Markle v. Toronto (City)

Markle v. Toronto (City)

The Court held the pension fund (including actuarial surplus) is held on trust for beneficiaries; the City did not reserve a clear power of revocation in the plan or by statute; an amending power does not permit revocation; By-law 186's retroactive recovery was a partial revocation and its prospective mandatory charge unlawfully fettered trustees' discretion, therefore By-law 186 is unlawful and the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
C38157
Parties
Applicant/respondent: John Markle; Applicant/respondent: Michel Jory; Applicant/respondent: Wes Rowe; Applicant/respondent: Jack Walford; Applicant/respondent: Michael Walker; Respondent/appellant: City of Toronto; Respondent/appellant: CIBC Mellon Global Securities Services Company
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
3 February 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; application judge's decision affirmed.
Legal Topics
Revocation of Trust, Amendment of Pension by Law, Administrative Expenses, Breach of Trust, Fettering Trustees' Discretion, Retroactive Amendment
Source Language
English
Trusts Pension Law Municipal Law Statutory Interpretation Revocation of Trust Amendment of Pension by Law Administrative Expenses Breach of Trust +2 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 6 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Markle

Applicant/respondent

Michel Jory

Applicant/respondent

Wes Rowe

Applicant/respondent

Jack Walford

Applicant/respondent

Michael Walker

Applicant/respondent

City of Toronto

Respondent/appellant

CIBC Mellon Global Securities Services Company

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pension fund is held in trust for employees
  2. 2 Whether the City has a power of revocation over the trust
  3. 3 Whether By-law 186 constitutes a partial revocation and breach of trust (including retroactive recovery)

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held the pension fund (including actuarial surplus) is held on trust for beneficiaries; the City did not reserve a clear power of revocation in the plan or by statute; an amending power does not permit revocation; By-law 186's retroactive recovery was a partial revocation and its prospective mandatory charge unlawfully fettered trustees' discretion, therefore By-law 186 is unlawful and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; application judge's decision affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • By-law 186-2001 declared unlawful to the extent it requires recovery of internal administrative costs from the Fund and to the extent applied retroactively to January 1, 1999