| File Type: | Pension |
|---|---|
| File Number: | P0257-2005 |
| File Name: | Hydro One Members Committee - Christina Marino |
| Act: | Pension Benefits Act |
| Plan Name: | Hydro One Pension Plan, Registration No. 1059104 |
| Applicant: | Hydro One Members Committee, Counsel: Dona Campbell, Sack Goldblatt Mitchell |
| Respondent: | Superintendent of Financial Services, Counsel: Deborah McPhail |
| Party: |
Hydro One Inc., Counsel: Elizabeth Brown, Hicks Morley Hamilton Stewart Storie LLP Power Workers' Union, Counsel: Andrew Lokan, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP Society of Energy Professionals, Counsel: Hugh O'Reilly, Cavalluzzo Hayes Shilton McIntyre & Cornish LLP |
| Panel: |
Ralph Scane, Chair; Heather Gavin, Shiraz Bharmal Louis Erlichman, Settlement Conference Chair |
| Hearing Date Information: |
02/01/2007, 01/31/2007, 11/30/2006, 11/28/2006, 11/10/2006, 11/09/2006,11/07/2006, 10/03/2006-10/04/2006(Hearing); 10/05/2006 - 10/06/2006 (adjourned); 09/12/2006 (Motion);
09/06/2006 (Pre-hearing Conference continued); 08/14/2006 (Pre-hearing Conference continued by teleconference); 06/30/2006 (Pre-hearing Conference continued); 05/08/2006 (Motion); 05/01/2006 (Settlement Conference); 12/20/2005 (Pre-hearing Conference) |
| Next Appearance Date: |
|
|
File Summary: (Go to latest update) |
On July 29, 2005, the Hydro One Members Committee, (the “Applicant”) requested a hearing regarding the Notice of Proposal of the Deputy Superintendent, Pensions, dated July 14, 2005, refusing to make an order, under section 69 of the Pension Benefits Act (the “Act”), that the Plan be wound up in part in relation to those members of the Plan whose employment terminated between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2002. The Notice of Proposal recites that:
On August 24, 2005, an application for party status, in this matter, was filed by Hydro One Inc. On September 19, 2005, an application for party status was filed by the Power Workers’ Union. On December 9, 2005, an application for party status was filed by the Society of Energy Professionals. The pre-hearing conference was held on December 20, 2005, at which time the three applications for party status were granted. On May 1, 2006, the parties participated in a settlement conference to deal with issues surrounding disclosure. On May 8, 2006, the Tribunal heard a motion brought by the Applicants for production of documents and for responses to interrogatories. In the result, the Tribunal directed Hydro One to answer certain of the Applicants' interrogatories and adjourned the motion sine die in order to be able to resolve any further issues of disclosure that cannot be resolved among the parties. The Reasons for Decision on the motion were issued on June 2, 2006. The hearing in this matter is currently scheduled for October 3, 4, 5 6, and November 7, 9, 10, 28 and 30, 2006. Updated to August 21, 2006
A further disclosure motion by the Applicants was heard on September 12, 2006. The motion hearing was held in camera pursuant to section 9 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act. At the commencement of the hearing on the merits on October 3, 2006, the Tribunal ordered that that hearing be held in camera pursuant to the same statutory provision. Updated to October 6, 2006 At the hearing on November 30, 2006 further hearing dates were scheduled in this matter for January 31 and February 1, 2007. Updated to January 10, 2007 At the conclusion of the hearing on February 1, 2007, the Tribunal reserved its decision. Updated to February 16, 2007 On August 1, 2007, the Tribunal issued its Reasons for Decision and directed the Superintendent to order a partial wind up of the Plan with respect to those members who were participants in the management compensation plan (“MCP members”) whose employment was terminated between September 1 and December 31, 2002 and who were represented in this proceeding by the Applicant. The Tribunal found that the various initiatives could not be taken to comprise a single reorganization of the business of Hydro One but that one of those initiatives, which arose out of the merger of Hydro One Network Services Inc. and Hydro One Networks Inc., two subsidiaries of Hydro One, constituted a reorganization standing on its own. This reorganization affected employees who were MCP members and employees who belonged to the Society of Professional Engineers (the “Society”). The Tribunal concluded that in determining whether a significant number of employees ceased to be employed as a result of the reorganization, for the purposes of s. 69(1)(d) of the Act, it was appropriate, in this case, to consider the number of MCP members who lost their jobs in relation to the total number of active MCP members at the time. That relationship as a percentage was about 18, which was significant. The Tribunal decided to exclude any Society members from the partial wind up group, even though they may have ceased to be employed during the period between September 1 and December 31, 2002, as they did not represent a significant number of employees and because the Society, their bargaining agent, did not seek to have them included. Updated to August 8, 2007 On September 5, 2007, the Society of Energy Professionals filed a motion to correct an alleged misstatement contained in the Tribunal’s Reasons for Decision dated August 1, 2007, and sought a review of that decision pursuant to Rule 48.01 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. The parties filed written submissions in response to the Society’s motion. The Tribunal granted the motion and on October 25, 2007 issued its Decision on Motion. |
| Additional Notes: |
|
