Saskatchewan Government and General Employees Union et al. v. Public Service Superannuation Board, 2016 SKCA 56

• Judge: Caldwell, Herauf and Ryan-Froslie, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
• Case Date: February 08, 2016
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: 2016 SKCA 56;(2016), 476 Sask.R. 306 (CA)

SSGEU v. Superannuation Bd. (2016), 476 Sask.R. 306 (CA);

    666 W.A.C. 306

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2016] Sask.R. TBEd. MY.001

Government of Saskatchewan (appellant/respondent) and Saskatchewan Government and General Employees Union and Charles Peterson (respondents/applicants) v. Public Service Superannuation Board (respondent/respondent)

(CACV2784; 2016 SKCA 56)

Indexed As: Saskatchewan Government and General Employees Union et al. v. Public Service Superannuation Board

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

Caldwell, Herauf and Ryan-Froslie, JJ.A.

April 20, 2016.

Summary:

The Public Service Superannuation Board dismissed the complaint of the Saskatchewan Government and General Employee's Union (SGEU) regarding Peterson's pension benefit entitlement. Peterson had worked at "youth camps", and had received "camp differential" pay in addition to his regular remuneration for working camp shifts. SGEU had argued that the camp differential pay met the definition of "salary" in either s. 2(j)(i) or 2(j)(ii) of the Superannuation (Supplementary Provisions) Act, but primarily under s. 2(j)(ii), given that Peterson was receiving benefits under the long-term disability plan established for employees. SGEU and Peterson applied for judicial review.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at (2015), 475 Sask.R. 1, set aside the Board's decision, and remitted the matter back to the Board for rehearing. The Board's lack of analysis relating to s. 2(j)(i) was unreasonable. In addition, the Board's conclusion that camp differential pay was not included in "salary" within the meaning of s. 2(j)(ii) was also unreasonable. The Government of Saskatchewan appealed.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and reinstated the Board's decision. The Chambers judge erred when he found the Board's decision was unreasonable.

Crown - Topic 5263

Officials and employees - Pension benefits - Eligibility - [See Government Programs - Topic 3833 ].

Government Programs - Topic 3826

Pensions for government employees or R.C.M.P. - Entitlement - Appeals or judicial review - [See Government Programs - Topic 3833 ].

Government Programs - Topic 3833

Pensions for government employees or R.C.M.P. - Entitlement - Where person entitled to receive salary from government - The Public Service Superannuation Board dismissed the complaint of the Saskatchewan Government and General Employee's Union (SGEU) regarding Peterson's pension benefit entitlement - Peterson had worked at "youth camps", and had received "camp differential" pay in addition to his regular remuneration - SGEU had argued that the camp differential pay met the definition of "salary" in either s. 2(j)(i) or 2(j)(ii) of the Superannuation (Supplementary Provisions) Act, given that Peterson was receiving benefits under the long-term disability plan established for employees - SGEU and Peterson applied for judicial review - The Chambers judge found that the Board's lack of analysis relating to s. 2(j)(i) was unreasonable - The Board should have considered various identified documents, including the collective bargaining agreement, to interpret "salary" in s. 2(j)(i) - In addition, the Board reached a conclusion that was different from the plain and ordinary meaning of s. 2(j)(ii), and did not explain why camp differential pay was considered supplementary earnings as opposed to regular salary - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, applying the modern rule of statutory interpretation, allowed Saskatchewan's appeal - With respect to s. 2(j)(i), the identified documents were not incorporated by reference into the text of the legislation - Provisions in those various documents could not dictate the interpretation of the legislation - With respect to s. 2(j)(ii), the Board's interpretation ensured that supplementary earnings were not included for the purpose of calculating pension benefits and hence did not "enrich members" where a disability plan provided a benefit based upon regular salary and supplementary earnings - The Board's interpretation treated employees receiving disability benefits no differently than their working colleagues - The Board's conclusion was within the range of acceptable outcomes.

Statutes - Topic 2614

Interpretation - Interpretation of words and phrases - Modern rule (incl. interpretation by context) - Legislative or statutory context - [See Government Programs - Topic 3833 ].

Words and Phrases

Salary - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal interpreted the word "salary" as defined in s. 2(j) of the Superannuation (Supplementary Provisions) Act, R.S.S. 1978, c. S-64 - See paragraphs 12 to 23.

Counsel:

Charita Ohashi, for the appellant;

Jana Stettner, for the respondents, Saskatchewan Government and General Employees Union and Charles Peterson.

This appeal was heard on February 8, 2016, before Caldwell, Herauf and Ryan-Froslie, JJ.A., of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal. In reasons written by Herauf, J.A., the Court delivered the following judgment, dated April 20, 2016.