Grant v. Manitoba Telecom Services Inc.

Grant v. Manitoba Telecom Services Inc.

Both parties' actuarial reports produced the same lump sum ($98,863.81) for post-layoff loss; because the plan is a defined benefit plan special contributions and interest are intrinsic to the funding of the defined benefit and must be included to restore comparable retirement benefits; therefore the Tribunal awards the calculated amount adjusted to the date of implementation and prescribes implementation via lump sum to RRSP if room exists or purchase of an annuity otherwise (annuity equivalent $405.44 per month adjusted to date).

Citation
2014 CHRT 14
Parties
Complainant: Heather Lynn Grant; Commission: Canadian Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Manitoba Telecom Services Inc.
Court
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 April 2014
Procedural Posture
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Disability Discrimination / Interim Pension Remedy Clarification and Implementation
Outcome
Tribunal orders restoration of the Complainant's pension to the position at layoff and awards a lump-sum of $98,863.81 (to be adjusted to implementation date) for post-layoff loss, payable into RRSP if room exists or else implemented by annuity paying $405.44 per month (adjusted to date of implementation).
Legal Topics
Disability Discrimination, Remedies, Pension Restoration, Interest, Defined Benefit Pension
Source Language
English
Human Rights Employment Law Pensions Administrative Law Disability Discrimination Remedies Pension Restoration Interest +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Heather Lynn Grant

Complainant

Canadian Human Rights Commission

Commission

Manitoba Telecom Services Inc.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Disability Discrimination / Interim Pension Remedy Clarification and Implementation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Interpretation of pension remedy (50% employer contributions vs 50% benefits less employee contributions)
  2. 2 Inclusion of special contributions and interest in defined benefit plan calculation
  3. 3 Method of implementation (direct pension plan contributions vs lump sum vs annuity)

Ratio Decidendi

Both parties' actuarial reports produced the same lump sum ($98,863.81) for post-layoff loss; because the plan is a defined benefit plan special contributions and interest are intrinsic to the funding of the defined benefit and must be included to restore comparable retirement benefits; therefore the Tribunal awards the calculated amount adjusted to the date of implementation and prescribes implementation via lump sum to RRSP if room exists or purchase of an annuity otherwise (annuity equivalent $405.44 per month adjusted to date).

Court Disposition

Tribunal orders restoration of the Complainant's pension to the position at layoff and awards a lump-sum of $98,863.81 (to be adjusted to implementation date) for post-layoff loss, payable into RRSP if room exists or else implemented by annuity paying $405.44 per month (adjusted to date of implementation).

Orders

  • The Respondent shall restore the Complainant's pension benefits to the position they were in at the time of her layoff and pay those benefits to her through the pension plan.
  • For the period from her layoff to the date when the terms of this order are implemented, the Respondent is to provide the Complainant half (50%) of what her pension benefits would have been had she not been laid-off, minus what her contributions would have been ($98,863.81 adjusted to the date of implementation).