Alberta Society for Pension Reform v. Alberta et al., (2007) 450 A.R. 191 (QB)

• Judge: Rooke, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: April 03, 2007
• Citations: (2007), 450 A.R. 191 (QB);2008 ABQB 74

Alta. Soc. for Pension Reform v. Alta. (2007), 450 A.R. 191 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2008] A.R. TBEd. JN.011

Alberta Society for Pension Reform (plaintiff/respondent) v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta, Alberta Pensions Administration Corporation and Alberta Teachers' Retirement Fund Board (defendants/applicants)

(0401 18318; 2008 ABQB 74)

Indexed As: Alberta Society for Pension Reform v. Alberta et al.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Calgary

Rooke, J.

April 3, 2007.

Summary:

The Alberta Society for Pension Reform brought a class action against the defendants, Alberta, the Alberta Pensions Administration Corp. and the Alberta Teachers' Retirement Fund Board, asserting that the Crown was liable and/or vicariously liable for the acts and admissions of the defendants on the basis of (1) breaches of fiduciary and trust obligations; (2) breaches of statutory duties and obligations; (3) making various misrepresentations; (4) unjustly enriching itself in two respects: (a) reducing pension benefits payable; and (b) using accumulated pension contributions for purposes other than the payment of benefits; and (5) negligence in four respects: (a) failing to integrate the Public Service Pension Plan, Local Authorities Pension Plan and Alberta Teachers' Retirement Fund with the Canada Pension Plan in such a way that benefits payable to the participating employees remained unchanged; (b) allowing disproportionately reduced benefits; (c) permitting unfunded liabilities to accrue; and (d) over-reporting pension contributions and benefits thus resulting in artificially reduced RRSP contribution limits. The defendants applied for an order striking the statement of claim and dismissing the class proceeding under rule 129(1)(a) of the Alberta Rules of Court as (a) disclosing no cause of action; and/or (b) the Society had no standing in fact or in law to assert any of the claims alleged against the defendants.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench determined the issues.

Practice - Topic 209.4

Persons who can sue and be sued - Individuals and corporations - Status or standing - Class actions - Certification - Appointment or replacement of representative plaintiff - The Alberta Society for Pension Reform brought a class action against the defendants (Alberta, the Alberta Pensions Administration Corp. and the Alberta Teachers' Retirement Fund Board) asserting improper handling of pension plan issues - The defendants applied for an order striking the statement of claim and dismissing the class proceeding under rule 129(1)(a) of the Alberta Rules of Court as the Society had no standing in fact or in law to assert any of the claims alleged against the defendants - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that at the time of the commencement of the proceeding, the proposed representative plaintiff had to be a member of the proposed class under s. 2(1) of the Class Proceedings Act - Section 2(1) was very specific: "One member of a class of persons may commence a proceeding in the Court on behalf of the members of that class" - That meant that: (1) (as would seem obvious) commencing such a proceeding was not mandatory, but that it was permissive; but, (2) if a proceeding was commenced, it had to be commenced by a "member of a class of persons" - Accordingly, the action had to fail unless another representative plaintiff was appointed - See paragraphs 32 to 40.

Practice - Topic 2230

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - Failure to disclose a cause of action or defence - The Alberta Society for Pension Reform brought a class action against the defendants (Alberta, the Alberta Pensions Administration Corp. and the Alberta Teachers' Retirement Fund Board) claiming (1) breaches of fiduciary and trust obligations; (2) breaches of statutory duties and obligations; (3) making various misrepresentations; (4) unjust enrichment in two respects: (a) reducing pension benefits payable; and (b) using accumulated pension contributions for purposes other than the payment of benefits; and (5) negligence in four respects: (a) failing to integrate the Public Service Pension Plan, Local Authorities Pension Plan and Alberta Teachers' Retirement Fund with the Canada Pension Plan in such a way that benefits payable to the participating employees remained unchanged; (b) allowing disproportionately reduced benefits; (c) permitting unfunded liabilities to accrue; and (d) over-reporting pension contributions and benefits thus resulting in artificially reduced RRSP contribution limits - The defendants applied for an order striking the statement of claim and dismissing the class proceeding under rule 129(1)(a) of the Alberta Rules of Court as disclosing no cause of action - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that "it is established law that governments, at least in the absence of bad faith [ ... ] ultra-vires or other procedural invalidity (not alleged here, although there may be a lack of a cause of action in the last two as well), at any level cannot be held liable for the consequences of enactments. That is, governments do not owe a private law duty of care and cannot be liable for damages in the exercise of legislative functions (including regulation validly issued thereunder). Moreover, the legislature is under no duty to change enactments or recommend changes to enactments. Additionally, the Crown is not generally viewed as being a fiduciary in the exercise of its legislative function. Furthermore, the relief sought can only be implemented by way of the Legislature amending the legislation, or the Lieutenant-Governor in Council (or other authorized person or body) amending the regulations under legislation (collectively, amending enactments), that governs the Plans, which, absent Charter application (again, not sought here), as the Crown argues, 'this Court cannot direct the Province to enact or amend legislation'" - Accordingly, the court ordered that any part of the amended statement of claim that came within these categories of prohibited claims be struck - See paragraphs 22 to 31.

Cases Noticed:

Welbridge Holdings Ltd. v. Greater Winnipeg (Municipality), [1971] S.C.R. 957, refd to. [para. 14].

Gillespie v. Gessert, 2006 ABQB 949, 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. 17].

Owners-Condominium Plan No. 0020701 v. Investplan Properties Inc. et al., [2006] A.R. Uned. 192; 2006 ABQB 224, refd to. [para. 18].

Mackin v. New Brunswick (Minister of Finance) - see Rice, P.C.J. v. New Brunswick.

Rice, P.C.J. v. New Brunswick, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 405; 282 N.R. 201; 245 N.B.R.(2d) 299; 636 A.P.R. 299, refd to. [para. 23].

Guimond v. Québec (Procureur général), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 347; 201 N.R. 380, refd to. [para. 24].

Birch Builders Ltd. et al. v. Esquimalt (Township) et al. (1992), 12 B.C.A.C. 144; 23 W.A.C. 144 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

Moin v. Collingwood (Township) (1996), 18 O.T.C. 280 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 24].

Gladstone Petroleum Ltd. v. Husky Oil (Alberta) Ltd. (1982), 18 Sask.R. 273 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

F.G.M. Holdings Ltd. v. Workers' Compensation Board (B.C.), [2000] B.C.T.C. 598 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 24].

Granite Power Corp. v. Ontario et al. (2004), 189 O.A.C. 128; 72 O.R.(3d) 194 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

A.O. Farms Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Agriculture) et al., [2000] F.T.R. Uned. 510 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 24].

Just v. British Columbia, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1228; 103 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 24].

Brown v. British Columbia (Minister of Transportation and Highways), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 420; 164 N.R. 161; 42 B.C.A.C. 1; 67 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 24].

Swinamer v. Nova Scotia (Attorney General) et al., [1994] 1 S.C.R. 445; 163 N.R. 291; 129 N.S.R.(2d) 321; 362 A.P.R. 321, refd to. [para. 24].

Ontario Black Bear/Ontario Sportsmen and Resource Users Association v. Ontario et al., [2000] O.T.C. 65 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 24].

Sander Holdings Ltd. et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) (2004), 247 F.T.R. 123 (F.C.), revd. in part (2005), 329 N.R. 214 (F.C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

Momi et al. v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) (2005), 283 F.T.R. 143 (F.C.), refd to. [para. 24].

Premakumaran v. Canada, [2005] F.T.R. Uned. 678 (F.C.), refd to. [para. 24].

Gorecki v. Canada (Attorney General) (2006), 208 O.A.C. 368 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

Kimpton v. Canada (Attorney General) et al., [2002] B.C.T.C. 1645 (S.C.), affd. (2004), 194 B.C.A.C. 236; 317 W.A.C. 236; 2004 BCCA 72, refd to. [para. 24].

Holtslag v. Alberta (2006), 380 A.R. 133; 363 W.A.C. 133 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

Klein v. American Medical Systems Inc. et al., [2006] O.A.C. Uned. 243 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 24].

Wuttunee et al. v. Merck Frosst Canada Ltd. (2007), 291 Sask.R. 161 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 24].

Lucas v. Toronto Police Service Board et al. (2001), 148 O.A.C. 215; 54 O.R.(3d) 715 (Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 24].

Kwong Estate v. Alberta et al. (1978), 14 A.R. 120 (C.A.), affd. [1979] 2 S.C.R. 1010; 29 N.R. 295; 18 A.R. 358, refd to. [para. 24].

Guerin v. Canada (1984), 55 N.R. 161; 1984 CarswellNat 813 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 24].

Gladstone v. Canada (Attorney General) (2005), 332 N.R. 182; 210 B.C.A.C. 1; 348 W.A.C. 1; 2005 CarswellBC 911 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 24].

Roberts v. R. - see Wewayakum Indian Band v. Canada and Wewayakai Indian Band.

Wewayakum Indian Band v. Canada and Wewayakai Indian Band (2002), 297 N.R. 1; 2002 CarswellNat 3438 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 24].

Québec (Procureur général) v. Office national de l'énergie, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 159; 163 N.R. 241, refd to. [para. 24].

Perron v. Canada (Attorney General), [2003] O.T.C. 275; 2003 CarswellOnt 1187 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 24].

Hislop et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2003] O.T.C. 1111; 2003 CarswellOnt 5183 (Sup. Ct.), revd. in part (2004), 192 O.A.C. 331; 246 D.L.R.(4th) 644 (C.A.), affd. (2007), 358 N.R. 197; 222 O.A.C. 324; 2007 SCC 10, refd to. [para. 24].

Williams et al. v. College Board of Trustees et al. (2007), 236 B.C.A.C. 287; 390 W.A.C. 287 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

Garland v. Consumers' Gas Co., [2004] 1 S.C.R. 629; 319 N.R. 38; 186 O.A.C. 128, refd to. [para. 24].

Monenco Ltd. et al. v. Commonwealth Insurance Co. et al., [2001] 2 S.C.R. 699; 274 N.R. 84; 155 B.C.A.C. 161; 254 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 24].

R.B. v. Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto - see Sheena B., Re.

Sheena B., Re, [1995] 1 S.C.R. 315; 176 N.R. 161; 78 O.A.C. 1; 1995 CarswellOnt 301, refd to. [para. 24].

Korte et al. v. Deloitte Haskins & Sells et al. (1993), 135 A.R. 389; 33 W.A.C. 389 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

Principal Group Ltd. (Bankrupt) and Valan v. Alberta (1991), 118 A.R. 40 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 27].

Nielsen v. Kamloops (City) and Hughes, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 2; 54 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 30].

Tottrup v. Alberta (Minister of the Environment) - see Tottrup v. Lund et al.

Tottrup v. Lund et al. (2000), 255 A.R. 204; 220 W.A.C. 204 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

Nanaimo Community Bingo Association et al. v. British Columbia (1999), 15 B.C.T.C. 20 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 32].

Ontario New Home Warranty Program v. General Electric Co. (1998), 50 O.T.C. 333; 36 O.R.(3d) 287 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 32].

Windsor v. Canadian Pacific Railway Ltd. (2006), 402 A.R. 162; 2006 ABQB 348, revd. in part (2007), 417 A.R. 200; 410 W.A.C. 200; 2007 ABCA 294, refd to. [para. 39].

Metera et al. v. Financial Planning Group et al. (2003), 332 A.R. 244; 2003 ABQB 326, refd to. [para. 40].

Consumers' Association of Canada et al. v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. et al., [2006] B.C.T.C. Uned. C70; 2006 BCSC 863, refd to. [para. 40].

McSheffrey v. Ontario - see Ontario Public Service Employees Union et al. v. Ontario.

Ontario Public Service Employees Union et al. v. Ontario, [2005] O.T.C. 357 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 40].

Campbell et al. v. Flexwatt Corp. et al. (1997), 98 B.C.A.C. 22; 161 W.A.C. 22 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].

Tembec Industries Inc. v. Parisian et al. (2006), 209 Man.R.(2d) 230; 2006 MBQB 248, refd to. [para. 40].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Dussault, René, and Borgeat, Louis, Administrative Law: A Treatise (2nd Ed.) (1990), vol. 5 [para. 23]; p. 177 [para. 25].

Hogg, Peter W., and Monahan, Patrick J., Liability of the Crown (3rd Ed. 2000), pp. 163, 164, 165 [para. 23].

Horsman, Karen, and Morley, Gareth, Government Liability: Law and Practice (2007) (Looseleaf), p. 5-34 [para. 23].

Counsel:

Virginia M. May, Q.C., S. Shawa and G. Price (May Jensen Shawa Solomon LLP), for the plaintiff/respondent;

W. Branch, Lionel H. Whittaker, J. Mayan and M. Campbell, for the defendants/applicants.

This application was heard on April 3, 2007, by Rooke, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Calgary, who delivered his decision orally on the same date. The following supplementary memorandum of decision was filed on January 29, 2008.