Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Superintendent of Financial Services (Ont.) et al., (2004) 189 O.A.C. 201 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin, C.J.C., Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Deschamps and Fish, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: July 29, 2004
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (2004), 189 O.A.C. 201 (SCC);2004 SCC 54;[2004] SCJ No 51 (QL);17 Admin LR (4th) 1;[2004] 3 SCR 152;[2004] ACS no 51;45 BLR (3d) 161;JE 2004-1546;132 ACWS (3d) 579;242 DLR (4th) 193;189 OAC 201;324 NR 259

Monsanto Can. v. Superintendent (2004), 189 O.A.C. 201 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Temp. Cite: [2004] O.A.C. TBEd. JL.073

Monsanto Canada Inc. (appellant) v. Superintendent of Financial Services (respondent)

The Association of Canadian Pension Management (appellant) v. Superintendent of Financial Services (respondent) and Attorney General of Canada, National Trust Company, Nicole Lacroix, R.M. Smallhorn, D.G. Halsall, S.J. Galbraith, S.W. (Bud) Wesley, Canadian Labour Congress and Ontario Federation of Labour (intervenors)

(29586; 2004 SCC 54; 2004 CSC 54)

Indexed As: Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Superintendent of Financial Services (Ont.) et al.

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Deschamps and Fish, JJ.

July 29, 2004.

Summary:

As a result of a reorganization, 146 members of a pension plan at Monsanto Inc. had their employment terminated. The issue then arose whether Monsanto was required by the Pension Benefits Act to distribute the surplus arising from the partial wind up of the defined benefit pension plan to the affected members. Monsanto submitted a partial wind up report, which did not provide for such a distribution, to the Superintendent of Financial Services. The Superintendent refused to approve the report, and Monsanto exercised its right to a hearing before the Financial Services Tribunal. The majority of the Tribunal ordered the Superintendent to approve the report. The Superintendent appealed.

The Ontario Divisional Court, in a decision reported at (2001), 144 O.A.C. 204, held that the Act required that the surplus be distributed. Monsanto appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, in a judgment reported (2002), 166 O.A.C. 131, dismissed the appeal. Monsanto appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.

Administrative Law - Topic 9102

Boards and tribunals - Judicial review - Standard of review - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the appropriate standard of review was a question of law and agreement between the parties as to the appropriate standard was not appropriate - The court must still evaluate the four factors comprising the pragmatic and functional approach - See paragraph 6.

Administrative Law - Topic 9102

Boards and tribunals - Judicial review - Standard of review - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the appropriate standard of review of a decision by the Financial Services Tribunal on a pure question of law was correctness - See paragraphs 7 to 16.

Master and Servant - Topic 1949

Remuneration - Pension benefits - Termination of plan - 146 members of a pension plan at Monsanto Inc. had their employment terminated - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that Monsanto was required by s. 70(6) of the Pension Benefits Act to distribute to the affected employees the actuarial surplus arising from the partial wind up of the defined benefit pension plan - Section 70(6) provided that "on the partial wind up of a pension plan, members, former members and other persons entitled to benefits under the pension plan shall have rights and benefits that are not less that the rights and benefits they would have on a full wind up of the pension plan on the effective date of the partial wind up" - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "s. 70(6) requires the distribution of actuarial surplus related to the part of the Plan being wound up, on the effective date of the partial wind up. ... This result is also consistent with the historical context of pension law. ... Considering the text, scheme and purpose of the Act against this background discloses an intent of the legislature to require surplus distribution on partial wind up of a plan." - See paragraphs 17 to 49.

Master and Servant - Topic 1959

Remuneration - Pension benefits - Distribution of surplus funds - [See Master and Servant - Topic 1949 ].

Master and Servant - Topic 1960

Remuneration - Pension benefits - On dismissal - [See Master and Servant - Topic 1949 ].

Cases Noticed:

Barrie Public Utilities et al. v. Canadian Cable Television Association et al., [2003] 1 S.C.R. 476; 304 N.R. 1; 2003 SCC 28, refd to. [para. 7].

Minister of National Revenue (Customs and Excise) v. Mattel Canada Inc., [2001] 2 S.C.R. 100; 270 N.R. 153; 2001 SCC 36, refd to. [para. 7].

Voice Construction Ltd. v. Construction & General Workers' Union, Local 92 (2004), 318 N.R. 332; 346 A.R. 201; 320 W.A.C. 201; 2004 SCC 23, refd to. [para. 8].

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; 160 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [para. 8].

Ryan v. Law Society of New Brunswick, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 247; 302 N.R. 1; 257 N.B.R.(2d) 207; 674 A.P.R. 207; 2003 SCC 20, refd to. [para. 9].

Attis v. Board of Education of District No. 15 et al., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 825; 195 N.R. 81; 171 N.B.R.(2d) 321; 437 A.P.R. 321, refd to. [para. 10].

Ross v. New Brunswick School District No. 15 - see Attis v. Board of Education of District No. 15 et al.

National Corn Growers' Association et al. v. Canadian Import Tribunal, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1324; 114 N.R. 81; 74 D.L.R.(4th) 449, refd to. [para. 11].

GenCorp Canada Inc. v. Superintendent of Pensions (Ont.) et al. (1998), 114 O.A.C. 170; 158 D.L.R.(4th) 497 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817; 243 N.R. 22; 174 D.L.R.(4th) 193, refd to. [para. 15].

Dr. Q., Re, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 226; 302 N.R. 34; 179 B.C.A.C. 170; 295 W.A.C. 170; 2003 SCC 19, refd to. [para. 15].

Director of Investigation and Research, Competition Act v. Southam Inc. et al., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 748; 209 N.R. 20; 144 D.L.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 15].

Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 559; 287 N.R. 248; 166 B.C.A.C. 1; 271 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 42, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Campbell (J.) and Shirose (S.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 565; 237 N.R. 86; 119 O.A.C. 201, refd to. [para. 35].

Firestone Canada Inc. v. Pension Commission (Ont.) (1990), 42 O.A.C. 176; 1 O.R.(3d) 122 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

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. 38].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Deaton, Richard Lee, The Political Economy of Pensions: Power, Politics and Social Change in Canada, Britain and the United States (1989), pp. 79, 122, 123 [para. 20]; 134 [para. 21].

Dewetering, June, Occupational Pension Plans: Selected Policy Issues (1991), p. 17 [para. 21].

Driedger, Elmer A., Construction of Statutes (2nd Ed. 1983), p. 87 [para. 19].

Gillese, Eileen E., Pension Plans and The Law of Trusts (1996), 75 Can. Bar Rev. 221, pp. 226, 227, 228 [para. 20].

Mercer, William M., Mercer Pension Manual (1988) (Looseleaf Ed.), pp. 1 to 9 [para. 20].

Ontario, Royal Commission, Report on the Status of Pensions in Ontario (1980), vol. 1, pp. 2, 35 [para. 20].

Sullivan, Ruth, Sullivan and Driedger on the Construction of Statutes (4th Ed. 2002), p. 282 [para. 35].

Counsel:

Freya Kristjanson and Markus Kremer, for the appellant, Monsanto Canada Inc.;

Jeffrey W. Galway and Randy Bauslaugh, for the appellant, Association of Canadian Pension Management;

Deborah McPhail and Leslie McIntosh, for the respondent, Superintendent of Financial Services (Ont.);

Donald J. Rennie and Kirk Lambrecht, Q.C., for the intervenor, Attorney General of Canada;

William J. Sammon, for the intervenor, Nicole Lacroix;

Mark Zigler and Ari N. Kaplan, for the intervenors, R.M. Smallhorn, D.G. Halsall, S.J. Galbraith and S.W. (Bud) Wesley;

J. Brett Ledger and Lindsay P. Hill, for the intervenor, National Trust Co.;

Howard Goldblatt, Dona Campbell and Ethan Poskanzer, for the intervenors, Canadian Labour Congress and Ontario Federation of Labour.

Solicitors of Record:

Borden Ladner Gervais, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant, Monsanto Canada Inc.;

Blake, Cassels & Graydon, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant, Association of Canadian Pension Management;

Ministry of the Attorney General of Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent, Superintendent of Financial Services (Ont.);

Attorney General of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervenor, Attorney General of Canada;

Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, National Trust Co.;

Barnes, Sammon, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervenor, Nicole Lacroix;

Sack Goldblatt Mitchell, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenors, Canadian Labour Congress and Ontario Federation of Labour;

Koskie Minsky, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenors, R.M. Smallhorn, D.G. Halsall, S.J. Galbraith and S.W. (Bud) Wesley.

This appeal was heard on February 16, 2004, before McLachlin, C.J.C., Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache, Binnie, Deschamps and Fish, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On July 29, 2004, Deschamps, J., delivered the following judgment in both official languages for the Court.