Lomas v. Rio Algom Ltd. et al., 2010 ONCA 175

JudgeGillese, Blair and MacFarland, JJ.A.
CourtCourt of Appeal (Ontario)
Case DateNovember 16, 2009
JurisdictionOntario
Citations2010 ONCA 175;(2010), 259 O.A.C. 333 (CA)

Lomas v. Rio Algom Ltd. (2010), 259 O.A.C. 333 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2010] O.A.C. TBEd. MR.053

IN THE MATTER OF an application for the declaration and determination of certain rights of persons entitled to benefits under the defined benefits portion of the Rio Algom Pension Plan for Salaried Employees, established pursuant to a trust agreement between Rio Algom Mines Limited and Montreal Trust Company made January 26, 1966

IN THE MATTER OF the Pension Benefits Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8

Alexander E. Lomas (applicant/respondent) v. Rio Algom Limited, Royal Trust Corporation of Canada, Deborah Berthelot, Edward Campbell, Brent Cochrane, Jean Des Rivieres, Jerome Deveau, Ute Kollman, John Lill, Anthony Loschiavo, John McClintock, Susan McCormick, Frank Mitchell, Paul Muise, Francesca Panacci, Ralph Sloan, J.W. Russell Smith, Erick Underwood, Paul Warner, Syed Warsi, Siegfried Weidner and Maxine Wiber (respondents/appellant)

(C49042; 2010 ONCA 175)

Indexed As: Lomas v. Rio Algom Ltd. et al.

Ontario Court of Appeal

Gillese, Blair and MacFarland, JJ.A.

March 10, 2010.

Summary:

An applicant sought an order for the winding up of a pension plan and distribution of its remaining or residual assets in accordance with the pension plan. The plan administrator moved to strike certain portions of the notice of application. At issue was whether a court had jurisdiction to order an employer plan administrator to terminate a defined benefits pension plan and distribute its assets under the Pension Benefits Act (Ont.).

The Ontario Superior Court, in a decision reported at [2007] O.T.C. Uned. D69, dismissed the motion. The plan administrator appealed.

The Ontario Divisional Court, Murray, J., dissenting, in a decision reported at 233 O.A.C. 58, dismissed the appeal. The plan administrator appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, granted the plan administrator's motion and struck out the impugned paragraphs of the notice of application.

Master and Servant - Topic 1949

Remuneration - Pension or retirement benefits - Termination or revocation of plan - An applicant sought an order for the winding up of a pension plan and distribution of its remaining or residual assets in accordance with the pension plan - The plan administrator moved to strike certain portions of the notice of application - At issue was whether a court had jurisdiction to order an employer plan administrator to terminate a defined benefits pension plan and distribute its assets under the Pension Benefits Act (Ont.) if the applicant proved alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by the plan administrator - The Ontario Court of Appeal granted the plan administrator's motion and struck out the impugned paragraphs of the notice of application - The court did not have the authority to order the employer to commence wind up proceedings as part of its powers to effect restitution - Together, the Pension Benefits Act (PBA) and the Financial Services Commission of Ontario Act created a comprehensive statutory regime regarding the wind up of pension plans - Under that scheme, the court had no original jurisdiction to order the wind up of a pension plan - There was no difference between an order requiring an employer to wind up a pension plan and an order requiring an employer to commence wind up proceedings under the PBA - As there was no power in the court to order the former, there was no power in the court to order the latter - Therefore, it was "plain and obvious" that the court did not have the authority to order the employer to commence wind up proceedings under the PBA - See paragraphs 24 to 87.

Master and Servant - Topic 1949

Remuneration - Pension or retirement benefits - Termination or revocation of plan - An applicant sought an order for the winding up of a pension plan and distribution of its remaining or residual assets in accordance with the pension plan - The plan administrator moved to strike certain portions of the notice of application - At issue was whether a court had jurisdiction to order an employer plan administrator to terminate a defined benefits pension plan and distribute its assets under the Pension Benefits Act (Ont.) if the applicant proved alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by the plan administrator - The Divisional Court affirmed the dismissal of the motion on the ground that, inter alia, the court had the power to terminate a pension trust pursuant to trust law principles - The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the plan administrator's appeal on the ground that the court did not have the authority to order the employer to commence wind up proceedings - In respect of the trust argument, the court held, firstly, that a pension trust was "indissociable" from the pension plan - As the court could not order the wind up of a pension plan, and the plan and the trust were dissociable, the court could not terminate the pension trust - Secondly, the court was unaware of any trust law principle that allowed the court to terminate a trust before the purposes of the trust had been fulfilled - See paragraphs 88 to 96.

Practice - Topic 2226

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - General - [See first Master and Servant - Topic 1949 ].

Trusts - Topic 8521

Termination of trusts - Revocation or dissolution - General - [See second Master and Servant - Topic 1949 ].

Cases Noticed:

Buschau et al. v. Rogers Communications Inc. et al., [2006] 1 S.C.R. 973; 349 N.R. 324; 226 B.C.A.C. 25; 373 W.A.C. 25, appld. [para. 8].

Saunders v. Vautier (1841), Cr. & Ph. 240; 41 E.R. 482 (Ch. D.), refd to. [para. 16].

Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc. - see Hunt v. T & N plc et al.

Hunt v. T & N plc et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959; 117 N.R. 321, refd to. [para. 25, footnote 3].

PDC 3 Limited Partnership v. Bregman & Hamann Architects et al. (2001), 140 O.A.C. 302; 52 O.R.(3d) 533 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25, footnote 5].

Buschau et al. v. Rogers Cablesystems Inc. et al. (2001), 148 B.C.A.C. 263; 243 W.A.C. 263; 83 B.C.L.R.(3d) 261 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [2001] 2 S.C.R. vii; 275 N.R. 389; 160 B.C.A.C. 320; 261 W.A.C. 320, refd to. [para. 36, footnote 8].

Mahar v. Rogers Cablesystems Ltd. (1995), 25 O.R.(3d) 690 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 80].

GenCorp Canada Inc. v. Superintendent of Pensions (Ont.) et al. (1998), 114 O.A.C. 170; 39 O.R.(3d) 38 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [1998] 2 S.C.R. vii; 235 N.R. 197; 119 O.A.C. 400, refd to. [para. 81].

Nolan et al. v. Superintendent of Financial Services (Ont.) et al., [2009] 2 S.C.R. 678; 391 N.R. 234; 253 O.A.C. 256, refd to. [para. 81, footnote 34].

Loog v. Bean (1884), 26 Ch. D. 306 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 85, footnote 37].

Gaydon, Re, [2001] NSWSC 473, refd to. [para. 91, footnote 42].

Westfield QLD No. 1 Pty. Ltd. et al. v. Lend Lease Real Estate Investments Ltd. et al., [2008] NSWSC 516, refd to. [para. 93, footnote 43].

Canson Enterprises Ltd. et al. v. Boughton & Co. et al., [1991] 3 S.C.R. 534; 131 N.R. 321; 6 B.C.A.C. 1; 13 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 95, footnote 47].

Citadel General Life Assurance Co. et al. v. Lloyds Bank of Canada et al., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 805; 219 N.R. 323; 206 A.R. 321; 156 W.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 95, footnote 47].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Sharpe, Robert J., Injunctions and Specific Performance (2009 Looseleaf Supp.), para. 1.10 [para. 85, footnote 37].

Counsel:

Neil Finkelstein and Anne Glover, for the appellant;

C. Clifford Lax, Q.C. and Andrew J. Winton, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on November 16, 2009, by Gillese, Blair and MacFarland, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The following judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered by Gillese, J.A., on March 10, 2010.

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 practice notes
  • Court Of Appeal Summaries (August 7 ' 11, 2023)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • August 14, 2023
    ...(1994), 121 D.L.R. (4th) 162 (Ont. Gen. Div.)., Western Canadian Shopping Centres Inc. v. Dutton, 2001 SCC 46, Lomas v. Rio Algom Ltd., 2010 ONCA 175, Re Dickson et al. and Richardson (1981), 32 O.R. (2d) 158 (C.A.), Weber v. Ontario Hydro, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 929, Buschau v. Rogers Communicati......
  • Table of Cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Pension Law. Third Edition
    • August 5, 2021
    ...399, [2005] OJ No 544 (SCJ) ............................................................................... 310 Lomas v Rio Algom Ltd, 2010 ONCA 175 ............................... 16, 17, 150, 155, 510 London Life Insurance Co v Ontario (Superintendent of Financial Services) (2000), 26 CCP......
  • Regulation
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Pension Law. Third Edition
    • August 5, 2021
    ...applied to circumscribe the CEO’s authority to deal with a pension dispute. Ltd (2004), 70 OR (3d) 494 (SCJ). 142 Lomas v Rio Algom Ltd , 2010 ONCA 175 [ Rio Algom ]; McCann v Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp , 2012 ONCA 243, leave to appeal to SCC refused, [2012] SCCA No 286 [ McCann ]. 14......
  • Legal Nature of the Pension
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Pension Law. Third Edition
    • August 5, 2021
    ...paras 17 and 22. 64 Shaw v Healthcare of Ontario Pension Plan , 2013 ONCA 102 at 6. 65 Buschau , above note 18; Lomas v Rio Algom Ltd , 2010 ONCA 175 [ Rio Algom ]; Lacroix v Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp , 2012 ONCA 243, leave to appeal to SCC refused, [2012] SCCA No 286 [ CMHC ]. 66 Sc......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 cases
  • Rausch v. Pickering (City), [2012] O.A.C. Uned. 821 (DC)
    • Canada
    • Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
    • August 22, 2012
    ...is a direct cause of damages as set out herein for which the Defendant is liable in negligence. Analysis [67] In Lomas v. Rio Algom Ltd. 2010 ONCA 175 (CanLII), (2010), 99 O.R. (3d) 161, [2010] O.J. No. 932 (C.A.), Gillese J.A. summarized the law regarding a motion to strike a pleading unde......
  • McCann et al. v. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. et al., 2010 ONSC 65
    • Canada
    • Ontario Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
    • March 26, 2010
    ...et al. (2009), 250 O.A.C. 87 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 11]. Lomas v. Rio Algom Ltd. et al. (2008), 233 O.A.C. 58 (Div. Ct.), revd. (2010), 259 O.A.C. 333; 2010 ONCA 175, appld. [para. 58]. Buschau et al. v. Rogers Communications Inc. et al., [2006] 1 S.C.R. 973; 349 N.R. 324; 226 B.C.A.C.......
  • Mayer v. Mayer, [2013] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1958 (SC)
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
    • October 29, 2013
    ...in the event of deadlock, the court may intervene to provide directions in that regard. [97] Bhora relies on Lomas v. Rio Algom Limited, 2010 ONCA 175, 316 DLR (4th) 385, in which the Ontario Court of Appeal applied the reasoning of the New South Wales Supreme Court in Gaydon, Re , [2001] N......
  • Mayer v. Mayer, (2014) 359 B.C.A.C. 135 (CA)
    • Canada
    • British Columbia Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
    • May 30, 2014
    ...4 Beav. 115; 49 E.R. 282, affd. (1841), Cr. & Ph. 240; 41 E.R. 482 (Ch. D.), refd to. [para. 14]. Lomas v. Rio Algom Ltd. et al. (2010), 259 O.A.C. 333; 99 O.R.(3d) 161; 2010 ONCA 175, refd to. [para. Gaydon, Re, [2001] NSWSC 473, refd to. [para. 15]. Counsel: G.B. Gomery, Q.C., and P.R......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 firm's commentaries
  • Court Of Appeal Summaries (August 7 ' 11, 2023)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • August 14, 2023
    ...(1994), 121 D.L.R. (4th) 162 (Ont. Gen. Div.)., Western Canadian Shopping Centres Inc. v. Dutton, 2001 SCC 46, Lomas v. Rio Algom Ltd., 2010 ONCA 175, Re Dickson et al. and Richardson (1981), 32 O.R. (2d) 158 (C.A.), Weber v. Ontario Hydro, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 929, Buschau v. Rogers Communicati......
  • Litigation Update- May 2010
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • June 1, 2010
    ...members of the public. (b) Pensions – Winding-up – Rule in Saunders v. Vautier – Motion to Strike Pleadings: Lomas v. Rio Algom Limited, 2010 ONCA 175, Released 10 March 2010 Rio Algom established a defined benefit pension plan in 1966, which was changed effective 1997 to a plan with a defi......
  • Ontario Court Of Appeal Holds Pension Plan Members Cannot Require Employer To Wind Up Plan
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • March 15, 2010
    ...to court. This may lead to slightly more Financial Services Tribunal hearings in the future, and slightly fewer court cases Footnotes 2010 ONCA 175. [2006] 1 S.C.R. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.8. (1841), Cr. & Ph. 240, 41 E.R. 482 (Ch. D.). About BLG The content of this article is intended to pro......
4 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Pension Law. Third Edition
    • August 5, 2021
    ...399, [2005] OJ No 544 (SCJ) ............................................................................... 310 Lomas v Rio Algom Ltd, 2010 ONCA 175 ............................... 16, 17, 150, 155, 510 London Life Insurance Co v Ontario (Superintendent of Financial Services) (2000), 26 CCP......
  • Regulation
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Pension Law. Third Edition
    • August 5, 2021
    ...applied to circumscribe the CEO’s authority to deal with a pension dispute. Ltd (2004), 70 OR (3d) 494 (SCJ). 142 Lomas v Rio Algom Ltd , 2010 ONCA 175 [ Rio Algom ]; McCann v Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp , 2012 ONCA 243, leave to appeal to SCC refused, [2012] SCCA No 286 [ McCann ]. 14......
  • Legal Nature of the Pension
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Pension Law. Third Edition
    • August 5, 2021
    ...paras 17 and 22. 64 Shaw v Healthcare of Ontario Pension Plan , 2013 ONCA 102 at 6. 65 Buschau , above note 18; Lomas v Rio Algom Ltd , 2010 ONCA 175 [ Rio Algom ]; Lacroix v Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp , 2012 ONCA 243, leave to appeal to SCC refused, [2012] SCCA No 286 [ CMHC ]. 66 Sc......
  • Wind up
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books Pension Law. Third Edition
    • August 5, 2021
    ...fund. 9 Employees cease accruing beneits as of the efective 1 Pension Beneits Act , RSO 1990, c P.8 [ PBA ]. 2 Lomas v Rio Algom Ltd , 2010 ONCA 175 [ Lomas ]; McCann v Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp , 2012 ONCA 243, leave to appeal to SCC refused, [2012] SCCA No 286 [ McCann ]. 3 Buschau......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT