Buschau et al. v. Rogers Communications Inc. et al., (2006) 349 N.R. 324 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: June 22, 2006
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2006), 349 N.R. 324 (SCC);2006 SCC 28;349 NR 324;269 DLR (4th) 1;54 BCLR (4th) 1;[2006] 1 SCR 973;26 ETR (3d) 1;[2006] SCJ No 28 (QL);148 ACWS (3d) 483;EYB 2006-106843;JE 2006-1309;[2006] 8 WWR 583;226 BCAC 25

Buschau v. Rogers Com. Inc. (2006), 349 N.R. 324 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Temp. Cite: [2006] N.R. TBEd. JN.030

Rogers Communications Incorporated (appellant) v. Sandra Buschau, Sharon M. Parent, Albert Poy, David Allen, Eileen Anderson, Christine Ash, Frederick Scott Atkinson, Jaspal Badyal, Mary Balfry, Carolyn Louise Barry, Raj Bhamber, Evelyn Bishop, Deborah Louise Bissonnette, George Boshko, Colleen Burke, Brian Carroll, Lynn Cassidy, Florence K. Colbeck, Peter Colistro, Ernest A. Cottle, Ken Dann, Donna de Freitas, Terry Dewell, Katrin Dolemeyer, Elizabeth Engel, Karen Engleson, George Fierheller, Joan Fisher, Gwen Ford, Don R. Fraser, Mabel Garwood, Cheryl Gervais, Rose Gibb, Roger Gilodo, Murray Gjernes, Daphne Goode, Karen L. Gould, Peter James Hadikin, Marian Heibloem-Reeves, Thomas Hobley, John Iannantuoni, Vincent A. Iannantuoni, Ron Inglis, Mehroon Janmohamed, Michael J. Jervis, Marlyn Kellner, Karen Kilba, Douglas James Kilgour, Yoshinori Koga, Martin Kosuljandic, Ursula M. Kreiger, Wing Lee, Robert Leslie, Thomas A. Lewthwaite, Holly Li, David Liddell, Rita Lim, Betty C. Lloyd, Rob Lowrie, Che-Chung Ma, Jennifer MacDonald, Robert John MacLeod, Sherry M. Madden, Tom Makortoff, Fatima Manji, Edward B. Mason, Glenn A. McFarlane, Onagh Metcalfe, Dorothy Mitchell, Shirley C.T. Mui, William Neal, Katherine Sheila Nimmo, Gloria Paiement, Lynda Pasacreta, Barbara Peake, Vera Piccini, Inez Pinkerton, Dave Podworny, Doug Pontifex, Victoria Prochaska, Frank Radelja, Gale Rauk, Ruth Roberts, Ann Louise Rodgers, Clifford James Roe, Pamela Mamon Roe, Delores Rose, Sabrina Roza-Pereira, Sandra Rybchinsky, Kenneth T. Salmond, Marie Schneider, Alexander C. Scott, Inderjeet Sharma, Hugh Donald Shiel, Michael Shirley, George Allen Short, Glenda Simoncioni, Norm Smallwood, Gilles A. St. Dennis, Geri Stephen, Grace Isobel Stone, Mari Tsang, Carmen Tuvera, Sheera Waisman, Margaret Watson, Gertrude Westlake, Robert E. White, Patricia Jane Whitehead, Aileen Wilson, Elaine Wirtz, Joe Wuychuk, Zlatka Young (respondents) and National Trust Company (respondent)

National Trust Company (appellant) v. Sandra Buschau, Sharon M. Parent, Albert Poy, David Allen, Eileen Anderson, Christine Ash, Frederick Scott Atkinson, Jaspal Badyal, Mary Balfry, Carolyn Louise Barry, Raj Bhamber, Evelyn Bishop, Deborah Louise Bissonnette, George Boshko, Colleen Burke, Brian Carroll, Lynn Cassidy, Florence K. Colbeck, Peter Colistro, Ernest A. Cottle, Ken Dann, Donna de Freitas, Terry Dewell, Katrin Dolemeyer, Elizabeth Engel, Karen Engleson, George Fierheller, Joan Fisher, Gwen Ford, Don R. Fraser, Mabel Garwood, Cheryl Gervais, Rose Gibb, Roger Gilodo, Murray Gjernes, Daphne Goode, Karen L. Gould, Peter James Hadikin, Marian Heibloem-Reeves, Thomas Hobley, John Iannantuoni, Vincent A. Iannantuoni, Ron Inglis, Mehroon Janmohamed, Michael J. Jervis, Marlyn Kellner, Karen Kilba, Douglas James Kilgour, Yoshinori Koga, Martin Kosuljandic, Ursula M. Kreiger, Wing Lee, Robert Leslie, Thomas A. Lewthwaite, Holly Li, David Liddell, Rita Lim, Betty C. Lloyd, Rob Lowrie, Che-Chung Ma, Jennifer MacDonald, Robert John MacLeod, Sherry M. Madden, Tom Makortoff, Fatima Manji, Edward B. Mason, Glenn A. McFarlane, Onagh Metcalfe, Dorothy Mitchell, Shirley C.T. Mui, William Neal, Katherine Sheila Nimmo, Gloria Paiement, Lynda Pasacreta, Barbara Peake, Vera Piccini, Inez Pinkerton, Dave Podworny, Doug Pontifex, Victoria Prochaska, Frank Radelja, Gale Rauk, Ruth Roberts, Ann Louise Rodgers, Clifford James Roe, Pamela Mamon Roe, Delores Rose, Sabrina Roza-Pereira, Sandra Rybchinsky, Kenneth T. Salmond, Marie Schneider, Alexander C. Scott, Inderjeet Sharma, Hugh Donald Shiel, Michael Shirley, George Allen Short, Glenda Simoncioni, Norm Smallwood, Gilles A. St. Dennis, Geri Stephen, Grace Isobel Stone, Mari Tsang, Carmen Tuvera, Sheera Waisman, Margaret Watson, Gertrude Westlake, Robert E. White, Patricia Jane Whitehead, Aileen Wilson, Elaine Wirtz, Joe Wuychuk, Zlatka Young and Rogers Communications Incorporated (respondents)

(30462; 2006 SCC 28; 2006 CSC 28)

Indexed As: Buschau et al. v. Rogers Communications Inc. et al.

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron, JJ.

June 22, 2006.

Summary:

The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported at [2002] B.C.T.C. 624, concluded that the rule in Saunders v. Vautier (Ch. D.) applied to modern pension trusts and to the particular pension plan in question. The court held that it had jurisdic­tion to consent to termination of the trust on behalf of those designated beneficiaries who had not been located by the petitioners. How­ever, the court held that it could not consider the remaining relief sought by the petitioners until matters respecting the valu­ation of the trust and the identity of mem­bers were clarified. The court ordered Rogers to produce various documents within 14 days and to provide a valuation of the plan within 28 days.

The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported at [2003] B.C.T.C. 683, gave consent on behalf of 25 missing mem­bers and allowed the petition. Rogers ap­pealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, in a decision reported at 193 B.C.A.C. 258; 316 W.A.C. 258, concluded that the trial judge lacked jurisdiction to consent on behalf of the missing members and erred in allowing the petition. Although the court would nor­mally have allowed the appeal and dismissed the petition, it gave the parties an opportun­ity to make submissions on their options in light of the court's reasons. The court set out the procedure to be followed. Failing that pro­cedure being followed, an order allowing the appeal and dismissing the petition was to be entered after three months. Rogers moved for entry of an order allowing the appeal and dismissing the petition without waiting until the three months had expired. The petitioners moved to have the appeal dismissed. The pe­ti­tioners asserted that they had obtained the consent of all members and their desig­nated beneficiaries to terminate the trust pursuant to the rule in Saunders v. Vautier.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal, in a decision reported at 197 B.C.A.C. 279; 323 W.A.C. 279, allowed the appeal and set aside the orders of the Supreme Court. The petitioners could invoke the rule in Saunders v. Vautier if the consent of all members and their designated beneficiaries were obtained. Rogers appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the ap­peal and set aside the order of the Court of Appeal.

Master and Servant - Topic 1948.2

Remuneration - Pension or retirement ben­e­­fits - Regulation - Superintendent - Wind­up order - An employer funded pen­sion plan provided for defined benefits - In the event of termination, any surplus was to be distributed amongst the remaining mem­bers - Neither the trust agreement nor the plan provided for termination by mem­bers - The plan was closed to future employees and contributions ceased - A surplus devel­oped - The members sought to have the plan collapsed and distributed to them based on the rule in Saunders v. Vautier (Ch. D.) - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the rule did not apply - The court identified numerous impediments to apply­ing the rule to employment pen­sion plans, but did not exclude the possi­bility that it might apply to very small pension plans - The Pension Benefits Standards Act was not a complete code - However, where it pro­vided recourse to plan members, they should use it here - The Act explicitly dealt with termination - The Superinten­dent of Financial Institutions had the au­thor­ity to deal with issues relating to the plan's termination and was in the best p­o­si­tion to monitor it - His powers under s. 29(2)(a) to terminate a plan where em­ployer contri­butions ceased was not limited to solvency issues - He had the authority to determine the validity of rea­sons given for not ter­minating a plan - He could rule on ques­tions of fact and law and receive recom­­mendations from the parties - The legislat­ive provisions concerning the em­ployer's duties were within his interpre­tative juris­diction - He could determine whether the facts warranted winding up the plan which would have the effect of ter­minating the trust - See paragraphs 1 to 59.

Master and Servant - Topic 1949

Remuneration - Pension or retirement bene­fits - Termination of plan - [See Mas­ter and Servant - Topic 1948.2 ].

Trusts - Topic 8445

Termination of trusts - By request of bene­ficiary - On agreement of all beneficiaries - [See Master and Servant - Topic 1948.2 ].

Cases Noticed:

Saunders v. Vautier (1841), Cr. & Ph. 240; 41 E.R. 482 (Ch. D.), consd. [paras. 2, 60].

Schmidt v. Air Products Canada Ltd. - see Stearns Catalytic Pension Plans, Re.

Stearns Catalytic Pension Plans, Re, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 611; 168 N.R. 81; 155 A.R. 81; 73 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [paras. 16, 61].

Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Superintendent of Financial Services (Ont.) et al., [2004] 3 S.C.R. 152; 324 N.R. 259; 189 O.A.C. 201; 2004 SCC 54, refd to. [paras. 17, 96].

Huus et al. v. Superintendent of Pensions (Ont.) et al. (2000), 133 O.A.C. 375; 58 O.R.(3d) 380 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 55].

Halifax School for the Blind v. Kelley Estate, [1937] S.C.R. 196, refd to. [para. 60].

Imperial Group Pension Trust v. Imperial Tobacco Ltd., [1991] 2 All E.R. 597 (Ch. D.), refd to. [para. 102].

Statutes Noticed:

Pension Benefits Standards Act, R.S.C. 1985 (2nd Supp.), c. 32, sect. 29(2) [para. 50].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Canada, Guidelines to Administrators for Plan Terminations, http://www.osfi-bsif.gc.ca, generally [para. 19].

Deaton, Richard Lee, The Political Econ­omy of Pensions: Power, Politics and Social Change in Canada, Britain and the United States (1989), pp. 119, 120, 122 [para. 12]; 133, 134 [para. 15]; 136, 137 [para. 13].

Gillese, Eileen E., Pension Plans and the Law of Trusts (1996), 75 Can. Bar Rev. 221, pp. 232 to 234 [para. 13].

Kaplan, Ari N., Pension Law (2006), gen­erally [para. 19].

Nachshen, Gary, Access to Pension Fund Surpluses: The Great Debate, in Meredith Memorial Lectures 1988, New Develop­ments in Employment Law (1989), pp. 59, 64 [para. 14]; 66, 67 [para. 15].

Pension Under Funding Still Widespread, Yet (2003), Business and Legal Reports, http://comp.blr.com, generally [para. 15].

Rienzo, Douglas, Trust Law and Access to Pension Surplus (2005), 25 E.T.P.J. 14, generally [para. 14].

Underhill, Arthur, and Hayton, David J., The Law of Trusts and Trustees (14th Ed. 1987), p. 628 [para. 21].

Waters, Donovan W.M., The Law of Trusts in Canada (3rd Ed. 2005), pp. 1175 [para. 21]; 1178 [para. 90].

Counsel:

Irwin G. Nathanson, Q.C., and Stephen R. Schachter, Q.C., for the appel­lant/respon­dent Rogers Communications Inc.;

Jennifer J. Lynch and Joanne Lysyk, for the appellant/respondent National Trust Co.;

John N. Laxton, Q.C., and Robert D. Gib­bens, for the respondents Sandra Buschau et al.

Solicitors of Record:

Nathanson, Schachter & Thompson, Van­couver, British Columbia, for the appel­lant/respondent Rogers Communica­tions Inc.;

Blake, Cassels & Graydon, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the appel­lant/ respon­dent National Trust Co.;

Laxton & Company, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the respondents Sandra Buschau et al.

This appeal was heard on November 15 2005, by McLachlin, C.J.C., Bastarache, LeBel, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Char­ron, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The decision of the court was delivered on June 22, 2006, in both official languages, with the following opinions:

Deschamps, J. (LeBel, Fish and Abella, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 59;

Bastarache, J. (McLachlin, C.J.C., Char­ron, J., concurring) - see paragraphs 60 to 104.