Blair Smears (CCSI Technology Solutions Corp.) - Financial Services Tribunal Hearing

File Type:	Pension
File Number:	P0269-2006
File Name:	Blair Smears (CCSI Technology Solutions Corp.)
Act:	Pension Benefits Act
Plan Name:	CCSI Technology Solutions Corp. Retirement Program, Registration No. 0546101
Applicant:	Blair Smears, Counsel: Bram A. Lecker, Lecker & Associates
Respondent:	Superintendent of Financial Services, Counsel: Mark Bailey
Party:	CCSI Technology Solutions Corp. Counsel: Sunil Kapur, McCarthy Tetrault LLP
Panel:	Anne Corbett (Chair), Louis Erlichman, David Short
Hearing Date Information:	08/08/2006 (Hearing); 05/04/2006 (Pre-Hearing Conference)
Next Appearance Date:
File Summary: (Go to latest update)	On February 23, 2006, Blair Smears (the "Applicant") requested a hearing regarding the Notice of Proposal of the Deputy Superintendent, Pensions, dated February 16, 2006, refusing to make an order that the administrator of the CCSI Technology Solutions Corp. Retirement Program the (“Plan”) pay an amount into the Applicant’s retirement account under the Plan equal to the commuted value of the deferred pension to which the Applicant claimed to be entitled. The Applicant argued, in representations to the Superintendent, that he was entitled to a deferred pension because his term of employment with the Applicant when added to three weeks of mandatory notice of termination under the Employment Standards Act (the "ESA") exceeded 24 months of continuous employment, the period for qualification for a deferred pension under s. 37 of the Pension Benefits Act (the "PBA"). The Superintendent contends there was no contravention of the PBA or the Plan that would result in the Superintendent having authority to grant the requested order. On March 14, 2006, an application for party status was filed by CCSI Technology Solutions Corp. (“CCSI”). At a pre-hearing conference on May 4, 2006, full party status was granted to CCSI. The parties agreed that the issues for determination by the Tribunal at the hearing should be framed as follows: In determining whether to grant the relief sought by the Applicant, does the Tribunal have the authority and jurisdiction to interpret and apply the ESA? Assuming question (a) is answered in the affirmative, is the Tribunal the appropriate forum for determining the matters raised in the hearing? Assuming questions (a) and (b) are answered in the affirmative, does the Applicant have entitlement to a deferred pension under the terms of the Plan or the PBA? Given the answers to questions (a) through (c), what (if any) remedy should be granted? *Updated to May 31, 2006* At the hearing on August 8, 2006 the Tribunal reserved its decision. *Updated to August 21, 2006* On October 30, 2006, the Tribunal issued its Reasons. *Updated to October 31, 2006* In reasons for decision dated October 30, 2006, the Tribunal decided that it had jurisdiction to hear this matter. The majority of the members of the panel went on to conclude that the Applicant had failed to prove that he was terminated by his employer (rather than terminated by mutual agreement), in which case the lump sum payment that he received was not in lieu of notice of termination. In that event, he was not entitled to continuation of his benefits during the 3 week statutory notice of termination period under the ESA. Accordingly, the majority confirmed the Notice of Proposal refusing to make an order that the administrator of the Plan pay an amount equal to the commuted value of the deferred pension claimed by the Applicant into his account. *Updated to* *November 10, 2006* Top of Summary
Additional Notes: