Articles

The decision rendered by the Quebec Superior Court on June 13, 2016 in Samoisette v. IBM Canada Ltd., 2016 QCCS 2675 has not dramatically altered the state of the law applicable to pension plans. However, Justice Duprat reminds us in his decision that brochures and other information provided to employees can have the effect of modifying their employment contract. In order to reduce litigation risks, employers should be very careful what they say when communicating with members of the company pension plan, particularly when members are called upon to make important choices, such as when there is a change or conversion from a DB to a DC plan.

In mid-May representatives of the governments of British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Quebec and Nova Scotia signed the 2016 Agreement Respecting Multi-Jurisdictional Pension Plans (the “2016 Agreement”). The agreement will come into force for these jurisdictions on July 1, 2016.

Depending on which province across Canada one looks at, this is more or less significant, but it is definitely a step in the right direction.

On June 1, 2016, arbitrator Claude Martin rendered a highly anticipated decision in the area of municipal pension plans, in the matter of Ville de Montréal and Fraternité des policiers et policières de Montréal.

The arbitrator essentially concluded that a statutorily mandated arbitration between the City of Montreal and the union representing its police officers (the “Brotherhood”) should be suspended pending a decision by the Quebec Superior Court on the constitutionality of the Act to foster the financial health and sustainability of municipal defined benefit pension plans (“Bill 15”, formerly referred to as Bill 3).

Often, in the heat of the moment, municipalities and other public bodies acting in good faith must quickly make decisions regarding the awarding of a public contract.

Whether the decision involves the compliance of a bid, the integrity of the contract awarding process, or the outright cancellation of a call for tenders, municipalities and other public bodies generally don’t have the luxury of being able to wait for a court ruling before making such a decision.

On October 24, 2012, complainant Dalpé Claes filed a claim with Quebec’s occupational health and safety board, the Commission de la santé et de la sécurité du travail (the “CSST”) for an occupational injury of a psychological nature. Her complaint was dismissed by both the CSST and the occupational injuries board, the Commission des lésions professionnelles (the “CLP”, now part of the Administrative Labour Tribunal (the “ALT”)). On January 15, 2013, the complainant filed a complaint for psychological harassment with the labour standards board, the Commission des normes du travail (now the labour standards, employment equity and occupational health and safety board, the Commission des normes, de l’équité, de la santé et de la sécurité au travail) which was referred to the labour relations board, the Commission des relations du travail (the “CRT”, which is also now part of the ALT).

On May 16, 2016, the Quebec Court of Appeal refused to suspend immediate execution of a judgment rendered by the Superior Court of Quebec in a case involving the union of Montreal’s blue-collar workers (the “Union”) and the City of Montreal, in which the Union was ordered to pay $2 million in punitive damages.