Court File No. 99-CV-10694
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MR. )THURSDAY, THE 15th OF
JUSTICE MICHEL Z. CHARBONNEAU)FEBRUARY 2007.
B E T W E E N:
NICOLE LACROIX and ROSIE LADOUCEUR and DAVID GUFFIE,
FRANK MCCANN AND BOB BRAYBROOK
Plaintiffs
-and-
CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION and
MARC ROCHON, CLAUDE POIRIER-DEFOY, JIM MILLAR,
KAREN KINSLEY, GERALD NORBRATEN, JEAN-GUY
TANGUAY, DAVID METZAK and BRIAN KNIGHT
being the Trustees of the CANADA MORTGAGE
AND HOUSING CORPORATION PENSION FUND
Defendants
Proceeding under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992
ORDER
This motion made by the Plaintiffs Nicole Lacroix and Rosie Ladouceur for Advice and Directions was heard on the 10th and 11th of January 2007 at the Court House, 161 Elgin Street, Ottawa, Ontario K2P 2K1.
On reading the Plaintiffs’ Motion Record and the Defendants’ Motion Record along with the Factums filed on behalf of the parties and on hearing submissions of counsel for the parties,
1
1.THIS COURT ORDERS that the TRA sub-class be defined as:
those class members, whose commuted value transfer election was restricted by the amount of maximum income tax transfer limit, but who were permitted by CMHC to leave any commuted value balance over such limit in the plan to be received as a transfer restriction annuity rather than a residual cash payout.
2.THIS COURT ORDERS that Nicole Lacroix be named as a representative Plaintiff for the TRA sub-class.
3.THIS COURT ORDERS that the original Certification Order dated the 4th of May 2000 be amended by adding the following common issues:
a)Did the election by members to take the commuted value of their pension terminate any beneficial right or interest they might have had in the surplus by virtue of the trust and/or fiduciary relationship.
b)If the answer to (a) is yes, should those class members
i)whose commuted value transfer election was restricted by the amount of the maximum income tax transfer limit, but
ii)who were permitted by CMHC to leave any commuted value balance over such limit in the plan to be received as a transfer restriction annuity rather than a residual cash payout (the TRA sub-class),
nevertheless be entitled to have any beneficial right or interest in the surplus determined as if their commuted value transfer had not occurred or only to the extent of the value of the transfer restriction annuity as was done by CMHC.
1
4.THIS COURT ORDERS that the Plaintiffs Nicole Lacroix and Rosie Ladouceur are at liberty to bring a motion to certify new common issues dealing with partial termination of the CMHC pension fund and estoppel by conduct failing which the within action will revert to the original action without the amendments that were allowed by the Court’s decision in January 2002.
5.THIS COURT ORDERS that the motion be otherwise dismissed.
______