GenCorp Canada Inc. v. Superintendent of Pensions (Ont.) et al., (1998) 114 O.A.C. 170 (CA)

• Judge: McMurtry, C.J.O., Robins and McKinlay, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: March 11, 1998
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1998), 114 O.A.C. 170 (CA)

GenCorp Can. v. Supt. of Pensions (1998), 114 O.A.C. 170 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1998] O.A.C. TBEd. AP.012

GenCorp Canada Inc. (applicant/appellant) v. The Superintendent of Pensions for Ontario, Local 536 of the United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum & Plastic Workers of America acting on behalf of members and former members of the Consolidated GenCorp Canada Inc. Hourly Pension Plan (the "Hourly Plan") and members and former members of the Consolidated GenCorp Canada Inc. Salaried Pension Plan (the "Salaried Plan") et al. (respondents)

(C24064)

Indexed As: GenCorp Canada Inc. v. Superintendent of Pensions (Ont.) et al.

Ontario Court of Appeal

McMurtry, C.J.O., Robins and McKinlay, JJ.A.

March 11, 1998.

Summary:

GenCorp owned two plants. In 1987, it sold the Barrie plant to General Tire. The employees transferred to General Tire. How­ever, GenCorp retained the assets and liabil­ities of its pension plans of which the trans­ferred employees were members. The trans­ferred employees remained entitled to the benefits which had accrued to the date of sale. General Tire established new pension plans which the transferred employees joined. In 1991, General Tire closed the Barrie plant and partially wound up its pension plans. In 1992, the Superintendent of Pensions issued proposals ordering a partial wind-up of GenCorp's pension plans pursu­ant to s. 69 of the Pension Benefits Act. As a result of the order, Gen­Corp would have to pay accel­erated early retire­ment benefits of $5 million under s. 74 of the Act. GenCorp requested a hearing by the Pension Commis­sion. In 1994, the Com­mis­sion ordered the Superin­tendent to order the partial wind-up of GenCorp's pension plans. GenCorp appealed.

The Ontario Divisional Court, Corbett, J., dissenting, in a decision reported 87 O.A.C. 241, dismissed the appeal. Gencorp appealed

The Ontario Court of Appeal, McKinlay, J.A., dissenting, dismissed the appeal.

Administrative Law - Topic 6201

Judicial review - Statutory appeal - Scope of review - General - GenCorp sold a plant to General Tire (General) - GenCorp re­tained the assets and liabilities of its pen­sion plans covering the employees who trans­ferred to General - General started new pension plans for the transferred employees - Subsequently, General closed the plant and partially wound up its pen­sion plans - The Superintendent of Pen­sions ordered a partial wind-up of Gen­Corp's pension plans under s. 69(1)(d) of the Pension Benefits Act (i.e., layoffs caused by the employer's discontinuance of business) - GenCorp requested a review - The Pension Commission of Ontario affirmed the Superintendent's decision - GenCorp appealed - The Ontario Court of Appeal affirmed that the appropriate stand­ard of review of the Commission's deci­sion was not "correctness" but "consider­able deference" - See paragraphs 10 to 19.

Administrative Law - Topic 9102

Boards and Tribunals - Judicial review - Standard of review - [See Administrative Law - Topic 6201 ].

Master and Servant - Topic 1948.2

Remuneration - Pension benefits - Regu­lation - Superintendent - Windup order - GenCorp sold a plant to General Tire (General) - GenCorp retained the assets and liabilities of its pension plans covering the employees who transferred to General - General started new pension plans for the transferred employees - Subsequently, General closed the plant and partially wound up its pension plans - The Super­intendent of Pensions ordered a partial wind-up of GenCorp's pension plans under s. 69(1)(d) of the Pension Benefits Act (i.e., layoffs caused by the employer's discontinuance of business) - The Pension Commission upheld the Superintendent's order - The Commission interpreted "em­ployer" broadly to include "both pre­deces­sor and successor employers" - Gen­Corp remained in an employment relation­ship and when the plant closed the appli­cation of s. 69(1)(d) was triggered - Gen­Corp appealed - The Ontario Court of Appeal affirmed the Commission's de­cision - See paragraphs 20 to 24.

Words and Phrases

Employer - The Ontario Court of Appeal discussed the meaning of the word "em­ployer" as found in s. 69(1)(d) of the Pension Benefits Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P-8 - See paragraphs 20 to 24.

Cases Noticed:

Pezim v. British Columbia Securities Commission et al., [1994] 2 S.C.R. 557; 168 N.R. 321; 46 B.C.A.C. 1; 75 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 14].

Director of Investigation and Research, Competition Act v. Southam Inc. et al., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 748; 209 N.R. 20, refd to. [para. 14].

Firestone Canada Inc. v. Pension Commis­sion (Ont.) (1990), 42 O.A.C. 176; 1 O.R.(3d) 122 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Stelco v. Superintendent of Pensions (Ont.) (1994), 75 O.A.C. 61; 114 D.L.R.(4th) 437 (Div. Ct.), affd. (1995), 85 O.A.C. 399; 126 D.L.R.(4th) 767 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied (1996), 201 N.R. 240; 95 O.A.C. 398 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 16].

Hawker Siddeley Canada Inc. v. Superin­tendent of Pensions (N.S.) et al. (1994), 129 N.S.R.(2d) 194; 362 A.P.R. 194 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Imperial Oil Ltd. v. Superintendent of Pensions (N.S.) et al. (1995), 142 N.S.R.(2d) 26; 407 A.P.R. 26 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied (1996), 201 N.R. 400; 151 N.S.R.(2d) 320; 440 A.P.R. 320 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 16].

Statutes Noticed:

Pension Benefits Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P-8, sect. 1 [para. 6]; sect. 69(1)(d) [para. 5].

Counsel:

J. Brett Ledger and Ian J. McSweeney, for the appellant;

Barrie Chercover and Margaret Correia, for the individual re­spondents;

Leslie McIntosh and Peggy McCallum, for the respondent, Superintendent of Pen­sions for Ontario.

This appeal was heard on September 9 and 10, 1997, by McMurtry, C.J.O., Robins and McKinlay, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. On March 11, 1998, the Court of Appeal delivered judgment and the following opinions were filed:

Robins, J.A. (McMurtry, C.J.O, concur­ring) - see paragraphs 1 to 24;

McKinlay, J.A., dissenting - see para­graphs 25 to 30.