|
CLASS ACTIONS
changing the pension litigation landscape
Since the mid-1980s, litigation has been a fact of life for pension and employee benefit plan administrators and sponsors. However, there is a widely shared impression that the scope and frequency of such litigation is increasing. The media regularly reports about the difficulties experienced by high-profile pension plan sponsors. Class action suits have greatly contributed to the increase in this area of litigation. Murray Campbell examines this phenomenon through an overview of current pension and benefit claims, and the mechanics, the dynamics and the future of class action proceedings. The author predicts that class proceedings will become an increasingly familiar feature of the pension and benefits landscape and individuals working with pension and benefit plans on a day-to-day basis must take this reality into account.
SURPLUS DISTRIBUTIONS
casting the net narrowly: City of Kitchener
One of the preliminary determinations with respect to surplus entitlement is whether the plan is subject to a trust, and the various equitable rules that govern a trust, or to a contract. If the plan is subject to a trust, then it is to be treated as a classic trust and subject to the various equitable rules that govern the interpretation of trusts. If the plan is not subject to a trust, a contractual analysis applies. In the City of Kitchener case, the Financial Services Tribunal considered whether a plan funded under a group annuity contract was subject to a trust, and whether the trust extended to surplus under the plan. Ross Gascho reviews the case, and provides commentary about the majority and minority decisions.
CANADA PENSION PLAN
Canada Pension Plan survivor benefits
Louise Greig analyzes and contrasts two recent decisions with respect to the provision of survivor benefits under the Canada Pension Plan: Hislop v. Canada (Attorney General) and Hodge v. Canada (Minister of Human Resources Development). Both cases involve claims of discrimination under section 15 of the Charter. In Hodge, the claimant felt that the requirement that common law surviving spouses must be cohabiting with the contributor at the time of death to be eligible for survivor benefits was discriminatory, as the same requirement did not apply to married spouses. Hislop involved the claims of same-sex surviving spouses when the contributors had died prior to January 1, 1998, the arbitrary eligibility date selected by the government.
Checklist |
|
Kenneth E. Burns
Lawson Lundell
Dona L. Campbell
Sack Goldblatt Mitchell
Peggy A. McCallum
Fasken Martineau
DuMoulin LLP
Jeffrey P. Sommers
Blake, Cassels &
Graydon LLP |