IN THE MATTER OF the Pension Benefits Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.8, as amended (the “PBA”)
AND IN THE MATTER OF a Proposal by the Superintendent of Financial Services to Require a New Report under Sections 87 and 88 of the PBA in respect of the Pension Plan for Employees of Alexander Metal Products (1965) Limited, Registration Number 533273.
Alexander Metal Products (1965) Limited
Employer and Administrator of the Plan
Low Murchison LLP
Barristers and Solicitors
200 – 441 MacLaren Street
Attention: Timothy Kennedy
Lawyers for the Employer and Administrator
NOTICE OF PROPOSAL
I PROPOSE TO REQUIRE a new wind up report to be prepared and filed, within thirty (30) days from the date an Order is issued confirming this Notice of Proposal, which report shall deal with the distribution of surplus related to the wind up of the Pension Plan for Employees of Alexander Metal Products (1965) Limited, Registration Number 533273 (the “Plan”) effective October 31, 2002, pursuant to sections 70, 87, and 88 of the PBA.
- Alexander Metal Products (1965) Limited (the “Company”) is the employer and administrator of the Plan. The Plan is a defined contribution pension plan.
- The Company filed a wind up report dated June 25, 2003 relating to a wind up of the Plan effective October 31, 2002 with the Superintendent of Financial Services (the “Superintendent”) in 2003. The wind up report stated that there was no surplus in the Plan and that the wind up was due to a conversion whereby the members were transferred to a Money Purchase Plan.
- The Superintendent approved the wind up report on or about July 4, 2003.
- The Company then filed an application to withdraw surplus under section 78 of the PBA with the Superintendent. The materials that were filed with this application included a letter dated November 27, 2003 from Manulife Financial to Low, Murchison LLP, which stated that there is surplus in the Plan in the amount of $99,048.20 which arose from the conversion in 2002.
- The Superintendent refused to consent to the surplus withdrawal application by Notice of Proposal issued on July 14, 2005 and by Order confirming the Notice of Proposal which was issued on May 11, 2006. The Company did not request a hearing by the Financial Services Tribunal with respect to the Notice of Proposal.
- The Company has not filed a revised wind up report dealing with the surplus in the Plan.
- The Superintendent’s approval of the wind up report in July 2003 is null and void because the Superintendent was not informed that there was surplus in the Plan.
- Section 70(1)(a) of the PBA states that the administrator of a pension plan that is to be wound up shall file a wind up report that sets out the assets and liabilities of the pension plan. Section 70(1)(c) of the PBA states that the report shall set out the methods of allocating and distributing the assets of the pension plan.
- “Surplus” is defined in the PBA as the value of the assets of a pension fund related to a pension plan over the value of the liabilities of the pension plan.
- Section 87(2)(c) of the PBA states that the Superintendent may make an order requiring an administrator or employer to take any action in respect of a pension plan or a pension fund if the Superintendent is of the opinion, upon reasonable and probable grounds, that the administrator or employer of the pension plan is contravening a requirement of the PBA.
- Section 87(3) of the PBA states that the Superintendent may specify the time or period within which the person to whom the order is directed must comply with the order.
- Section 88(2)(c) of the PBA states that the Superintendent may require an administrator to prepare and file a new report where the Superintendent is of the opinion that a report submitted in respect of a pension plan does not meet the requirements of the PBA.
- The administrator has contravened the PBA by filing a wind up report that does not set out the assets of the pension plan, and that does not set out the methods of allocating and distributing the assets of the pension plan.
- Such further and other reasons as may come to my attention.
YOU ARE ENTITLED TO A HEARING before the Financial Services Tribunal of Ontario (the “Tribunal”) pursuant to subsection 89(6) of the PBA. To request a hearing, you must deliver to the Tribunal a written notice that you require a hearing, within thirty (30) days after this Notice of Proposal is served on you. *
YOUR WRITTEN NOTICE must be delivered to:
Financial Services Tribunal
5160 Yonge Street, 14th Floor
Attention: The Registrar
For further information, contact the Registrar of the Tribunal by phone at 416-226-7752, or toll free at 1-800-668-0128, ext. 7752, or by fax at 416-226-7750.
IF YOU FAIL TO REQUEST A HEARING WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS, I MAY CARRY OUT THE ORDER REFERRED TO IN THIS NOTICE OF PROPOSAL.
DATED at Toronto, Ontario, this 9th day of May, 2007.
K. David Gordon
Deputy Superintendent, Pensions
section 112 of the PBA
any Notice, Order or other document is sufficiently given, served or delivered if delivered personally or sent by first class mail and any document sent by first class mail shall be deemed to be given, served or delivered on the seventh day after the day of mailing.