Dinney v. Great-West Life Assurance Co. et al.,

• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Judge: Scott, C.J.M., Philp and Monnin, JJ.A.
• Neutral Citation: 2005 MBCA 36
• Citation: 2005 MBCA 36,(2005), 192 Man.R.(2d) 229 (CA),252 DLR (4th) 660,[2005] 10 WWR 401,[2005] MJ No 69 (QL),192 Man R (2d) 229,192 ManR(2d) 229,252 D.L.R. (4th) 660,(2005), 192 ManR(2d) 229 (CA),[2005] M.J. No 69 (QL),192 Man.R.(2d) 229
• Date: 23 March 2005
• Court: Court of Appeal (Manitoba)

Dinney v. Great-West Life (2005), 192 Man.R.(2d) 229 (CA);

    340 W.A.C. 229

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2005] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. MR.031

George R. Dinney, on his own behalf and on behalf of certain former employees of the Great-West Life Assurance Company (plaintiff/respondent) v. The Great-West Life Assurance Company and The Trustees, From Time to Time, of the Pension Fund Established Under Part A of The Great-West Life Assurance Company System of Insurance and Pensions For Certain Employees and Agents (defendants/appellants)

(AI 03-30-05678; 2005 MBCA 36)

Indexed As: Dinney v. Great-West Life Assurance Co. et al.

Manitoba Court of Appeal

Scott, C.J.M., Philp and Monnin, JJ.A.

March 23, 2005.

Summary:

Great-West Life Assurance Co. amended its pension plan to allow it more discretion in deciding on incremental payments to pensioners. A provision that payments were to be related to profits remained in effect. Dinney and other pensioners did not receive incremental payments based on fund performance. Dinney sued Great-West. The court was asked to determine, inter alia, whether Dinney and other pensioners had a vested interest in the indexing provisions of the plan despite the amendments.

The Manitoba Court of Queens Bench, in a decision reported at 152 Man.R.(2d) 88, answered in the affirmative (the November 30, 2000 decision). The court also held that the limitation period on claims was six years. Discussions ensued relating to the specific classes of pensioners entitled to benefit under the judgment. Great-West pointed out that s. 21(8) of the Manitoba Pension Benefits Act was the basis of the affirmative answer and that pensioners who had been employed in provinces which did not have legislation to the same effect would not necessarily have the same vested rights as those employed in Manitoba.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported 169 Man.R.(2d) 317, held that the proper law of the plan was Manitoba and extra-provincial employees were included in the class. Great-West appealed the decision of November 30, 2000 and the pensioners cross-appealed.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and cross-appeals.

Limitation of Actions - Topic 6011

Trusts - General - Breach of trust - Great-West Life Assurance Co. amended its pension plan to allow it more discretion in deciding on incremental payments to pensioners - A provision that payments were to be related to profits remained in effect - Dinney and other pensioners did not receive incremental payments based on fund performance - Dinney sued Great-West, claiming compensation for past underpayments of pension increments - An issue arose as to the applicable limitation period - The Manitoba Court of Appeal held that the six year limitation period on certain actions by trust beneficiaries in s. 49(3) of the Limitation of Actions Act was applicable in this case - See paragraphs 88 to 98.

Master and Servant - Topic 1945

Remuneration - Pension or retirement benefits - Entitlement - Vesting - Great-West Life Assurance Co. amended its deferred benefit pension plan to allow it more discretion in deciding on incremental payments to pensioners - A provision that payments were to be related to profits remained in effect - Dinney and other pensioners did not receive incremental payments based on fund performance - Dinney sued Great-West - At issue was whether the indexing provision in the pension plan created a vested right in favour of former employees or simply a benefit given at the discretion of Great-West - The trial judge held that the retired employees acquired a vested right to the annual increments which could not be changed unilaterally - Great-West Life appealed - The Manitoba Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - See paragraphs 22 to 74.

Master and Servant - Topic 1946

Remuneration - Pension or retirement benefits - Variation or amendment of plan - [See Master and Servant - Topic 1945 ].

Cases Noticed:

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. [para. 22].

Canada (Attorney General) v. Confederation Life Insurance Co. (1995), 24 O.R.(3d) 717 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 24].

Dillon v. Board of Pension Commissioners of Los Angeles (City), 18 Cal.2d 427; 116 P.2d 37, refd to. [para. 31].

Rochester Corp. v. Rochester (1971), 450 F.2d 118 (4th Cir.), refd to. [para. 34].

Williams v. Cordis Corp. (1994), 30 F.3d 1429 (11th Cir.), refd to. [para. 34].

Hurd v. Illinois Bell Telephone Co. (1956), 234 F.2d 942 (7th Cir.), refd to. [para. 34].

Walker v. Board of Trustees, Regional Transportation District (2003), 69 Fed. Appx. 953; 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 14603 (10th Cir.), refd to. [para. 34].

Kemmerer v. ICI Americas Inc. (1995), 70 F.3d 281; 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 32518 (3rd Cir.), refd to. [para. 34].

Maier v. E & B Exploration Ltd. (1986), 69 A.R. 239 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].

Bradley and Forsyth et al. v. Saskatchewan Wheat Pool (1984), 31 Sask.R. 254 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 35].

Reid v. International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers, [1960] O.J. No. 39 (H.C.), refd to. [para. 35].

Chorny v. Freightliner of Canada Ltd., [1995] 4 W.W.R. 706 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 35].

Sloan v. Union Oil Co. of Canada Ltd. (1955), 16 W.W.R.(N.S.) 225 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 35].

Hurd v. Hutnik (1976), 419 F.Supp. 630 (N.J. Dist. Ct.), refd to. [para. 37].

Dayco (Canada) Ltd. v. National Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 230; 152 N.R. 1; 63 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 38].

Baxter v. Abbey (1986), 9 B.C.L.R.(2d) 91 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 39].

Bathgate v. National Hockey League Pension Society (1992), 11 O.R.(3d) 449 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 39].

Allied Chemical & Alkali Workers of America, Local Union No. 1 v. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. (1971), 404 U.S. 157; 92 S.Ct. 383, refd to. [para. 43].

Williams v. Wright (1992), 783 F.Supp. 1392; 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1756 (Senior Dist. Ct.), refd to. [para. 43].

Cantor v. Berkshire Life Insurance Co. et al. (1960), 171 N.E.2d 518 (Ohio S.C.), refd to. [para. 43].

Bird v. Connecticut Power Co., 144 Conn. 456; 133 A.2d 894, refd to. [para. 43].

Hoefel v. Atlas Tack Corp. (1978), 581 F.2d 1 (1st Cir.), refd to. [para. 44].

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. v. Ouimet Corp. (1979), 470 F.Supp. 945 (U.S. Dist. Ct.), refd to. [para. 44].

Neuffer v. Bakery and Confectionery Workers International Union of America (1962), 307 F.2d 671 (D.C. Cir.), refd to. [para. 44].

Erie Lackawanna Railway, Re (1977), 548 F.2d 621 (6th Cir.), refd to. [para. 45].

Musto v. American General Corp. (1985), 615 F.Supp. 1483 (Tenn.), refd to. [para. 45].

Kolentus v. Avco Corp. (1986), 798 F.2d 949 (7th Cir.), refd to. [para. 46].

Otis Canada Inc. v. Superintendent of Pensions (Ont.) (1991), 2 O.R.(3d) 737 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 50].

Hurd v. Illinois Bell Telephone Co. et al. (1955), 136 F.Supp. 125 (Ill.), affd. (1956), 234 F.2d 942 (Ill. Ct. App. 7th Cir.), refd to. [para. 53].

Tyler v. New York Telephone Co. (1961), 192 F.Supp. 52 (S.D.N.Y.), refd to. [para. 54].

Casserly v. Oakland (City) (1936), 56 P.2d 237 (Cal. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 55].

O'Dea v. Cook (1917), 176 Cal. 659; 169 P. 366 (Cal. Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 55].

Montreal Trust Co. of Canada v. Birmingham Lodge Ltd. et al. (1995), 82 O.A.C. 25; 24 O.R.(3d) 97 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 58].

Firestone Tire and Rubber Co. of Canada v. Canada (Commissioner of Income Tax), [1942] S.C.R. 476, refd to. [para. 59].

Hayduk v. Waterton et al., [1968] S.C.R. 871, refd to. [para. 59].

Ottawa (City) v. Canadian National Railways, [1925] S.C.R. 494, refd to. [para. 59].

Turvey v. Lauder (1956), 4 D.L.R.(2d) 225 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 59].

Barcelona v. Fox Grocery Co. Employees' Pension Plan (1980), 483 F.Supp. 1128 (Pa. Dist. Ct.), refd to. [para. 59].

Libby, McNeil & Libby, California Canners & Growers v. United Steelworkers of America (1987), 809 F.2d 1432 (Ct. App. 9th Cir.), refd to. [para. 59].

Dictaphone Corp. v. Clemons, 488 P.2d 226 (Colo. App.), refd to. [para. 62].

Gould v. Continental Coffee Co., 304 F.Supp. 1 (D.C.), refd to. [para. 62].

Winston v. Hotel & Restaurant Employees (Trustees) (1982), 441 N.E.2d 1217 (Ill. 1st Dist.), refd to. [para. 62].

Howitt v. Howden Group Canada Ltd. (1999), 170 D.L.R.(4th) 423 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 65].

Canadian Association of Smelter and Allied Workers, Local 1 et al. v. Alcan Smelters and Chemicals Ltd. et al., [1998] B.C.T.C. Uned. H43; 19 C.C.P.B. 223 (S.C.), affd. (2001), 152 B.C.A.C. 117; 250 W.A.C. 117; 27 C.C.P.B. 209 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 66].

Hoefel v. Atlas Tack; Bonar v. Barnett Bank of Jacksonville (1980), 488 F.Supp. 365 (Fla. Dist. Ct.), refd to. [para. 69].

Rittel et al. v. Imprimeries Quebecor Inc. - Quebecor Printing Inc. (1994), 43 B.C.A.C. 222; 69 W.A.C. 222; 113 D.L.R.(4th) 166 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1994), 179 N.R. 75; 55 B.C.A.C. 320; 90 W.A.C. 320 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 69].

Imperial Oil Ltd. et al. v. Atlantic Oil Workers Union, Local No. 1 et al. (2004), 227 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 720 A.P.R. 1; 2004 NSSC 201, refd to. [para. 69].

Williams v. Scotia Investments Ltd. (1994), 8 C.C.P.B. 108 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 69].

McIntosh v. Equitable Life Insurance Co. of Canada, [2000] O.T.C. Uned. 844; 26 C.C.P.B. 140 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 69].

Canada v. Lagueux & Frères Inc., [1974] C.T.C. 687 (F.C.T.D.), refd to. [para. 85].

Buschau et al. v. Rogers Cablesystems Inc. et al., [1998] B.C.T.C. Uned. D32; 165 D.L.R.(4th) 668 (S.C.), affd. (2001), 148 B.C.A.C. 263; 243 W.A.C. 263; 195 D.L.R.(4th) 257; 2001 BCCA 16, refd to. [para. 95].

Statutes Noticed:

Limitation of Actions Act, R.S.M. 1987, c. L-150; C.C.S.M., c. L-150, sect. 49(3) [para. 88].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Gillese, Eileen E., Pension Plans and The Law of Trusts (1996), 75 Can. Bar Rev. 221, pp. 227 [para. 47]; 236 [para. 48].

Counsel:

E.W. Olson, Q.C., and S. Mattheos, for the appellants;

R.L. Tapper, Q.C., and R.M. Swystun, for the respondent.

These appeals were heard on November 16 and 17, 2004, by Scott, C.J.M., Philp and Monnin, JJ.A., of the Manitoba Court of Appeal. The following decision of the court was delivered by Scott, C.J.M., on March 23, 2005.