Buschau v. Rogers Communications Incorporated

Buschau v. Rogers Communications Incorporated

The Court upheld the Superintendent's 2010 decision: the Superintendent reasonably concluded that questions one through four had been previously decided and were barred by issue estoppel/res judicata in the administrative context; the Superintendent retains limited discretion but no express statutory authority to re-open past decisions arbitrarily or to order payment of members' legal costs from the pension fund; disclosure obligations are governed by s.28 PBSA, applicable regulations and PIPEDA and the Superintendent's conclusions on disclosure were reasonable.

Citation
2011 FC 911
Parties
Applicants: Sandra Buschau and others; Respondent: Rogers Communications Incorporated
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 July 2011
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review of Administrative Decision Under PBSA / Application Dismissed at Federal Court (reasons for Judgment)
Outcome
Application for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Actuarial Surplus, Plan Termination, Reopening of Pension Plan, Contribution Holidays, Issue Estoppel / Res Judicata, Superintendent Discretion, Disclosure Obligations, Legal Costs
Source Language
English
Pension Law Administrative Law Trusts Law Employment Law Civil Procedure Actuarial Surplus Plan Termination Reopening of Pension Plan +5 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 5 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sandra Buschau and others

Applicants

Rogers Communications Incorporated

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review of Administrative Decision Under PBSA / Application Dismissed at Federal Court (reasons for Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Superintendent erred in finding most questions had been previously considered and decided
  2. 2 Whether the Superintendent lacked legislative authority to re-open or reconsider prior decisions
  3. 3 Whether the Superintendent had authority to order payment of applicants' legal costs from the pension fund

Ratio Decidendi

The Court upheld the Superintendent's 2010 decision: the Superintendent reasonably concluded that questions one through four had been previously decided and were barred by issue estoppel/res judicata in the administrative context; the Superintendent retains limited discretion but no express statutory authority to re-open past decisions arbitrarily or to order payment of members' legal costs from the pension fund; disclosure obligations are governed by s.28 PBSA, applicable regulations and PIPEDA and the Superintendent's conclusions on disclosure were reasonable.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review dismissed

Orders

  • Application for judicial review dismissed
  • Costs awarded to respondent (Rogers Communications Incorporated)