Amoco Canada Petroleum Co. v. Superintendent of Pensions (Alta.), (1992) 130 A.R. 360 (QB)

• Judge: Cawsey, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: Tuesday June 16, 1992
• Citations: (1992), 130 A.R. 360 (QB)

Amoco Can. Petro. v. Supt. of Pensions (1992), 130 A.R. 360 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Amoco Canada Petroleum Company Ltd. (applicant) v. The Alberta Superintendent of Pensions (respondent)

(Action No. 9103-15749)

Indexed As: Amoco Canada Petroleum Co. v. Superintendent of Pensions (Alta.)

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Cawsey, J.

June 16, 1992.

Summary:

The Superintendent of Pensions refused to register an employee's pension plan. The company appealed.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the appeal and directed registration of the plan.

Master and Servant - Topic 1942

Remuneration - Pension benefits - Con­tractual basis - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that if an employer promises to provide an employee with a pension benefit, but does not promise to pre-fund the benefit, the promise is solely a matter of contract - If, however, ar­rangements are made to pre-fund the pension promise, the applicable legal prin­ciples will depend on the nature of the funding vehicle - If an annuity contract is employed as the funding medium and the plan itself does not constitute a trust, the law of contract applies; if a trust is cre­ated, e.g., a pension plan funded by a separate trust agreement, the law of trust applies - See paragraph 28.

Master and Servant - Topic 1948.1

Remuneration - Pension benefits - Regu­lation - Superintendent - Dome and Amoco amalgamated and Amoco employed Dome's employees - Both com­panies had pension plans - Amoco con­solidated the plans and submitted the restated plans for registration under the Employment Pension Plans Act - The Registrar declined to register because of a provision in the Dome pension plan that entitled the employer have any surplus applied to reduce its contributions - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench found that the plan complied with the provisions of the Act and directed registration - The superintendent could not resile from the approval of a prior plan.

Cases Noticed:

Askin v. Ontario Hospital Association (1991), 2 O.R.(3d) 641 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Otis Canada Inc. v. Ontario (Superinten­dent of Pensions) (1991), 2 O.R.(3d) 737 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 31].

Hockin v. Bank of British Columbia (1990), 71 D.L.R.(4th) 11 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 47].

Campbell et al. v. Ferrco Engineering Ltd. (1984), 4 C.C.L.I. 268 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 49].

Canada Deposit Insurance Corp. and Ca­nadian Commercial Bank, Re (1989), 62 D.L.R.(4th) 498 (Alta. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 50].

Stearns Catalytic Pension Plan, Re (1990), 104 A.R. 190 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 50].

Sulpetro Ltd. Retirement Plan Fund, Re, [1990] 4 W.W.R. 173; 104 A.R. 215 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 50].

Brantford (City) v. Bray (1972), 26 D.L.R.(3d) 129 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 55].

Robertson v. Minister of Pensions, [1949] 2 K.B.D. 767, refd to. [para. 55].

Canadian Industries Development Ltd. v. Edmonton (City) Development Appeal Board and Madison Development Corp. Ltd. (1969), 71 W.W.R. 635 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 55].

Lornex Mining Corp. Ltd., Re, [1976] 5 W.W.R. 554 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 55].

Molson Brewery (Ont.) Ltd. v. Ontario (Pension Commission) (1969), 7 D.L.R.(3d) 298 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 56].

Statutes Noticed:

Employment Pension Plans Act, S.A. 1986, c. E-10.05, sect. 1(1)(c) [para. 24]; sect. 12(1) [paras. 1, 55]; sect. 56(1) [para. 23].

Trustee Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. T-10, sect. 43 [para. 50].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Chitty on Contracts (26th Ed.), vol. 1, paras. 820-824 [para. 39].

Waters, D.W.N., The Law of Trusts in Canada (2nd Ed. 1984), pp. 4 to 6, 106 [para. 35].

Counsel:

A.H. Trawick and L.A. O'Donoghue, for Amoco;

D.W. Kinloch, for the Superintendent.

This appeal was heard before Cawsey, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following judgment on June 16, 1992.