Pensions

Decisions

22 APRIL 2022 

This was an appeal from a decision of the Superintendent of Pensions finding that the Appellant was not entitled to have his account with Canada Life unlocked. When he attempted to withdraw the funds from his account, Canada Life informed him that the funds could not be withdrawn as they were locked-in pension funds. The Appellant argued that be believed the funds were deposited in an RRSP and that the funds were locked-in in error as he had never been a member of a pension fund. The Tribunal confirmed the Superintendent’s decision and found, on a balance of probabilities, that the funds deposited in the Appellant’s account came from a pension fund such that they were properly locked-in. 

17 JANUARY 2022 

Following the hearing of an appeal of a decision of the Superintendent of Pensions, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, with reasons to follow.

27 AUGUST 2020 

Several issues were addressed in this appeal of a decision of the Superintendent of Pensions: (1) the conflict of interest of a plan actuary; (2) the conflict of interest of a plan administrator; (3) the applicability of the two hats doctrine; (4) the ability, subject to statutory conditions, of a plan sponsor to amend a pension plan text; (5) pension plan amendments that would cause a situation where there are or are likely to be insufficient funds available to pay the pension benefits under the plan; (6) the sufficiency of a regulator’s investigation into a complaint; and (7) the standard or review. As a note to the reader, this decision was reviewed and upheld by the New Brunswick Court of Appeal in The City of Fredericton v. Fredericton Police Association, Local 911 United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America et al., 2021 NBCA 30.

3 DECEMBER 2019 

In this motion, the Tribunal addressed the scope of the Superintendent of Pensions’ participatory rights in an appeal of her decision. As a note to the reader, the decision of the Tribunal was reviewed and upheld by the New Brunswick Court of Appeal in The City of Fredericton v. Fredericton Police Association, Local 911 United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America et al., 2021 NBCA 30.

2 DECEMBER 2019 

The Superintendent of Pensions was granted an extension of time to file her Statement of Position.

19 NOVEMBER 2019 

Fredericton Police Association v. New Brunswick (Superintendent of Pensions), 2019 NBFCST 13

The Tribunal issued an order granting the parties an extension of time for filing their Statements of Position.

16 SEPTEMBER 2019 

The Tribunal denied the Superintendent of Pensions’ motion seeking an adjournment of a motion to determine the scope of the Superintendent’s participatory rights in an appeal of her decision.

26 AUGUST 2019 

The Tribunal granted an extension of the deadline for providing a notice of expert testimony, expert witness report and additional documents as the extension would not prejudice the parties nor delay the hearing.

19 AUGUST 2019 

The Tribunal adjourned the hearing dates and granted an extension of the deadline for providing a Notice of expert testimony and expert witness report because the respondent’s expert witness would be on vacation and unable to comply with the deadline for providing his expert report.

7 JUNE 2019 

In a previous decision, the Tribunal had ordered the respondent to produce certain documents to the appellants by a given date. In this motion, the Tribunal granted an extension of this deadline due to the respondent’s difficulties in locating the documents.

4 APRIL 2019 

The Tribunal addressed the City of Fredericton’s motion contesting the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to hear certain grounds of appeal and to order certain relief sought in the Notices of Appeal. The appellants also sought leave to amend their Notices of Appeal.

4 APRIL 2019 

The Tribunal granted the respondent’s motion to obtain a copy of the appellants’ expert witness’ file, with certain restrictions. However, the Tribunal denied the respondent’s motion for leave to examine for discovery the appellants’ expert witness.

4 APRIL 2019 

The Appellants brought a motion seeking the production of documents by the respondent. The Tribunal concluded that it had the authority to order the pre-hearing production of documents where these were required to ensure the fair and equitable determination of the matter. The Tribunal ordered the respondent to produce various documents identified as necessary to the appellants’ ability to present their case.

18 OCTOBER 2018 

The Tribunal granted an extension of the deadline for the exchange of documents by the respondent to allow it to consider the appellants’ documents before determining the scope of its evidence.

20 AUGUST 2018 

The Superintendent of Pensions sought an extension of two weeks to file the Record of the Decision-making process. The Tribunal granted this request as it would not cause any prejudice or inconvenience to the parties.

9 MARCH 2016 

This was an appeal of a decision of the Superintendent of Pensions approving the split of assets between two pension plans using the going concern apportionment method. The Tribunal vacated the Superintendent’s decision, finding that the solvency apportionment valuation method should have been applied to the split of the assets between the two plans because this valuation method would best protect the pension benefits of the members of both plans.

23 FEBRUARY 2016 

This was an appeal from a decision of the Superintendent of Pensions finding that the deceased’s girlfriend was entitled to the death benefit under the pension plan as she met the definition of spouse under the Pension Benefits Act. The Tribunal confirmed the Superintendent of Pensions’ decision.

1 JUNE 2015 

The Tribunal sealed this file because of the highly sensitive nature of the personal information involved and its finding that the redaction of the personal information in the pleadings and documents was not an appropriate remedy as it could not practically be accomplished without rendering the pleadings and documents meaningless.

11 FEBRUARY 2015 

The Tribunal ordered a change in the location of the hearing because the majority of the parties and witnesses resided outside of Saint John. The Tribunal also ordered two individuals, who had been served with Summons to Witness, to bring certain documents to the hearing.

© 2020 | Financial and Consumer Services Tribunal