Halliburton Group Canada Inc. v. Alberta (Minister of Finance) et al., 2010 ABCA 254

• Judge: Conrad, Berger and Martin, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: May 06, 2010
• Citations: 2010 ABCA 254;(2010), 490 A.R. 63 (CA)

Halliburton Group Can. Inc. v. Alta. (2010), 490 A.R. 63 (CA);

      497 W.A.C. 63

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2010] A.R. TBEd. SE.039

Halliburton Group Canada Inc. (appellant/plaintiff) 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 of the Province of Alberta (respondents/defendants)

(0901-0228-AC; 2010 ABCA 254)

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

Alberta Court of Appeal

Conrad, Berger and Martin, JJ.A.

September 9, 2010.

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, in a decision reported (2009), 481 A.R. 72, dismissed the judicial review/judicial appeal. Halliburton appealed.

The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Master and Servant - Topic 1946

Remuneration - Pension or retirement benefits - Variation, amendment or rectification of plan - [See Master and Servant - Topic 1948.1 and Master and Servant - Topic 1948.3 ].

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 an amendment to its pension plan because it did not comply with s. 81 of the Employment Pension Plans Act (EPPA) - Halliburton appealed under s. 26 of the EPPA and applied for judicial review, 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 - A chambers judge dismissed Halliburton's application - 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 - Halliburton appealed - The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - See paragraph 42.

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 an amendment to its pension plan because the amendments constituted a retroactive reduction to a vested benefit in contravention of the Employment Pension Plans Act (EPPA) and the pension plan - Halliburton appealed under s. 26 of the EPPA and applied for judicial review - A chambers judge allowed the matter to proceed as a combination judicial review/statutory appeal; however, applying a standard of review of reasonableness, the judge dismissed the review/appeal - Halliburton appealed - The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - The court held that a direction was not subject to a statutory right of appeal; thus the chambers judge erred in proceeding, albeit with the concurrence of counsel, on the premise that a statutory right of appeal was available with respect to the directions of the Superintendent - However, the chambers judge was correct in concluding that reasonableness was the proper standard of review - The court concluded that the Superintendent's decision to issue the directions was reasonable and the directions would stand.

Cases Noticed:

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. 14].

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. 20].

Goodine v. Milk Marketing Board (N.B.) (2003), 263 N.B.R.(2d) 386; 689 A.P.R. 386; 2003 NBCA 59, refd to. [para. 20].

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. 22].

Cousins v. Canada (Attorney General) (2008), 386 N.R. 223; 2008 FCA 226, refd to. [para. 25].

Buschau et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2009), 393 N.R. 337; 2009 FCA 258, refd to. [para. 25].

Dinney v. Great-West Life Assurance Co. et al. (2005), 192 Man.R.(2d) 229; 340 W.A.C. 229; 252 D.L.R.(4th) 660 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

Statutes Noticed:

Employment Pension Plans Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. E-8, sect. 8 [para. 17]; sect. 81(1)(a) [para. 29]; sect. 81(2) [para. 30].

Counsel:

M.E. Killoram, for the appellant/plaintiff;

J.H. Mayan and J.B. Currie, for the respondents/defendants.

This appeal was heard on May 6, 2010, before Conrad, Berger and Martin, JJ.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal. The following decision was delivered by Berger, J.A., for the court, and filed in Calgary, Alberta, on September 9, 2010.