Halliburton Group Canada Inc. v. Alberta (Minister of Finance) et al., (2009) 481 A.R. 72 (QB)

• Judge: Horner, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: November 20, 2008
• Citations: (2009), 481 A.R. 72 (QB);2009 ABQB 420

Halliburton Group Can. Inc. v. Alta. (2009), 481 A.R. 72 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2009] A.R. TBEd. AU.046

Halliburton Group Canada Inc. (applicant) v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta, as represented by the Minister of Finance and Dennis Gartner, in his capacity as Superintendent of Pensions for the Province of Alberta (respondents)

(0801 04742; 2009 ABQB 420)

Indexed As: Halliburton Group Canada Inc. v. Alberta (Minister of Finance) et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Calgary

Horner, J.

July 9, 2009.

Summary:

The Alberta Superintendent of Pensions directed Halliburton Group Canada (a pension plan sponsor and administrator) to rescind a certain amendment to its pension plan and file resulting revised cost certificates and actuarial valuations which projected salaries for certain of its pension plan members. Halliburton would have to remit additional funds to fund the revised benefits as outlined in the revised cost certificates. Halliburton filed a notice of motion seeking a statutory right of appeal under s. 26 of the Employment Pension Plans Act and a judicial review of the decisions of the Superintendent.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the judicial review/judicial appeal.

Administrative Law - Topic 546

The hearing and decision - Decisions of the tribunal - Reasons for decisions - General - [See Master and Servant - Topic 1946 ].

Administrative Law - Topic 3303

Judicial review - General - Bars - Appeal or review available - The Alberta Superintendent of Pensions directed Halliburton, a pension plan sponsor/administrator, to rescind a certain amendment to its pension plan and file resulting revised cost certificates and actuarial valuations which projected salaries for certain of its pension plan members - Halliburton filed a notice of motion seeking a statutory right of appeal under s. 26 of the Employment Pension Plans Act (EPPA) and a judicial review of the Superintendent's decisions - An issue arose as to whether Halliburton could proceed by way of judicial review proceedings when a right of statutory appeal was set out in the EPPA - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench noted that generally judicial review was not available where an equally effective appeal existed - In this case, however, most of the factors identified in the case law in determining whether the court should proceed by way of judicial review or statutory appeal were not in issue - Further, both parties agreed that the statutory appeal would not be adequate under the circumstances - Therefore the court allowed the matter to proceed as a combination of judicial review and statutory appeal - See paragraphs 35 to 41.

Master and Servant - Topic 1946

Remuneration - Pension or retirement benefits - Variation, amendment or rectification of plan - Halliburton Group Canada (a pension plan sponsor and administrator) changed a pension plan from a defined benefit to a defined contribution plan and filed amendments with the Superintendent of Pensions (Alta.) - The Superintendent directed Halliburton to rescind a certain amendment which the Superintendent considered had the effect of reducing member benefits contrary to s. 81 of the Employment Pension Plans Act (EPPA) - Halliburton appealed under s. 26 of the EPPA and applied for judicial review of the Superintendent's decisions - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench noted that while the Superintendent's directions were brief and did not contain detailed reasons, this was a case where the court could exercise flexibility and consider letters from the Office of the Superintendent as reasons for the decision - In all the circumstances, the court considered the Superintendent's decision to be reasonable - The decision fell within the range of possible, acceptable outcomes, which were defensible in respect of the facts and law - See paragraphs 80 to 97.

Master and Servant - Topic 1948.1

Remuneration - Pension or retirement benefits - Regulation - Superintendent or tribunal - General - The Alberta Superintendent of Pensions directed Halliburton, a pension plan sponsor/administrator, to rescind a certain amendment to its pension plan because it did not comply with s. 81 of the Employment Pension Plans Act (EPPA) pension legislation and file resulting revised cost certificates and actuarial valuations which projected salaries for certain of its pension plan members - Halliburton appealed under s. 26 of the EPPA and applied for judicial review of the Superintendent's decisions, arguing that by directing a plan sponsor to rescind a specified paragraph of a previously registered pension plan amendment, the Superintendent was acting outside his authority - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed Halliburton's appeal/judicial review - The court stated that the combined effect of ss. 8(1) and (2) of the EPPA was to give the Superintendent the jurisdiction to revoke all or a portion of a pension plan amendment after it had been duly registered by the Superintendent - See paragraphs 98 to 104.

Master and Servant - Topic 1948.3

Remuneration - Pension or retirement benefits - Regulation - Superintendent or tribunal - Judicial review - Standard of review - The Alberta Superintendent of Pensions directed Halliburton, a pension plan sponsor/administrator, to rescind a certain amendment to its pension plan because it did not comply with s. 81 of the Employment Pension Plans Act (EPPA) pension legislation and file resulting revised cost certificates and actuarial valuations which projected salaries for certain of its pension plan members - Halliburton appealed under s. 26 of the EPPA and applied for judicial review of the Superintendent's decisions - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the matter to proceed as a combination of judicial review and statutory appeal - The court discussed the standard of review, noting that since this matter was not decided in the case law, Dunsmuir (SCC 2008) required a full Pushpanathan analysis - Upon doing so, the court held that three of the four Pushpanathan factors supported treating the Superintendent's decision with deference - Therefore the standard of review was reasonableness - See paragraphs 42 to 79.

Master and Servant - Topic 1948.3

Remuneration - Pension or retirement benefits - Regulation - Superintendent or tribunal - Judicial review - [See Administrative Law - Topic 3303 ].

Cases Noticed:

Harelkin v. University of Regina, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 561; 26 N.R. 364, refd to. [para. 39].

Foster v. Transportation and Safety Board (Alta.) (2006), 397 A.R. 82; 384 W.A.C. 82; 2006 ABCA 282, refd to. [para. 39].

Merchant v. Law Society of Alberta (2008), 440 A.R. 377; 438 W.A.C. 377; 2008 ABCA 363, refd to. [para. 40].

Imperial Oil Resources Ltd. v. 826167 Alberta Inc., [2005] A.R. Uned. 389; 2005 ABQB 309, affd. (2007), 404 A.R. 212; 394 W.A.C. 212; 2007 ABCA 131, leave to appeal refused (2007), 379 N.R. 396; 448 A.R. 244; 447 W.A.C. 244 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 42].

New Brunswick (Board of Management) v. Dunsmuir, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 190; 372 N.R. 1; 329 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 844 A.P.R. 1; 2008 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 43].

Pushpanathan v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 982, addendum [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1222; 226 N.R. 201, refd to. [para. 44].

Lake v. Canada (Minister of Justice), [2008] 1 S.C.R. 761; 373 N.R. 339; 236 O.A.C. 371; 2008 SCC 23, refd to. [para. 45].

Akita Drilling Ltd. v. Workers' Compensation Board Appeals Commission (Alta.) (2003), 351 A.R. 230; 2003 ABQB 1030, refd to. [para. 47].

Khosa v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2009] 1 S.C.R. 339; 385 N.R. 206; 2009 SCC 12, refd to. [para. 49].

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. [para. 51].

Kerry (Canada) Inc. v. Superintendent of Financial Services (Ont.) - see Nolan et al. v. Superintendent of Financial Services (Ont.) et al.

Nolan et al. v. Superintendent of Financial Services (Ont.) et al. (2007), 225 O.A.C. 163; 86 O.R.(3d) 1; 2007 ONCA 416, refd to. [para. 62].

University of Alberta v. Information and Privacy Commissioner (Alta.) et al. (2009), 470 A.R. 72; 2009 ABQB 112, refd to. [para. 75].

Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. v. Bennett & Bennett Holdings Ltd., [2008] A.R. Uned. 350; 2008 ABCA 440, refd to. [para. 76].

Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22, refd to. [para. 85].

Statutes Noticed:

Employment Pension Plans Act, R.S.A. 2000 c. E - 8, sect. 8(1), sect. 8(2) [para. 99]; sect. 8(3) [para. 100]; sect. 24(1), sect. 25(1) [para. 101]; sect. 26(1) [para. 35]; sect. 81(1) [para. 83].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Jones, David Phillip, and de Villars, Anne S., Principles of Administrative Law (4th Ed. 2004), pp. 354 [para. 85]; 545 [para. 39].

Mullan, David J., Establishing the Standard of Review: The Struggle for Complexity? (2004), 17 C.J.A.L.P. 59, p. 93 [para. 49].

Counsel:

Maureen Killoran (Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP), for the applicant;

Jeffrey Mayan (Alberta Justice), for the respondent.

This application/appeal was heard on November 20, 2008 and January 19, 2009, before Horner, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Calgary, who delivered the following decision on July 9, 2009.