| File Type: | Pension |
|---|---|
| File Number: | P0290-2007 |
| File Name: | PPG Canada Inc. |
| Act: | Pension Benefits Act |
| Plan Name: | PPG Canada Inc. Non-Contributory Retirement Plan for Salaried Employees, Registration Number 0337048 |
| Applicant: | PPG Canada Inc., Counsel: Clifton Prophet; Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP |
| Respondent: | Superintendent of Financial Services, Counsel: Deborah McPhail |
| Party: | Kenneth Linton |
| Panel: | Florence Holden (Chair), John Solursh, Shiraz Bharmal |
| Hearing Date Information: | 04/10/2007 Pre-Hearing Conference; 07/20/2007 Pre-Hearing Conference by Teleconference; 07/31/2007 Pre-Hearing Conference by Teleconference; 09/19/2007-09/21/2007 Hearing |
| Next Appearance Date: | |
|
File Summary: (Go to latest update) |
On January 18, 2007, PPG Canada Inc. (the “Applicant”) requested a hearing regarding the Notice of Proposal of the Deputy Superintendent, Pensions, dated December 18, 2006, proposing to make an order pursuant to ss. 18(1)(e) and 87 of the Pension Benefits Act (the “Act”) to revoke the registration of Amendment No. 8 to the PPG Plan dated April 18, 1988. On July 1, 1982, Duplate Canada Inc. was designated as a participating employer in the PPG Plan and the assets applicable to eligible salaried employees of Duplate Canada Inc. were transferred to the PPG Plan. The Duplate Plan provided that in the case of twelve named salaried employees, "years of service" would include certain periods of service that occurred prior to breaks in service (the "restored service"). The Deputy Superintendent takes the position in the Notice of Proposal that when the twelve employees became members of the PPG Plan, they became entitled to an option, under the terms of that Plan, to receive a regular benefit at normal retirement based on "credited service", taking account of their years of service under the Duplate Plan. The Deputy Superintendent maintained that Amendment No. 8 to the PPG Plan effectively eliminates this option for the twelve employees, thereby reducing their accrued benefits in violation of s. 14(1) of the Act. Relying on s. 19 of the Act, he also proposes to direct the administrator of the PPG Plan to include the restored service of the twelve former employees of Duplate Canada Inc. as credited service for the purposes of the PPG Plan. A pre-hearing conference is scheduled for April 10, 2007. Updated to February 16, 2007 At the pre-hearing conference on April 10, 2007, Mr. Linton withdrew his application for party status. The pre-hearing conference is scheduled to resume on July 20, 2007, and the hearing in this matter is scheduled for September 19 – 21, 2007. Updated to May 2, 2007 At the pre-hearing conference on July 20, 2007, a further pre-hearing conference was scheduled for July 31, 2007. Updated to July 20, 2007 On July 31, 2007, the pre-hearing resumed. The hearing is scheduled for September 19 – 21, 2007. Updated to August 20, 2007 The hearing in this matter concluded on September 20, 2007, at which time the Tribunal reserved its decision. Updated to September 20, 2007 On November 26, 2007, the Tribunal issued its Reasons for Decision. It found that the Duplicate Restored Service is "pensionable service”. Therefore the Duplicate Restored Service counts as both Continuous Service and Credited Service under the PPG Plan for the purposes of determining pension benefits in respect of pre-July 1, 1982 service and it counts for the purposes of determining pension benefits under both the Regular Benefit and the Alternative Benefit provisions of the PPG Plan. The Tribunal concluded that there was no ambiguity as to the application of Duplicate Restored Service under the PPG Plan and even if there were any ambiguity, in the absence of alternative constructions of the term "pensionable service”, the doctrine of contra proferentum would apply so that any ambiguity in the meaning of "pensionable service” should be construed in the members’ favour. Accordingly, the Tribunal found that amendment number 8 to the PPG Plan is void pursuant to section 14 of the Pension Benefits Act, Ontario. The Tribunal ordered the Superintendent to proceed with the Notice of Proposal dated December 18, 2006 to revoke the registration of amendment number 8. |
| Additional Notes: |
