”), to Libbey CanadaInc. in the amount of approximately $358,429as at December 31, 2000, plus investment earnings thereon to the date of payment.


THE SUPERINTENDENT OF FINANCIALSERVICES THEREFORE CONSENTS to the payment out of The Pension Plan for Non-Unionized Salaried Employees of LibbeyCanada Inc., Registration No. 1001130, ofapproximately $358,429 as at December 31,2000, plus investment earnings thereon to thedate of payment to Libbey Canada Inc.

THIS CONSENT IS EFFECTIVE ONLYAFTER the Applicant satisfies me that theadministrator of the pension plan has paid outall benefits and other payments, including anyenhancements arising from the surplus sharingagreement, to which members, former mem-bers and any other persons are entitled on thepartial termination of the pension plan effec-tive May 31, 1999.


K. David GordonDeputy SuperintendentPension DivisionFinancial Services Commission of Ontario

cc: Nazi Irani, Libbey Canada Inc.

120

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1


AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal by theSuperintendent of Financial Services to makean Order under subsection 78(1) of the Actconsenting to a payment out of the SwiftAdhesives Salaried Employees PensionPlan, Registration No. 956219;


Attention: Trent RhyneCompensation and BenefitsDirectorApplicant

ConsentON or about August 3, 2001, the Superintendentof Financial Services caused to be served onReichhold Limited a Notice of Proposal datedAugust 3, 2001, to consent, pursuant to subsec-tion 78(1) of the Act, to payment out of theSwift Adhesives Salaried Employees PensionPlan, Registration No. 956219 (the “Plan”), toReichhold Limited, as follows:


(i) $541,305, the value of the liabilities asdetermined by the Plan Actuary in consul-tation with the actuary for the Plan mem-bers for early retirement benefits as negoti-ated and grow-in benefits required to be

provided under the Pension Benefits Act,R.S.O. 1990, for Ontario members, whichpursuant to the Surplus Sharing SettlementAgreement shall be provided to all eligibleemployees of the Applicant accruing bene-fits under the Plan at any time in the periodfrom November 13, 1998, through the Planwind up date (April 30, 2000), regardless ofjurisdiction of residence or employmentand grow-in benefits as negotiated togetherwith interest thereon from the date as atwhich each value is determined to the dateof payment or allocation to the Applicant atthe rates of interest used to determine theliability as follows:Interest Rate Value of Liabilities6.5% per annum $355,3445.0% per annum $105,8095.75% per annum $ 80,152Total $541,305plus




121

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF FINANCIALSERVICES THEREFORE CONSENTS to thepayment out of the Swift Adhesives SalariedEmployees Pension Plan, Registration No.956219, to Reichhold Limited of the amountsunder (a)(i), (ii) and (iii) above.

THIS CONSENT IS EFFECTIVE ONLYAFTER the Applicant satisfies me that the entitlements of all members and former mem-bers have been settled.




122

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1


AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal by theSuperintendent of Financial Services to make aDeclaration under Section 83 of the PensionBenefits Act, as amended by the FinancialServices Commission of Ontario Act, 1997, S.O.1997, c. 28, respecting the Van DresserLimited Non-Contributory Pension Plan,Registration Number 960005 (formerlyC-100753) (the “Pension Plan”);

TO: Ernst & Young Inc.Ernst & Young TowerToronto-Dominion CentreP.O. Box 251, 222 Bay StreetToronto, OntarioM5K lJ7

Attention: Mr. Brian DenegaSenior Vice-PresidentAdministrator of the VanDresser Limited Pension Plan

AND TO: Van Dresser Limited139 Northfeld DriveWaterloo, OntarioN2L 5A6

Attention: Mr. Jeff BradshawControllerEmployer

AND TO: KPMG Inc.(formerly Peat Marwick Thorne Inc.)Suite 3300, Commerce Court WestP.O. Box 31, StationCommerce CourtToronto, OntarioM5L 1B2

Attention: Mr. Michael CreberSenior Vice-PresidentTrustee in Bankruptcy andReceiver and Manager of VanDresser Limited

AND TO: CAW-Canada205 Placer CourtNorth York, OntarioM2H 3H9

Attention: Mr. Lewis GottheilCounsel

DeclarationWHEREAS:

1. Van Dresser Limited Non-ContributoryPension Plan, Registration No. 960005 (C-100753) (the”Pension Plan”), is regis-tered under the Pension Benefits Act, R.S.O.1990, c. P.8, as amended by the FinancialServices Commission of Ontario Act, 1997, c. 28, (the “Act”); and

2. The Pension Plan provides defined benefitsthat are not exempt from the application ofthe Pension Benefits Guarantee Fund (the“PBGF”) by the Act or the regulations madethere-under; and

3. The Pension Plan was wound up effectiveJuly 17, 1992; and

123

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

Declaration that the Pensions Benefits Guarantee Fund Applies to PensionPlans – Subsection 83(1) of the PBA

4. The Superintendent of Pensions appointedErnst & Young Inc. as the administrator(the “Administrator”) of the Pension Planon September 9, 1992.

5. On June 4, 2001, the former Superintendentof the Financial Services Commission issueda Notice of Proposal dated May 31, 2001, to make a Declaration that the PBGF appliesto the Pension Plan; and

6. No notice requiring a hearing by theFinancial Services Tribunal, pursuant to sub-section 89 (6) of the Act, has been received.

NOW THEREFORE TAKE NOTICE I declare,pursuant to sections 83 and 89 of the Act, thatthe PBGF applies to the pension plan for thefollowing reasons:

1. The Supplement to the Wind Up Reportfiled by the Administrator indicates an esti-mated funding deficiency of $372,871 as atMay 31, 2001.

2. KPMG Inc. was appointed Receiver andManager of Van Dresser Limited onFebruary 21, 1992, and Trustee inBankruptcy on May 5, 1992.

3. The Trustee in Bankruptcy of Van DresserLimited has advised the Administrator thatthere are no assets available from the Estateof Van Dresser Limited for the Pension Plan.


K. David Gordon, Deputy Superintendent, Pension Division by delegated authority from Superintendent of Financial Services

124

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1


AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal by theSuperintendent of Financial Services to make aDeclaration under Section 83 of the PensionBenefits Act, as amended by the FinancialServices Commission of Ontario Act, 1997, R.S.O.1997, c. 28, respecting the RetirementBenefit Plan for the Employees ofNorman Wade Company Limited,Techniprint Services Limited andNorman Wade Management Limited,Registration Number 0315176(the “Pension Plan”);

TO: Arthur Andersen Inc.Suite 1050 4 King Street West Toronto, OntarioM5H 1B6

Attention: Lawrence A. Contant Administrator of the PensionPlan

AND TO: Norman Wade CompanyLimited, TechniprintServices Limited and NormanWade Management Limited75 Milner AvenueScarborough, OntarioM1S 3R7

Attention: T. A. Ronaldson Employer

DeclarationWHEREAS:

1. The Retirement Benefit Plan for theEmployees of Norman Wade CompanyLimited, Techniprint Services Limited and

Norman Wade Management Limited (the“Pension Plan”), Registration No. 0315176,is registered under the Pension Benefits Act,R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8 as amended by theFinancial Services Commission of Ontario Act,1997, c. 28, (the “Act”); and


3. The Pension Plan was wound up effectiveMay 1, 1998; and

4. The Superintendent of Pensions appointedArthur Andersen Inc. as the administrator(the “Administrator”) of the Pension Planon June 15, 1998; and

5. On July 9, 2001, the Superintendent ofFinancial Services issued a Notice ofProposal, dated July 6, 2001, to make aDeclaration that the Guarantee Fundapplies to the Pension Plan; and

6. No notice requiring a hearing by theFinancial Services Tribunal, pursuant to sub-section 89(6) of the Act, has been received.

NOW THEREFORE TAKE NOTICE I declarethat, pursuant to section 83 of the Act, theguarantee fund applies to the pension plan forthe following reasons:

1. The Wind Up Report filed by theAdministrator indicates an estimated fund-ing deficiency of $199,252 as at April 1,2000, with respect to Ontario members,before deduction of wind up costs.

125

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

2. On May 1, 1998, Norman Wade CompanyLimited was assigned into bankruptcy, andthe affiliates it operated, namelyTechniprint Services Limited and NormanWade Management Limited, ceased operations on the same day.

3. The trustee in bankruptcy of Norman WadeCompany Limited has advised theAdministrator that there are no funds available from the estate of the Company topay to the Pension Plan.



126

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1


AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal by theSuperintendent of Financial Services to make aDeclaration under Section 83 of the PensionBenefits Act, as amended by the FinancialServices Commission of Ontario Act, 1997, S.O.1997, c. 28, respecting the Royal Oak MinesInc. Pension Plan for Timmins SalariedEmployees, Registration Number0937458 (the “Pension Plan”);


Attention: Mr. Al KielPartnerAgent for Deloitte & ToucheInc. in its capacity asAdministrator of the RoyalOak Mines Inc. Pension Planfor Timmins SalariedEmployees


Attention: Mrs. Rachel A. PineaultCorporate Manager, Pensions andBenefitsEmployer


Attention: Ms. Louisa BlundaInterim Receiver andManager of Royal Oak Mines Inc.

DeclarationWHEREAS:

1. Royal Oak Mines Inc. Pension Plan forTimmins Salaried Employees, RegistrationNo. 0937458 (the “Pension Plan”), is regis-tered under the Pension Benefits Act, R.S.O.1990, c. P.8, as amended by the FinancialServices Commission of Ontario Act, 1997, c. 28, (the “Act”); and

2. The Pension Plan provides defined benefitsthat are not exempt from the application ofthe Pension Benefits Guarantee Fund (the“PBGF”) by the Act or the regulations madethereunder; and

3. The Pension Plan was wound up effectiveFebruary 14, 2000; and


5. On June 25, 2001, I issued a Notice ofProposal dated June 20, 2001 to make aDeclaration that the PBGF applies to thePension Plan; and


NOW THEREFORE TAKE NOTICE I declare,pursuant to sections 83 and 89 of the Act, thatthe PBGF applies to the pension plan for thefollowing reasons:

1. The actuarial report prepared as of March31, 1999, indicated that the Pension Plan

127

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

was underfunded on a solvency basis as atthat date in that the total value of its assetswas not sufficient to pay the total actuarialvalue of benefits to that date. Furthermore,the March 31, 2001 cost certificate filed bythe Administrator confirms that there havenot been any events that would lead to theelimination of the deficit reported by theMarch 31, 1999 actuarial valuation.


3. The Interim Receiver and Manager of Royal Oak Mines Inc. has advised theAdministrator that there are no assets avail-able from the Estate of Royal Oak Mines Inc.



128

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1


AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal by theSuperintendent of Financial Services to make aDeclaration under Section 83 of the PensionBenefits Act, as amended by the FinancialServices Commission of Ontario Act, 1997, S.O.1997, c. 28, respecting the Royal Oak MinesInc. Pension Plan for Timmins HourlyEmployees, Registration Number0937466 (the “Pension Plan”);


Attention: Mr. Al KielPartnerAgent for Deloitte & ToucheInc. in its capacity asAdministrator of the RoyalOak Mines Inc. Pension Planfor Timmins HourlyEmployees


Attention: Mrs. Rachel A. PineaultCorporate Manager, Pensions andBenefitsEmployer


Attention: Ms. Louisa BlundaInterim Receiver andManager of Royal Oak Mines Inc.

AND TO: United Steelworkers ofAmerica Local 444057 Mountjoy Street SouthTimmins, OntarioP4N 1S6

Attention: Mr. Rick ChoppPresident

DeclarationWHEREAS:

1. Royal Oak Mines Inc. Pension Plan forTimmins Hourly Employees, RegistrationNo. 0937466 (the “Pension Plan”) is regis-tered under the Pension Benefits Act, R.S.O.1990, c. P.8 as amended by the FinancialServices Commission of Ontario Act, 1997, c. 28, (the “Act”); and

2. The Pension Plan provides defined benefitsthat are not exempt from the application ofthe Pension Benefits Guarantee Fund (the“PBGF”) by the Act or the regulations madethere-under; and

3. The Pension Plan was wound up effectiveDecember 31, 1999; and


5. On June 25, 2001, I issued a Notice ofProposal dated June 20, 2001 to make aDeclaration that the PBGF applies to thePension Plan; and

6. No notice requiring a hearing by theFinancial Services Tribunal, pursuant to sub-

129

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

section 89 (6) of the Act, has been received.

NOW THEREFORE TAKE NOTICE I declare,pursuant to sections 83 and 89 of the Act, thatthe PBGF applies to the Pension Plan for thefollowing reasons:

1. The actuarial report prepared as of March31, 1999, indicated that the Pension Planwas underfunded on a solvency basis as atthat date in that the total value of its assetswas not sufficient to pay the total actuarialvalue of benefits to that date. Furthermore,the February 28, 2001 cost certificate filedby the Administrator confirms that therehave not been any events that would leadto the elimination of the deficit reported bythe March 31, 1999 actuarial valuation.


3. The Interim Receiver and Manager of Royal Oak Mines Inc. has advised theAdministrator that there are no assets avail-able from the Estate of Royal Oak Mines Inc.



130

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1


AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal by theSuperintendent of Financial Services to make aDeclaration under Section 83 of the PensionBenefits Act, as amended by the FinancialServices Commission of Ontario Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 28, respecting the Hudson BayDiecasting Limited Salaried EmployeesRetirement Income Plan, RegistrationNumber 0380170;







Declaration

WHEREAS:

1. The Hudson Bay Diecasting Limited SalariedEmployees Retirement Income Plan,Registration No. 380170 (the “Plan”), is reg-istered under the Pension Benefits Act, R.S.O.1990, c. P.8, as amended by the FinancialServices Commission of Ontario Act, 1997,S.O. 1997, c. 28 (the “Act”); and

2. The Plan provides defined benefits that are not exempt from the application of the Pension Benefits Guarantee Fund (the “Guarantee Fund”) by the Act or theregulations made thereunder; and

3. The Superintendent of Pensions appointedArthur Andersen Inc. as the administrator(the “Administrator”) of the Plan onJanuary 17, 1996; and

4. The Plan was wound up effective September 7, 1995; and

5. On July 30, 2001, the Deputy Superintendent,Pension Division, issued a Notice ofProposal, dated July 23, 2001, to make aDeclaration that the Guarantee Fundapplies to the Plan; and


NOW THEREFORE TAKE NOTICE I declare,pursuant to sections 83 and 89 of the Act, thatthe Guarantee Fund applies to the Plan for thefollowing reasons:

1. The funded ratio of the Plan has been estimated to be 67.7% with an estimatedclaim against the Guarantee Fund at windup of $118,028.00.


131

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

3. The trustee in bankruptcy for Hudson BayDiecasting Limited has advised theAdministrator that there are no funds available from the estate of Hudson BayDiecasting Limited to make payment to the Plan.

4. The Administrator advised that it is of theopinion that there are reasonable and probable grounds for concluding that thefunding requirements of the Act and regulation cannot be satisfied.



132

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1


AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal by theSuperintendent of Financial Services to make aDeclaration under Section 83 of the PensionBenefits Act, as amended by the FinancialServices Commission of Ontario Act, 1997, S.O.1997, c. 28, respecting the Hudson BayDiecasting Limited Hourly EmployeesRetirement Income Plan, RegistrationNumber 362178;







AND TO: National Automobile,Aerospace, Transportationand General Workers Unionof Canada (CAW - Canada),Local 1285205 Placer CourtToronto, OntarioM2H 3H9

Attention: Jeff Wareham, NationalRepresentative, Pension andBenefits Department.Union

DeclarationWHEREAS:

1. The Hudson Bay Diecasting Limited HourlyEmployees Retirement Income Plan,Registration No. 362178 (the “Plan”), is reg-istered under the Pension Benefits Act, R.S.O.1990, c. P.8, as amended by the FinancialServices Commission of Ontario Act, 1997,S.O. 1997, c. 28 (the “Act”); and


3. The Superintendent of Pensions appointedArthur Andersen Inc. as the administrator(the “Administrator”) of the Plan onJanuary 17, 1996.

4. The Plan was wound up effective September 7, 1995; and

5. On July 30, 2001, the Deputy Superintendent,Pension Division, issued a Notice ofProposal, dated July 23, 2001, to make aDeclaration that the Guarantee Fundapplies to the Plan; and

133

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1


NOW THEREFORE TAKE NOTICE I declare,pursuant to sections 83 and 89 of the Act, thatthe Guarantee Fund applies to the Plan for thefollowing reasons:

1. The funded ratio of the Plan at wind up isestimated to be 78.9%, with an estimatedclaim against the Guarantee Fund at windup of $472,444.00.


3. The trustee in bankruptcy for Hudson BayDiecasting Limited has advised theAdministrator that there are no funds avail-able from the estate of Hudson BayDiecasting Limited to make payment to the Plan.




134

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1


AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal by theSuperintendent of Financial Services to make aDeclaration under Section 83 of the PensionBenefits Act, as amended by the FinancialServices Commission of Ontario Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 28, respecting the Pension Planfor Hourly Employees of AlumiprimeWindows Limited, Registration Number1021005 (the “Pension Plan”);

TO: Arthur Andersen Inc.Suite 10504 King Street WestToronto,OntarioM5H 1B6

Attention: Lawrence ContantAdministrator of the PensionPlan for Hourly Employees ofAlumiprime WindowsLimited

AND TO: Alumiprime WindowsLimited40 St. Regis Crescent NorthDownsview, OntarioM3J 1Z2

Attention: Martin CashEmployer

AND TO: Shiner & Associates Inc.30 Wertheim CourtSuite 22Richmond Hill, OntarioL4B 1B9

Attention: Debbie GellerTrustee in Bankruptcy,Alumiprime WindowsLimited

AND TO: United Steelworkers ofAmerica25 Cecil StreetToronto, OntarioM5T 1N1

Attention: Mohamed BakshUnion

DeclarationWHEREAS:

1. The Pension Plan for Hourly Employees ofAlumiprime Windows Limited, RegistrationNo. 1021005 (the “Pension Plan”), is regis-tered under the Pension Benefits Act, R.S.O.1990, c. P.8 as amended by the FinancialServices Commission of Ontario Act, 1997, c. 28, (the “Act”); and

2. The Pension Plan provides defined benefitsthat are not exempt from the application ofthe Pension Benefits Guarantee Fund (the“PBGF”) by the Act or the regulations madethereunder; and

3. The Pension Plan was wound up effectiveNovember 24, 1998; and

4. The Superintendent of Pensions appointedArthur Andersen Inc. as the administrator(the “Administrator”) of the Pension Planon July 9, 1999; and

5. On July 31, 2001, I issued a Notice ofProposal dated July 26, 2001 to make aDeclaration that the PBGF applies to thePension Plan; and


135

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

NOW THEREFORE TAKE NOTICE I declare,pursuant to sections 83 and 89 of the Act, thatthe PBGF applies to the Pension Plan for thefollowing reasons:

1. The Extracts of the Actuarial ValuationReport filed by the Administrator indicatesan estimated funding deficiency of$177,100.00 as at November 24, 1998.

2. On November 24, 1998, AlumiprimeWindows Limited was adjudged bankrupt.

3. The trustee in bankruptcy of AlumiprimeWindows Limited has advised theAdministrator that there are no assets avail-able from the bankrupt estate ofAlumiprime Windows Limited for thePension Plan.



136

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

137

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1


AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal by theSuperintendent of Financial Services to Make aDeclaration under Section 83 of the PensionBenefits Act, as amended by the FinancialServices Commission of Ontario Act, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 28, respecting the Van DresserLimited Non-Contributory Pension Plan,Registration Number 960005 (formerlyC-100753) (the “Pension Plan”);

TO: Ernst and Young Inc.Ernst and Young TowerToronto-Dominion CentreP.O. Box 251, 222 Bay StreetToronto, OntarioM5K 1J7

Attention: Mr. Brian DenegaSenior Vice-PresidentAdministrator of the VanDresser Non-ContributoryPension Plan

AllocationWHEREAS on July, 2001, I declared, pursuantto sections 83 and 89 of the Pension BenefitsAct, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8, as amended by theFinancial Services Commission of Ontario Act,1997, S.O. 1997, c. 28 (the “Act”), that thePension Benefits Guarantee Fund (the “PBGF”)applies to the Van Dresser Limited Non-Contributory Pension Plan, Registration No. 960005 (formerly C-100753) (the “Pension Plan”);

NOW THEREFORE I shall allocate from the

PBGF and pay to the Pension Plan, pursuant tosubsection 34(7) of R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 909 underthe Act (the “Regulation”), an amount not toexceed $372,871, as at May 31, 2001, to pro-vide, together with the Ontario assets, for thebenefits determined in accordance with section34 of the Regulation. Any money allocatedfrom the PBGF but not required to providesuch benefits shall be returned to the PBGF.



Allocations of Money from the Pension Benefits Guarantee Fund – Subsection34(7) of the Regulation 909

138

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

139

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

TRIBUNAL ACTIVITIES

Appointments of Financial Services Tribunal Board Members

Name and O.C. Effective Appointment Date Expiry Date

Milczynski, Martha (Chair)O.C. 1622/2001 June 20, 2001 June 19, 2004O.C. 1665/99 October 6, 1999 July 7, 2001O.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

Bush, Kathryn M. (Vice-Chair)O.C. 1052/2000 May 31, 2000 May 30, 2002**O.C. 1666/99 October 6, 1999 June 16, 2000O.C. 1191/99 June 17, 1999 October 6, 1999O.C. 904/97 May 14, 1997 June 16, 1999

Corbett, AnneO.C. 1438/2001 June 19, 2004** June 20, 2001

Erlichman, LouisO.C. 2527/98 December 9, 1998 December 8, 2001O.C. 1592/98 June 17, 1998 December 16, 1998

Forbes, William M.O.C. 1624/2001 June 20, 2001 June 19, 2002**O.C. 520/98 March 25, 1998 March 24, 2001

Gavin, Heather O.C. 11/99 January 13, 1999 January 12, 2002

Greville, M. ElizabethO.C. 222/99 January 27, 1999 January 26, 2002O.C. 2405/95 February 8, 1996 February 7, 1999

Martin, Joseph P.O.C. 1626/2001 June 20, 2001 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**

Stephenson, Joyce AnneO.C. 2409/98 November 4, 1998 November 3, 2001O.C. 1930/95 October 28, 1995 October 27, 1998

Vincent, J. DavidO.C. 2119/2001 October 24, 2001 October 23, 2004**

Wires, David E.O.C. 2166/99 February 26, 2000 February 25, 2003O.C. 257/97 February 27, 1997 February 26, 2000**Or on the day FSCO/OSC merges, if earlier

140

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

Brewers Retail Pension Plan forBargaining Unit Employees,Registration Number 336081, FST FileNumber P0099-2000;On February 24, 2000, Mr. Patrick J. Moore,President of the United Brewers’ WarehouseWorkers, Local 375W, requested a hearing seeking an Order directing “the Superintendentto order the administrator of the Plan (BrewersRetail Inc.) to cease administering the Plan withan improperly constituted advisory committeeand to cause the creation of a properly consti-tuted advisory committee pursuant to the Actand formulating documents.” The hearingrequest arose as a result of a letter from theSuperintendent dated January 26, 2000, inwhich the Superintendent stated that therewere no grounds under the Pension Benefit Actand Plan to order the establishment of an advi-sory committee. The letter also stated that anyissue that Mr. Moore may have with the letterof understanding, which is part of the agree-ment between Brewers Retail Inc. and UnitedFood and Commercial Worker’s ProvincialBoard (the “UBWW/UFCW”), wherein Brewers Retail Inc. acknowledges that theUBWW/UFCW has a right to appoint a pensioncommittee with membership, roles and respon-sibilities as set out in the Pension Benefit Act,would be a labour issue and not within theSuperintendent’s jurisdiction.

At a pre-hearing conference held on May 17, 2000, Brewer’s Retail Inc. and theUBWW/UFCW were granted full party status.At the pre-hearing conference the partiesagreed that before the Financial ServicesTribunal considered the matter on its merits, it was necessary for it to determine the

preliminary issue of whether it had jurisdictionto grant the relief sought in Mr. Moore’sRequest for Hearing. At the pre-hearing confer-ence, the Superintendent raised the issue ofwhether notice to former members of the Planought to be provided as it appeared that formermembers of the Plan were not represented.

In a telephone conference held on November16, 2000, the hearing on the notice issue wasscheduled for March 7, 2001. The hearing onthe jurisdictional issue was scheduled forSeptember 28, 2001.

On March 7, 2001, the Tribunal decided thatformer members had received adequate noticeof the proceeding through the existing partiesto the proceeding. The written reasons forDecision dated April 10, 2001, were publishedin Volume 10, Issue 2 of the Pension Bulletin.

On September 28, 2001, the Tribunal decidedthat it did not have jurisdiction to grant therelief sought by Mr. Moore. The written reasonsfor Decision have not yet been issued.

Ontario Public Service Pension Plan,Registration Number 208777, FST FileNumber P0116-2000; On August 2, 2000, the Ontario Pension Boardfiled a request for hearing in respect of theSuperintendent’s Notice of Proposal dated July12, 2000, ordering the Ontario Pension Boardto pay Mr. Victor Burns his full pension bene-fits, with interest payable pursuant to subsec-tion 24(11) of Regulation 909 made under thePension Benefit Act, retroactive to the date of Mr. Burns’ retirement from the OntarioProvincial Police (“OPP”), within 60 days fromthe date of the Order, and on an ongoing basis.

An Application for Party Status was filed by

Pension Hearings Before the Financial Services Tribunal

141

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

Victor Burns on November 9, 2000, and fullparty status was granted by the FinancialServices Tribunal at a pre-hearing conferenceheld on November 23, 2000.

The hearing was held on October 15 and 16, 2001.

David Horgan – Ontario PublicService Pension Plan, RegistrationNumber 208777, FST File P0120-2000;On August 11, 2000, David Horgan requested a hearing regarding the Superintendent’s Noticeof Proposal dated July 12, 2000, proposing to refuse to make an order under, section 87 of the Pension Benefit Act, with respect to Mr. Horgan’s claim that he is entitled to receivepension benefits from the Plan.

The Ontario Pension Board filed an Applicationfor Party Status on September 19, 2000, andwas granted full party status at the pre-hearingconference held on November 23, 2000. Thehearing was held on July 11, 2001.

On August 1, 2001, the Tribunal issued written reasons for Decision affirming theSuperintendent’s Notice of Proposal and dismissing the application to the Tribunal tomake an Order. Reasons for Decision, datedAugust 1, 2001, are published in this PensionBulletin on page 149.

Rupinder Anand and OPSEU PensionTrust;On February 6, 2001, Rupinder Anand requesteda hearing regarding the Superintendent’s Noticeof Proposal dated January 4, 2001, proposing torefuse to make an order undersection 87 of thePension Benefit Act, with respect to Mr. Anand’sclaim that he is eligible to receive pension bene-fits from the Ontario Public Service Pension Plan.

The OPSEU Pension Trust (“OPT”) filed anapplication for party status on February 14,

2001. Counsel for Mr. Anand (who is also coun-sel for Mr. Horgan) requested that the hearingin this matter be joined with the hearing inHorgan, as the issues in both cases were virtual-ly identical. None of the other parties objectedto the joinder. An order granting OPT full partystatus and joining the hearings, in the Horganand Anand matters, to be heard concurrently,was signed by the Financial Services Tribunalon March 7, 2001.

The hearing was held on July 11, 2001.

On August 1, 2001, the Tribunal issued written reasons for Decision affirming theSuperintendent’s Notice of Proposal and dismissing the application to the Tribunal tomake an Order. Reasons for Decision, datedAugust 1, 2001, are published in this PensionBulletin on page 149.

Imperial Oil Ltd., FST File NumberP0130-2000;On October 31, 2000, Imperial Oil Limitedrequested a hearing with respect to theSuperintendent’s Notice of Proposal datedOctober 3, 2000, proposing to refuse to approvea partial wind up report in respect of two Plansof which Imperial Oil is the Administrator.

The stated reasons for the proposed refusalinclude the failure of each wind up report to dothe following: (a) reflect the liabilities associat-ed with all of the members of the Plan whoseemployment was terminated by Imperial Oilduring the wind-up period; (b) apply the grow-in provisions of section 74 of the Pension BenefitAct in a proper manner; (c) provide benefits inaccordance with elections made, as requiredunder subsection 72(1) of the Pension BenefitAct, among various options including thoseavailable as a result of partial wind-up; and (d)provide for the distribution of assets related tothe partial wind up group.

142

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

A pre-hearing conference was held on June 19,2001. At the pre-hearing conference, theSuperintendent agreed to amend the Notice ofProposal in this matter to delete reference to(d) above.

A hearing and preliminary motion with respectto answers to interrogatories was held on July 25, 2001. The Tribunal ordered theSuperintendent to respond to the first and sec-ond set of the Applicant’s interrogatories with-in six weeks of the date of the Order subject tothe qualification that the Superintendent neednot produce any documents or reveal any com-munications to which the law of privilegeapplies. Written Reasons for Order datedSeptember 10, 2001, are published in thePension Bulletin on page 155.

A continuation of the Pre-Hearing Conferenceis scheduled for December 20, 2001.

Marshall-Barwick (formerly MarshallSteel Limited), Registration Number0968081, FST File Number P150-2001;On January 16, 2001, Marshall-Barwick Inc.(formerly Marshall Steel Limited) requested ahearing in respect of the Superintendent’sNotice of Proposal dated December 12, 2000.The Superintendent is proposing to refuse toapprove a Partial Wind Up Report as at August28, 1992, respecting the Retirement Plan forSalaried Employees of Marshall Steel Limitedand Associated Companies in relation toemployees who ceased to be employed byMarshall Steel Limited as a result of the closure of its plant in Milton, Ontario. TheSuperintendent’s basis for the Notice ofProposal is that the Report does not protect theinterests of all those affected by the partialwind-up, specifically, Mr. Jeffrey G. Marshall,an employee who was terminated during thewind-up period. On June 4, 2001,

Jeffrey G. Marshall applied for party status.

A pre-hearing conference was held on August 13, 2001. The hearing is scheduled for November 29 and 30, 2001.

National Steel Car Limited,Registration Numbers 0215020 and0215038, FST File Number P154-2001;On March 7, 2001, representatives for membersof the Pension Plan for Salaried Employees ofNational Steel Car Limited requested a hearingregarding the Superintendent’s consent to thetransfer of all of the assets of the Pension Planfor Salaried Employees of National Steel CarLimited to the Pension Plan for Hourly-PaidEmployees of National Steel Car Limited. TheSalaried Plan is in a surplus position and theHourly-Paid Plan has an unfunded liability.

Applications for Party Status were filed onbehalf of National Steel Car Limited and certainrepresentatives of the United Steel Workers ofAmerica, Local 7135, on behalf of the membersof the Hourly-Paid Plan. The two applicants forparty status were joined as parties by order atthe pre-hearing conference held on June 21,2001. The main issues in this case are whetherthe Tribunal has the jurisdiction to entertainthe applicant’s request for a hearing andwhether the Superintendent’s consent to thetransfer of assets should be set aside or varied.

A Settlement Conference was held September24, 2001. The hearing is scheduled for January 15, 16 and 17, with a reserve date ofthe 21, 2002.

Independent Order of ForestersFieldworkers, Registration Numbers0354399, FST File Number P155-2001;On August 12, 2001, The Independent Order of Foresters (“IOF”) requested a hearing withrespect to the Superintendent’s Notice of

143

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

Proposal dated March 19, 2001, to refuse toconsent to an application for the payment ofthe surplus of the IOF Fieldworkers PensionPlan to the employer. The Superintendent pro-posed to refuse consent on the basis that shewas not satisfied that the Plan had a surplusand that the Plan provides for the payment ofany surplus to the employer on the wind up ofthe Plan.

A pre-hearing conference was held on July 4,2001, at which Mr. Irvin Grainger was joined as a party to the proceeding. The pre-hearingconference continued on July 27, 2001, atwhich time it was agreed that a settlement con-ference would be held on November 13, 2001.A motion by IOF for a determination of theappropriate manner and form of giving noticeof the hearing in this matter is scheduled to beheard on December 7, 2001, by a panel of theTribunal, to be followed by a further continua-tion of the pre-hearing conference.

Cooper Industries (Canada) Inc.,Registration Number 0240622, FSTFile Number P156-2001;On April 17, 2001, Cooper Industries (Canada)Inc. requested a hearing with respect to theSuperintendent’s Notice of Proposal datedMarch 8, 2001, to Refuse to Approve a PartialWind-Up Report, prepared in November 1999in relation to the partial wind-up of theRetirement Plan for Salaried Employees ofCooper Canada - Plan A, Registration No.240622, as at March 30, 1992, in relation toemployees at the Port Hope location of CooperIndustries (Canada) Inc. and to make an Orderrequiring Cooper Industries (Canada) Inc. torefrain from using and to preserve for distribu-tion that portion of the surplus of the Planattributable to the Port Hope location. Thebasis for the Notice of Proposal was that the

Partial Wind-Up Report proposed that the sur-plus assets of the Plan attributable to the PortHope location be retained for continuing appli-cation toward future current service contribu-tions for the Plan’s continuing membershipand, therefore, failed to provide for distributionof the Port Hope surplus assets.

On May 14, 2001, Messrs. Ray Mills and LarryBattersby applied for Party Status on behalf of Plan members and former Plan membersemployed at the Port Hope plant and beneficiaries of same.

A pre-hearing conference was held onSeptember 5, 2001, at which Messrs. Mills andBattersby were joined as parties. The pre-hearing conference is scheduled to continue on March 29, 2002.

Pension Plan for the Employees ofDyment Limited, RegistrationNumber 0242735,FST File P0157-2001;On April 18, 2001, Dyment Limited requested ahearing with respect to the Superintendent’sNotice of Proposal dated March 19, 2001, tomake an order that the Pension Plan for theEmployees of Dyment Limited, Registration No. 0242735, be wound up in full effectiveAugust 23, 1996, and to refuse to approve the actuarial report prepared in April 1997 inrelation to the partial wind up of the Plan as at August 23, 1996.

The basis for the Notice of Proposal was that asof August 23, 1996, there were no remainingactive members in the Plan and Dyment wasno longer required to make contributions. The basis for refusing to approve the actuarialreport is that the report does not meet therequirements of the Pension Benefit Act and theRegulations and does not protect the interestsof the members or former members of the Plan.

144

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

On May 22, 2001, Mr. Mobeen Khaja appliedfor Party Status. Mr. Khaja was part of a groupof employees who were subject to the partialwind up of the Plan, and would be affected bya full wind up of the Plan.

A pre-hearing conference was held on July 13, 2001. Hearing dates are scheduled for January 24 and 25, 2002.

Camco Inc. Pension Plan Number 4and Pension Plan Number 7, FST FileNumber P160-2001;On May 14, 2001, Camco Inc. requested a hear-ing with respect to the Superintendent’s Noticeof Proposal dated March 30, 2001, to Refuse toConsent to a Transfer of Assets from the CamcoInc. Pension Plan No. 4, Registration Number0583302, to the Camco Inc. Pension PlanNo. 7, Registration No. 0583336.

The basis for the Notice of Proposal was thatthe asset transfer does not protect the pensionbenefits and other benefits of the former mem-bers of Plan No. 4 under subsection 81(5) of thePension Benefit Act.

A pre-hearing conference was held onSeptember 24, 2001. A settlement conference isscheduled for December 17, 2001.

Consumers Packaging Inc.,Registration Number 0998682, FST File Number P162-2001;On May 17, 2001, Consumers Packaging Inc.requested a hearing with respect to theSuperintendent’s Notice of Proposal dated April20, 2001, to Refuse to Approve a Partial wind-Up Report filed by Consumers Packaging Inc.on May 19, 2000, with respect to a partial windup of the Consumers Packaging Inc. PensionPlan II, Registration No. 0998682, as at May 7,1997, and to Refuse to Register an amendmentto such Pension Plan filed by Consumers

Packaging Inc. on May 19, 2000, titledAmendment No. 2.

The basis for the Notice of Proposal was thatConsumers Packaging Inc. filed a partial windup report in 1997. The Superintendent issuedtwo Notices of Proposal in 1999 orderingConsumers Packaging Inc. to accept as mem-bers of the Plan certain replacement call-inemployees and refusing to approve the 1997partial wind up report on the grounds that thereplacement call-in employees were not includedin the report and that “grow-in” to plant clo-sure benefits was not provided to unionizedhourly employees affected by the partial windup. Consumers Packaging Inc. requested a hear-ing before the Financial Services Tribunal withrespect to both Notices of Proposal. The hearing concerning the call-in employees wassettled by the parties and Consumers PackagingInc. accepted as members of the Plan thosereplacement call-in employees who met certainconditions. The hearing request regarding the“grow-in” benefits was withdrawn. ConsumersPackaging Inc. was ordered to file an amendedpartial wind up report. In addition, in 1997Consumers Packaging filed an application toregister Amendment No. 2 to the Plan whichprovided enhanced bridge benefits to somemembers.

On May 19, 2000, Consumers Packaging filed arevised partial wind up report (the “revisedreport”) and a revised application to registerAmendment No. 2 (the “revised Amendment”).The Superintendent issued the April 20, 2001Notice of Proposal based on that the revisedAmendment is void pursuant to subsection19(3)(b) of the Pension Benefit Act and that therevised report does not meet the requirementsof the Pension Benefit Act pursuant to subsection70(5) because the commuted value of the

145

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

pension benefits and ancillary benefits for theaffected members is calculated based on therevised Amendment, which is void under theAct and does not protect the interests of themembers and former members of the Plan forthe same reason.

The Superior Court of Justice, Commercial Listissued an Order, dated May 23, 2001, statingthat any suit, action, enforcement process,extra-judicial proceeding, regulatory, adminis-trative or other proceeding against or in respectof Consumers Packaging Inc. already com-menced be stayed and suspended until andincluding June 22, 2001. A further Order wasissued on June 18, 2001, extending the stayperiod until August 15, 2001, and again untilOctober 1, 2001.

CBS Canada Co., RegistrationNumbers 348409 and 526632, FST File Number P164-2001;On June 8, 2001, CBS Canada Co. requested ahearing regarding the Superintendent’s Noticesof Proposal dated May 9 and 15, 2001 to Refuseto Approve a Partial Wind-Up Report in respectof the businesses carried on by CBS Canada Co.(formerly Westinghouse) at its Burlington,Ontario; London, Ontario; St. Jean, Quebec;Hamilton, Ontario; and Motors Division plants.

The basis for the Notices of Proposal was thatthe Partial Wind-up Report failed to provideemployer request early retirement benefits andbridge benefits, contemplated by the Plan, toall members of the partial wind-up groupswhose age plus years of service equalled at least55 and because the Report failed to provide forthe distribution of any surplus assets relating toparticular wind-up groups.

On June 19, 2001, CAW Canada filed an application for party status. A Pre-Hearing

Conference is scheduled for November 5, 2001.

Crown Cork & Seal Canada Inc.,Registration Numbers 474205,595371 and 338491, FST File NumberP0165-2001;On June 29, 2001, Crown Cork & Seal CanadaInc. requested a hearing with respect to theSuperintendent’s Notice of Proposal dated May29, 2001, to refuse to consent to a transfer ofassets proposed by Crown Cork & Seal CanadaInc. from the Crown Cork & Seal Canada Inc.Pension Plan for Salaried Employees,Registration No. 0474205 and The Pension Planfor Clerical Employees of Crown Cork & SealCanada Inc., Registration No. 0595371, into theCrown Cork & Seal Canada Inc. Pension Planfor Employees, Registration No. 338491.

The basis for the refusal is that the asset transfer does not protect the pension benefitsand other benefits of the members and formermembers of the Plans.

At the request of both parties a SettlementConference was held on October 30, 2001,prior to the scheduling of the Pre-HearingConference. The parties agreed to adjourn thismatter sine die pending discussions between theparties.

Samsonite Canada Inc., RegistrationNumber 398578, FST File NumberP0166-2001;On July 3, 2001, Samsonite Canada Inc. request-ed a hearing with respect to the Superintendent’sNotice of Proposal dated June 1, 2001, to refuseto consent to the application of SamsoniteCanada Inc. dated November 13, 2000, for thepayment of surplus to the Employer under sub-section 78(1) of the Pension Benefits Act fromthe Samsonite Canadian Service RelatedPension Plan, Registration No. 398578.

146

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

A Pre-Hearing Conference is scheduled forNovember 9, 2001.

James MacKinnon – Labourers’Pension Fund of Central and EasternCanada, Registration Number573188, FST File Number P0167-2001;On July 13, 2001, James MacKinnon requesteda hearing with respect to the Superintendent’sNotice of Proposal dated June 20, 2001, torefuse to make an Order regarding Mr.MacKinnon’s request that he is entitled toreceive a “Thirty and Out” pension benefitfrom the Labourers’ Pension Fund of Centraland Eastern Canada. The basis for the refusal isthat in refusing to grant Mr. MacKinnon a“Thirty and Out” pension, the Plan administra-tors have administered the Plan in compliancewith requirements of the Pension Benefits Act,the Regulations and the filed documents inrespect of which the Superintendent ofFinancial Services has issued a certificate of reg-istration. Subsection 87(2) of the Act allows theSuperintendent to make an order only if theSuperintendent is of the opinion, upon reason-able and probable grounds, that the pensionplan or fund is not being administered inaccordance with the Act, the Regulations or thepension plan.

On July 31, 2001, the Board of Trustees of theLabourers’ Pension Fund of Central and EasternCanada filed for party status on the basis thatthey are the Administrators of the Plan andwish to fulfil their fiduciary duties to all benefi-ciaries to ensure that only valid and properclaims for benefits are paid out from the Fundto protect the interests of all beneficiaries.


Doris Mair – Philip Services Inc.Pension Plan for Intermetco SeniorManagement Employees,Registration Number 0687608, FST File Number P0168-2001;On August 17, 2001, Doris Mair requested ahearing with respect to the Superintendent’sNotice of Proposal dated July 26, 2001, torefuse to make an Order that the Philip ServicesInc. Pension Plan for Intermetco SeniorManagement Employees, Registration No.0687608 be wound up in part.

On October 19, 2001, Ms. Mair withdrew herrequest for a hearing.

Imperial Oil Limited RetirementPlan, Registration Number 347054,FST File Number P0169-2001;In this matter, the Superintendent alleges that,effective April 28, 1995, Imperial Oil Limited(“IOL”) sold its credit card operations toGeneral Electric Capital Canada Inc. (“GECapital”), at which time 37 individuals, whohad been employed by IOL in that businessand were members of the IOL Retirement Plan,became employees of GE Capital and membersof its pension plan, while maintaining theiraccrued benefits in the IOL Retirement Plan.

On August 3, 2001, the Superintendent issuedNotices of Proposal to Make Orders requiring:

• that the IOL Retirement Plan be wound upin relation to those members and formermembers of the Plan who ceased to beemployed by GE Capital, between March2000 and July 2000, as a result of the closure of its Markham, Ontario credit cardfacility, and

• that such members and former members ofthe IOL Retirement Plan be given credit forboth age and service at the time they ceased

147

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

to be employed by GE Capital when deter-mining their benefits, in accordance withsection 80(1)(c) of the Pension Benefits Act,under the IOL Retirement Plan.

On August 24, 2001, IOL requested a hearing inrespect of these Notices of Proposal.

A Pre-Hearing Conference is scheduled forJanuary 9, 2002.

Stanley Canada Inc., RegistrationNumber 456897, FST File NumberP0170-2001;On August 27, 2001, Stanley Canada Inc.requested a hearing with respect to theSuperintendent’s Notice of Proposal dated July26, 2001, to refuse to consent to the applica-tion for payment of surplus to the Employerdated April 1999, pursuant to section 78(1) ofthe Pension Benefit Act.


Canadian Tack & Nail Ltd.,Registration Number 581306, FST File Number P0171-2001;On September 14, 2001, Canadian Tack & NailLtd. requested a hearing regarding theSuperintendent’s Notice of Proposal datedAugust 14, 2001, to Make an Order under section 87 of the Pension Benefit Act, requiringthe Employer or Administrator of the Plan toremit within 30 days of receiving the Notice ofProposal, outstanding contributions in theamount of $67,933 as of December 31, 1999,owed to the Pension Fund, together with interest payable under section 24 of theRegulation 909 under the Act.

The basis for the Notice of Proposal is that subsection 87(2) of the Act allows theSuperintendent to make an order if theSuperintendent is of the opinion, upon reason-

able and probable grounds, that the pensionplan or fund is not being administered inaccordance with the Act, the Regulations or thepension plan or if the employer, administratorof a pension plan, or any other person is con-travening a requirement of the Act or theRegulations.

A Pre-Hearing Conference is being scheduledfor February 2002.

The Corporation of the City ofKitchener Pension Plan for FireDepartment Employees, RegistrationNumber 239475, FST File NumberP0172-2001;On September 20, 2001, The Corporation ofthe City of Kitchener requested a hearingregarding the Superintendent’s Notice ofProposal dated August 23, 2001, to refuse toconsent to the application for payment of surplus to the employer dated July 17, 2000,pursuant to section 78(1) of the Pensions Benefit Act from The City of Kitchener PensionPlan for Fire Department Employees,Registration No. 239475.

148

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

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

There have been no Requests for Hearing received since the last publication of the Pension Bulletin.

Decisions to be Published

Horgan & Anand P0120-2000, P0147-2001 August 1, 2001

Imperial Oil P0130-2000 September 10, 2001

149

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

(Note: Only FST decisions pertaining to pensionsare included in this section)

(Note: In this section, “Commission” refers to theFinancial Services Commission of Ontario).

IN THE MATTER OF the Pension Benefits Act,R.S.O. 1990, c.P.8, as amended by the FinancialServices Commission of Ontario Act, 1997, S.O.1997, c.28 (the “Act”);

AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal by theSuperintendent of Financial Services to refuseto make an Order under section 87 of the Actrespecting a request by Mr. David Horgan relat-ing to the Ontario Public Service PensionPlan, Registration Number 208777;

AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal by theSuperintendent of Financial Services to refuseto make an Order under section 87 of the Actrespecting a request by Mr. Rupinder Anandrelating to the Ontario Public ServiceEmployees’ Union Pension Plan,Registration Number 1012046;

AND IN THE MATTER OF a Hearing inaccordance with subsection 89(8) of the Act.

BETWEEN: DAVID HORGAN and RUPINDER ANANDApplicants- and -

SUPERINTENDENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES- and -ONTARIO PENSION BOARD - and - OPSEU PENSION TRUSTRespondents

BEFORE:

Ms. Martha Milczynski, Chair of the Tribunal and Member of the PanelMr. Louis Erlichman, Member of the Tribunal and Member of the Panel Mr. William Forbes,Member of the Tribunal and Member of the Panel

HEARING DATE:

July 11, 2001(North York, Ontario).

REASONS FOR DECISION

Nature of ApplicationThe applicants in this matter, Mr. DavidHorgan and Mr. Rupinder Anand (together the“Applicants”) each requested a hearing beforethe Financial Services Tribunal in respect of theNotice of Proposal issued to each applicant bythe Superintendent of Financial Services(“Superintendent”). The Notices of Proposalindicated that, in the case of Mr. Horgan, theSuperintendent was refusing to issue an order

Financial Services Tribunal Decisions with Reasons

INDEX NO.: FST File No. P0120-2000 and P0147-2001

PLAN: Ontario Public Service Employees’ Union Pension Plan, Registration Number 1012046

DATE OF DECISION: August 1, 2001

PUBLISHED: Bulletin 10/3 and FSCO website

150

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

under section 87 of the Pension Benefits Act (the“Act”) directing the Ontario Pension Board(“OPB”) to pay a pension benefit to Mr. Horganunder the terms of the Ontario Public ServicePension Plan (“OPS Plan”). In the case of Mr.Anand, the Superintendent was refusing toissue an order under section 87 of the Actdirecting the OPSEU Pension Trust (“OPT”) topay a pension benefit to Mr. Anand under theterms of the Ontario Public Service Employees’Union Pension Plan (“OPSEU Plan”).

The Superintendent’s grounds for the refusalsstated in each Notice that section 80 of thePension Benefits Act applied to Mr. Horgan andMr. Anand, and by virtue of subsection 80(3) of the Act, their employment was deemed notto have been terminated. For reasons set outbelow, the Tribunal affirms the Superintendent’stermination and Orders as proposed.

FactsThe Applicants were employed in the PropertyAssessment Office of the Ministry of Financeuntil December 31, 1998. Mr. Horgan was amember of the OPS Plan; Mr. Anand was amember of the OPSEU Plan.

Pursuant to the requirements of the OntarioProperty Assessment Corporation Act and theterms of the Memorandum of Understandingbetween the Minister of Finance and theOntario Property Assessment Corporation(“OPAC”), effective 12:01 a.m. on December 31,1998 (“Memorandum of Understanding”), theproperty assessment functions of the Ministryof Finance and the Ministry’s assets, leaseholdand other interests or property associated withthe property assessment operations were trans-ferred to OPAC.

As part of this transfer and as contemplated bythe Memorandum of Understanding, on or

about December 15, 1998, each of theApplicants received an offer of employmentfrom OPAC to be effective December 31, 1998.Each of the Applicants accepted the offer ofcontinued employment under substantiallysimilar terms and conditions of employment.Pursuant to each of their respective offers ofemployment, Mr. Horgan and Mr. Anandwould cease being employed in the OntarioPublic Service and continue with OPAC in theirpositions with the same job titles, at the samerate of pay - the difference being that for pen-sion purposes, each would commence participa-tion in the Ontario Municipal EmployeesRetirement System (“OMERS”) rather than theOPS Plan or OPSEU Plan where their benefitsaccrued to the effective date of the transferwould remain. In addition, the Applicants’years of service in the Ontario Public Servicewould be carried over and included in their service with OPAC.

As of the time of the transfer, Mr. Horgan andMr. Anand were eligible to retire under the“Factor 80” provisions of the OPS Plan andOPSEU Plan. On December 16, 1998, Mr.Anand signed a Notice of Election advising thathe was retiring from his employment effectiveDecember 30, 1998. On December 17, 1998,Mr. Horgan signed a Notice of Election advisingthat he was retiring from his employmenteffective December 31, 1998. Both Applicantscontinued to work for the Ministry and, as atDecember 31, 1998, continued working forOPAC. However, both Applicants sought also toreceive payment of their pension benefits from either of the OPS Plan or OPSEU Plan asapplicable.

The OPB as administrator of the OPS Plan andOPT as administrator of the OPSEU Planrefused to pay the Applicants any pension ben-

151

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

efits and advised, in each case, that althougheligible for “Factor 80” benefits, and notwith-standing their Notices of Election, neither Mr.Horgan nor Mr. Anand had “retired”. In the circumstances of each case, the OPB and OPTadvised that section 80 of the Pension BenefitsAct applied such that notwithstanding thetransfer of the Ministry’s property assessmentfunctions to a new employer, Mr. Horgan andMr. Anand’s employment with the Ministry wasdeemed not to have been terminated pursuantto ss.80(3) of the Act.

The Applicants each requested theSuperintendent to order the plan administratorto commence payment of pension benefits. Inthe case of Mr. Horgan, by Notice of Proposaldated July 12, 2000, the Superintendent refusedto order that the OPB pay Mr. Horgan pensionbenefits as he requested. By Notice of Proposaldated January 4, 2001, the Superintendentrefused to order OPT to pay Mr. Anand pensionbenefits as he requested. The Superintendentfound no basis in the case of either the OPB orOPT that the administrator failed to complywith the requirements of the Act or regulationmade thereunder.

At the request of the Applicants and on theconsent of the other parties, the Tribunalordered that the hearings in respect of bothmatters be joined and heard concurrently.

Pension Benefits ActThe relevant provisions of the Act are as follows:

80. (1) Where an employer who contributesto a pension plan sells, assigns or otherwisedisposes of all or part of the employer’sbusiness or all or part of the assets of theemployer’s business, a member of the pen-sion plan who, in conjunction with thesale, assignment or disposition becomes an

employee of the successor employer andbecomes a member of a pension plan provided by the successor employer,

(a) continues to be entitled to the benefitsprovided under the employer’s pensionplan in respect of employment inOntario or a designated province to theeffective date of the sale, assignment ordisposition without further accrual;

(b) is entitled to credit in the pension of thesuccessor employer for the period ofmembership in the employer’s pensionplan, for the purpose of determining eligibility for membership in or entitle-ment to benefits under the pension planof the successor employer; and

(c) is entitled to credit in the employer’spension plan for the period of employ-ment with the successor employer forthe purpose of determining entitlementto benefits under the employer’s pensionplan.

80. (3) Where a transaction described insubsection (1) takes place, the employmentof the employee shall be deemed, for thepurposes of this Act, not to be terminatedby reason of the transaction.

IssuesAll parties agreed that to determine whetherthe Applicants were entitled to receive paymentof pension benefits in the circumstances of thiscase, the Tribunal would be required to deter-mine the following issues:

1. Was there a sale, assignment or other disposition of all or part of the business orall or part of the assets of the Ministry, theApplicants’ former employer, to OPAC?

152

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

2. If the answer to issue (1) is yes, did theApplicants become employees of the succes-sor employer, OPAC, in conjunction withthe sale, assignment or disposition of thebusiness?

3. If the answer to issues (1) and (2) are yes,what are the consequences that flow fromthis transaction under subsections 80(1)and 80(3) of the Act?

Issue 1 Was there a sale, assignment orother disposition of all or part ofthe business or all or part of theassets of the Ministry, theApplicants’ former employer, toOPAC?

There is no doubt, having regard to the provi-sions of the Ontario Property AssessmentCorporation Act, the terms of the Memorandumof Understanding and the facts surrounding thetransfer of operations, that the nature of thetransaction between the Ministry of Financeand OPAC fits squarely within the type oftransaction contemplated by section 80(1) ofthe Pension Benefits Act. The Tribunal does notaccept counsel for the Applicant’s submissionsthat section 80(1) of the Act applies only totransfers affecting “for profit” business opera-tions. The Act applies to all pension plans regis-tered in Ontario and makes no such distinctionin that regard as to whether or not the plansponsor is a “for profit” or a “not for profit”entity.

In this case, the entire property assessmentoperation of the Ministry of Finance was trans-ferred to OPAC and as part of this transfer theassignment or disposition of all of the assetsassociated with the Ministry of Finance’s “busi-ness” of property assessment was also included.

Issue 2 If the answer to issue (1) is yes,did the Applicants becomeemployees of the successoremployer, OPAC, in conjunctionwith the sale, assignment or dis-position of the business?

It is clear from the terms of the Memorandumof Understanding and the written offers ofemployment the Applicants received that eachof Mr. Horgan and Mr. Anand became anemployee of OPAC as part of or in conjunctionwith the overall transfer of the property assess-ment operation from the Ministry of Finance toOPAC. There was no other reason but thistransaction or transfer of property assessmentfunctions that caused the Applicants’ employ-ment to cease with the Ministry of Finance andcommence with OPAC. Consequently, as at12:01 a.m. on December 31, 1998 each of theApplicants became employed by OPAC whobecame the “successor” employer of theApplicants for the purposes of subsection 80(1)of the Act.

Issue 3 If the answer to issues (1) and (2)are yes, what are the conse-quences that flow from this transaction under subsections80(1) and 80(3) of the Act?

In this matter, the Tribunal has found on thefirst two issues that the transfer of propertyassessment functions from the Ministry ofFinance to OPAC was a transaction describedby subsection 80(1) of the Act:

(a) the transfer of property assessment func-tion from the Ministry of Finance toOPAC was (i) an assignment or other dis-position of all or part of the Ministry’sbusiness; and (ii) was also the assignmentor other disposition of all or part of theassets associated with that business;

153

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

(b) the Applicants became employed byOPAC as part of or “in conjunctionwith” the transaction; and

(c) OPAC became the “successor employer”for the purposes of the Act.

Subsection 80(3) of the Act is unambiguous -where a transaction described in subsection80(1) takes place, the employment of theemployee who became employed by the succes-sor employer in conjunction with the transac-tion, is deemed, for the purposes of the Act notto be terminated by reason of the transaction.The Applicants are deemed not to have hadtheir employment with the Ministry of Financeterminated by reason of the transaction.

Consequently, for the purposes of subsection80(1):

(a) each of the Applicants remain entitledto benefits accrued under the OPS Planor OPSEU Plan as the case may be;

(b) each of the Applicants is entitled tocredit in OMERS for the period of mem-bership in the OPS Plan or OPSEU Planas the case may be, for the purposes ofdetermining eligibility for membershipin or entitlement to benefits underOMERS; and

(c) each of the Applicants is entitled tocredit in the OPS Plan or OPSEU Plan, as the case may be, for the period ofemployment with OPAC for the purposes of determining entitlement to benefits under either of the OPS Planor OPSEU Plan as the case may be.

Subsections 80(1) and 80(3) provide importantprotection for eligibility and benefit entitle-ment related to service for pension plan mem-bers affected by transactions like the transferbetween the Ministry of Finance and OPAC.

The very purpose of section 80 is to protectemployees in a transfer or sale of business situation by deeming pension plan member-ship to be continuous as between the predeces-sor and successor employer.

Had the transfer between the Ministry ofFinance and OPAC not occurred, the Applicantswould not have transferred their employmentfrom the Ministry to OPAC and they would nothave had any entitlement to trigger a retire-ment under a Factor 80 pension without actual-ly terminating their employment. Subsection80(3) deems the Applicants’ employment tocontinue for the purposes of the Act as betweenthe Minister of Finance and OPAC without atermination having been caused by the transac-tion. The Applicants are thus in the same posi-tion as they would have been in had the trans-fer not occurred and their employment simplycontinued with the Ministry of Finance. Underthose circumstances, the Applicants cannotretire and commence receiving payment of apension benefit without terminating employ-ment with or retiring from OPAC.

Similarly, by virtue of subsection 80(3) of theAct an employee affected by the transferbetween the Ministry of Finance and OPACcould not exercise the termination/portabilityprovisions of section 42 of the Act without ter-minating employment with OPAC.

As noted above, the very purpose of section 80is to protect employees in a sale, assignment ortransfer of business situation by deeming pen-sion plan membership and credits to be contin-uous for eligibility and entitlement purposes asbetween predecessor and successor employers.Without the deeming provision of subsection80(3) of the Act, transferred employees wouldbe treated as terminated employees for pensionpurposes and lose the valuable grow in rights

154

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

and entitlements associated with continuousplan membership.

ORDERAccordingly, for the reasons noted above, theSuperintendent’s Notice of Proposal dated July12, 2000, and Notice of Proposal dated January4, 2001, whereby the Superintendent refused toissue an order directing the OPB and the OPTto pay the Applicants pension benefits areaffirmed and the application to the Tribunal tomake such order is dismissed.

DATED at North York, Ontario, this 1st day ofAugust, 2001.

Ms. Martha Milczynski Chair of the Panel

Mr. Louis Erlichman Member of the Panel

Mr. William ForbesMember of the Panel

155

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

(Note: Only FST decisions pertaining to pensionsare included in this section)

(Note: In this section, "Commission" refers to theFinancial Services Commission of Ontario).


AND IN THE MATTER OF Partial Wind UpReports submitted by Imperial Oil Limited tothe Superintendent of Financial Servicesrespecting the Imperial Oil LimitedRetirement Plan (1988), RegistrationNumber 347054 (the “IOL Plan”), andthe Imperial Oil Limited RetirementPlan for Former Employees of McColl-Frontenac Inc., Registration Number344002 (the “MFI Plan”);

AND IN THE MATTER OF a Hearing inaccordance with subsection 89(8) of the Act;

BETWEEN: IMPERIAL OIL LIMITEDApplicant- and -SUPERINTENDENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICESRespondent

BEFORE:

Mr. Colin H.H. McNairn, Vice Chair of the Tribunal and Chair of thePanel

Mr. Louis Erlichman, Member of the Tribunal and of the Panel

Mr. William M. Forbes, Member of the Tribunal and of the Panel

APPEARANCES:

For Imperial Oil Limited:

Mr. J. Brett LedgerMs. Lindsay P. Hill

For the Superintendent of Financial Services:Ms. Deborah McPhailMs. Frederica Rotter

HEARING DATE:

July 25, 2001 (North York, Ontario).

REASONS FOR ORDER

The BackgroundThis proceeding was initiated by the Applicantby filing a Notice of Request for Hearing withthe Tribunal. The Request calls into question aNotice of Proposal by the Superintendent torefuse to approve partial wind-up reports filedby the Applicant in connection with the partial

INDEX NO.: FST File No. 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 Inc., Registration Number 344002(the “MFI Plan”)

DATE OF DECISION: September 10, 2001

PUBLISHED: Bulletin 10/3 and FSCO website

156

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

wind-up of two of its pension plans, namely itsIOL Plan and its MFI Plan (the "Plans"). Thosewind-ups had been ordered by theSuperintendent because of the reorganizationof the Applicant and the closure of one of itsrefineries, all during the period from February4, 1992 to June 30, 1995 (the "Partial Wind UpPeriod").

The stated grounds for the Notice of Proposalinclude the following:

• the reports do not reflect the liabilities asso-ciated with all of the members of the Planswhose employment with the Applicant wasterminated during the Partial Wind UpPeriod; and

• the reports fail to provide "grow-in bene-fits," pursuant to section 74 of the Act, inrespect of all members of the Plans affectedby the partial wind ups who earned benefitswhile working in Ontario and whose com-bination of age and years of service withthe Applicant is at least 55.

By a Notice of Motion dated June 29, 2001, theApplicant moved for an order of the Tribunaldirecting the Superintendent to answer certaininterrogatories that it had posed and to produce the documents requested in thoseinterrogatories.

The IssuesAt a pre-hearing conference held on June 19,2001, the parties agreed, in anticipation of themotion, that the issues in this proceeding thatare relevant to the motion should be framed,for the purposes of the motion, as follows:

Issue 1

(a) Did any members or former members ofthe Plan[s] who ceased to be employedby Imperial Oil Limited during the partial wind up period as set out in the

Notice of Proposal cease to be employedas a result of the reorganization or dis-continuance of all or part of Imperial OilLimited’s business, if their circumstancesfell within one of the following:

(i) employees whose fixed term con-tract of employment was com-plete by its terms (e.g. summerstudents, co-op students, andemployees hired on a contractbasis for a specified period oftime);

(ii) employees who became disabledand received disability benefits;

(iii) employees who allegedly volun-tarily resigned;

(iv) employees who were transferredto an affiliated company that didnot participate in the Plans;

(v) employees who retired under theterms of the Plans at normalretirement age;

(vi) employees who retired under thedisability retirement provisions ofthe Plans;

(vii) employees whose employmentwas terminated as a result ofdeath; and

(viii) employees whose employmentwas allegedly terminated forcause.

(b) Do the doctrines of legitimate expecta-tion, abuse or improper exercise of discretion or estoppel apply in the circumstances of this case with respectto the issue of which members and for-mer members must be included in thepartial wind up group?

157

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

Issue 2

(a) Does the Pension Benefits Act (Ontario)(the “Act”) require that “grow-in bene-fits” under section 74 be granted tomembers and former members of thepartial wind up group who wereemployed in a province other thanOntario or Nova Scotia on the date thattheir employment ceased, in relation toany prior periods of employment withImperial Oil in Ontario or Nova Scotia?If so, on what basis should such benefitsbe calculated?

(b) If the answer to issue (a) is “yes,” canperiods of employment in provincesother than Ontario or Nova Scotia beexcluded when calculating the “grow-inbenefits” under section 74 of the Actand section 79 of the Pension Benefits Act(Nova Scotia) payable to all membersand former members whose employ-ment ceased in Ontario or Nova Scotia?

(c) If the answer to issue (a) is “yes,” do thedoctrines of legitimate expectation,abuse or improper use of discretion orestoppel apply in the circumstances ofthis case with respect to the calculationof “grow-in benefits” under section 74 ofthe Act and section 79 of the PensionBenefits Act (Nova Scotia) for memberswho ceased to be employed in the circumstances set out in issue (a)?

There is a third issue that will have to beaddressed at the main hearing in this proceed-ing, but none of the interrogatories to whichthe Applicant wants answers relates to thatissue.

The InterrogatoriesSome of the interrogatories posed by theApplicant have been answered by the

Superintendent to the satisfaction of theApplicant. Other interrogatories do not nowrequire answers in light of certain modifica-tions to the detailed grounds for theSuperintendent’s Notice of Proposal that were agreed by the Superintendent at the pre-hearing conference.

The First Set of InterrogatoriesThe first set of interrogatories to which theApplicant continues to insist on responses canbe summarized as follows:

• how many partial plan wind ups wereordered by the Superintendent during the period January, 1988 to October, 2000pursuant to,

• paragraph 69(1)(d) of the Act (significantnumber of members of the plan ceasingto be employed as a result of discontinu-ance or reorganization of business),

• paragraph 69(1)(e) of the Act (discontin-uance of a significant portion of thebusiness at a specific location)?

• how many situations were there in respectof such wind ups (ordered under each ofthe noted paragraphs of the Act) whereemployees were terminated during the partial wind up period for the following reasons;

• the expiry of a fixed term contract ofemployment;

• disability;

• voluntary resignation;

• transfer to an affiliated company thatdid not participate in the Plans;

• retirement at normal retirement ageunder the terms of the Plans;

• early retirement under the terms of thePlans;

158

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

• retirement due to disability under theterms of the Plans;

• death; and

• cause for dismissal?

• how many wind-up reports (in respect ofwind ups ordered under each of the notedparagraphs of the Act) included employeesin any such category in the partial wind-upgroup?

• did the Superintendent refuse to approveany partial wind up reports (in respect ofwind ups ordered under each of the notedparagraphs of the Act) because the employ-ees in any such category were not includedin the relevant partial wind-up group?

The test that we have adopted for orderinganswers to interrogatories and the disclosure ofdocuments is that the information sought isarguably relevant to an issue in the proceedingthat is not a frivolous issue, that the informa-tion is sufficiently particularized to facilitate aresponse and that the information does notenjoy the benefit of privilege (see MonsantoCanada Inc. v. Superintendent of Financial Serviceset al., FST File Number P0013, FST DecisionNumber 3, June 2, 1999).

The Applicant maintained, among other things,that the answers to the interrogatories set outabove were arguably relevant to the issue ofwhether the doctrines of legitimate expecta-tion, abuse or improper exercise of discretion orestoppel apply, in the circumstances of thiscase, so as to affect the determination of whichmembers or former members of the Plansshould be included in the partial wind upgroups (Issue 1(b) above). The Superintendentresponded by saying that none of those doc-trines can have any application in this case andthat her office does not make inquiries aboutthe individual circumstances of plan members

who cease to be employed during a partialwind up period. We note that there is nothingin the Act, the Regulation under the Act or theFSCO Pension Guidelines that would suggestthat a partial wind up report is expected to setout the circumstances of members or formermembers of the pension plan who have ceasedemployment with the employer during the partial wind up period and are included in orexcluded from the partial wind up group. Theonly guidance offered by any of these sourcesas to the proper composition of the partialwind up group is very general, namely that thegroup should include those members “affectedby” the partial wind up (see section 1.2.3 ofFSCO Pension Guideline W100-101) or shouldinclude those members who have ceasedemployment “as a result of” the event that precipitated the partial wind up (see page 2 of FSCO Pension Guideline W100-301).

What the Applicant hopes to be able to argue,depending on the answers revealed by theinterrogatories, is that the Superintendent hasnot generally taken the position that any of thecategories of employees referred to in the inter-rogatories should be included as part of a partialwind up group and, therefore, cannot now doso (at least without some advance notice of achange of practice), given the doctrines of legit-imate expectation, abuse or improper exerciseof discretion and estoppel. The Applicantwould also argue that in the event of any ambi-guity in the provisions of the Act relating to theproper make-up of a partial wind up group, thepractice of the Superintendent could be a rele-vant factor in arriving at a proper interpretationof those provisions.

The first set of interrogatories relates to situa-tions where the Superintendent plays two roles;first, in ordering a partial wind up of a planand, second, in approving or refusing to

159

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

approve, the report in respect of such a windup. In deciding on whether to order a partialwind up under paragraph 69(1)(d) of the Act,the Superintendent must focus on whether asignificant number of members of a pensionplan have ceased to be employed as a result ofthe discontinuance of part of the business ofthe employer or as a result of the reorganiza-tion of the business of the employer. It is cer-tainly possible that, in some instances, theinclusion or exclusion of certain of the cate-gories of employees, referred to in the inter-rogatories, may be determinative of the signifi-cance of the number of affected members ofthe plan. Indeed, the Superintendent hasrecently taken the position, in a proceedingbefore this Tribunal, that some, at least, ofthose who terminated their employment withan employer voluntarily during a partial windup period should be included for the purposeof determining whether a significant number ofemployees are affected by a particular reorgani-zation (see London Life Insurance Company v.Superintendent of Financial Services et al., FSTDecision Number 23, February 7, 2001). Thus,although the Superintendent may not makeinquiries as to the circumstances of employeeswho cease to be employed during a partialwind up period, she has not always been neu-tral as to the inclusion or exclusion of some ofthe categories of employees referred to in theinterrogatories.

Therefore, while there may not be a consciousand consistent practice on the part of theSuperintendent as to the treatment of all orsome of the categories of employees, referred toin the interrogatories, we think that theApplicant should have the opportunity ofexploring the possibility that there is such apractice of a kind that would assist in makingits proposed arguments. Although the existence

of such a practice might be elicited through theevidence of actuaries and others who havedealt with the Superintendent’s office in thisregard, that would be a much less efficient wayof demonstrating the practice than obtaininganswers to the interrogatories and would likelyprolong the hearing in this matter. This is a rel-evant consideration for us; see Rule 19.01(d) ofthe Interim Rules of Practice and Procedure ofthe Financial Services Tribunal.

The Superintendent also maintained that theanswers to these interrogatories were notarguably relevant to any of the issues in thisproceeding because none of the potential argu-ments of the Applicant, to which the interroga-tories relate, was available to it in the circum-stances of this case. With respect to the argu-ment based on the doctrines of legitimateexpectation and estoppel, the Superintendentsaid that this argument was foreclosed by thedecision of the Ontario Divisional Court inMonsanto Canada Inc. v. Ontario (Superintendentof Financial Services) (2001), 198 D.L.R. (4th)109, and by other judicial decisions.

We do not think that the settled law in Ontarioon either of these doctrines is such as to preclude all realistic possibility of the Applicantsuccessfully relying on such a doctrine asagainst the Superintendent in a proceeding,such as this, involving an application of theAct. Although Monsanto also arose under theAct, the issues and circumstances were quitedifferent from those in this proceeding.Therefore, we conclude that the answers to thefirst set of interrogatories are arguably relevantto Issue 1(b) and that Issue 1(b) is not frivolous.

The Second Set of InterrogatoriesThe second set of interrogatories to which theApplicant continues to insist on answersinvolve questions about the practices, policies

160

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

and internal documents of the Superintendentwith respect to the acceptance or refusal of par-tial wind up reports in which grow-in benefitsare provided (and the method of calculation ofthe relevant benefits), and reports in whichsuch benefits are not provided, in either casefor employees who were:

• employed by the employer in Ontario orNova Scotia at some time but wereemployed elsewhere at the time theiremployment with the employer ceased;

• employed by the employer in Ontario orNova Scotia when their employment withthe employer ceased but had beenemployed elsewhere during their term ofservice with the employer.

These interrogatories also ask about the prac-tices, policies and internal documents of theSuperintendent concerning the reduction ofgrow-in benefits, in either of the above situa-tions, on account of service outside of Ontarioand Nova Scotia. In the event that there arepolicies and internal documents on the subject,the Applicant asks for copies.

The Applicant maintained that the answers tothese interrogatories are arguably relevant tothe issue of whether the doctrines of legitimateexpectation, abuse or improper exercise of dis-cretion or estoppel apply, in the circumstancesof this case, to affect the calculation of grow-inbenefits for members of the Plans who wereworking outside Ontario and Nova Scotia at thetime their employment with the Applicantceased but who worked in Ontario or NovaScotia at some time during their term of servicewith the Applicant (Issue 2(c)). The Applicantalso says that the answers are potentially rele-vant should we find that there is any ambiguityin the provisions of the Act that determine the entitlement to grow in benefits of those

working outside Ontario and Nova Scotia at thetime of a partial wind up but who previouslyworked in either of those provinces.

The Superintendent maintained, among otherthings, that the answers to these interrogatoriesare not arguably relevant to the issue relatingto the effect of the doctrines of legitimateexpectation and estoppel because the decisionof the Ontario Divisional Court in Monsantoand other judicial decisions precluded theApplicant’s potential argument on that issue.The Superintendent also claimed privilege andconfidentiality for internal documents preparedfor the Minister of Finance and theSuperintendent containing advice and discus-sion with respect to Issue 2 matters, arguingthat those documents were of tenuous relevance in any event.

We come to the same conclusion on the first ofthese positions of the Superintendent as we didin respect of her comparable position on thefirst set of interrogatories. We do not think thatthe settled law in Ontario on legitimate expec-tation or estoppel is such as to preclude anyrealistic possibility of an argument based oneither of those doctrines succeeding against theSuperintendent in a case, such as this, involv-ing the application of the Act. Therefore, weconclude that the answers to the second set ofinterrogatories are arguably relevant to Issue2(c) and that Issue 2(c) is not frivolous.

As to the second position of the Superintendent,we conclude that she is not entitled to objectto the disclosure of documents in proceedingsbefore this Tribunal on the basis that they con-stitute confidential material prepared for aMinister or other government official. If thelaw of privilege were to apply to any of thosedocuments, say because they represent confi-dential communications to the Crown from its

161

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

counsel, the Superintendent would be entitledto resist disclosure.

ORDERWe order the Superintendent to respond to thefirst and second sets of the Applicant’s inter-rogatories in this matter within six weeks of thedate of this order, subject only to the qualifica-tion that the Superintendent need not produceany documents or reveal any communicationsto which the law of privilege applies.


Colin H.H. McNairn, Vice Chair of the Tribunal and Chair of thePanel

Louis Erlichman, Member of the Tribunal and of the Panel

William M. Forbes, Member of the Tribunal and of the Panel

162

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

NOTES

163

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

NOTES

164

Pension Bulletin

Volume 11, Issue 1

NOTES

The Editor, Pension Bulletin


5160 Yonge Street, 17th Floor

Box 85

North York, ON

M2N 6L9

PLACESTAMPHERE

Pension Bulletin

Please complete and return this form if you no longer wish to receive thePension Bulletin or if your address label is incorrect, or if you wish toreceive the Pension Bulletin in French:

I do not wish to continue receiving the Pension Bulletin.

My label is incorrect. Please revise as follows:

Name

Title

Organization

Address

City Province

Country Postal Code

Please send copies of the Pension Bulletin in French.

Thank you for your assistance with the Mailing List Review.

✁